Of the Church fiue bookes. By Richard Field Doctor of Diuinity and sometimes Deane of Glocester. Field, Richard, 1561-1616. 1628 Approx. 4317 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 471 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A00728 STC 10858 ESTC S121344 99856528 99856528 22096

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A00728) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 22096) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 796:1) Of the Church fiue bookes. By Richard Field Doctor of Diuinity and sometimes Deane of Glocester. Field, Richard, 1561-1616. Field, Nathaniel, 1598 or 9-1666. The second edition very much augmented, in the third booke and the appendix to the same. [16], 906, [2] p. Imprinted by VVilliam Turner, printer to the famous Vniuersity, At Oxford : 1628. Editor's dedication signed: Nathaniel Field. The appendix to book 3 includes a reply to "The apologie of the Romane Church" by Lawrence or James Anderton. "The fifth booke of the Church" has separate dated title page; pagination and register are continuous. The appendix to this book contains an answer to "The first motive of T.H. Maister of Arts, and lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his religion" by Theophilus Higgons; "A treatise of the groundes of the old and newe religion" by Edward Maihew; and "The first part of Protestants proofes, for Catholikes religion and recusancy", possibly by Richard Broughton. The last leaf is blank. Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Maihew, Edward, 1570-1625. -- Treatise of the groundes of the old and newe religion -- Early works to 1800. Higgons, Theophilus, 1578?-1659. -- First motive of T.H. Maister of Arts, and lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his religion -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. Anderton, Lawrence. -- Apologie of the Romane Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. First part of Protestants proofes, for Catholikes religion and recusancy -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. Church -- Early works to 1800. 2003-06 Assigned for keying and markup 2003-08 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-09 Sampled and proofread 2003-09 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-10 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

OF THE CHURCH, FIVE BOOKES.

BY RICHARD FIELD DOCTOR OF DIVINITY AND SOMETIMES DEANE OF GLOCESTER.

THE SECOND EDITION VERY MVCH AVGmented, in the third booke, and the Appendix to the same.

·PECCATA·TOLLE·QVI·EMISTI·O·AGNE·DEI·IESV·CHRISTE ECCE·AGN DEI printer's or publisher's device

AT OXFORD Imprinted by WILLIAM TVRNER, Printer to the famous Vniuersity. 1628.

TO THE ILLVSTRIOVS PRINCE THE DVKE OF BVCKINGAM HIS GRACE LORD HIGH ADMIRALL OF ENGLAND &c. RIGHT HONOURABLE,

THat especiall fauour which your Grace was pleased to shew vnto the Author of this worke while he liued, hath imboldned me to commend the worke it selfe as it is now inlarged vnto your Gracious protection. And though the Authors particular obligement had not directed me in my choyce, I know not vnto whom I might more fitly haue presented it then vnto your Grace, who in a more peculiar manner then others, haue vndertaken the protection of Schollers. One example amongst many this Author might haue beene, had hee liued but a little longer, of your honourable care, for the aduancement of learning, and encouragement of Schollers. The volume which I present vnto your Grace, for the bulke and bignesse is not great, especially if it be compared with the writings of our Aduersaries; whose voluminous workes would make the ignorant beleeue, that they had ingrossed all learning vnto themselues. But asmany times wee may find in little men that strength of body and vigour of mind which is wanting in those of greater stature; so experience telleth vs that amongst bookes the greatest are not alwaies the best. Saepius in libro memoratur Persius vno, Quam leuis in tota Marsus Amazonide. And those that are acquainted with the writings of our Aduersaries are not ignorant, how for the most part their great volumes are stuffed. If a man will take the paines to reade them, like those that digge in mines for gold, he must expect to finde paruum in magno, but a little gold in a great deale of vnprofitable earth. Of this worke I thinke I might safely say thus much, that it compriseth much in a little: but I intend not a Panegyrique in the praise thereof. If I giue it not that praise which it deserues, my neare relation vnto the Author may be my excuse; seeing whatsoeuer I should say would seeme rather to proceede from affection then judgment. VVhat my opinion of it is, I thinke I haue sufficiently expressed in that I haue thought it not vnworthy your Graces patronage. And thus praying for the continuance of your Graces prosperous and happy estate I remaine

Your Graces most humbly obliged seruant NATHANIEL FIELD.
TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, MY VERY GOOD LORD, THE LORD Arch-bishop of CANTERBVRY his Grace, Primate and Metropolitan of all England.

MOst Reuerend in Christ, the consideration of the vnhappie diuisions of the Christian world, and the infinite distractions of mens mindes, not knowing in soe great variety of opinions, what to thinke, or to whom to joyne themselues, (euery faction boasting of the pure & sincere profession of heauenly truth, challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church; and fastning vpon all that dissent, or are otherwise minded, the hatefull note of Schisme and Heresie) hath made me euer thinke, that there is no part of heauenly knowledge more necessary, than that which concerneth the Church. For, seeing the controuersies of Religion in our time, are growne in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that, few haue time and leasure, fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which amongst all the societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that houshold of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the liuing God, which is the Pillar and ground of truth; that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her iudgement. Hence it commeth, that all wise and iudicious men; do more esteeme bookes of doctrinall principles, than those that are written of any other argument; and that there was neuer any treasure holden more rich and precious by all them that knew how to prize and value things aright, than bookes of prescription against the profane nouelties of Heretiques: for that thereby men that are not willing, or not able to examine the infinite differences that arise amongst men concerning the faith, haue generall directions what to follow, and what to avoid. Wee admitte no man, sayth Tertullian in his booke of prescriptions, to any disputation concerning sacred and diuine things; or to the scanning and examining of particular questions of Religion, vnlesse hee first shew vs, of whom he receiued the faith, by whose meanes he became a Christian, and whether hee admitte and hold the generall principles, wherein all Christians do, and euer did agree; otherwise, prescribing against him, as a stranger from the common-wealth of the Israel of God, and hauing no part, nor fellowship in this businesse. But as in the daies of the Fathers, the Donatists, and other Heretickes, including the Church within the compasse of Africa, and such other parts of the world, where they & their consorts found best entertainment, reiected all other from the vnity of the Church, excluded them from hope of saluation, and appropriated all the glorious things that are spoken of it, to themselues alone: soe in our time, there are some found so much in loue with the pompe and glory of the Church of Rome, that they feare not to condemne all the inhabitants of the world and to pronounce them to be Anathema from the Lord Iesus, if they dissent from that Church, and the doctrine, profession, and obseruations of it; So casting into hell, all the Christians of Graecia, Russia, Armenia, Syria, and Aethiopia, because they refuse to be subiect to the tyranny of the Pope, and the Court of Rome: besides the heauie sentence which they haue passed, against all the famous States and Kingdomes of Europe, which haue freed themselues from the Aegyptiacall bondage, they were formerly holden in. These men abuse many with the glorious pretences of antiquity, Vnity, Vniuersality, Succession, and the like; making the simple beleeue that all is ancient which they professe, that the consent of all ages is for them, and that the Bishops succeeding one another, in all the famous Churches of the world, neuer taught, nor beleeued any other thing, than they now doe: whereas it is easie to proue, that all the things wherein they dissent from vs, are nothing else but nouelties, and vncertaineties; that the greatest part of the Christian world hath beene diuided from them for certaine hundreds of yeares; that none of the most famous, and greatest Churches, euer knew, or admitted, any of their heresies; and that the things they now publish, as Articles of faith to be beleeued by all that will bee saued, are so farre from being Catholike, that they were not the doctrines of that Church, wherein they and wee sometimes liued together in one communion, but the opinions onely of some men in that Church, adulterating the doctrine of heauenly trueth, bringing in, and defending superstitious abuses disliked by others, and seruing as vile instruments to aduance the tyrāny of the Bishop of Rome. Wherefore for the discouery of the vanity of their insolent boastings, for the cōfirming of the weake, the satisfying of them that are doubtfull, and that all men may know, that wee haue not departed from the auncient faith, or forsaken the fellowship of the Catholicke Church, but that wee haue forsaken a part to hold communion with the whole, (led so to doe, by the most preuailing reasons that euer perswaded men, and the greatest authority on earth) I resolued to communicate to others, what I had long since in priuate for mine owne satisfactien obserued, touching the nature of the Church, the notes whereby it may bee knowen, and the priuiledges that pertaine to it. These my simple labours, most Reuerend in Christ, I thought it my dutie to offer to your Graces censure, before they should present themselues to the view of the world; that so, either finding approbation, they might the more confidently make themselues publike, or otherwise be suppressed like the vntimely fruit, that neuer saw the Sunne. The condition of the times wherein wee liue is such, that manie are discouraged from medling with the controuersies of Religion, because they are sure (besides the vile slanders, wicked calumniations, and bitter reproches, of the common aduersaries) to passe the censures of those men, who, though they will doe nothing themselues, yet in the height of a proud and disdainefull spirit, with many a scornefull looke, smile at the follies of other mens writings, as they esteeme them. The sinister iudgements of either of these sortes of men, I shall the lesse regard, for that it pleased your Grace so louingly to accept, and soe fauourably to approue these my poore paines, bestowed for the clearing of sundry questions concerning t •… •… rch, which by your direction and appointment I first entred into. It hath bi •… 〈◊〉 •… he vaunt of the aduersaries of the Religion established amongst vs, that 〈◊〉 written many bookes against vs, and none haue beene found to oppose any •… g against them; & that they desire nothing more, then by writing, or disputing, to •… ic the goodnes of their cause. But, I doubt not, but this Nationall Church, the gouernment whereof vnder our most gracious Soueraigne, is principally committed to your fatherly care, shall yeeld men more than matchable, with the proudest of the aduerse faction: who being animated and hartned by your fauour, & guided by your directions, shall no longer suffer these proud Philistims, to defie the armies of the Lord of Hosts. For though they proclaime their owne praises with loude sounding trumpets, that might haue beene piped with an oaten straw; and though they magnifie themselues, as if they were the only Paragons of the world, and as if all wit, & learning, had bin borne with them, & should die with them: yet whosoeuer knoweth them, will little regard the froath of their swelling words of pride and scorne: seeing when they haue done vaunting, they haue done their best, and that which remaineth is little worth; their allegations being for the most part nothing but falsifications: their testimonies of antiquity, the markes & notes of their ancient forgeries; their reasons, sophismes: their reports, slanders, and wicked calumniations: their threats, the venting of their malice, and powring out of their impotent desires; their predictions, onely manifesting what they wish might be, but no way shewing what shall be. In the later daies of our late dread Soueraigne Elizabeth of famous & blessed memory, all their books were nothing but fearefull threatnings of bloody confusions, and horrible dissipations, of Church and common-wealth, which they hoped for, and looked after, soe soone as it should please God to cut off the thread of her blessed life. But, he that sitteth in heauē hath laughed them to scorne, and branded them with the marke of false Prophets. For, Elizabeth is gathered to her fathers in peace, full of daies, and full of honour, & yet they haue not bathed their swords in blood as they desired; but God hath disappointed all their purposes, frustrated their hopes, and continued our happinesse. Iosua hath succeeded Moyses: and Salomon, Dauid: and he that disposeth the kingdomes of men, & giueth them to whom he will, hath set vpon the Throne of Maiesty amongst vs, a King of a Religious, Vertuous, and peaceable disposition, to whom he hath giuen a wise and vnderstanding heart, large as the sands of the sea shore, whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, who hath chosen his testimonies to be his Counsellers; whose constant resolution in matters of faith and Religion, daunteth the enemies of it; whose admirable vnderstanding in things Diuine, more then for many ages, the world hath found in any of his ranke, giueth vs good assurance, that no frauds of any deceiuers shall euer be able to seduce or misse-lead him: whose blessed Progenie, and Royall issue, maketh vs hope, that the felicity of these vnited kingdomes, shall continue as longe as the Sunne and Moone endure: which whosoeuer desireth, and seeketh to procure, Peace be vpon him, & vpon the Israel of God. Thus crauing pardon for this my boldnesse, and humbly beseeching Almighty God, long to continue your Graces happie and prosperous estate, and to make you a glorious instrument of much good to his Church, I rest.

Your Graces, in all dutie, RICHARD FIELD.
WHAT THINGS ARE HANDLED IN THE BOOKES FOLLOWING. The first Booke is concerning the Name, Nature and Definition of the Church; and the different sorts of them that do pertaine vnto it. CHAP. 1. OF the Church consisting of men and Angels, in the day of their creation. pag. 1. Chap. 2. Of the calling of grace, whereby God called out both men and Angels from the rest of his creatures, to bee vnto him a holy Church and of their Apostasie. 4. Chap. 3. Of the Church, consisting of those Angels that continued in their first estate by force of grace vpholding them, and men redeemed. 5. Chap. 4. Of the Church of the redeemed. 7. Chap. 5. Of the Christian Church. 9. Chap. 6. Of the definition of the Church. 11. Chap. 7. Of the diuers sorts of them that pertaine to the Church. ibid. Chap. 8. Of their meaning, who say, that the Elect only are of the Church. 13. Chap. 9. Of the difference of them that are in and of the Church. 14. Chap. 10. Of the visible and inuisible Church. ibid. Chap. 11. Of the diuerse titles of the Church, & how they are verified of it. 17. Chap. 12. Of the diuerse sorts of them that haue not yet entred into the Church. 18. Chap. 13. Of the first s •… rt of them, that, after their admission into the Church of God, do voluntarily depart and goe from the same. 19. Chap. 14. Of the second sort of them that voluntarily goe out from the people of God. 20. Chap. 15. Of them whom the Church casteth out by excommunication. 22. Chap. 16. Of the errors, that are, and haue beene, touching the vse of the discipline of the Church, in punishing offenders. 24. Chap. 17. Of the considerations moouing the Church, to vse indulgence towards offenders. 25. Chap. 18. Of their damnable pride, who condemne all those Churches wherein want of due execution of discipline, and imperfections of men are found. 26. The second Booke is of the notes of the Ch •… h. CHAP. 1. OF the nature of notes of difference, and their seuerall kindes. 29. Chap. 2. Of the diuers kindes of notes whereby the true Church is discerned from other societies of men in the world. 30. Chap. 3. Of Bellarmines reasons against the notes of the Church assigned by vs. 32. Chap. 4. Of Stapletons reasons against our notes of the Church. 34. Chap. 5. Of their notes of the Church, and first of Antiquity. 37. Chap. 6. Of succession. 39. Chap. 7. Of the third note assigned by them, which is Vnity. 40. Chap. 8. Of Vniuersality. 41. Chap. 9. Of the name and title of Catholike. 42. The third Booke sheweth which is the true Church demonstrated by those notes. CHAP. 1. OF the diuision of the Christian World into the Westerne or Latine Church, and the Orientall or East Church. 47. Chap. 2. Of the harsh and vnaduised censure of the Romanists, condemning all the Orientall Churches as Schismatic all, and hereticall. 75. Chap. 3. Of the nature of heresie, of the diuerse kindes of things wherein men erre, and what pertinacie it is that maketh an hereticke. 76. Chap. 4. Of those things which euery one is bound expresly to know and beleeue; and wherein no man canne erre, without note of heresie. 77. Chap. 5. Of the nature of Schisme, and the kindes of it, and that it no way appeareth that the Churches of Greece, &c. are hereticall, or in damnable Schisme. 80. Chap. 6. Of the Latine Church, that it continued the true Church of God euen till our time, and that the errours, we condemne, were not the doctrines of that Church. 81. Chap. 7. Of the seuerall points of difference betweene vs and our aduersaries, wherein some in the Church erred, but not the whole Church. 83. Chap. 8. Of the true Church, which, and where it was bef •… Luthers time. 84. Chap. 9. Of an Apostasie of some in the Church. 86. Chap. 10. Of their errour, who say, nothing can be amisse in the Church, either in respect of doctrine or discipline. 89. Chap. 11. Of the causes of the manifold confusions and euils, formerly found in the Church. ibid. Chap. 12. Of the desire and expectation of a reformation of the corrupt state of the Church, and that the alteration which hath beene, is a reformation. 91. Chap. 13. Of the first reason brought to prooue that the Church of Rome holdeth the faith first deliuered; because the precise time wherein errors began in it, cannot be noted. 93. Chap. 14. Of diuers particular errours which haue beene in the Church; whose first author cannot be named. 94. Chap. 15. Of the second reason brought to prooue that they hold the auncient faith; because our men, dissenting from them, confesse they dissent from the Fathers, where sundry instances are examined. 96. Chap. 16. Of Limbus Patrum, concupiscence, and satisfaction, touching which, Caluin is falsely charged to confesse, that he dissenteth from the Fathers. 99. Chap. 17. Of Prayer for the dead, and Merit. 101. Chap. 18. Of the Fathers strictnesse in admitting men into the Ministery: of single life, and of their seuerity in the discipline of repentance. 103. Chap. 19. Of the Lent Fast, of Lay-mens Baptisme, and of the sacrifice of the Masse. 106. Chap. 20. Of the inuocation and adoration of Saints: touching which the Century writers are wrongfully charged to dissent from the Fathers. 109. Chap. 21. Of Martyrdome, and the excessiue praises thereof found in the Fathers. 114. Chap. 22. Wherein is examined their proofe of the antiquity of their Doctrine, taken from a false supposall, that our doctrine is nothing else but heresie long since condemned. 115. Chap. 23. Of the heresie of Florinus, making God the author of sinne, falsely imputed to Caluine and others. 117. Chap. 24. Of the heresies of Origen, touching the Image of God, and touching hell, falsely imputed to Caluin. 133. Chap. 25. Of the heresie of the Peputians, making women Priests. 134. Chap. 26. Of the supposed heresie of Proclus and the Messalians, touching concupiscence in the regenerate. 135. Chap. 27. Of the heresies of Nouatus, Sabellius and the Manichees. 139. Chap. 28. Of the heresies of the Donatists. 141. Chap. 29. Of the heresies of Arrius, and Aerius. 142. Chap. 30. Of the heresies of Iouinian. 143. Chap. 31. Of the heresies of Vigilantius. 146. Chap. 32. Of the heresie of Pelagius touching originall sinne, and the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes. 147. Chap. 33. Of the heresie of Nestorius, falsely imputed to Beza, and others. 149. Chap. 34. Of the heresies of certaine touching the Sacrament, and how our men deny that to be the body of Christ that is carried about to bee gazed on. 150. Chap. 35. Of the heresie of Eutiches, falsely imputed to the Diuines of Germany. 151. Chap. 36. Of the supposed heresie of Zenaias Persa, impugning the adoration of Images. 152. Chap. 37. Of the error of the Lampetians; touching vowes 153. Chap. 38. Of the heresie of certaine, touching the verity of the body and blood of Christ, communicated to vs in the Sacrament. ibid. Chap. 39. Of succession, and the exceptions of the aduersaries against vs, in respect of the supposed want of it. 154. Chap. 40. Of succession, and the proofe of the trueth of their doctrine by it. 159. Chap. 41. Of vnity, the kinds of it, and that communion with the Romane Bishoppe, is not alwaies a note of true and Catholike profession. 160. Chap. 42. That nothing can be concluded for them, or against vs from the note of Vnity, or diuision opposite vnto it. 164. Chap. 43. Of Vniuersality. 169. Chap. 44. Of the Sanctity of doctrine: and the supposed absurdities of our profession. 170. Chap. 45. Of the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities of Romish religion. 172. Chap. 46. Of the efficacie of the Churches doctrine. 174. Chap. 47. Of the Protestants pretended confession, that the Romane Church is the true Church of God. ibid. Chap. 48. Of Miracles confirming the Romane faith. 175. Chap. 49. Of Propheticall prediction. 177. Chap. 50. Of the felicity of them that professe the trueth. 178. Chap. 51. Of the miserable ends of the enemies of the truth. ibid. Chap. 52. Of the Sanctitie of the liues of them that are of the Church. 179. An Appendix to the third booke wherein it is proued that the Latine Church was, and continued a true orthodoxe and protestant Church, and that the maintainers of Romish errors were onely a faction in the same, at the time of Luthers appearing. AN answere to M. Brerelyes obiection concerning the masse publiquely vsed in all Churches at Luthers appearing pag. 185. Chap. 1. Of the canon of the Scriptures. 224. Chap. 2. Of the sufficiencie of the Scripture. 232. Chap. 3. Of the originall text of Scripture, of the certainty and truth of the originals, and of the authority of the vulgar translation. 238. Chap. 4. Of the translating of the Scripture into vulgar languages, and of the necessitie of hauing the publique liturgie and prayers of the Church in a tongue vnderstood. ibid. Chap. 5. Of the three supposed different estates of meere nature, grace, and sinne: the difference betweene a man in the state of pure and meere nature, and in the state of sinne: and of originall sinne. 250. Chap. 6. Of the blessed virgins conception. 264. Chap. 7. Of the punishment of originall sin; and of Limbus puerorum 270. Chap. 8. Of the remission of originall sinne, and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate. 272. Chap. 9. Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne. 277. Chap. 10. Of free will. 279. Chap. 11. Of iustification. 290. Chap. 12. Of merit. 324. Chap. 13. Of workes of supererogation and Counsels of perfection. 331. Chap. 14. Of Election and Reprobation depending on the foresight of something in the parties elected or reiected. ibid. Chap. 15. Of the seauen Sacraments. 332. Chap. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time. ibid. Chap. 17. Of transubstantiation. 333. Chap. 18. Touching orall Manducation. 334. Chap. 19. Of the reall sacrificing of Christs body on the Altar, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and dead. 335. Chap. 20. Of remission of sinnes after this life. ibid. Chap. 21. Of Purgatory. 336. Chap. 22. Of the Saints hearing of our prayers. 337. Chap. 23. Of the superstition and idolatrie committed formerly in the worshipping of Images. 338. Chap. 24. Of Absolution. ibid. Chap. 25. Of Indulgences and Pardons. 339. Chap. 26. Of the infallibility of the Popes iudgment. 340. Chap. 27. Of the power of the Pope in disposing the affaires of Princes and their states. ibid. The fourth Booke is of the Priuiledges of the Church. CHAP. 1. OF the diuerse kindes of the priuiledges of the Church, and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church. 343. Chap. 2. Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church. 344. Chap. 3. Of the meaning of certaine speaches of Caluine touching the erring of the Church. 345. Chap. 4. Of their reasons who thinke the present Church free from all error in matters of faith. 346. Chap. 5. Of the promises made vnto the Church, how it is secured from errour, & of the different degrees of the obedience, wee owe vnto it. 348. Chap. 6. Of the Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth; and of their errour, who thinke the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith, and that shee may make new articles of faith. 350. Chap. 7. Of the manifold errors of Papists; touching the last resolution of our faith, and the refutation of the same. 351. Chap. 8. Of the last resolution of true faith, and whereupon it stayeth it selfe. 355. Chap. 9. Of the meaning of those words of Augustine, that he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authority of the Church did not moue him. 358. Chap. 10. Of the Papists preferring the Churches authority before the Scripture. ibid. Chap. 11. Of the refutation of their errour, who preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture. 359. Chap. 12. Of their errour who thinke the Church may make new articles of faith. 361. Chap. 13. Of the Churches authority to iudge of the differences that arise, touching matters of faith. 362. Chap. 14. Of the rule of the Churches iudgment. 364. Chap. 15. Of the Challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture, charging it with obscurity, and imperfection. 365. Chap. 16. Of the interpretation of Scripture and to whom it pertaineth. 366. Chap. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers, and how farre wee are bound to admit it. 368. Chap. 18. Of the diuerse senses of Scripture. 369. Chap. 19. Of the rules we are to follow, and the helpes wee are to trust to in interpreting the Scriptures. 372. Chap. 20. Of the supposed imperfection of Scriptures, and the supply of Traditions. 373. Chap. 21. Of the rules, whereby true Traditions may be knowne from counterfeit. 378. Chap. 22. Of the difference of bookes Canonicall and Apocryphall. ibid. Chap. 23. Of the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes of Scripture. 379. Chap. 24. Of the vncertainty and contrariety found amongst Papists, touching books Canonicall and Apocryphall now controuersed. 382. Chap. 25. Of the diuerse editions of the Scripture, and in what tongue it was originally written. 385. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke. 387. Chap. 27. Of the Latin translations, and of the authority of the vulgar Latine. 388. Chap. 28. Of the trueth of the Hebrew Text of Scripture. 390. Chap. 29, Of the supposed corruptions of the Greeke text of Scripture. ibid. Chap. 30. Of the power of the Church in making Lawes. 393. Chap. 31. Of the bounds, within which, the the power of the Church in making lawes is contained, and whether shee may make lawes concerning the worship of God. 394. Chap. 32. Of the nature of Lawes, and how they binde, 397. Chap. 33. Of the nature of Conscience, and how the conscience is bound. ibid. Chap. 34. Of their reasons, who thinke that humane Lawes do binde the Conscience. 399. The fifth booke is concerning the diuers degrees, orders and callings of those men, to whom the gouernment of the Church is committed. CHAP. 1. OF the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam, the Father of all the liuing; and the gouernement of same. 409. Chap. 2. Of the dignity of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Adam, and their Kingly, and Priestly direction of the rest. 410. Chap. 3. Of the diuision of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Iacob, when they came out of Aegypt, and the Church of God became Nationall. 411. Chap. 4. Of the separation of Aaron and his sonnes, from the rest of the sonnes of Leui, to serue in the Priests office, and of the head or chiefe of that company. 412. Chap. 5. Of the Priests of the second ranke or order. 413. Chap. 6. Of the Leuites. 414. Chap. 7. Of the sects and factions in religion, found amongst the Iewes in latter times. ibid. Chap. 8. Of Prophets, and Nazarites. 416. Chap. 9. Of Assemblies vpon extraordinary occasions. 417. Chap. 10. Of the set Courts amongst the Iewes; their authority and continuance. 418. Chap. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh, the causes thereof; and the reason why the second Person in the Trinity rather tooke flesh, then either of the other. 423. Chap. 12. Of the manner of the vnion that is between the Person of the Sonne of God, and our nature in Christ, and the similitudes brought to expresse the same. 429. Chap. 13. Of the communication of the properties of eyther nature in Christ, consequent vpon the vnion of them in his Person, and the two first kindes thereof. 432. Chap. 14. Of the third kind of communication of properties, and the first degree thereof. 434. Chap. 15. Of the third kind of communication of properties, and the second degree thereof. 438. Chap. 16. Of the worke of Mediation; performed by Christ in our nature. 441. Chap. 17. Of the things which Christ suffered for vs, to procure our reconciliation with God. 445. Chap, 18. Of the nature and quality of the passion and suffering of Christ. 450. Chap. 19. Of the descending of Christ into hell. 453. Chap. 20. Of the merit of Christ: of his not meriting for himselfe, & his meriting for vs. 464. Chap. 21. Of the benefites which we receiue from Christ. 469. Chap. 22. Of the Ministery of them to whom Christ committed the publishing of the reconciliation between God and men, procured by him. 471. Chap. 23. Of the Primacie of power imagined by our Aduersaries to haue beene in Peter, and their defence of the same. 479. Chap. 24. Of the preeminence that Peter had amongst the Apostles, and the reason why Christ directed his speeches specially to him. 486. Chap. 25. Of the distinction of them to whom the Apostles dying left the managing of Church-affaires, and particularly of them that are to performe the meaner seruices in the Church. 488. Chap. 26. Of the orders and degrees of them that are trusted with the Ministery of the word, and Sacraments, and the gogouernment of Gods people: and particularly of Lay-elders falsely by some supposed to bee Gouernours of the Church. 493. Chap. 27. Of the distinction of the power of Order and Iurisdiction, and the preeminence of one amongst the Presbyters of each Church, who is named a Bishop. 497. Chap. 28. Of the diuision of the lesser titles, and smaller Congregations or Churches, out of those Churches of so large extent, founded and constituted by the Apostles. 501. Chap. 29. Of Chorepiscopi, or Rurall Bishops, forbidden by old Canons to encroach vpon the Episcopall office, and of the institution, & necessary vse of Archpresbyters or Deanes. 504. Chap. 30. Of the forme of the gouernement of the Church, and the institution and authority of Metropolitanes, and Patriarches. 510. Chap. 31. Of Patriarches, who they were: and the reason why they were preferred before other Bishops. 515. Chap. 32. How the Pope succeedeth Peter, what of right belongeth to him, and what it is that he vniustly claimeth. 518. Chap. 33. Of the proofes brought by the Romanists for confirmation of the vniuersality of the Popes iurisdiction and power. 521. Chap. 34. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction, taken out of the decretall Epistles of Popes. 524. Chap. 35. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes Supremacie, produced and brought out of the writinges of the Greeke Fathers. 533. Chap. 36. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes Supremacie, taken out of the writings of the Latine Fathers. 539. Chap. 37. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes vniuersall power, taken from his intermedling in ancient times, in confirming, deposing, or restoring Bishops deposed. 550. Chap. 38. Of the weakenesse of such proofes of the supreame power of Popes as are taken from their lawes, Censures, dispensations, and the Vicegerents they had in places farre remote from them. 556. Chap. 39. Of Appeales to Rome. 561. Chap. 40. Of the Popes supposed exemption from all humane iudgment, as beeing reserued to the iudgement of Christ onely. 571. Chap. 41. Of the titles giuen to the Pope, and the insufficiencie of the proofes of his illimited power and iurisdiction taken from them. 582. Chap. 42. Of the second supposed priuiledge of the Romane Bishops, which is infallibility of iudgement. 585. Chap. 43. Of such Popes as are charged with heresie, and how the Romanists seeke to cleare them from that imputation. 593. Chap. 44. Of the Popes vniust claime of temporall dominion ouer the whole world. 602. Chap. 45. Of the Popes vniust claime to intermedle with the affaires of Princes, and their States, if not as Soueraign Lord ouer all, yet at least, in ordine ad Spiritualia, and in case of Princes failing to do their duties. 609. Chap. 46. Of the examples of Church-men deposing Princes, brought by the Romanists. 618. Chap. 47. Of the ciuill dominion which the Popes haue by the gift of Princes. 632. Chap. 48. Of generall Councels and of the end, vse, and necessity of them. 642. Chap. 49. Of the persons that may be present in generall Councels, and who they are of whom generall Councels do consist. 645. Chap. 50. Of the President of generall Councels. 649. Chap. 51. Of the assurance of finding out the truth, which the Bishops assembled in generall Councels haue. 660. Chap. 52. Of the calling of Councels, and to whom that right pertaineth. 667. Chap. 53. Of the power and authority exercised by the ancient Emperours in generall Councels, and of the Supremacie of Christian Princes in causes, and ouer persons Ecclesiasticall. 677. Chap. 54. Of the calling of Ministers, and the persons to whom it pertaineth to elect and ordaine them. 686. Chap. 55. Of the Popes disordered intermedling with elections of Bishops and other Ministers of the Church, their vsurpation, intrusion, and preiudicing the right, and liberty of others. 696. Chap. 56. Of the ordinations of Bishops and Ministers. 702. Chap. 57. Of the things required in such as are to be ordained Ministers, and of the lawfulnesse of their Marriage. 704. Chap. 58. Of Digamie, and what kind of it it is that debarreth men from entring into the Ministerie. 727. Chap. 59. Of the maintenance of Ministers. 733. What things are Occasionally handled in the Appendix to the fifth Booke. THat Protestants admit triall by the Fathers. 749. Of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead. 750. 764. 776. 783. 787. 792. Whether generall Councels may erre. 761. The opinion of the Greekes concerning Purgatory. 764. Of Transubstantiation. 770. The opinion of some of the Schoolemen, thinking that finall Grace purgeth out all sinfulnesse out of the soule, in the moment of dissolution. 772. Of the heresie of Aerius. 789. Nothing constantly resolued on concerning Purgatory in the Romane Church at Luthers appearing. 790. Abuses in the Romane Church disliked by Gerson. 795. Grosthead opposing the Pope. 809. The agreement of diuers before Luther with that which Protestants now teach. 813. Of the difference betweene the German Diuines and vs, concerning the Vbiquitary presence and the Sacrament. 819. The differences, of former times amongst the Fathers, and of the Papists at this day, compared with the differences that are found amongst Protestants. 823. Of the Rule whereby all controuersies are to be ended. 827. That the Elect neuer fall totally from grace once receiued. 833. What manner of faith is found in infants that are baptised. 837. Of the saying of Augustine that hee would not beleeue the Gospell if the authority of the Church did not moue him. 841. Of the last resolution of our faith. 844. 856. Of the sufficiency of the Scripture. 847. Of Traditions. 849. 892. Of the merit of works and iustification. 861. Of the things required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of the Scripture. 863. Of the meanes whereby wee may know that the Scriptures are of God. 868. Of the differences that haue bin amongst protestants. 869. That there remained a true Church vnder the papacie when Luther began. 880. The Romane Church is not the same now that it was when Luther began. 881. That we haue not departed from the Church wherein our Fathers liued and dyed, but onely from the faction that was in it. 883.
Errata.

Pag. Line.   10. 8. Negleing for neglecting. 27. 50. either sort for either God.     marg. respicio te for respicio. 36. 1. which is that society for which is the true Church, we aske which is that society. 81. marg. ep. 161. for ep. 162. 92. 41. vndoubtfully for vndoubtedly. 102. 30. lacis for lacus. leonus for leonis. 107. marg. Alcu •… io for Alcuino. 189. marg. immediatly it for immediatly after it. 191. 2. nothing of for nothing for 201. 55. which for with 244. 22. Crocouia for Cr •… couia 289. 4. and effect for an effect 292. 2. nor to be for nor be   39. not only in a twofold for not only a two fold. 322. 45. fortitudinem for formidinem 338. marg. Rational. diuinorum l. 2. for Rational. diuinorum l. 1.   36. obtaineth for obtaineth grace 340. 24. vt for vs 345. 47. Church for the Church.   50. to erre for or erre 348. 46. Thus he for This he 349. 14. euious for enuious 353. marg. C •… nus lib. 1. for C •… us l. 2. 357. 24. dubium for dubiam 358. 31. of deltatur 359. 5. definition for definitions 360. marg. lect. for lect. 2. 362. marg. Canonum for Canonem 363. marg. certa & veridica for certa & veridica 364. 24. generalily for generality 372. 27. For for Fiftly 375. 55. is was for it was 377. 11. in the matter for in matter 380. 27. Helenists for Hellenists 479. 38. for for forth 495. 4. as deleatur 496. 23. writing for writeth 520. 12. An •… tolius for Anatolius 532. 〈◊〉 . Byz •… zenus for Byz •… zenus 541. 32. ar for or 551. 52. as deleatur 554. 12. fearing for fearing not 593. 20. toherwise for otherwise 729. 34. non deleatur. 752. marg. fide for fine 779. 54. say for shall say   55. sitteth for sitteth 792. 24. take for taketh 81 •… . 52. the for him and the 820. 55. Bc. for 〈◊〉 .

THE FIRST BOOKE CONCERNING THE NAME, NATVRE, AND DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH.
CHAP. 1

Of the Church consisting of men and Angels, in the day of their Creation.

WHatsoeuer commeth within the compasse of mans conceit and apprehension, is either the vniversall perfection of being it selfe, wherein there is nothing intermingled of not being, nothing of possibilitie to bee that which already it is not, which is the nature of God, whose name is Exod. 3. 14. and 6. 3. Iehoua, Reve. 1. 8. Which is, which was, and is to come: or else it is finite limited and restrained to a certaine degree, measure; and kind of being, which is the condition of all things vnder God. So that as wee cannot thinke aright of God, but with resolued and vndoubted assurance that he is, (For what can be, if being it selfe be not?) that he is infinite, and hath noe limitation of his perfections, (for within what bounds or limits shall we compasse that, wherein the fulnesseof being is found?) that hee is from everlasting to everlasting, and knoweth neither beginning nor end of his continuance: (For how should that haue either beginning or end, wherein there is nothing intermingled of not being, and so no time nor moment can be imagined wherein it was not, or shall cease to bee?) so wee cannot thinke of any thing else but as finite and limitted, hauing certaine bounds set vnto it, within the compasse whereof, all the perfection it possesseth and enioyeth is contained, as hauing being after not being, and so receiuing it from another, as limited in continuance aswell as in measure and kinde of perfections, hauing set and certaine termes before which it was not, and a necessitie of ceasing to be, if the hand that vpholdeth it withdraw it selfe but for a moment. Hence it followeth that such is the nature and condition of all things vnder God, that they are mixed and compounded of being and not being, perfection and imperfection, fullnesse and want. For howsoeuer they want nothing, which to the perfecting of their owne kinde is required, yet they faile, and come infinitely short of that perfection, which is found in God the fountaine of all being; yea, much is denied to euery of them, which is bestowed on others, and euen in respect of themselues, they are oftentimes that in possibility, which actually they haue not attained vnto. Seeing therefore the imperfection of each thing, presupposeth perfection before it, out of which it is taken, whereunto it tendeth and endeauoureth to attaine, and whereof it faileth; all things vnder God hauing imperfection found in them, and hauing some part of his Diuine perfections committed vnto them, but not in sort answerable to that whence they are taken, and wherein they are origanally found, looke backe and hasten to returne to that beginning, whence they came foorth, and with fixed eyes, bowed knees, and hands lifted vp, present themselues before him that liueth for ever, which is, which was; and which is to come, with great ioy and exultation powring foorth and returning thankefull praises to him, Revel. 5. 1 •… . & 4. 11. for whose sake they were created; desiring continuance of that they are, supplie of that they want, and thinking it their greatest happinesse, to haue but the least resemblance of his Diuine perfections.

Gasper Contarenus lib. 7. primae Philosophiae. The proceeding of each thing from the first, is like to a straight line drawne out in length which of all other is the weakest; neither can it bee strengthened, but by being redoubled & bowed backe again, whereby it draweth nigh to the nature of a circular line, which of all other is the strōgest, as wherein each part yeeldeth stay and support to other. All things therefore after they are come forth from the presence of God, taking view of themselues, and finding their owne imperfect and defectiue nature, fearing to remoue too farre, flie backe vnto him that made them, for support, comfort and stay, and like a reflected line returne towards the presence of him, for whose sake they are, and haue beene created: yet is there nothing found in degree of nature inferiour vnto man, that returneth so farre, and approcheth so neere, as to know, see and delight in God, as he is in himselfe, but all rest contented and seeke to discerne, know and enjoy no more of his Divine perfections, than in themselues they possesse and partake of him. So that they expresse not the nature of a perfect circle, in which the lines, drawne forth in length, are in such sort reflected and bowed backe againe that in their returne they stay not, till they come to the very same poynt whence they beganne. This is peculier to men and Angels, which are carried backe with restlesse motiōs of vnsatisfied desires, & stay not till they come to the open view, cleare vision and happie fruition of GOD their Creator. Quis fecisti nos •… d te, & inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te. Aug. lib. 1. Confess. in •… tio. O Lord, saith Augustine, thou madest vs for thy selfe, and our hearts are restlesse and vnquiet, till they rest in thee.

The reason of this so different condition of men and Angells, from other things, who so taketh a view of the diuerse degrees and sorts of things in the world, cannot but with exceeding great sweetnesse of delight obserue and discerne.

There is nothing which, in sense of want and imperfection, doth not endeavour to returne towards God, from whome all good and happie supplie of defect and want proceedeth: neither is there any thing found in the world, (all things being full of defect,) which is not carried with some inclination of desire, either seeking that it hath not, or desiring the continuance of that it hath already receiued from him, in whom the fullnesse of all happie good is found. From hence it commeth, that all things incline, tend, and moue to that place, condition and estate, wherein they may enioy the vtermost of that perfection they are capable of. This inclination of desire ariseth and groweth in each thing out of the forme thereof, which giueth it that degree, measure and kind of being it hath, neither is there any forme whence some inclination doth not flowe. Those things therefore which haue no forme, but that which giueth them their naturall beeing, different and distinct from other things, haue no inclination of desire, but naturall, to enioy and possesse themselues and continue that they are, to grow and increase till they come to the full period of their naturall perfection, and to continue the same by turning into their owne substance and nature such things, by addition whereof they may be nourished, increased and continued. But those things, wherein besides their naturall formes giuing them beeing, by reason of their more spirituall and immateriall nature, the formes and formall resemblances of other things do •… ine and appeare, haue farre more large desires, growing out of the formes thus shining into the, and apprehended by them. And as they are of more or less •… rgenesse of apprehension so are their desires larger and more free, or shut vp within the narrower compasse.

The Contarenus lib. de libero Arbitrio. most perfect and excellent creatures in the world, below the condition of man haue not a generall apprehension of all things, but onely of some outward sensible things, in the getting or declining whereof their good doth stand and consist; and therefore haue their desires likewise conteined within the same straites, and are like prisoners subject to the will of him that restraineth them, which cannot goe at large whither they will. But man is by condition of his creatiō free, having no bounds of any one kind of good things within the cōpasse whereof he is inclosed; but as his vnderstanding is so large, that it reacheth to all things that are, though in kind never so different, and number neuer so numberlesse; so his desires haue no limitatiō to things of any one kinde alone, but are freely carried to the desiring of whatsoeuer in any kind or degree of goodnesse appeares to bee good. And because in this multiplicitie of good things nothing is good, but as partaking of the chiefe good; nothing better than other, but as comming neerer vnto it: therefore for the direction of all his desires, that he may rightly value and prize each thing, either preferring or lesse esteeming it according to the worth thereof, it is necessary that he knowe and desire as the chiefe good, that which indeed is the chiefe and principall good, the measure of all the rest, before he can rightly discerne the different degrees of goodnesse found in things, and so rightly preferre one before another.

And this doubtlesse is the reason why no other creatures but onely men and Angels are capable of felicitie and blisse; because the greatest good they knowe or desire is but some particular thing, and that not better than themselues; but men and Angels, in whom so great perfection of knowledge is found, that they apprehend the whole variety and multiplicity of things, and all the different degrees of goodnesse in them, never haue their desires satisfied till they possesse and enioy that soveraigne; infinite and everlasting good; by participation whereofall things else in their severall kinds and degrees are iudged good. This glorious society of men and Angels, whom the most high God; (passing by all his other creatures) made capable of felicity and blisse, calling them to the view, sight, & enioying of himselfe, is rightly named Ecclesia, coetus evocatus, the Church of the living God, the ioyfull company of them among whom his greatnesse is knowne and his name called vpon, the multitude which by the sweete motions of his Divine grace hee hath called out to the participation of eternall happinesse.

CHAP. 2

Of the calling of grace, whereby God called out both men and Angels from the rest of his creatures, to be vnto him a holy Church: and of their Apostasie.

ALl Virtus naturae ordinat act •… •… um in bonum per naturam, quia non est supra naturam, & ideo potest in illum ordinem & sine dispositione nova ferre ad •… ocum. Actus rationali •… creaturae meritorius oportet quòd o •… dmetur ad bonum, quod est supr •… ipsam, quod est summum bonum & infinitum. Quia ergo non 〈◊〉 possibilis, extensio rationals creaturae supra seipsam, ideo non est ei possibile per naturam vt ordinet suum actum, siue perveniat in suum finem: & ideo necesse est vt invetur gratia. Et post. Duplex est cognitio de Deo. Vna per effectus su •… , & haec est fine gratia, alia per praesentiam sui apud animam, & haec est pe •… g •… atiam. Praesen •… autem est in quantum p •… sentat, seu p •… sentemfacit beatitudinem, quae est in ipso; in habitu tantum, vt in par •… ulis; in affectu tantum, vt in adultis; in habitu, affectu & intellectu, vt in beatis. Alex. de H •… es part. 3. •… 61. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 1. other things seeking no higher perfection nor greater good, than is found within the compasse of their owne nature, by natures guiding without the helpe of any other thing attaine thereunto: but men and Angels which seeke an infinite and Divine good, even the everlasting and endlesse happinesse, which consisteth in the vision of God, at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore, cannot attaine their wished good, which is so high and excellent, and farre remooued from them, vnlesse by supernaturall force, which wee call grace, they be lifted vp vnto it. For though by nature they know God, so farre forth as by his effects and glorious workes he may be knowne; yet as he is in himselfe they know him not, farther than in the light of grace and glory hee is pleased to manifest himselfe vnto them, thereby addmitting them to the ioyfull sight, and blessed view of his glorious Maiestie, Which dwelleth in light that no creature, by it selfe, can approach vnto. Oftendam tibi o •… e bon •… . Exo. 33. 19. This is true and perfect happinesse, to see the face of God: which to behold is the height of all that good which any creature can desire. Ioan Picus Heptapli l. 7. in pro •… mio To this the Angels may bee lifted vp, to this they cannot ascend by themselues; to this man cannot goe, to this hee may bee drawne, according to that our Saviour delivereth of himselfe, Iohn 6. 44. No man commeth vnto mee, vnlesse my Father drawe him. Those things which are inferiour vnto man, can neither attaine by themselues, nor be drawne, nor lifted vp to the partaking of this so happy and ioyfull an estate. The vapour of water goeth vp on high, but not vnlesse it be drawne with the beames and sweete influence of the Sunne: but more grosse and earthly things, can neither ascend of themselues, nor admit into them these heavenly beames, to raise and drawe them vp. Among bodily substances, some are carried only with a straight and direct motion, either to the highest or lowest places of the world: which motion expresseth the condition of those things to the which God hath denied the knowledge and immediate enioying of himselfe, which are established in the perfection of their owne nature, and therein rest without seeking any further thing. Some with circular motion, by which they returne to the same point whence they began to mooue. The motion of these expresseth the nature and condition of men and Angels, who only are capable of true happinesse, whose desires are never satisfied, till they come backe to the same beginning whence they came forth, till they come to see God face to face, and to dwell in his presence. None but immortall and incorruptible bodies are rolled with circular motions: none but Angels that are heavenly spirits, and men whose soules are immortall, returne backe to the sight, presence, and happy enioying of God their Creator. Each thing is carried in direct motion, by natures force, in circular, by heavenly movers. Every thing attaineth natures perfection, by natures force and guidance; but that other which is Divine and supernaturall, consisting in the vision and fruition of God, they that attaine vnto it, must impute it to the sweete motions and happy directions of Divine grace.

This grace God vouchsafed both men and Angels in the day of their creation, thereby calling them to the participation of eternall happinesse, and giuing them power that they might attaine to the perfection of all happie and desired good if they would, and everlastingly continue in the ioyfull possession of the same. But such was the infelicitie of these most excellent creatures, that knowing all the different degrees of goodnesse found in things, and having power to make choise of what they would, ioyned with that mutability of nature which they were subiect vnto in that they were made of nothing, August. de Civitate Dei. lib. 12. c. 8. they fell from the loue of that which is the chiefe and greatest good to those of meaner qualitie, and thereby deprived themselues of that sweete and happy contentment they should haue found in God; and denying to be subiect to their great soveraigne, and to performe that duty they owed vnto him, were iustly dispossessed of all that good, which from him they receiued, and vnder him should haue enioyed; yea all other things which were made to do them seruice, lost their natiue beautie and originall perfection, and became feeble, weake, vnpleasant and vntractable, that in them they might find as little contentment as in themselues. August. de libero Arbitrio. lib. 3. cap. 15. For seing nothing can prevaile or resist against the lawes of the omnipotent Creatour: no creature is suffered to denie the yeelding of that, which from it is due to God. For either it shall be forced to yeeld it by right vsing of that which from him it receiued, or by loosing that which it would not vse well; and so consequently, if it yeeld not that by dutie it should, by doing and working righteousnesse, it shall by feeling smart and miserie. This then was the fall of men and Angels from their first estate, in that by turning from the greater to the lesser good, they depriued themselues of that blessednesse which though they had not of themselues, yet they were capable of, & might haue attained vnto, by adhering to the chiefe and immutable good, and so by their fault fell into those greevous evils they are now subject vnto; yet in very different sort and manner.

CHAP. 3.

Of the Church, consisting of those Angels that continued in their first estate by force of grace vpholding them, and men redeemed.

THe Fall of Angels was irrecouerable; For without all hope of any better estate, or future deliverance out of those euils, (into the bottomlesse gulph whereof, by their rebellious sinne they plunged themselues,) they are reserued in chaines of darkenesse, to the iudgment of the great day. But concerning the sonnes of men, the Lord knew whereof they were made, and remembred that they were but dust. Hee looked vpon them with the eye of pitty and in the multitude of his compassionate mercies, said of them as it is in the Prophet Ierem. 8. 4. Ieremie, Shall they fall, and shall they not arise? shall they turne away, and shall they not returne? as high as the heauens is aboue the earth, so great was his mercie towards thē: As farre as the East is from the West, so farre remoued hee their sins from them, hee redeemed their life from hell, and crowned them with mercie and compassion.

Alex. de Hales part. 3. q. 1. memb. 2. The reason of this so great difference, as the Schoolemen thinke, is: First, for that the Angels are not by propagation one from another, but were created all at once, so that of Angels some might fall and others stand: But men descend by generation from one stocke or roote, and therefore the first man falling and corrupting his nature, deriued to all his posteritie a corrupted and sinfull nature: if therefore God had not appointed a redemption for man, hee had beene wholy depriued of one of the most excellent creatures that ever hee made; whereas among the Angels, notwithstanding the Appostasie of some, he held still innumerable in their first estate. Secondly, the Angels fell of themselues, but man by the suggestion of another. Thirdly, the Angels in the height of their pride, sought to be like vnto God in omnipotencie, which is an incommunicable property of diuine being, and cannot be imparted to any creature. But men desired only to be like vnto God in omniscience and the generall knowledge of all things, which may be communicated to a creature, as in Christ it is to his humane soule: which notwithstanding the vnion with God, yet still remaineth and continueth a created nature, and therefore the degree of sinnefull transgression was not so greevous in the one, as in the other. Fourthly, the Angels were immateriall and intellectuall spirits, dwelling in heavenly palaces, in the presence of God and the light of his countenance, and therefore could not sinne by error or misperswasion, but of purposed malice which is the sinne against the holy Ghost, and is irremissible: But man fell by misperswasion, and being deceiued by the lying suggestion of the spirit of errour. Fiftly, the Angels haue the fulnesse of intellectuall light; when they take view of any thing, they see all that any way pertaineth to it; and so doe all things with so full resolution, that they never alter nor repent: But man who findeth out one thing after another, and one thing out of another, doth dislike vpon farther consideration, that which formerly he liked. Wherevpon the Schoolemen note that there are three kinds of willes; The first of God, which never turneth nor altereth; the second of Angels, that turneth and returneth not; the third of men, that turneth and returneth. Sixtly, there is a time prefixed both to men and Angels, after which there is no possibility of altering their estate, bettering themselues, or attayning any good; Now as death is that time prefixed vnto men, so was the first good or badde deliberate action to the Angels; that who would, might be perpetually good; who would not, no grace should ever after restore them againe. Damasc. lib. 2. Orthodoxae fidei. cap. 4. Hoc est Angelis casus, quod hominibus mors. saith Damascene. The reason why God limited so short a time to them, and assigned so long a time to men, was, because they were spirituall substances, all created at once, and that in the empyreall heauens; and so both in respect of nature, condition, and place, were most readily prepared, disposed, and fitted for their immediate everlasting glorification; so that it was fit there should be set vnto them a short time to make choice of their future state, never after to be altered againe, to wit, till their first deliberate conuersion vnto him, or auersion from him.

But man being created in a naturall body, to fill the world with inhabitants by procreation, being set in a place farre remooued, even in an earthly paradise, had a longer time set him before he should be in finall stay, or haue his last judgement passe vpon him, to wit, till death for particular, and till the end of the world for generall judgement, when the number of mankind shall bee full. These are the reasons that mooued Almighty God that spared not the Angels, to shew mercie vnto the sonnes of men.

So that as god, in the day of the creation, called foorth all both men and Angels from among the rest of his creatures, to whom he denied the knowledge & enjoying of himselfe, that these onely might know, feare, and worship him in his glorious Temple of the world, and be vnto him a selected multitude and holy Church; so when there was found amongst these a dangerous Apostasie, and departure from him, 1. Tim. 〈◊〉 . 21. et Iude verse 6. he held of the Angels so many as hee was pleased, and suffered them not to decline or goe aside with the rest; and raised vp and severed out of the masse of perdition, whom hee would among the sonnes of men. The Angels now confirmed in grace, and those men whom in the multitude of his mercies he deliuereth out of the state of condemnation, and reconcileth to himselfe, doe make that happie society of blessed ones, whom God hath loved with an everlasting loue. This society is more properly named the Church of God, than the former, consisting of men and Angels, in the state of that integrity wherein they were Maior libertas est necessaria adversus tot & tantas tentationes quae in Paradiso non fuerunt dono perseverantiae munita et firmata, vt cū omnibus amoribus, terroribus, erroribus suis vincatur hic mundus. Hoc Sanctorum martyria docuerunt: denique ille Adam, & terrente nullo & insuper contra Dei terrentis imperium libero vsus arbitrio non stetit in tanta felicitate, in tanta non peccandi facilitate. Isti autem non dico terrente mundo sed saeuiente ne starent, steterunt in fide: cum videret ille bona praesentia quae erat relicturus, isti futu •… a quae acceptuti fuerunt non viderent. vnde illud, Nisi donante illo, &c. Aug. de Correp. & gratia. Cap. 12. created, in that they which pertaine to this happie company, are called to the participation of eternall happinesse, with the calling of a more mighty, potent and prevailing grace then the other. For whereas they were partakers onely of that grace, which gaue them power to attaine vnto, and continue in the perfection of all happie good, if they would, and then In tanta felicitate, & non peccandi facilitate, in so great felicitie and facilitie of not offending, left to themselues to doe what they would and to make their choice at their owne perill; These are partakers of that grace, which winneth infallibly, holdeth inseparably, and leadeth indeclinably, in the wayes of eternall blessednesse.

CHAP. 4.

Of the Church of the Redeemed

ALl these, aswell Angels that stood by force of grace vpholding them, as men restored by renewing mercy, haue a most happie fellowship among themselues, and therefore make one Church of God: yet for that the sonnes of men haue a more full communion and perfect fellowship, being all delivered out of the same miseries, by the same benefit of gracious mercie; Therefore they make that more speciall society, which may rightly be named the Church of the redeemed of God. This Church began in him in whom sinne beganne, euen in Wisd. 10. 1. Adam the father of all the liuing, repenting after his fall and returning to God. For we must not thinke, that God was without a Church among men at any time; but so soone as Adam had offended, and was called to giue an account of that he had done, (hearing that voice of his displeased Lord and Creator, Gen. 3. 9. Adam, where art thou? that so he might know in what estate he was by reason of his offence) the promise was made vnto him, Gen. 3. 1 5. that the seede of the woman should breake the serpents head. Yet for that Gen. 4. 4. Abel was the first that the Scripture reporteth to haue worshipped God with sacrifice, and to haue beene divided from the wicked in whom GOD had no pleasure, euen Gen. 4. 8. cursed Cain, that afterward shed his innocent blood, therefore we vsually say the Church or chosē company of the redeemed of the Lord began in Abel: who being slaine by Cain, God restored his Church again in Gen. 4. 25. Seth, in whose race and posterity he continued his true worship Gen. 6. till Noe. Gen. 7. In whose time the wickednesse of men being full, hee brought in the flood & destroyed the whole world, Noe onely and his family excepted, whom he made a preacher of righteousnesse to the world, before and after the flood, and chose (from among his children) Gen. 10. 21. Sem his eldest sonne, in whose race hee would continue the pure and sincere knowledge of himselfe, and the expectation of that promised seede that should breake the serpents head.

This Sem was the father of all the sonnes of Heber (of whom the people of god were afterwards named Hebrewes) who was also Hieron. in Epist. ad Evagrium. 1. Gen. 9. 26. as some thinke Melchisedech, in whose posterity the true Church continued; so that God vouchsafed to be called the God of Sem, till the dayes of Abraham, in whose time there being a great declining to Idolatry after the flood, as there was in the dayes of Noe before the flood, so that the defection was found not onely amongst those that descended of Cham and Iaphet, but euen among the children of Sem and the sonnes of Heber also, of whom Abraham was; Gen 12. 1. God called him out from his fathers house, Gen 15. 5. and gaue him the promise that he would make his seede as the starres of heaven in number, & that Gen. 12. 3. in his seede all the nations of the world should bee blessed, and Gen. 17. 9. gaue him the seale of circumcision, so that all posterities haue ever honoured him with the name and title of the father of the faithfull. This man obtayned a sonne by Gen. 15. 4. & 17. & 21. 2. 3. promise in his old age, when Sara his wife was likewise old, and it ceased to bee with her after the manner of women, and named his name Isaac, of whom came Esau and Iacob, concerning whom GOD pronounced ere they were yet borne, or had done good or euill, Gen. 25. 23. The Elder shall serue the yonger, Malac. 1. 2. 3. I haue loued Iacob, and hated Esau. Gen. 32. 28. Iacob therefore prevailed with God, and was named Israel, the father of the twelue Patriarches, of whom came the twelue Tribes of Israel, and that chosen Nation of holy Hebrewes, who were also named Iewes of Iudah the Patriarch, to whom the Scepter and kingly dignity pertained, 〈◊〉 Gen. 49. 8. 10 to whom his fathers sonnes bowed according to the tenour of Iacobs blessing, concerning whom the Lord did promise, that the Scepter should not depart from Iudah, nor a law giuer from betweene his feete, till the Shilo were come. Great was the honour of this people aboue all the Nations of the World, for Rom. 3. 2. vnto them were committed the Oracles of GOD, Rom. 9. 4. 5. to them pertained the adoption and glory, and the covenants, and the giuing of the Law, and the seruice of GOD, and the promises, of whom were the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God ouer all blessed for euer, the propitiation for sinnes, the merite of reconciliation, Luke 2. 32. the glory of Israel, and the light of the Gen •… iles, Philip. 2. 9. 10 to whom God gaue a name aboue all names, that at the naming thereof all knees doe bow, both of things in heauen, and things in earth, and things vnder the earth, Nazianz. Orat. 4. de filio 〈◊〉 . in whom all things appeare full of mercie, and full of marueile. God, before all eternities, yet made man in time; begotten before all times, yet borne in time; borne of a woman, yet a Virgine, inclosed in the wombe of Mary his Mother, yet euen then knowne of Iohn his fore-runner, yet in the wombe of Elizabeth his Mother likewise, who sprang for joy at the presence of the Eternall Word. He was borne in Bethlehem the meanest of the cities of Iudah, wrapped in swadling bands, and laid in a manger, yet glorified by the Angels, pointed to by a starre, and adored by the Sages that came from farre. He was no sooner borne into the World, but Herod sought his life, so that he was forced to flye into Egypt whilest he did yet hang on his mothers brests, but he ouer-threw & brake in pieces all the Idoles of Egypt. The Iewes saw no beauty in his face, nor glory in his countenance, yet Dauid in spirit long before pronounced, that hee was fairer than the sonnes of men; and being transfigured in the mount, his face did shine like the Sunne, and gaue a taste of that glory, wherein hee will returne to judge the quicke and dead: he was baptized as a man, but forgaue sinnes as God, not washed by those waters, but purifying them rather, and filling them with sanctifying force and power; he was tempted as a man, but ouer-comming as GOD, maketh vs confident, because he hath ouercome the world; he was hungry, but fed many thousands, and was the true Bread that came downe from Heauen; he thirsted but cryed aloude, If any man thirst let him come vnto me, and promiseth, to euery one that beleeueth in him, that riuers of waters shall flow out of his belly. He was weary, but promised rest to all them that are weary and come vnto him; he slept, but waking stilled the tempest, and commaunded the winde and the sea; he payed tribute, but out of the mouth of a fish taken in the sea; hee prayed, but heareth our prayers; he wept, but wipeth all teares from our eyes; hee was sold for thirty pence, but redeemed the World with a great and inestimable price; hee was ledde as a sheepe to the slaughter, but he is the great shepheard that feedeth the Israel of God; hee was beaten and wounded, but cureth all our weakenesse, and healeth all our sicknesse; hee died, was buried, and descended into hell, but he rose againe, and ascended into heauen, where he sitteth on the right hand of the highest Majestie, till all his enemies be made his foot stoole. This was hee whom all the Fathers looked for, all the Prophets prophesied of, whom all the Ceremonies, Sacrifices, and Iewish obseruations led vnto, in whom that which was foretold was fulfilled, that which was imperfect supplied, and all things changed into a better estate, so that by his comming all things are become new, a new Priesthood, a new Law, a new Couenant, new Sacraments, and a new people, Iohn 4. 23. that worship not at Ierusalem, or in the Temple alone, but (without respect of place) worship God in spirit and trueth.

CHAP. 5.

Of the Christian Church.

THE societie of this new & blessed people began in the Apostles, whom Christ the anointed Sauiour of the World did chose to be his followers, & to be witnesses of all the things he did & suffered among sinfull men. To these our Sauiour Christ after his resurrection, gaue most ample Commission Mat. 28. 19. 20. to teach the Nations and people of the world, Luke 24. 45. 46. 47. 48. and to preach repentance and remission of sinnes in his Name, opening their vnderstandings that they might vnderstand the Scriptur •… , that so it be •… oued him to suffer, and to rise againe the third day, whereof they were witnesses, Acts 1. 4. Yet commaunded he them to tarry in Ierusalem, till they were indued with power from aboue, Acts 2. 1. which was performed vnto them in the feast of Pentecost, when all they that looked for the redemption of Israel by this anointed Sauiour, and had beene his followers, after his departure from them and returning to the heauens, were assembled into one place, and suddainly heard as it were the noyse of a mighty and rushing winde, and there appeared vnto them clouen tongues like fire; and sate vpon euery of them, and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, and began to speake with other tongues, as the spirit gaue them vtterance; so that though there were dwelling at Ierusalem, men that feared God of euery nation vnder heauen, yet they all heard them speake in their owne tongues the wonderfull workes of God. Heere was the beginning of that blessed company, which for distinctions sake wee call the Christian Church, as consisting of them that beleeue in Christ now alreadie come in the flesh.

And though the Church of the Olde and New Testament be in essence the same, yet for that the state of the Church of the New Testament is in many respects farre more glorious and excellent, the Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers forthe mostpart appropriate the name of the Church, to the multitude of beleeuers sincethe comming of Christ, & call the faithfull people that were before by the name of the Synagogue. If this difference of names be retained onely for distinction sake, (that men may know when we speake of that moity of the people of God that was before, and when of that other that is and hath beene since the comming of Christ) we dislike it not.

The Greeke words which we turne Church and Synagogue, the one originally and properly signifieth a multitude called out, or called together, which is proper to men; the other a multitude congregated and gathered together, which is common to men with brute beasts. If any man hauing an eye to the different originall significations of these words, doe therevpon inferre, that the people of GOD, before the comming of Christ, did seeke nothing but earthly, outward, and transitory things, and so were gathered together like brute beasts, and like oxen fatted to the day of slaughter, we detest and accurse so wicked and damnable a construction. Catech. Trident. in explicatione Symboli. And herein surely the Catechisme of Trent cannot well be excused, which abusing the authority of Augustine vpon the Quimv •… proprie dicatur syn •… ga Iud •… corum, Ecclesia verò Christianorum, quia Congregatio magis pec •… um. Convocatio magis hominum intelligi solet, ta •… en & illam dictam invenimus Ecclesiam, & nobis fortassis magis convenit dicere, Salva no •… Domine noster, & congrega no •… de Gentibus, ut consite •… mur nomini sancto tuo •… neque dedignari no •… oportet, imo gratias incffabiles agere, quia famous oves 〈◊〉 eius, quas praevidebat cum dicere •… , Habeo alias over. Aug. in Psal. 77. Psalme 77, and Synagoga dicitur populus Israel, cum vtique quamvis vero Deo mancip •… us vider •… tur, pro magnis tamen & sum •… is bonis ab illo car •… lia 〈◊〉 & temporalia requir •… bat. Aug. in Psal. 8 •… . Sed in Psal. 72. ostendit, vt •… que multi animadertentes quae promiserit Deus populo sito, •… empe 〈◊〉 •… sum terren •… , patriam, p •… , & 〈◊〉 •… errenam, & non considerantes in his omnibus figur •… esse, 〈◊〉 intelligentes quid ibi laterer, pa •… rent non habere Deum melius quod daret diligentibus se •… suisse tamen Prophetas & alios quosdam intellectores reg •… i coele •… is & ae •… i, qui non pro temporalibus sed spiritualibus bonis Domino servirent. 81. affirmeth that the name of Synagogue is therefore applyed to the pe •… that were vnder the Law, because like brute beasts (which most properly are said to be congregated or gathered together) they respected, intended, and sought nothing, but onely outward, sensible, earthly, and transitory things. Which vnadvised speech, howmuch it advantageth the Anabaptists, H who thinke the faithfull people Calvin. institut. lib. 2. cap. 10. 1. before Christ did onely taste of the sweetnesse of Gods temporall blessings, without any hope of eternall happinesse, any man of meane vnderstanding may easily discer •… e. It is therefore not to be doubted, but that the 〈◊〉 , before the manifestion of Christ in the flesh, Hebr. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. were so instructed of the L •… d, that they assured themselues 〈◊〉 was a better life for them else where •… nd that, neglecting this earthly, •… any & w •… ched life they principally sought the other, which is Divine and Heauenly. Notwithstanding, some 〈◊〉 there was betweene their estate and ours, in that though the Lord raised their mindes from base and earthly things, to know, seeke, and desire the heau •… ly inheritance, and life of the world to come, yet that they might the better •… strengthned, in the hope and expectation thereof, hee made them take a •… ew of it, & tast the sweetenesse of it in those temporall and earthly blessings and benefits, which most abundantly he bestowed vpon them: whereas now, the grace of the life that is to come being more cleerely reuealed by the 〈◊〉 (omitting all that inferiour kinde of manuduction or leading by the hand, through the consideration, sight and enjoying of these meaner things) he doth more directly, and immediatly fasten our thoughts on things diuine.

For the expressing of this difference, and the more easie distinction of the two moities of the people of God, the one before, the other after the worke of redemption was performed by Christ, though both be rightly, and most aptly named the Church of God; yet it hath beene and is religiously obserued, that by a kind of appropriation the one is named the Synagogue, the 〈◊〉 the Church. Neither doe any of our Diuines (for ought I know) call this society of Christians a Synagogue, though (following the rule of Aliud est Etymologia nominis, & aliud significatio nominis. Etymologia attenditur secundum id à quo imponitur nomen ad significandum: Nominis vero significatio secundum id ad quo significandum imponitur. 2. 2. q. 92. art. 1. Thomas, that 〈◊◊〉 wee must not so much respect their originall, exact, and precise signification, or d •… rivation, as wherevnto they are by vse of speech applyed) wee vse the word congregation, which is the Latine of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and feare not to say that the people of God, in the state of the new Testament, are the Congregation of Christ, and are congregated in his faith and name: euen as, though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ecclesia, 〈◊〉 catio, caetus evocatus, a multitude called out, or called together, both Greeke Latine, and English words, doe originally signifie one and the same thing; yet there are many meetings, societies, and assemblies of men, which may rightly be called convocations, multitudes called together, or multitudes of men called out from others, which if wee should endevour to expresse by the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or by the English word Church, it would seeme absurde, and no man would vnderstand vs. It followeth not therefore, that we call the companie and society of Christians a Synagogue, though wee name it the Congregation of Christ, warranted thereunto by the authority, example, and Practise of the Apostles of Christ, and other holy and Catholique men that haue beene before vs. Let vs consider one another to provoke vnto loue, and good workes, saith the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes. 10, verse. 25. chapter, not forsaking our assembling or congregating, and gathering together, or the fellowship we haue among our selues, as the manner of some is; where the Greeke word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And the same Apostle to the 1. Cor: 5. 4. Corinthians, when you are congregated, and •… y spirit in the middest of you, I will deliver, this man, that hath done this thing vnto Sathan. And who knoweth not that Ignatius Epist. ad Tralli •… nos saith, that without the Bishop and Pr •… yters there can be no congregation of 〈◊◊〉 , where the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . all writers, since the Apostles times, haue freely vsed the word Congregation, applying it to signifie the multitudes and assemblies of Christians. In the Councell of Constance nothing more often repeated, than Synodus in spiritu sancto congregata &c. Yet I hope that Gregory Martin, and other such verball companions, will not say that the fathers assembled in that Councell, which ended the Schisme of three Popes, and setled the succession of the Bishops of Rome againe, were congregated, and gathered like bruite beasts. It is not therefore with so great scorne, and imputation of daungerous and hereticall meaning to be reiected, that our translatours of the Scriptures did, and doe sometimes translate the word Ecclesia, vsed to expresse the Christian people of the new Testament, by the name of the Congregation.

The reason why our translatours, in the beginning, did choose rather to vse the word Congregation then Church, was not as the aduersarie malitiously imagineth, for that they feared the very name of the Church; but because, as by the name of religion and religious men, ordinarily in former times, men vnderstood nothing but factitias religiones, as Religio Christiana quamvis extendat se ad omnem Christianum, attamen appropriato quodam vsu loquentium restringitur ad religiones quas Anselmus appellat Factitias Gerson. de Relig. perfectione & moderatione, Consid. 3. et ibid. addit ecclesiae nomen ad Clerum solere restringi, sicut religionis ad Religatos circa consilia Christi. Gerson out of Anselme calleth them, that is the professions of Monkes and Fryers: So all the ordinarie sorte, when they heard the name of the Church, vnderstood nothing else thereby, but either the materiall place where men mette to serue and worshippe God, or the Clergie, Iurisdictions, and Temporalities belonging to them; as the same Gerson sheweth, Sermo in die Circumcisionis Dom. Consid. 1. affirming that the state of the Church in his time was meere brutish, so that men iudged him a De origine iuris et legum consid. 13. good Bishop and gouernour of the Church, that looked well to the Edifices, Mansions, Lands, Rents, and Revenewes pertaining to the Clergie, not much respecting, what care hee tooke of the spirituall welfare of them that were committed to his charge. When this error in the conceipt and apprehension of men was remoued, the former name of Church was more ordinarily vsed againe. Wherefore leauing this contention about wordes, wherein our adversaries most delight, let vs come to the thing it selfe.

CHAP. 6.

Of the definition of the Church.

COncerning the Church, fiue things are to be obserued. First, what is the definition of it, and who pertaine vnto it. Secondly, the notes whereby it may be knowen. Thirdly, which is the true Church demonstrated by these notes. Fourthly, the priuiledges that doe pertaine vnto it. Fiftly, the diuers degrees, orders, and callings of those men, to whome the gouernment of this Church is committed.

Touching the first; the Church is the multitude and number of those, whom Almighty God severeth from the rest of the world by the worke of his grace, and calleth to the participation of eternall happinesse, by the knowledge of such supernaturall verities as concerning their euerlasting good hee hath reuealed in Christ his sonne, and such other pretious, and happie meanes, as hee hath appointed to further and set forward the worke of their saluation. So that it is the worke of grace, and the heauenly calling, that giue being to the Church, and make it a different societie from all other companies of men in the world, that haue no other light of knowledge, nor motion of desire, but that which is naturall; whence, for distinction from them; it is named Ecclesia, a multitude called out.

CHAP. 7.

Of the diverse sorts of them that pertaine to the Church.

THey that are partakers of the heauenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of divine truth, and the vse of the meanes of saluation, are of very diuers sorts. For there are some that professe the truth deliuered by Christ the Sonne of God, but not wholly, and entirely, as Heretiques, some that professe the whole sauing truth, but not in vnity, as Schismatickes; some that professe the whole sauing truth in vnity, but not in sincerity, and singlenesse of a good and sanctified minde, as Hypocrites and wicked men, not outwardly divided from the people of GOD; and some that professe the whole sauing truth in vnity, and sincerity of a good and sanctified heart.

All these are partakers of the heauenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of the truth, and consequently are all in some degree and fort of that society of men, whom GOD calleth out vnto himselfe, and separateth from Infidels, which is rightly named the Church. These being the different rankes of men, made partakers of the heauenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of sauing truth, there are diuers names by which they are expressed, and distinguished one from another.

For as the name of the Church doth distinguish men that haue receiued the revelation of supernaturall truth, from Infidels; and the name of the Christian Church, Christians from Iewes; so the name of the Orthodoxe Church, is applyed to distinguish right beleeuing Christians from Heretiques; the name of the Catholicke Church, men holding the Faith in vnity, from Schismatiques; the name of the invisible Church, Heb. 12. 23, the Church of the first borne, whose names are written in heauen, the mysticall body of Christ, and the like, to distinguish the elect from all the rest: so that many were of the Church which were not of the Christian Church, as the Iewes before the cōming of Christ; many of the Christian Church that are not of the Orthodoxe; many of the Orthodoxe, that are not of the Catholique; and many of the Catholique, that are not of the invisible, and Church of the first borne, whose names are written in heauen.

Thus then the Church hauing her being & name, from the calling of grace, all they must needes bee of the Church, whom the grace of God in any sort calleth out from the profane, and wicked of the world, to the participation of eternall happinesse, by the excellent knowledge of divine, supernaturall, and revealed verity, and vse of the good, happy, and pretious meanes of saluation: but they onely perfectly, and fully in respect of outward being, which professe the whole trueth in vnity; and they onely principally, fully, and absolutely are of the Church, whom divine grace leadeth infallibly, and indeclinably by these meanes, to the certaine and vndoubted possession of wished blessednesse; because in them onely grace manifesteth her greatest and most prevailing force, without which efficacie of grace, winning infallibly, holding inseparably, and leading indeclinably, no man euer attained to saluation; & of which whoso is partaker shall vndoubtedly be saued.

In the benefites of this grace, none but the elect and chosen of God, whom he hath loued with an euerlasting loue, haue any part of fellowship, though others concurre with them in the vse of the same meanes of saluation, and bee partakers with them of sundry inward motions inclining them to good. When we say therefore that none but the elect of God are of the Church; wee meane not that others are not at all, nor in any sort of the Church, but that they are not Ecclesia praecipuè & ex intentione sideles tantum colligit, qui veram fidem in corde habent. Cum autem admiscentur aliqui ficti qui verè non credunt, id accidit praeter intentionem Ecclesiae. Si enim eos nosse posset, nunquam admitteret, aut casu admissos continuo exclude et. Bellarm. de Ecclesia lib. 3. cap. 10. principally, fully, and absolutely; and that they are not of that especiall number of them, who partake and communicate in the most perfect worke, force, and effect of sauing grace.

CHAP, 8.

Of their meaning, who say, that the Elect onely are of the Church.

THis was the meaning of Wickliffe, Husse and others, who therefore define the Church to be the multitude of the Elect, not for that they thinke them onely to pertaine to the Church, and no others, but because they onely pertaine vnto it principally, fully, effectually, and finally, and in them only is found that which the calling of grace (whence the Church hath all her being) intendeth, to wit, such a conversion to God, as is joyned with finall perseverance, whereof others failing and comming short, they are onely in an inferiour and more imperfect sort, said to be of the Church.

The elect and chosen of God are of two sorts; some elect onely and not yet called; some both elect and called. Of the latter there is no question but they are the most principall parts of the Church of God. Touching the former, they are not actually of the Church, but onely secundùm praescientiam & praedestinationem, in Gods prescience, and predestination, who hath purposed what they shall be, and knoweth what they will be.

It is frivolous therefore, that Lib. 3. de Eccles. milit. cap. 2 Bellarmine, Cont. 1. q. 2. art. 2. Stapleton and others of that faction alledge against vs, that the elect before they are called are not of the Church. For it is true, if they speake of actuall admission into the fellowship of Gods people; but false, if they speake of the intent and purpose of Almighty God, whereby they were chosen to be made his in this present world, before the world it selfe was made. Secundùm praescientiam saith Augustine, Lib. 4. de Baptismo cont. Donatistas. multi etiam qui apertè foris sunt, & haeretici appellantnr, multis & bonis Catholicis meliores sunt: In the prescience of God, many that are apparantly without, and named Heretiques, are better then many, and those good and right beleeuing Catholique Christians. And in his tract vpon Iohn, Secundùm praescientiam, & praedestinationem, quam multae ovesforis, quam multi lupi intus? Quidest, inquit, quod dixi? Quam multae oves foris? quam multi luxuriantur casti futuri? quam multi Cap. 45. blasphemant Christum credituri in Christum? & hi oves sunt, veruntamen modò alienam vocem audiunt, alienos sequuntur. Item quàm multi intus laudant blasphematuri? Casti sunt fornicaturi? stant casuri? & non sunt oves; de praedestinatis enim loquimur: According vnto Gods prescience and predestination, how Electorum quidam adhue in haeresibus aut Gentilium superstitionibus sunt: & tamen etiam illic novit Dominus qui sunt ejus. Aug. lib. 1. de Baptismo contra Donatist. many sheepe are there without, and wolues within? what is it, saith Augustine, that I said? How many sheepe are there without? how many are there that now wallow in all impurity and filthines, that hereafter shall be chast and vndefiled? How many now doe blaspheme Christ, which hereafter shall beleeue in Christ? and these are sheepe, yet for the present they heare the voyce of a stranger, and follow strangers: On the other side, how many are there now within, which presently praise God, that hereafter will blaspheme him? which now are chast, that hereafter will become impure adulterers? now stand, that hereafter will fall? and these are not sheepe for we speake of the predestinate. It is true therefore that Wickliffe, Husse, Calvine, and others doe teach, that none but the elect doe pertaine to the Church in such sort as hath beene before expressed, and that all the electare of the Church either actually, as they that are already called, or potentially and according to the purpose of Gods will, as they that are elect and not yet called.

CHAP. 9.

Of the difference of them that are in, and of the Church.

BY that which hath beene said, that none but the elect are of the Church in that principall and high degree before mentioned, wee may easily vnderstand their true meaning, and the truth of their meaning, who say that Hypocrities, wicked men, and castawaies, are in, but not of the Church. Puto (saith De Baptismo. lib. 7. c. 51. & de Ciuitate Dei l. 20. cap. 9. Regnant cum illo qui eo modo sunt in regno ejus, vt sint etiam ipsi regnum eius. Augustine) me non temerè dicere alios sic esse in domo Dei, vt ipsi etiam sint domus Dei; alios sic esse in domo Dei, vt non pertineant ad compagem domus, nec ad societatem frugiferae pacificae que iustitiae. I thinke I may very advisedly and considerately say, some are in such sort in the house of God, that they also are the house of GOD; and that some are so in the house of God, that they pertaine not to the frame and fabricke of it, nor to the societie and fellowship of fruitfull and peaceable righteousnesse.

Stapleton Relect. Contr. 1. de Ecclesia in se. q. 2. art. 1. in explicat. articuli notabili tertio. Of them that are in the Church there are three sorts. For there are some onely numero, some numero & merito, some numero, merito, & electione: that is, there are some, that only in externall profession; some that in profession and affection; and some that, in profession and affection with neuer altering resolution, ioy •… themselues to the companie of the beleeuers, and haue their hearts knit vnto God for euer. As, the elect of God called according to his purpose: these are intrinsecus & in occulto intus, as Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo, contra Donatistas. cap. 27. & ib. Est certus numerus sanctorum praedestinatus ante mundi constitutionem qui est tanquam lilium inter spinas: multitudo vero spinarum siue occultis, siue apertis separationibus extrinsecus adiacet sup 〈◊〉 numerum. Augustine speaketh; and whosoeuer are thus in the Church, are most fully of the Church, and are of the speciall number of them, that communicate in the most pretious effects, and most happie benefits of effectuall and sauing grace. In the two former sorts many are in the Church, which though they be also of the Church, in Munera concessa divinitus partim sunt propria electorum sicut in hoc tempore infatigabilis charitas, & in suturo vita aeterna, partim vero cum malis & perversis communia, sicut omnia caetera in quibus sunt & sacrolancta mysteria. Aug. ibid. that they haue fellowshippe in some outward things with the elect and chosen servants of God, yet principally, fully and absolutely are not of it, nor of that speciall number of those, that haue part in the benefits of effectuall and sauing grace.

CHAP. 10.

Of the visible, and invible Church.

HEnce it commeth, that we say there is a visible and invisible Church; not meaning to make two distinct Churches, as our adversaries falsly and maliciously charge vs, though the forme of words may seeme to insinuate some such thing, but to distinguish the diuers considerations of the same Church: which though it be visible in respect of the profession of supernaturall verities reuealed in Christ, vse of holy Sacraments, order of Ministerie, and due obedience yeelded therevnto, and they discernable that doe communicate therein; yet in respect of those most pretious effects, and happie benefits of sauing grace, wherein onely the elect doe communicate, it is inuisible; and they that in so happie, gratious, and desireable things haue communion among themselues, are not discernable from others to whom this fellowship is denied, but are knowen only vnto God. That Nathaniell was an Ioh. 2. 47. Israelite, all men knew; that he was atrue Israelite, in whom was no guile, Christ only knew.

The persons then of them of whom the Church consisteth are visible; their profession knowen euen to the profane and wicked of the world, and in this sort the Church cannot be inuisible, neither did any of our men teach that it is or may be. For seeing the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saued, and no man can be saued vnlesse he make confession vnto salvation, (for faith hid in the heart and concealed doth not suffice) it cannot be but they that are of the true Church, must by the profession of the truth make themselues knowen in such sorte, that by their profession and practise they may be discerned from other men.

Notwithstanding, because the truth and excellency of the faith and profession of Christians, is not discerned by the light of nature, but of faith alone; the excellencie of this societie of Christians aboue other profane companies in the world, and their happinesse that are of it, is invisible, hidden, and vnknowen to naturall men, and is knowen only to them that are spirituall: and who they are that haue fellowshippe among themselues, not only in the profession of heavenly verities and outward meanes of saluation, but also in the benefits of effectuall and sauing grace, is knowen neither to the naturall nor spirituall man, but to God alone.

If any man shall further vrge, that Luther, and some other that were in the beginning of the reformation of the Church, did thinke the Church to bee sometimes inuisible, not only in those respects aboue specified, but euen in the truth of profession, and practise of those things that to saluation are necessarie, wee denie that any such thing can bee collected, out of any of their writings which they haue left vnto posterity. For how should there be a Church in the world, the perpetuity whereof they all most constantly defend, and none found to professe the sauing truth of God which all are bound to doe that looke for saluation? But this surely both they and we doe teach, that though alwaies the open, knowen, and constant profession of saving truth, bee preserved and found amongst men, and the ministerie of saluation continued and knowen in the world, (For how should there be a Church gathered without a ministerie?) that yet sometimes errors and heresies so much preuaile, that the most part not onely of them that apparantly are without, but euen of them also that hold and possesse great places of office and dignitie in the Church of God, either for feare, flatterie, hope of gaine, or honour, or else misseled through simplicitie, or directly falling into errour and heresie, depart from the soundnesse of Christian faith, so that the sincerity of religion is vpholden, and the truth of the profession of Christians defended and maintained, but only by some few, and they molested, persecuted, and traduced, as turbulent and seditious men enimies to the common peace of the Christian world. In this sense then the Church is said to be sometimes invisible, not because there are none seene, knowen, or found that professe the truth of God; but because euen in that company which is the true church of God, many and those the greatest are carried into errour, so that but some few, and they such, as (if we should judge by outward appearance) are most vnlike to vphold and maintaine the truth, are left to defend the same; multitude, authority, reputation and opinion of greatnes in others, obscuring them in such sort, that they which measure things by outward appearance, can possibly take no notice of them. This was the state of the Christian world in the time of Athanasius, when in the Tunc Ousiae nomen abolitum est, tum Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est, ingemuit totus orbis & Arrianum se esse miratus est. Igitur alij 〈◊〉 suam communionem remanere, alij ad eos co •… fessores, 〈◊〉 sub Athanasij nomine exulabant; coeperunt literas mittere &c. Hieron contra Luciferianos. Councell of Seleucia and Ariminium; the Nicene faith was condemned, and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time fell from the soundnesse of the faith, onely Athanasius excepted, and some few confessors that sub Athanasii nomine ex •… labant, as Hierome noteth writing against the Luciferians; Ingemuit totus orbis, & miratus est se factum esse Arrianum: The world powred foorth sighes, maruailing how it was become an Arrian. At that time it was, when Hillarius contra Auxentium. Hilarius writing against Auxentius Bishop of Millaine, complained that the Arrian faction had confounded all, and therefore admonished all men to take heede, how they suffered themselues to be led with outward appearances: Malè vos parietum amor cepit; malè ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedificiis que veneramini; malè sub his pacis nomen ingeritis; anne ambigu •… m est inijs Antichristum esse sessurum? montes mihi, & syluae, & lacus, & carceres, & voragines sunt tutiores, in his enim Prophetae manentes aut demersi prophet abant. It is not well, saith he, that you are in loue with walls, that you esteeme the Church in respect of houses and buildings, and in and vnder those shewes and outward appearances, pretend and vrge the name of peace: Is there any doubt of Antichristes sitting in these places? The Mountaines, the Woods, the Lakes, the prisons, the deepe pittes and deuouring gulfes, seeme to me more safe. For in these the Prophets either remaining, abiding, & making them their dwelling places, or as it were drowned and ouerwhelmed in them, prophesied in old time. And to this purpose it is that Aug. ep. 48. Chrisu temp ore, deficientibus in fide Apostolis, integra & omnino perfectissima fides in sola virgine Domini matre remansit: & Arrianae haereseos fervente persecutione Athanasius ferè solus pro Catholica fide agens inventus est. Francise. Picus Mirand Theorem. 13. Augustine writeth, most aptly distinguishing betweene the starres of heauen, and the sands of the sea, according to the number whereof God promised Abraham that his seed should be. Ecclesia aliquandò obscuratur, & tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum, sed etiam tunc insuis firmissimis eminet, qui sunt quasi stellae coeli in semine Abrahae, at multitudo illa carnalium & infirmorum fidelium, quae quasi arena maris est: aliquandò tranquillitate temporis, libera & quieta apparet, aliquandò autem tribulationum & tentationum fluctibus operitur, atque turbatur. The Church of God, saith he, sometimes is obscured, darkened, and as it were ouer-shadowed with the multitude of offences and scandals that are found in it, yet euen then doth it appeare and shew it self in those worthies of most strong and constant resolution, which are as the starres of heauen among those of Abrahams seede and posterity; but for the multitude of weake and carnall Christians, which is like to the sand on the sea shore, in peaceable times they are free, and quiet, but in dangerous times troubled, couered, and hidden with the waters, and raging waues of tribulation and temptation.

This and no other thing our Divines meant, that affirmed the Church to bee sometimes invisible, and therefore it is most true that Tom. 1. contr. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. Bellarmine noteth, that many of his companions haue taken much needlesse paine in proouing against vs the perpetuity of the Church, which (as he confesseth) none of vs euer denied; but it is as true that he also laboureth in vaine, in proouing that there is, and alwayes hath beene a visible Church, and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministery, or vse of Sacraments; for, all this we doe most willingly yeeld vnto, howsoeuer perhaps some few haue been of opinion, that though all others failing from the Faith, the trueth of GOD should remaine onely in some few of the Laitie, yet the promise of Christ concerning the perpetuitie of his Church, might still be verified.

This question was disputed by Dialog. l. 5. 1. part. c. 32. Occham, and Quaest. Vesperiatum de Re •… umpta. Cameracensis, long before our times, & who knoweth not that Canus lib. 4 c. 5. ostendit Turrecremat. & alios putas •… e in sola virgine fidem permansisse, idque significare dixisse candelam, quae 〈◊〉 corum dierum sola non extinguitur, vnde discipuli lumen quod amiserant receperunt. Idem Turrecremat. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . Summ •… cap. 16. 〈◊〉 , Apostolos omnes fuisse infideles tempore mortis Christi. vid. C •… ibidem. Cardinall Turrecremata, and other great Divines haue beene of opinion, that during the time that Christ was touching his body in the graue, all the Apostles being fallen from the Faith, the same continued in the blessed Virgin alone; but these disputes wee leaue to them that are delighted in them, resting in the assured and vndoubted perswasion of the truth of these things which wee haue deliuered touching the visibility, and invisibility of the Church; by which it may easily appeare, in what sense the Church may be said to be sometimes invisible, and how the same Church is at the same time, both visible and invisible in diuers respects.

CHAP. 11.

Of the divers titles of the Church, and how they are verified of it.

HAuing thus declared the diuerse considerations of the Church of God, and the different conditions of them that are of it; for our better directions, left we mistake and misapply those things that are spoken of it, we must further obserue that the names and titles giuen vnto it are of two sorts: for there are some that are verified of it in respect of the whole considered generally, and as it comrehendeth all those that; concurre in the same intire profession of heauenly verities, and outward meanes of saluation, though they be of very divers, different, and contrary condition; so it is named, 2 Tim. 2. 20. a great house, wherein there are vessels of honour and dishonour, in Phil. 3. 16. 17. which there are that walke according to the rule of Christianity and 1 Thes. 2. 12. worthy of God; and 2 Thes. 3. 11. others that walke inordinately. It is named Mat. 13. 25. a field, in which is wheate mingled with tares: It is a Mat. 3. 12. floore, in which there is wheate and chaffe: It is a Mat. 25. 2. company of Virgins attending the comming of the bridegrome, whereof some are wise, hauing oyle in their lampes, others foolish, hauing none: It is a Mat. 13. 47. net cast into the sea, that gathereth into it good fishes and bad. Non omnibus •… aequè conveniunt praeconia filiorum, sed vocabula summae laudis & excellentiae tituli, quamvis indistinctè per Scripturas de tota legantur Ecclesia, tamen de sola gloriosa parte ejus debent intelligi vt quod sit sponsa agni, quod sit civitas sancta Hierusalem, nova descendens decoelo, a Deo parata, &c. VValdens. lib. 2, art. 2. c. 11, Other names and titles there are, which are not verified of the Church considered generally in all her parts, but onely in respect of some parts, and those the best and principall; so it is named the Revel. 19. 7. spouse of Christ, and the wife of the Lambe, a 1 Pet. 2. 9. royall Priesthood, an holy nation, and a peculiar people, the Loue of Christ, all faire, vndefiled, and without spot, the onely Do •… , an orchard inclosed, a Well sealed vp, a fountaine of liuing water, a Paradise with all precious, delectable, and desireable fruit, and that nothing may be added to the honour of it: It is the mysticall body of Christ, which he doth animate, formalize, and quicken with his owne spirit: Distinguenda est Ecclesia Christi in sua latitudine à corpore Christi mystico propriè dicto. Inprimis enim etsi malus non sit membrum corporis Christi, in quo perpetuus est influxus, & participatio gratiae, vivum, operativum, adeoque reipsa vnivocè dictum, tamen ipsius Ecclesiae Christi, quae ut est corpus Christi in vno sensu propter internam gratiam, ita est domus magna Christi, est area & ager Dominicus in alio sensu propter externam collectionem, professionem, & societatem per Sacramenta: hujus inquam Ecclesiae in hoe sensu, qui-etiam verus & proprius est, verè & proprie membrum est. Stapleton Contro. 1. q. 2. art. 1: notab. 5. Ad vnionem corporis mystici siue Ecclesiae nunquam propriè pertinent existentes in peccato mortali, tamen refert dicere vnitatem Ecclesiae, et corporis Ecclesiae. In vnitate Ecclesiae sunt boni & mali, vnitas verò corporis Ecclesiae non est nisi per fidem Charitate formatam. Alexan. de Hales part. 3. q. 12. memb. 3. artic. 3. Hieron. Non audeo 〈◊〉 peccatores & gehennae reos negare m •… bra magni corporis Christi, & grandis Ecclesiae speciosae, & fuscae, quos Apostolus dicit: Cum to o •… es in vno spiritu baptizatos, vt vnum corpus efficerentur in Christo & membra de membro, nec tamen •… io introducere eos in Ecclesiam Electorum quam dicit Apostolus gloriosam vt membra cjus, quamvis inter eos corporaliter habitent: sed vt mali humores, non vt membra in corpore minus sano, & August. Tom. 9. Quidam sic sunt in corpore Domini vt membra in non sano, quidam vt humores mali: Corpus non plenè curatur nisi istos evomuerit, exierunt ex me humores isti, sed non erant ex me. Non sunt ergo membra in Christi corpore glorioso, qui forsan in Christi corpore magno illo regno coelorum sunt membra. VValdens •… lib. 2. artic. 2. cap. 11. haec verba. Hieron. & Aug. citat. Augustinus de doctrina Christia •… lib. 3. cap. 32. negat esse de corpore Christi qui cum illo non erunt in aeternum: fatetur tamen esse in Ecclesia, ideo •… e Ecclesiam vocari posse permixtam, non autem corpus Christi permixtum 〈◊〉 bip •… titum. Stapleton Relect. Cont. 1. q. 2. art. 1. notab. 5. of this body the wicked are not members, though they bee members of the body of the Church generally considered. It is therefore 〈◊〉 vaine dispute betweene them that say, they are members of the mysticall body of Christ, though not liuing members, and them that say, they are parts, but not members: For they are neither parts, nor members, of the mysticall body of Christ, Cantic. 1. 2, &c. though they be both in respect of the body of the Church considered generally. And it is false that De Ecclesia militante lib. 3. cap. 2. Bellarmine affirmeth, that we require inward qualities to make a man to be of the Church, thereby making it vnknowen, who are that Church, to whose authoritie and direction the Lord commandeth vs to submit our selues. For we doe not require inward qualities in a man, before hee can be at all of the Church; but before hee can bee fully, & of the mysticall bodie of Christ. We say therefore that all they are of the Church that outwardly hold the faith of Christ; and that that society wherein the sincere outward professi •… of the truth of God is preserued, is that true Church of God, whose comm •… on we must imbrace; that happy mother, in whose wombe we are conceiu •… , with whose milke we are nourished, & to whose censures we must submit our selues. And so it is vntrue that the same Bellarmine imputeth vnto vs, charging vs that we affirme that none of the priviledges, which Christ hath bestowed on his Church, do pertaine to the Church generally considered, but only to that more speciall nūber of the elect of God, who cōmunicate in the benefits of effectual & sauing grace; which who they are is known to none, but God only. For though we know they were all granted for their sakes, & do benefit them only, yet we say not that they pertaine only vnto them. For whereas there are 4 sorts of things pertaining and belonging to the Church, to wit; First, the promises of euerlasting loue & mercie; secondly, the knowledge of God, and meanes of saluation; thirdly, the ministery and dispensation of the word and sacraments; and fourthly, the performance of such duties as God requireth; The first sort of things pertaine onely to the more speciall number of the elect of God; the second to the whole multitude of Christians in generall; the third, to such as are lawfully called thereunto; the fourth, if they be generall duties, pertaine to all; if speciall, to speciall degrees and sorts of men in the Church, according to their severall differences. Thus then wee see the divers considerations of the Church, and the different condition of them that doe pertaine to it, & of whom it doth consist; notwithstanding all which differences, for that they all concurre in the same holy profession, and vse of the same happy meanes of saluation, they make one holy Catholicke Church, in which onely the light of heauenly trueth is to be sought, where only grace, mercie, remission of sinnes, and hope of eternall happinesse are found. Lactantius l. 4. cap. vltimo divinarum institut. Sola Catholica Ecclesia est quae verum Dei cultum retinet; hic autem est fons veritatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc templum Dei, quod si quis non intrauerit, vel à quo si quis exierit, à spe vitae ac salutis aeternae alienus est. It is only the Catholicke Church that hath the true worship and seruice of God; this is the welspring of trueth, the dwelling place of faith, the temple of God, into which whoso entreth not, and from which whoso departeth, is without all hope of life and eternall saluation.

CHAP. 12.

Of the diuers sorts of them that haue not yet entred into the Church.

THey that haue not entred into this societie are of two sorts; Infidels and Catechumens; that is, infidels, and such as, though they be beleeuers, are not yet baptized. The former are without, of whom the Apostle speaketh when hee pronounceth, that hee hath nothing to doe to iudge them that are without. The latter, for that they make profession of the trueth of God, and with longing desires thirst after the full enjoying of the blessed communion of the Saints of God, wishing for nothing more then by baptisme to be admitted into the family of Christ, and houshold of faith, are in vestibulo pietatis as Nazanzen. Orat. 〈◊〉 in sanctum Bapt •… ma. Nazianzen noteth, and are like children formed and fashioned in the wombe and come to the birth, though not yet brought foorth.

Ioh. de Turrecremata in summa de ecsia. l. 1. cap. 8. ad arg. 8. & post cum Bannes in secundam secundae q. 1. art. 10 docent Catechumenos non numero sed merito •… e de ecclesia, quod verum esse posse vt Ecclesia est corpus Christi mysticum, agnoscit Stapleton. Contro. 1. q. 2. art. 2. And therefore the constant resolution almost of all Diuines is, and hath beene, that if without contempt and neglect, by any vnauoidable impediment, they bee hindered from enjoying the benefite of this sacramentall assurance of their adoption, they doe, notwithstanding the want thereof, liue and die in the state of saluation. These therefore are within, as the Apostle speaketh, though not by that solemne, outward, and sacrament •… admission which they doe desire, yet in desire, purpose and preparation fitting them vnto it, which is so farre forth necessarie to, saluation, that no man euer was, or shall be saued, that either wilfully neglected or contemned the same.

And therefore it is not without great cause, that Nazianzen in the place aboue mentioned taxeth the folly of some in his time, who for that they knew the greatnesse of the benefit of grace which is receiued in baptisme, which, by no other meanes in so full and ample sort is bestowed on the sc •… nes of men, lest, by the euils they might through humane frailtie easily runne into, they should fall from it, which could not in the same degree and measure be recouered againe, deferred and put off their baptisme as long as they could, so that Nazienzenus Orat. in sanctum baptisma, & Nicetas in Commentarijs negant eos, qui vel per ignorantiam vel per tyranni dem à Baptismo exciderunt, coelesti gloriâ aut supplicijs á iusto indice afficiendos esse, nec ad vim Baptismi obtinendam ipsius cupid •… ate teneri satis esse censent. some were lifted vp to Bishops chaires, before by baptisme they had set one foote within the doores of the house of God: not considering, as he wisely obserueth, that while they sought so providently to auoide the danger of loosing the benefits once receiued in Baptisme, they did runne into as great or greater danger, neuer to receiue the same: And that, if the feare of loosing the benefite of the grace of Baptisme once receiued may cause vs iustly to deferre the seeking and obtaining of it, we may with as good reason deferre and put off to be Christians at all, lest happily in time of persecution and triall we might fall away. This was the fault of sundry in the Primitiue Church; and which was yet more to be condemned, many did therefore differre and put off their Baptisme, that so whatsoeuer evill things they did in the meane time, might in that Lauer of new birth be washed away, thereby taking greater liberty to offend, for that they had so present meanes of full remission, and perfect reconciliation; so making that which was ordained against sinne, and for the weakening and ouerthrow of it, to be an encouragement thereunto, and to giue life and strength vnto it.

Seeing therefore wee are but in vestibulo pietatis, while we remaine vnbaptized, and our feete stand but in the outward courts of the Lord of hostes, wee must not rest till we enter into his holy habitation, till wee may looke into the holiest, of all, and behold his glorious presence in the middest of his Saints. d In vità Ambrosij à Paulino Presbytero ad beatū Aug. conscriptâ.

CHAP 13.

Of the first sort of them, that, after their admission into the Church of God, doe voluntarily depart and goe out from the same.

THey which, after their entrance and admission into the house of God, depart and goe out againe, are of two sorts; For either they depart of themselues, leauing the fellowship and forsaking the faith, as Schismatikes, and Heretikes; or else they are cast out by the censures of the guides of the Church, for their wicked, vngodly, and scandalous conuersation, as excommunicate persons, and such as are enjoyned publike penance.

Concerning the first sort, Inter haeresim & schisma hoc intere s •… e arbitrantur qd heresis peruersum dogma habeat, schis •… propter episcopalem dissensionem ab Ecclesia separetur. Quod quidem in principio aliqua ex parte intelligi potest. Caeterum nullum schisma non sibi aliquam confingit haeresim vt rectè ab Ecclesia recessisse videatur. Hiero in 3. ad Ti •… . Schismatikes are they that breake the vnitie of the Church, and refuse to submit themselues, and yeeld obedience to their lawfull Pastours and guides, though they retaine an entire profession of the trueth of God; as did the Luciferians & some others in the beginning of their Schisme, though for the most part the better to justifie their Schismaticall departure from the rest of Gods people, Schismatikes doe fall into some errour in matters of faith. This is the first sort of them that depart and goe out from the Church of God, and company of his people, whose departure yet is not such, but that notwithstanding their Schisme, they are and remaine parts of the Church of God. For whereas in the Church of God is found an entire profession of the sauing trueth of God, order of holy Ministery, Sacraments by vertue thereof administred, and a blessed vnitie and fellowship of the people of God, knit together in the bond of peace, vnder the commaund of lawfull Pastours and guides, set over them to direct them in the wayes of eternall happinesse; Schismatikes, notwithstanding their separation, remaine still conioyned with the rest of Gods people in respect of the profession of the whole sauing trueth of God, all outward actes of Religion and Diuine worship, power of order, and holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer, and so still are and remaine parts of the Church of God: but, as their communion and coniunction with the rest of Gods people, is in some things onely, and not absolutely in all, wherein they haue and ought to haue fellowship; so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church, nor of that more speciall number of them, that communicate intirely and absolutely in all things necessary, in which sense they are rightly denied to be of the Church; which I take to be their meaning that say they are not of the Church.

CHAP. 14.

Of the second sort of them that voluntarily goe out from the people of God.

HEretikes are they that obstinately persist in error contrary to the Churches faith; so that these doe not onely forsake the fellowship but the faith also; and therefore of these there may be more question, whether, notwithstanding their hereticall division, they still continue in any sort parts of the Church of God. But this doubt in my opinion is easily resolued. Propter characterem Baptismalem haereticus quadátenus ad militantem Ecclesiam pert •… et: vnde recedens à fide non dimittitur vt pa ganus, sed punitur vt transfuga: Reconciliatus non de nouo initiatur vt pro •… sus alienus, sed reparatione aliquâ fact •… ad militiam sine novo sacramento recipitur. Stapleton Contr. 1. de Ecclesia in se, q,2. art. 3. notabil. 3. For in respect of the profession of sundry diuine verities, which still they retaine in common with right beleeuers, in respect of the power of order, and degree of ministery, which receiuing in the Church they carry out with them, and sacraments which by vertue thereof they doe administer, they still pertain to the Church. But for that they hold not an entire & full professiō of all such sauing trueths, as to know and beleeue is necessary vnto saluation, Potest dici quod potestas 4 ex reperitur in ministris Ecclesiae. Q •… aedam namque est funda •… super ordinem principaliter, vt potestas conficiendi quaedam supra iurisdictionem Canonicam p •… ncipaliter, vt potestas Excomunicandi: quaedam supra ordinem & eminentiam, vt potestas ordinandi: quaedam supra ordinem & iurisdictionem, vt potestas absolvendi & ligandi in foro paenitentiae: & quoniam character auferri non potest ideo potestas, quae consequitur characterem de facto, auferri non potest. sed quoniam iurisdictio descendit ordinate à superiore, potest auferri: vnde potest auferri potestas absolvendi & excommunicandi sed non ordinandi. Bonavent. lib. 4. distinct. 25. q. 2. for that their Pastours and Priests, though they haue power of order, yet haue no power of jurisdiction, neither can performe any acte thereof, for that they retaine not the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace, they are rightly denied to be of the Church: not for that they are not in any sort of it, but for that they are not fully and absolutely of it, nor of that more speciall number of them, which communicate in all things wherein Christians should. This more speciall number of right beleeuing Christians, is, for distinction sake, rightly named the Catholike Church, because it consisteth of them only, that without addition, diminution, alteration, or innouation, in matter of doctrine, hold the common faith once deliuered to the Saints, and without all particular or priuate diuision or faction, retaine the vnitie of the spirit in the bond of peace.

Aug. de Baptismo contra Donatistas l. 5. c. 27. 28. ostendit ab Ecclesiâ in suis perfectissis membris confideratâ, & secundum vnitatem cum Christo coniunctissim •… , non secus separari & extra •… lam esse impio •… : quam apertè per haerisim praeciso •… . Stapl. Contro. 1. q. 2. art. 1. ad 4. To this purpose is it that Saint Augustine against the Donatists, (who therefore denied the baptisme of Heretikes to be true Baptisme, and did vrge the necessity of rebaptizing them that were baptized by them, for that they are out of the Church) doth shew that all wicked ones, feined Christians, and false hearted hypocrites, are secluded from the Church of God, considered in her best and principall parts, and in the highest degree of vnitie with Christ her mysticall head, aswell as •… retikes and Schismatikes. As therefore all they that outwardly professe the trueth, and hold the faith of Christ, without schisme or heresie, are of the Church, and are within as the Scripture speaketh, Ex illis omnibus qui ( •… t ita dicam) intrinsecus & in occulto intus sunt, constat ille 〈◊〉 conclusus, fons signatus, puteus aquae vi •… ae, paradisus cum fructu pomorum. Aug. lib. 6. de Baptismo contra Donatist. cap. 27. yet are not all ofthat more speciall number of them that are intrinsecus & in occulto intus, but in more generall sort: So likewise Heretikes and Schismatikes, though they be not of that speciall number of them that in vnity hold the entire profession of diuine trueth, are of the Church generally considered, and of the number of them that professe the trueth of God reuealed in Christ. And this surely Augustine most clearely deliuereth.

For when the Donatists did obiect that Heresie is an harlot, and that, if the baptisme of Heretikes bee good, sonnes are borne to God of heresie, and so of an harlot, than which, what can be more absurde, & impious; De Baptis. cont. Donatist. lib. 1. cap. 10. Vna est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur, & quicquid suum habet in communionibus diuersorum, à sua vnitate separatis, per hoc quod suum in ijs habet ipsa vti que generat, non ille. Et lib. 1. cap. 1. Isti in quibusdam rebus nobiscum sunt, in quibusdam à nobis exierunt. Et l. 1. c. 〈◊〉 . Quiseipsos à societate caeterorum separantes charitate violatâ, vnitatis vinculum 〈◊〉 , si non •… ulla eadem 〈◊〉 non se in ijs separave •… t, & ex ea parte in texturae compage detin •… ur in caeterâ 〈◊〉 . Proinde si quem sociaverint sibi, ex eâ parte 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae, in quâ nec illi seperati sunt. his answere was, that the conuenticles of Heretikes doe beare children vnto God, not in that they are diuided, but in that they still remaine conjoyned with the true and Catholike Church; not in that they are Heretikes, but in that they professe and practise that, which Christians should, and doe professe and practise.

It is not therefore to be so scornefully rejected by Bellarmine, Stapleton, and others of that faction, that we affirme that both Heretikes and Schismatikes are in some sort, though not fully, perfectly, and with hope of saluation, of the Church; seeing Augustine, in the iust and honourable defence of the Churches cause against Heretikes, did long since affirme the same, not doubting to say, that Heretikes remaine in such sort conioyned to the Church, notwithstanding their Heresie that the true Church in the midst ofthem, and in their assemblies by Baptisme ministred by them, doth beare and bring forth children vnto God. The not conceiuing whereof gaue occasion to Cyprian and the African Bishops, of errour, and afterwards to the Donatists of their heresie, touching the rebaptization of them that were baptized by Heretikes. For seeing there is but •… e Lord, one faith, one Baptisme, seeing God gaue the power of the keyes, and the dispensation of his word and sacraments onely to his Church, if Heretikes bee not of the Church, they doe not baptise.

This their allegation they amplified and enlarged from the nature and condition of heresie and Heretickes, and the high pretious and diuine qualitie, force, and working of the sacraments; thereby endeauouring to shew, that so excellent meanes, pledges, and assurances of our saluation cannot be giuen by the hands of men so farre estranged from God. Concilium Carthaginense hebetur inter opera Cypriani. There is, say they, one faith, one hope, one Baptisme, not among heretikes, where there is no hope, and a false faith where all things are done in lying, false, and deceiueable maner, where he adiureth Sathan, that is the vassall of Sathan, and possessed of the diuell. Hee proposeth the sacramentall demaunds and wordes of holy stipulation, whose mouth & wordes send forth a canker; He giueth the faith, that is himselfe an infidell; Hee giueth remission of sinnes, that is himselfe most wicked and sinfull; Antichrist baptizeth in the name of Christ; he blesseth, that is himselfe accursed of God; hee promiseth life, that is, himselfe dead; he giueth peace, that is himselfe an enimy to peace, he calleth on the name of God, that is a blasphemer of God; he administreth and executeth the holy office of Priesthood, that is profane; he prepareth, furnisheth, and attendeth the Altar of God, that is a sacrilegious person. All which objections, howsoeuer carrying a faire shew at the first sight and view, yet are most easily answered, if wee consider, that heretikes, notwithstanding their heresies, doe in some sort still pertaine to the Church, and so consequently haue that degree, order, office, ministerie, and calling which is holy, by vertue whereof they doe administer the holy Sacraments; euen as in the true and Catholique Church, many wicked ones are found, that are no lesse the vassals of Sathan, and possessed of the diuell, dead in sinne, accursed of God, profane, sacrilegious, and enemies of peace, than heretikes and •… hismatikes, who yet for that they haue that order, office, and degree of ministerie, which is holy, doe no lesse, nor with lesse effect, administer the holy Sacraments, than they that are the samplers of all sanctitie, pietie and vertue.

Bonaventur. lib. 4. distinct. 13. qu. 1. Whereupon the schoolemen rightly note, that there are foure sorts of Ministers, to wit, good; secretly bad, openly and apparantly wicked, but not put from their office and place, nor cast out of the Church; and lastly such as are depriued of their office, and dignitie, and remoued from the happie fellowship of right beleeuers. The first administer the Sacraments with benefite, profit, and good to themselues & others. The second with benefit to others but not to thē selues. The third with hurt to themselues and scandall to others, but yet to the euelasting good of them that receiue them, if the fault be not in themselues. The fourth administer those Sacraments that are holy, & in their owne nature the meanes, pledges, & assurances of saluation, but without any benefit to thēselues, or others, because they are in diuision and schisme: Si quis ad Haereticos aut Schismaticos reiectus ab Ecclesiâ transeat, & si occilus propter nomen Domini postmodum fuerit extra Ecclesiam constitutus, & ab vnitate atque charitate diui •… corona •… in morte non potest. Cyprian. lib. 4. epist. 2. Whereas nothing, though neuer so good & excellent, is aualeable to their good, that are out of the vnitie, the people of God should haue among themselues. 1. Cor. 13. 3. If I giue my body to be burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing, saith the Apostle.

CHAP. 15.

Of them whom the Church casteth out by excommunication.

HItherto we haue treated of such, as, being once of the Church, of themselues goe out from the companie of right beleeuers, by schisme, or heresie. Now it remaineth to speake of them whom the Church casteth out by excommunication. Excommunication is that sentence of the Church, whereby shee ejecteth and casteth out wicked sinners out of her communion. Which communion what it is, and wherein it consisteth, that we may the better vnderstand, wee must obserue, that communion is sometimes taken for hauing the same things in common, and sometimes for mutuall doing and receiuing good to and from each other. In the former sense the communion of the Church is of two sorts; outward and inward. The outward consisteth in those things, which all they that are of the Church haue in common, as the profession of the trueth reuealed in Christ, and the Character of Baptisme, which as a note distinctiue separateth Christians from Infidels and vnbeleeuers. The inward consisteth in those things, which only the best parts of the Church haue in common, as faith, hope, loue and the like.

The Communion of the Church in the later sense consisteth in a mutuall and enterchangeable course of action, whereby the parts thereof doe and receiue good to and from one another, one supplying the want and defect of another. This is of two sorts: Publike and private. The publike consisteth, first in the prayers which the Church powreth foorth for euerie the least and most contemptible member thereof; thereby obtayning of God, the giuing, supply, and continuance of all necessary good, ioyned with a most happie protection keeping them from falling into those evils they are subiect vnto; Secondly in the dispensation of Sacraments by the hands of her Ministers: Private, in mutuall conuersation of one man with another.

Non ita eijcitur fidelis ab Ecclesiâ per excommunicationem, quin illi maneat subiectus ratione characteris & vnitus per fidem si alioqui illi non amittit; sed solum privatur dicto iure morali ad vtendum ecclesiasticâ communicatione & participatione. Suarez tom. 5. disp. 8. sectione 1. Quomodo excommunicatus privatur suffragijs ecclesiae, idem ostendit in eodem tomo, disp. 9. secti. 3. 4. 5. Excommunication doth not depriue the Excommunicate, of the former kinde of communion. For, euerie sentence of excommunication is either iust, or vniust. If it be vniust, they may still retaine all those things which the best parts of the Church haue inward or outward, as sometimes it falleth out through the prevailing of factious, seditious, and turbulent men, that the best men are vniustly and vndeseruedly cast out of the true Church, as Aug. de verâ religione. c. 6. Austine noteth; who though they neuer be permitted to returne againe and reenter, yet if they continue without gathering any conuenticles, or broaching of heresies, and still loue, professe, and seeke to promote what in them lyeth, the trueth of God which is holden and professed in the Church of God, from the assemblies whereof they are vniustly excluded and banished, who dare denie them to be of the Church? And therefore Bell. 1. Tom. 4. contro, lib. 3. cap. 6. Bellarmine himselfe, though he make shew as if he meant to proue that excommunicate persons are not of the Church, as he endeuoureth to doe that Heretikes and Schismatikes are not, yet hee altereth the matter cleane, and saith only they are not in the Church, corpore & externâ communicatione, as if hee would only proue that they are excluded from the meetings and assemblies of the Church, and conuersing with the people of God. There is therefore no doubt but that they are of the Church, and that, if they patiently endure these indignities, iniuries and wrongs, they shall be highly rewarded of Almighty GOD: but, saith Bellarmine, they are not of the Church corporally, and in outward Communion; then which, what could be more friuolously spoken? For who maketh any doubt, but that they are thrust out of the assemblies, so that they may not be bodily present when the people of God doe meete together, to performe the acts of diuine worship; but that therefore they are not properly of the visible Church, who that advisedly considereth what he saith, would ever say? Seeing they haue still the communion, which onely is essentiall and maketh a man to be of the Church, in that they haue all those things, both inward & outward, which the best among them that remaine not eiected haue, as faith, hope, loue, and profession of the whole truth of God, the character of baptisme, obedient and humble submission to their lawfull superiors; which things and no other are required to make a man to be of the Church. For, the performance of holy duties is an action of them that are already of the Church, and doth not make a man to be of the Church. Yea the performance of these duties is a thing of that nature, that by violence and the vniust courses holden by wicked men, wee may be hindred from it without any fault of ours.

If the sentence of excommunication be iust, yet it doth not cut the excommunicate off from the mysticall body of Christ, but doth presuppose that they haue already cut off themselues, or that, if this sentence being duely and aduisedly pronounced make th •… not relent, but that still they hold out against it, they will cut off themselues and depriue themselues of all inward grace and vertue. From the visible Church of Christ it doth not wholly cut them off for they may and often doe retaine the entire profession of sauing trueth, together with the Character of Baptisme, which is the marke of Christianitie, and so farre forth notwithstanding their disobedience still acknowledge them to be their lawfull pastours and guides, by whose sentence they are excommunicate, that they would rather endure and suffer any thing, thē schismatically ioyne themselues to any other communion. It doth therefore onely cut them off, from communicating with the Church in the performance of holy duties, and depriue them of those comforts which by communicating in the sacraments, &c. they might haue enioyed.

This excōmunicatiō is of two sorts; the greater and the lesser. The greater putteth the excōmunicate frō the sacrament of the Lords body & blood, & depriueth them of all that cōfort and strength of grace, which from it they might receiue, it denieth to thē the benefit of the Churches publick prayers, & so leaueth thē to thēselues as forelorn & miserable wretches, without that assistāce, presence, & protection which frō God she obtaineth for her obedient children. Whence it is, that they are said to be deliuered vnto Sathan, because they are left (naked, & void of all meanes to make resistance) vnto his will & pleasure: & as if this were not enough, they are denied that solace which they might finde in the company and conversation of the people of God; who now doe no lesse flye from them, than in olde time they did from the Lepers, who cryed, I am vncleane, I am vncleane. The lesser excommunication excludeth onely from the Sacramentall pledges, and assurances of Gods loue, which, when it is pronounced against them that stubbornely stand out, and will not yeeld themselues to the Churches direction & disposition, is properly named excommunication; but when it is pronounced against them that yeeld when they haue offended, and seeke the blessed remedies of the euils they haue committed, it is not so properly named excommunication, but it is an act of the discipline of repentance, and of that power and authority which Christ left vnto his Church, whereby shee imposeth and prescribeth to her obedient children, when they haue offended, such courses of penitency, whereby they may obtaine remission of their sinnes, and recouer the former estate from which they are fallen.

CHAP. 16.

Of the errours that are and haue beene, touching the vse of the discipline of the Church, in punishing offenders.

TOuching this discipline of repentance and power of the Church in ordering offenders, and the vse thereof, there are, and haue beene sundry both errours and heresies. The first of the Pelagians in former times, & the Anabaptists in our times, who for euery the least imperfectiō cast men out of their societies, denying that any are or can be in, or of the Church, in whom the least imperfection is found. Which if it were true, there should be no Church in the world; all men being subject to sinne and sinfull imperfection, that either are or haue beene. For it is a vaine dispute of the Pelagians, whether a man may be without sinne or not; whereof see that which Aug. de perfect. just. cont. Coelestinum. Augustine and Hier. cont. Pelagianos. Hierom haue written against the madnesse and folly of those men. e Aug lib. de perfect. justit.

For confirmation of their errour touching absolute perfection, they alleage that of the Chap. 4 7. Canticles, Thou art all faire my Loue, and there is no spot in thee: And that of the Apostle to the Chap. 5, 25. 26. 27. Ephesians; that Christ gaue himselfe for his Church, that he might make it to himselfe a glorious Church, not hauing spot or wrinkle, but that it should be holy, and without blame. For answere wherevnto, first we must remember that which formerly was obserued, to wit, that sundry glorious titles are giuen to the Church, which agree not to the whole totally considered, but to some parts onely; so it is said to be faire, glorious, and without spot or wrinkle, not for that all or the most part of them that are of the Church are so, but because the best and principall parts are so; and for that the end, intent, and purpose of the gift of grace giuen to the Church is to make all to be so, if the fault be not in themselues. Secondly, we must obserue that there is a double perfection, purity, and beauty of the Church without spot or wrinkle, to wit, absolute; and according to the state of this life. The first is not found in any among the sonnes of men, while they are clothed with the body of death. And therefore if we speake of that absolute purity, and perfection, the Church is said to be pure, all faire, and to haue no spot or wrinkle, Hoc ag •… tur vtique in hoc seculo, vtad istam quam omnes sancti cupiunt immaculatissimam puritatem Ecclesia sancta perveniat, quae in fururo seculo neque aliquo malorum hominum permixto, neque aliqua in se leg •… peccati resistente •… egimentis, ducat mundis •… imam vitam in 〈◊〉 divina. Aug. cont. Pelag de natura & gratia c. 63. not for that actually, and presently it is so, but for that it is prepared to be so hereafter, as Augustine fitly •… teth. The second kinde of purity, which is not absolute, but according to the state of this life, consisteth herein, that all sinnes are avoyded, or repented of, and in Christ forgiuen, and his righteousnesse imputed. In this sense the Church is now presently pure, and vndefiled, and yet not free from all sinfull imperfection, as the Pelagians and Anabaptists vainely and fondly imagine, contrary to all experience, and the wordes of the Apostle, If wee say wee haue no sin, we deceiue our selues, and there is no trueth in vs.

The second errour, touching the power of the Church in the ordering of sinners, and the vse thereof, was that of the Miror quo •… dam sie obstinatos esse vt dandam non pu •… ent lapsis poenitentiam Cypr. l. 4. epist. 2. in e •… dem episto. oftendit Novatianos moechis, & fraudatoribus communicare qui libellaticis & sacrificatis deteriores sunt. Novatus refused onely to communicate with idolators: the Novatians exclude men from the communion for other sins, referring vnto God alone the power of remitting them Socrates. lib. 7. cap. 25. Novatians, who refused to reconcile, and restore to the Churches peace, such as grievously offended, but left them to the iudgment of God, without all that comfort which the sacraments of grace might yeeld vnto them; and if any fell in time of persecution, and denied the faith, how great and vnfained soever their repentance seemed to bee, they suffered them not to haue any place in the Church of God. The third of certaine of whom Apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pace •… m •… chis non putaverunt, & in totum poenitentiae locū contra adulteria clauserunt: non tamen á Coepiscoporum collegio recesserunt Cypr. in eadem epist. Cyprian speaketh, that would not reconcile nor restore to the Churches peace, such as foradultery were cast out.

The fourth, of the Plusquam quadraginta anni sunt inter Cypriani passionem & divinorum codicum exustionem: vnde isti calumniarum suarum fumos iactantes occasionem faciendi schismatis invenerunt. Aug. lib. 5. de Bapt contra Donatistas. cap. 1. Donatistes, who would not receiue, into the lap & bosome of the Church, such as hauing in time of persecution, to saue their owne liues, deliuered the bookes and other holy things into the hands of the persecutors, did afterwards repent of that they had done, and with teares of repentant greefe seeke to recouer their former standing in the Church of God againe; yea they proceeded so farre in this their violent and passionate zeale, that they abandoned the societie of them that did, held them not Christians, and rebaptised them which came from them, to their pretended purer societies.

The fift of the Hiero. contra Luciferianos. Luciferians, who received men returning from heresie to the Catholique faith, without rebaptization, and enioyned them penitence, & gaue them imposition of hands. But Bishops that had beene drawne into heresie, they would not admitte, vnlesse they forsooke their office and ministerie: against these, Hierom writeth his booke against the Luciferians. All these did erre, vrging overmuch the Church discipline in casting off the wicked, and not admitting the vnworthy, to her happie fellowshippe.

CHAP. 17.

Of the considerations moouing the Church, to vse indulgence towardes offenders.

BVt the true Church admitteth and receiveth all, that with sorrowfull repentance returne and seeke reconciliation, how great soever their offences haue beene: not forgetting to vse due severitie, which yet shee sometime remitteth, either vpon due consideration, or of negligence. The due and iust consideration moouing the Church to remitte something of her wonted severitie, is either priuate, or publique perill. Private, as when the partie beeing of a tender, timorous, and relenting disposition, if hee bee proceeded with rigorously, is in daunger to fall into despaire, or to bee swallowed vppe with ouermuch sorrow. In this case the Cor. 2. 8. 9. 10. Apostle, hauing excommunicated the incestuous Corinthian, writeth to the Church of Corinth, speedily to receiue him againe, least hee should be swallowed vp with overmuch griefe: and in this sorte the auncient Bishoppes were wont to cut off great parts of enioyned penance; which remission and relaxation, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 was called an indulgence. Caietan 〈◊〉 puscu. tom. 1. tractat. 15. c. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Quid •… distinguences forum Dei, & forum Ecclesiae, dixerunt relaxationes non fieri nec intelligi quantum ad forum Dei, sed quantum ad forum Ecclesiae: hoc au tem sic intelligunt: sacri canones promortalibus peccatis graves, & diuturnas poenitentias quas pa •… ci facere volunt, taxant, & ideirco constituerunt relaxationes aliquando fieri. Bonaventura lib. 4. dist. 20. quest. 2. aliam ipse sequitur opinionem. Out of the not vnderstanding whereof, grew the popish pardons, and indulgences. Publike perill is then, when the multitude, authority, and prevailing of the offenders is so great, as that if they be cut off, and separated from the rest, a schisme may iustly bee feared, without hope of any good to be effected thereby; in this case there is iust cause why the Church forbeareth to proceede to excommunication. Si contagio peccandi multitudinem inuaserit, consilia sepe rationis & inania sunt & pernitiola, atque sacrilega, quia et impia & superba sunt, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos quàm corrigunt animosos malos. Aug. con. Epist. Patmeniani. l. 3. cap. 2. For whereas the end of excommunication is, that evill doers being put from the company of right beleeuing Christians, and forsaken of all, may be made ashamed of their evill doing, and so brought to repentance, this cannot be looked for, when the multitude of offenders hath taken away all shame.

These are the due and iust motiues, which cause the Church sometimes to forbeare to punish with that extremitie, which the qualitie and condition of the offenders fault may seeme to require. But sometimes of negligence, not led by any of these considerations, shee omitteth the due correction of such as haue offended God and scandalized his people. So the 1. Cor. 5. 1. 2. Corinthians before the Apostles Letter written vnto them, suffered an incestuous person, & seemed not much to be mooued with so vile a scandall. And the like negligence is often found in the Churches of God, which notwithstanding their fault in this behalfe continue the true Churches of God still; Auferte, inquit, maulm ex vobis; vt si fortè non possent auferre malos à congregatione suâ auferendo malum ex seipsis, id est, non cum ipsis peccando, nec ijs ad peccandum consentiendo, aut fauendo, integerrimi inter eos & incorruptissimi versarentur. Aug. lib. 3. cont. epist. Parmeniani cap. 1. and priuate men may communicate with them that through the Churches negligence are thus tolerated and suffered, and that both in publique actes of religion, and priuate conuersation, without being partakers of their sinnes, if they neither doe the same things, nor approue, like, and applaud them that doe, and if they neglect not by all good meanes, to seeke their correction and amendment.

CHAP. 18.

Of their damnable pride, who condemne all those Churches wherein want of due execution of discipline, and imperfections of men are found.

THere are and haue beene alwayes some, who possessed with a false opinion of absolute sanctitie, and spotlesse righteousnesse, reiect the societies and companies of them in whom any imperfection may be found; which was the furious zeale of the Pelagians in old time, and the Anabaptists in our time. Others there are, which, though they proceede not so farre, yet denie those societies of Christians to be the true Churches of God, wherein the seueritie of discipline is so farre neglected, that wicked men are suffered, and tolerated without due and condigne punishment. These, while they seeme to hate the wicked, and flie from their companie for feare of contagion, doe schismatically rent, and inconsiderately diuide themselues from the bodie of Gods Church, and forsake the fellowship of the good, through immoderate hate of the wicked. Both these doe dangerously and damnably erre; the first in that they dreame of heauenly perfection to be found amongst men on earth, whē as contrariwise the Prophet Esay, 64. 6. Nostra si qua est, humilis iustitia, recta for sitan, sed non pura, nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus quàm patres nostros, qui non minus veraciter quàm humiliter aiebant, omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris. Bernard de verbis Esaiae sermo 5. hinc afflictus Iob. verebar omnia opera mea, ait Deo: & iterum, si volueris contendere mecum, non potero respondete vnum pro mille: cui conformis est oratio prophetica, non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo: & rursus, si ini quitates observaueris &c. Porrò quod Esaias se cum caeteris inuoluens, fibique vilescens humili confessione protulerit, legimus, omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstiuatae; quis igitur iustitias suas velut gloriabundus ostentavetit Deo plusquam pannum confusionis suae mulier viro Gers. de consol. theolog. l. 4. pros. 1. Esay pronounceth, that all our righteousnesse is like the polluted and filthy ragges of a menstruous woman. And b David desireth of 〈◊〉 Aug. in Psal. 142. in illa verba non iustificabitur omnis viuens, sic habet: forte iustificare potest se cosam se, non coram te: quomodo coram se? sibi placens, tibi displicens: noli ergo intrate mecum in iudicium Domine, quantumlibet rectus mihi videar: producis tu de the sauro tuo regulam coaptas me ad eam, & prauus inuenior: ad te cum respitio te nihil aliud meum quàm peccatum inue nio: nolo tecum habere causam, vt Ego propo. nam iust tiammeam, tu con vincas iniquitatem meam: commemorate iustitias vestras, ego novi facinora vestra, inquit Dominus. Aug. conf •… li 9. c. 13. Almighty God, that he will not enter into iudgement with him, for that in his sight no flesh shall be iustified: And Augustine denounceth a woe against our greatest perfections, if God doe straitly looke vpon them. The later, though they doe not require absolute and spotlesse perfection in them that are in and of the Church, yet thinke it not possible that any wicked ones should bee, found in so happie & blessed a societie: not remembring that the Church of God is compared to Math. 13. 47. a Nette, that gathereth into it all sorts of fishes great and small, good and badde, which are not separated one from another, till they be cast out vpon the shore; that it is like a Math. 13. 24 25. field sowen with good seede, wherein the enuious man soweth tares; like a Math. 3. 12. floore wherein wheate and chaffe are mingled together; like the Genesis 7. 13. Arke of Noah, wherein cursed CHAM was aswell preserued from drowning as blessed SEM.

But they will say, there may be Hypocrits, who, for that their wickednes is not knowne, cannot be separated from them who in sincerity serue and worship God; but if their wickednesse breake foorth, that men may take notice of it, either they are presently reformed, or by the censures of the Church cut off from the rest: which course if it be not so holden, but that wicked ones without due punishment be suffered in the middest of Gods people, those societies wherein so great negligence is found, cease to bee the true Churches of God, and wee may and must diuide our selues from them. This was the errour of the Canus lib. 4. c. 3. Donatistes in former times, and is the errour of certain proud & arrogant Sectaries in our time. But if the Church of God remained in Corinth, 1. Corinth. 33. where there were diuisions, sects, emulations, contentions, and quarrels, 1, Corinth. 6. 1. and going to law one with another for every trifle, end that vnder the infidels; where that 1. Cor. 5. 1. wickednesse was tolerated, and winked at, which is execrable to the very heathens; where 2. Corin. 10. 10. Paules name and credite was despitefully called in question, whom they should haue honoured as a father; 1. Cor. 15. 12. where the resurrection of the dead, which is the life of Christianity was with greate scorne denied; who dare deny those societies to bee the Churches of God, wherein the tenth part of these horrible evills and abuses is not to be found? We see then the difference betweene the turbulent disposition of these men, and the milde affection of the Apostle of Christ, who writing to the Corinthians, and well knowing to how many evils and faults they were subiect, yet doth not thunder out against them the dreadfull sentence of Anathema, exclude them from the kingdome of Christ, or make a diuision & separation frō them, but calleth them the Church of Christ, and society of Saints. What would these men haue done, if they had liued amongst the Galathians, who so far adulterated the Gospell of Christ, that the Apostle pronounceth that they were Galat. 3. 1. bewitched, and if they still persisted to ioyne circumcision and the workes of the law with Christ, they Gal. 5. 4. were fallen from grace, and Christ could profite them nothing; whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God, writing to the Church which is at Galathia?

Excellent to this purpose is the counsaile of Augustine in his third book against Parmenian & second chapter, which he giueth to all that are of a godly & peaceable disposition, vt misericorditer corripiant, quod possunt, quod non possunt patienter ferant, & cum dilectione gemant & lugeant, donec aut emendet Deus ac corrigat, aut in messe eradicet zizania, & paleas ventilet. That with mercifull affection they should dislike, reproue, & correct, asmuch as in them lyeth, what they find to bee amisse; what they cannot amend, that they should patiently endure & suffer, and in louing sort bewaile & lament, till either God doe here in this world correct and amend it, or otherwise in that great harvest in the end of the world, plucke vp all tares, and comming with his fanne in his hand purge the wheate from the chaffe. Thus then we haue hitherto shewed, who are of the Church, the definition of it, & the meaning of such sayings of our Diuines, as haue bin by our adversaries mistaken or perverted, together with all such errours, & heresies, as are or haue bin concerning the nature & being of the Church.

THE SECOND BOOKE, CONCERNING THE NOTES OF THE CHVRCH.
CHAP. 1.

Of the nature of notes of difference, and their severall kindes.

NOw it remaineth that wee come to the second part of our principall and generall division, to find out the notes wherby the true Church may be knowen and discerned from all other companies and societies of men in the world. A note, marke, or character, is that, whereby one thing may be knowen and differenced from another. The Philosophers obserue that of things not the same, there are two sorts; some wholly diverse, which haue no common condition of nature wherein they agree 〈◊〉 are the same. These cannot be apprehend •… 〈◊〉 vs, but the diuersitie of nature and condition, found in them, must of necessity be conceiued and knowen likewise; so that no man, hauing any apprehension of the nature of a voice or sound, enquireth wherein it differeth from a circle or line, not finding any thing wherein they are the same. These need not any notes, or markes of difference whereby to be knowen one from another.

Other things there are which haue many things in common wherein they agree and are the same, and some other which are so found in one of them that not in another. These are not properly said to be wholy diverse, as the former, hauing many things in common wherein they agree and are the same; but to differ one from another, in that some thing is so found in one of them that it is not in another. The distinction of these things thus differing, cannot be known by any other meanes, but by observing what is peculiarly found in each of them: neither is there any thing proper or peculiar to any ofthem which may not serue for a note or marke of distinction, to discerne one of them from another.

That which is proper to a thing, and peculiarly found in it alone, is of two sortes: For either it is saide to be proper and peculiar respectiuely, and at some one time onely; or absolutely, and euer. Respectiuely that is proper to a thing, which, though it be not found in it alone, but in sundry other, yet if we take view of it, and onely some certaine and definite things besides, is so in it that in none of them, and serueth for a sufficient note of distinction to know it from any of them. So if wee seeke to difference and discerne the nature of man, onely from those things that are voide of life; sense and motion serue for notes of difference, and distinction, and are proper to man for that they are not found in any thing voide of life. But if wee seeke to difference the nature of man from all other things whatsoeuer; we must finde out that which is in man and in 〈◊〉 thing else; in which sort also a thing may bee proper and peculiar at some o •… time, that is not perpetually and euer so, as wee •… ng, laughing, and the like; which though not alwayes found in a man, (for sometimes he neither weepeth nor laugheth) yet when they are, they be notes of difference, distinguing man from all other things, for that nothing else is at any time capable of any of these.

Perpetually and absolutely that is proper to a thing, which is inseparable and incommunicable, as neuer being not found in that to which it is proper, nor euer being found in any thing else. Those things which are thus and in this sort proper to a thing, either are of the effence of that to which they are proper, or that is of the essence of them: by both these, a thing may be knowen from all other whatsoeuer, but more specially by them that are of the essence of that which we desire to know. These things thus generally obserued touching the nature of the notes of difference, whereby one thing may bee discerned and knowen from another, if we apply particularly to the Church, wee shall easily know which are the true, certaine, and infallible notes thereof, about which our adversaries so tediously contend and iangle, deliuering them confusedly without order, and doubtfully without all certainty.

Wherefore, seeing by that wee haue already obserued it is euident, that there is nothing not proper that may, nor proper that may not serue as a note of difference to distinguish one thing from another; Seeing likewise of things proper and peculiar, there are two sorts, some respectiuely; and some absolutely; and of these againe, some not perpetually, but at some one time only; and some perpetually and euer; and these either essentiall to that to which they are pecul •… ar, or essentially depending of it and flowing from it. Let vs first see, what things are proper to the Church respectiuely considered; and secondly, what (without such respectiue consideration) absolutely, generally, and perpetually; which onely are perfect notes of difference, whereby the true Church may bee perpetually and infallibly kn •… en from all other societies of men, professions of religion, and diversities o •… ine worship that are in the world and thirdly, suchas are generally and absolutely but not perpetually proper.

CHAP. 2.

Of the divers kindes of notes, whereby the true Church is discerned from other societies of men in the world.

THere are presently, and were formerly, but three maine differences of religion in the world, Paganisme, Iudaisme, and Christianity. Paganisme is, and was, that state of religion and diuine worship, wherein men hauing no other light than that of nature, and the vncertaine traditions of their erring fathers to guide them, Rom. 1. 25. did and doe change the trueth of God into a lie, and worship and serue the creature rather than the Creator; who is blessed for ever. Iudaisme is that state of religion, wherein men imbrace the Law which God gaue to the children of Abraham, and sonnes of Iacob, reforming heathenish impietie, teaching saluation to bee looked for through one, whom God would send in the last dayes, and exalt to bee Lord ouer all. Christianitie is the religion of them that beleeue Iesus Christ to be that Sauiour promised to the Iewes, and Math. 16. 16. acknowledge him to bee the sonne of the liuing God. They which hold this profession, are called the Church of Christ: neither is there any other society or company of men in the world, that professe so to beleeue but they only.

If we take a view of this Church respectiuely considered, seeking onely to difference and distinguish it from the society of Pagan Infidels, the profession of Diuine, supernaturall, and revealed verities is so found in the Church, that not amongst any of these; and so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , respectiuely, it is proper to the Church, & may serue as a note of difference, distinguishing it from these profane and heathenish companies; but from the Iewes it doeth not seuer it; for it is common to it with them; both holding the sacred profession of many heauenly and reuealed verities. So that, if we will distinguish Christians from Iewes, we must finde out that which is so proper and peculiar to the companies and societies of Christians, that it is not communicated to the Iewes. Such is the profession of diuine verities reuealed in Christ, whom onely these societies acknowledge to bee the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world. But for that, when neither heathenish superstition, nor the Iewes perfidious impietie, could any longer prevaile, or resist against the knowledge and glory of Christ, Christi adventis detectus & prostratus inimicus, sed videns ille idola derelicta, & per nimium credentium populum sedes suas ac templa deserta, excogitavit nova fraudem, vt sub ipso Christiani nominis titulo fallat incautos. haereses inuenit, & schismata, quibus subverteret fidem. veritatem corrumperet, scirideretvnitatem. Cypr de vnitate Ecclesiae. but that all the whole world went after him, Sathan the enemie of mankinde stirred vp certaine turbulent, wicked, and godlesse men, who professing themselues to bee Christians, vnder the name of Christ brought in damnable doctrines of errour, no lesse dangerously erring, than did the Pagans and Iewes. This profession of the faith of Christ, though it distinguish the Christian Church from the Iewes and Pagans, and is so farre proper vnto it, that it is not found in any of them, yet doth it not separate the multitude of right beleeuing Christians (which is the sound part of the Christian Church, and is named the Orthodoxe Church) from seduced miscreants, being common to both.

We must therefore further seeke out that which is so peculiarly found in the more speciall number of right beleeuing Christians; that not in any other, though shadowed vnder the generall name of Christianitie. Such is the entire profession of diuine verities, according to the rule of faith, left by Christ, and his first disciples, and schollers, the holy Apostles.

This entire profession of the trueth reuealed in Christ; though it distinguish right beleeuers from Heretikes, yet it is not proper to the happy number, and blessed company of Catholike Christians, because Schismatikes may, and sometimes doe, hold an entire profession of the trueth of God revealed in Christ. It remaineth therefore, that wee seeke out those things that are so peculiarly found in the companies of right beleeuing and Catholike Christians, that they may serue as notes of difference, to distinguish them from all, both Pagans, Iewes, Heretikes, and Schismatikes. These are of two sorts; for either they are such as onely at sometemes, and not perpetually; or such as doe perpetually, and euer seuer the true Church from all conuenticles of erring and seduced misereants. Of the former sort was multitude, largenesse of extent, and the name of Catholike, esteemed a note of the Church, in the time of the Fathers. The notes of the later sort, that are inseparable, perpetuall, and absolutely proper and peculiar, which perpetually distinguish the true Catholike Church, from all other societies of men, and professions of religions in the world, are three: First, the entire profession of those supernaturall verities which God hath reuealed in Christ his sonne; secondly, the vse of such holy ceremonies, & sacraments as hee hath instituted and appointed, to serue as prouocations to godlinesse, preseruations from sinne, memorialls of the benefits of Christ, warrants for the greater securitie of our beleefe, and markes of distinction to separate his owne from strangers; thirdly, an vnion, or connexion of men in this profession, and vse of these sacraments; vnder lawfull pastours and guides, appointed, authorised, & sanctified, to direct, and leade them in the happy wayes of eternall saluation. That these are notes of the Church, it will easily appeare, by consideration of all those conditions that are required in the nature of notes. They are inseparable, they are proper, and they are essentiall, and such things as giue being to the Church, and therefore are in nature more cleare and evident, and such as that from them the perfect knowledge of the Church may and must be deriued. Notwithstanding, for that our aduersaries take exception to them, I will first examine their obiections, and secondly proue, that neither they, nor any other that know what they write or speake, can or doe assigne any other. And because Bellarmine and Stapleton haue taken most paines in this Argument, I will therefore propose the obiections I finde in them, assuring my selfe that there are not any other of moment, to be found in the writings of any other of that side.

CHAP. 3.

Of Bellarmines reasons against the notes of the Church assigned by vs.

BEllarmine his first obiection is; Bell. 1. tom. 4. contra. de. con •… ilijs & ecclesia militante, lib. 4. cap. 2 By these notes we know not who are elect; therefore by these we doe not certainely know which is the true Church. The consequence of this reason we denie, as being most fond and false. He proveth it in this sort. The Church, according to the doctrine of the Protestants, is onely the number of the elect; and therefore if the elect be not knowen and discerned by these from the reprobate and castawayes, the Church cannot bee knowen by them. But the Antecedent of this argument is likewise false, as appeareth by that which I haue formerly delivered, touching the nature and being of the Church: for we doe not say that the Church consisteth onely of the elect, but principally, intentionally, and finally. For otherwise it consisteth of all that partake in the outward calling of grace, and enjoying of the meanes of saluation, and so may be knowen by these notes. For that society doubtlesse hath & enioyeth the meanes of saluation, to which the notes aboue specified doe agree.

Secondly, he reasoneth thus; The true and certaine notes whereby the Church is knowen, are inseparable; but there may be true Churches that hold not the entire and sincere profession of supernaturall trueths revealed in Christ; therefore this profession is no note of the Church. That there may bee true Churches without the entire & sincere profession of the trueth of God, appeareth by the examples of the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and other, to whom Paul wrote, and gaue them the titles and names of the Churches of God, and yet they erred in the matter of the resurrection, and the necessity of the law of Moyses to be ioyned with the Gospel. To the minor proposition of this argument, we answere by a double distinction: the first taken out of Relect. con. 1. q 4. art. 5. expoposit. articuli. Stapleton; that a multitude or company of Christians may be said to bee a true Church, either onely because it hath the true nature & essence of a Church, or because, besides that, it hath all those things that pertaine to the integritie, and plenitude thereof. The second, that there is a double sincerity, and puritie of the profession of the trueth of God reuealed in Christ; the first free from all damnable, fundamentall, and pertinacious errour; the other from all errour whatsoever. The former is an inseparable note of the true Church: For there is no being of a Church to bee found where that sincerity, and puritie of profession is not. The later is a note of a pure and perfect Church, and is inseparably proper vnto it. So that proportionably, sincerity, and purity of profession is alwayes inseparably proper to the Church: Absolute to the Church, that is absolutely perfect; and in an inferiour degree and sorte, to that which is in any sorte a Church. For seeing, as Stapleton rightly affirmeth, the true faith is the life of the Church, it cannot be the true Church, that pertinaciously erreth in the substance and maine grounds of the faith. What is a fundamentall errour, & what that pertinacie, that cannot be found in the true Church of God, I will then make manifest when I come to speake of the nature of Schisme and Heresie.

His third reason hee proposeth in this sort: Notes of the Church must be proper to the Church, and such things as are not to bee found in any societie or companie of men besides; but this sincerity and soundnesse of profession may bee found in other societies and companies of men besides, namely amongst Schismatikes, as appeared in the Luciferians, and some others in the beginning of their schisme, Hieron. in Epist. ad Titum cap. 3. though for the most part the better to iustifie their schismaticall separation, they adde heresie to schisme. To the Maior proposition of this argument we answere, that the notes of the Church are of two sorts; either absolute, full, and perfect, generally differencing and distinguishing it from all other societies whatsoeuer; or onely from some certaine. Those notes, that absolutely, & generally distinguish the Church from all other societies and companies whatsoeuer, are so peculiar to the true Church, that they are not found any where else; but they which doe distinguish it but onely from certaine, are proper onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and respectiuely, that is, so that they are not found in any of those things, from which they doe distinguish it. Notes of the former sort are all those three things iointly concurring, whereof I spake in the beginning, to wit, entire profession of sauing trueth, and right vse of sacraments, and vnion vnder lawfull Pastours. These iointly cannot bee found among Pagans, Iewes, Heretikes, Schismatikes, nor any other seduced or misseled people whatsoeuer. But the entire profession of sauing trueth singly and by it selfe, is a note distinguishing the Church from Infidels, & Heretikes onely, and so is not absolutely, but respectiuely proper to the true Church, so farre foorth that it is not found in any of these.

Fourthly he reasoneth, that puritie of profession can be no note of the Church, for that absolute puritie is not necessarily required to the being of the Church; for that the Church may bee without it: and that other purity free from essentiall and fundamentall errour, is no note, for that it doth not distinguish the Church from Heretikes; For there haue beene, and may be Heretikes, which erre not in any matter directly fundamentall. But who seeth not that hee reasoneth sophistically, from an imperfect diuision of the puritie of the Churches profession? For there are three sorts of it; the first absolute, and that is not necessarily required in the being of the Church; the second free from fundamentall and essentiall errour, and that is necessarily required in the Church, and company of right beleeuers, but it is not peculiar to it; for it may bee found among Heretikes; and a third free from pertinacious errour, and that is euer found in the true Church; and neuer among Heretikes. It is this last kind of puritie of profession, which wee make a note of the Church.

Lastly, hee endeauoureth to improoue the notes assigned by vs, for that notes must not onely bee inseparable and peculiar, but they must be such as may not be challenged or pretended by any other. As if he should thus say, I may not direct my man to seeke out one whom I desire to speake with, beeing in company with two or three more, by this note that hee is the tallest man of the company, though euidently he bee so; if any one of the rest foolishly imagine himselfe as tall or taller: Or by wearing a garment of some certaine colour or die, because some one or other not exactly distinguishing the diversities of colours, may thinke himselfe to haue the like. But, saith he, they must be so proper, that no other must pretend or challenge them with any probabilitie. This likewise is false euen in the notes which himselfe bringeth: for who knoweth not, that the Grecians & others pretend Antiquitie, Succession, Vniversality, and the like, aswell as the Church of Rome, and that not without all probabilitie? Thus wee see how weakely this great Champion hath performed that which he vndertooke.

CHAP. 4.

Of Stapletons reasons against our notes of the Church.

LEt Relect. con. 1. de Ecclesia in se q. 4. art. 5. refuta tio notarum in quibus haeretici conuenire videntur. vs see if Stapleton quitte himselfe any better. His first reason is taken from the vncertainety of our doctrine, in this sorte: The doctrine of the Protestants is most vncertaine, doubtfull, and full of contradiction; therefore they doe vnaduisedly make trueth of doctrine a note of the Church; for the notes of the Church must be constant and perpetuall. The Antecedent of this Argument We reiect as most false, and calumnious. For the whole course of our doctrine is most constant and certaine, as shall appeare by that which followeth. That which hee alleadgeth that we agree not touching the nature, qualitie, and members of the Church, is sufficiently refuted by that which I haue already deliuered touching that matter in the former part.

Secondly, he reasoneth from our confession; for, saith he, Non dico vbicunque praedicatur verbum, illic fructum mox exoriri, sed nullibi recipi & statam habere sedem, nisi vt suam efficaciam proserat: vtcunque vbi revetenter auditur Evangelij praedicatio, neque lacramenta negliguntur, illic pro illo tempore neque fa'lax, neque ambigua ecclesiae facies. Cal. instit. li. 4, c. 1. sect. 10. idem sentit Melancthon. Calvin and Melancthon acknowledge these notes to be vncertaine. This, who so taketh a view of the places cited by him, shall finde to be most false. Calvine indeede saith, that not the bare preaching of the trueth, but the receiuing, imbracing, and professing of it is necessary to the being of the Church; but touching the vncertainety of these notes he saith nothing. That which hee obiecteth, that wee make the Church to bee onely the number of the elect, and that therefore it cannot bee knowen by these notes, is answered in the refutation of Bellarmines first reason.

His third allegation is this: There are many that doe truely pertaine to the Church, to whom these notes agree not; therefore they are no notes of the Church. The Antecedent wee denie. Hee prooueth it out of our owne doctrine. Many not yet called pertaine to the Church; but these notes agree not to such; therefore there are many to whom these notes agree not, which yet pertaine to the Church. To the maior proposition we answere thus. Of them that pertaine to the Church, there are two sorts; For some pertaine to it actually, some potentially onely, and according to the purpose of Gods will. To both these, these notes agree, but in different sort and maner; To them that are actually of the Church, they actually agree; For they doe presently make profession of the trueth of God, and ioyne with the people in the vse of holy Sacraments appointed by him: To them that potentially and according to the purpose of Gods will pertaine to the Church, as doe all the elect not yet outwardly called, these notes agree onely potentially, and according to the purpose of Gods will, for that in due time they shall come to the knowledge and profession of the trueth, and vse of those happy meanes of saluation, which others actually enioy.

His fourth obiection, that the entire profession of the trueth agreeth to schismatikes, is answered already, being likewise obiected by Bellarmine.

Fiftly he reasoneth thus; The trueth of heauenly doctrine and right vse of Sacraments are no notes of the Church, because they doe not shew vs which is the Church. We answere that they doe: hee prooueth they doe not, because the true Church is knowne of vs before wee can know any of these. This we denie; For we say a man must know which is true doctrine, and what is the right vse of Sacraments, before he can know which is the true Church. This he thinketh impossible, because wee seeke to learne the trueth, of the Church; and therefore wee must in the beginning of our enquirie knowe, which is the true Church, and where assuredly trueth is found, or else our whole search and enquiry is doubtfull, vncertaine, and often without successe. For the clearing of this doubt, we must obserue, that seeking is a motion of the mind, desiring to knowe where a thing is, or what it is, Hee that desireth to know where a thing is, either knoweth the place, within compasse whereof he is sure it is, or else his search is doubtfull, vncertaine, and often in vaine. What a thing is, we desire to know, either by our owne discourse, or by the instructions or directions of another: Hee that seeketh after a thing, desiring to know it by the directions of another, either knoweth not particularly and certainely of whom to enquire, with assurance that from him he shall receiue satisfaction, and this kinde of search and enquirie is alwayes doubtfull, and often without successe; Or else he knoweth particularly of whom to enquire with assurance of resolution and satisfaction. Now if we apply this which hath beene said, to that which Stapleton alleadgeth, we shall easily answere his obiection. For when Infidels, and men wholly ignorant of the trueth of God, beginne first to seeke it, they doe not knowe certainely where they may finde it; and being left to themselues, would often seeke in vaine, as he saith but being directed by diuine providence, and the helpe of others, to the true Church which they know not, and beeing taught by her, they are established in the perswasion of the truth taught by her, in such sort, as they make no doubt of it; and are farther resolued that that must needes be the Church of God, and company of them whom he loueth, where these truthes are in such sort knowne and taught, as they find them to be there. It is therefore vntrue that Stapleton saith, that the Church is better and sooner knowen then the doctrine of it. For the doctrine is in some sort knowen, before we can know the Church that teacheth vs. For euen as a man wholly ignorant, and knowing none of the precepts and principles of Geometrie, cannot possibly know who is learned in that kind of knowledge, but eitheir casually, or by direction of others meeting with one excelling therein, learneth of him, & then by that which he hath learned of him, knoweth him to be a skilfull professour thereof, and euer after resorts vnto him, if in any thing he be doubtfull, with assurance of satisfaction; whose perfections when he began to learne, he knew not, but either casually mette with him, or by the directions of others, and not of his owne choise: So we know not the Church, what it is, which it is, nor how excellent it is, till we haue learned some part of the doctrine it teacheth, and are directed to it without any certainty of our owne knowledge; but being once established in the certainty of the trueth of the things shee teacheth, we thereby know her to be the Church of God, beloued of him, ledde into all truth by him, and appointed a faithfull witnesse, and skilfull mistresse of heauenly truth; and then in all our doubts and vncertainties, we ever after resort vnto her, with full assurance of satisfaction and resolution. Thus then wee see, how both the Church sheweth vs the truth of heavenly doctrine, and that againe the Church; but in different sort: the Church doctrinally proposing to vs what we must embrace and beleeue; and the doctrine of the trueth beleeued and imbraced by vs, really demonstrating to vs that to be the Church, in which so pretious & sauing truthes are taught and professed: and that the first repaire and resort of Infidels, to the Church, proceedeth from the direction of others, or some thing which they see, that maketh them enquire farther after her; but not from their owne knowledge of her infallibilitie, and the pretious treasures •… f heauenly trueth which she possesseth, as Stapleton vainely fancieth.

In his sixt obiection first he saith; Trueth of doctrine and right vse of sacraments are things without which the Church is not entire and full: contrarie to Bellarmine, who therefore excludeth them from being notes, because they are separable & the Church may be without them. Secondly, in the same place hee saith, that these things doe depend of the Church, flow from it, and are in order of nature after the being of it, not giuing being to it, or concurring in the constitution of it; & therefore cannot be notes; c but elsewhere hee saith the things that giue being to the a Eadem cont. q. 4. art. 5. notabili, 3. Church, are the same with the Church; and so cannot be more euident, nor easie to be knowen then the Church it selfe. Thirdly, in his seaventh reason hee saith; These are the notes whereby wise and spirituall men doe knowe the Church: and againe in his ninth: That to demonstrate the Church by these notes, is demonstrare idem per idem, to demonstrate the same by the same. For, saith hee, when we aske which is that societie that holdeth the true profession, and they that assigne these notes, answere, it is that which holdeth the true profession, &c. If this man beenot possessed with a spirit of giddinesse, saying, and vnsaying; affirming, denying the same things in the very same page, and so indeede saying hee knoweth not what, let the Reader, how partiall so ever he be, iudge.

To that which he addeth, that faith is knowen from infidelity, religion from superstition, a beleeuer from an infidell, and a Catholique from an heretique, by true doctrine and right vse of sacraments, that they are essentiall to them and giue them their being, but that the whole collected multitude of right beleeuers, must be knowen by those things which are proper and essentiall to such an vnited multitude, as vniversalitie and the like: We say, that there is nothing, besides sincerity of profession & right vse of Sacraments, essentiall to the Church as a collected multitude, but onely order and orderly connexion or vnion of men concurring in these, while some authorised there vnto doe teach, direct, and commaund, others obey; which if wee adde to the former two, wee shall finde all and onely those notes which we assigne. Neither are sincere profession, and right vse of Sacraments so essentiall to beleeuing and catholique men, that they doe sufficiently distinguish them from schismatickes, vnlesse this be added, that they hold the vnitie of the spirit in the bond of peace: so that as they doe not sufficiently distinguish the whole body of the Church from the Conuenticles of schismatickes, vnlesse an orderly connexion of men concurring in them bee added; which orderly vnion or connexion is essentiall to the Church as a collected multitude; so doe they not a catholique from a schismaticke: but on the other side, who is so foolish as to deny, that the profession of truth and right vse of Sacraments are essentiall to the whole bodie of the Church? seeing, as Stapleton himselfe saith, Cont. 1. de ecclesia in se. q. 3. art. 6. expo. art. notabili 3. Recta fides est anima ecclesiae, Right faith is the very life and soule of the Church; which is nothing else but an orderly multitude of right beleeuers, and is collected and gathered in the true faith of Christ, and hope of eternall happinesse: which as it cannot be knowen and discerned from the Conventicles of Schismatickes, by right faith and due vse of Sacraments onely, without the addition of orderly connexion, so likewise on the contrarie side, it cannot be knowen without these, and therefore of necessity they must be notes, though not sole and only notes.

In the seauenth there is nothing but that which refuteth that himselfe else where saith, or is refuted by him. For when he saith that wise men doe know & discerne the Church by the notes assigned by vs, hee doth acknowledge that they doe demonstrate the Church in the perfectest sort that may bee; which in his ninth he denieth, saying that to demonstrate the Church by them, is to demonstrate the same by the same: and in his eight maketh it sauour of heresie at least, to thinke to finde out the true Church by them. Whereas in the same place he appropriateth these notes onely to the wiser sort of men, as not being within the compasse of ignorant mens conceipt. Surely those which he assigneth are lesse obvious to the knowledge of the vulgar sorte than these, as shall appeare in that which followeth.

His eight reason, that the notes of the Church must be such as may not be challenged or pretended by the heretiques, is answered already in the refutation of the reasons brought by Bellarmine. That which he addeth concerning their notes, of Antiquitie, Vnitie, Succession, and Vniversalitie, that they are so cleerely proper and peculiar to the Church of Rome, that wee doe not denie them to agree to it, but denie them to be notes of the true Church; is wholly false. For wee peremptorily denie any of these notes to agree to the Romish Church; and with such explication, as they (forced with our arguments) now make of them, wee most willingly admitte them, and will proue, that they differ not really from them assigned by vs.

His ninth, that the notes assigned by vs are no notes of the Church, because to demonstrate the Church by them, is to demonstrate the same by the same, (for that when wee aske which is the true Church, wee aske which is the Church that holdeth the true profession and right vse of the Sacraments;) is a meere sophisticall cavillation. For the better manifestation whereof, wee must obserue, that hee that seeketh to finde out the true Church, at the first is wholly ignorant of whatsoever pertayneth to the nature and being of it, as Insidels that know not what the very name of the Church importeth; and then surely the first thing, that he, who is thus wholly ignorant, enquireth after, is not, which is that society that holdeth the profession of saving trueth, as STAPLETON sayth; (For, hee knoweth not, that there is any such profession, or society so professing;) But about the signification of the word, and meaning of the name of the Church: whom wee satisfie, if wee say no more, but that it is a society or company of men, called by the working of grace to the hope of eternall happinesse. But if, when hee knoweth thus much, and is not ignorant what the word importeth, hee doe farther desire to know which among all the societies of men in the world it is, that hath this happy and precious hope; Wee satisfie him by shewing him, what things are so peculiar and proper to it, that wheresoever he findeth them, hee may assure himselfe, that that company and society of men hath the assured hope of eternall happinesse, and is the true Church of God; as namely, the entire profession of reuealed truth, according to the rule of faith left by Christ, and the right and due vse of Sacraments, vnder lawfull pastours and guides appointed to conduct the sonnes of God, in the wayes of their eternall blisse and happinesse. Now when hee knoweth the entire profession of sauing trueth &c. to be proper and peculiar to the true Church, if yet still hee know not trueth from errour, and the right vse of Sacraments from the profanation of them, and therefore aske of vs in the third place which is the true profession, & which is the multitude that hath it, wee will not tell him, as Stapleton vainely fancieth, that it is that which holdeth and embraceth the trueth; but wee will shew him how to know trueth from falshood; that so, wheresoeuer hee findeth it professed and taught, hee may know that society that so professeth, as he now knoweth the trueth in Christ to bee, is the true Church of God. Euen as, if one aske of vs, how hee may know such a noble mans servants in the Princes Court, we satisfie him, if wee tell him they are clothed with scarlet, if none other but they onely bee so clothed; But if he know not scarlet, and so aske of vs in the second place, which is scarlet, and who they are that weare it, wee will not tell him, they that weare it, but shew him how hee may know it, that so, when hee seeth it, he may assure himselfe he hath found the men he enquired after.

CHAP. 5.

Of their notes of the Church, and first of antiquitie.

THus hauing answered the reasons brought by our aduersaries against the notes of the Church assigned by vs, let vs proceede to take a view of such as are allowed by them, and see if they bee not the very same in substance with ours. The Bellar. 1. tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. & alij. notes that they propose vnto vs, are Antiquity, Succession, Vnity, Vniversality, and the very name and title of Catholicke, expressing the Vniversality. Antiquity is of two sortes; primary, and secondary. Primary is proper vnto God, who is eternall, whose being is from everlasting, who is absolutely the first, before whom nothing was, & from whom all things receiue being, when as before they were not. This kind of antiquity is a most certaine proofe, and demonstration of trueth and goodnes. Of this they speake not, who make Antiquity a note of the Church. Wherefore letting this passe, let vs come to the other; which for distinction sake, we name secondary Antiquity. This is of two sortes; The first wee attribute to all those things, which began to bee long agoe, and since whose first beginning there hath beene a long tract of time. This is no note, or proofe of trueth or goodnesse: For the divell was both a lyer, & a murtherer long agoe, even immediatly after the beginning. And there are many errours, and superstitions which began long since, yea before the name of Christians was once named in the world, and sundry heresies, that were coaetaneall and as auncient as the Apostles times, and that began before the most famous Churches in the world were planted. This kinde of Antiquity it is, that Cyprian speaketh of; Epist. 63. Non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos fecerit, aut faciendum putauerit; sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed dei veritatem. Et Ep. ad Quint. 7. alibi; Non est de consuetudine praescribendum, sed ratione vincendum. Epist. 74. Et ad Pompeium; Consuetudo sine veritate, vetustas erroris est. Wee must not regard what any other did before vs, or thought fit to be done, but what Christ did, who was before all. Neither must wee follow the customes of men, but the trueth of God. And in another place; Wee must not prescribe vpon custome, but perswade by reason. And writing to Pompeius; Custome without trueth, is nothing else but inueterate errour. There is therefore another kind of Antiquity, which is not long continuance, or the being before many other, but the prime, first, and originall being of each thing: this is a sure proofe of goodnesse, and perfection. For all defects, found in things, are swaruings, deelinings, and departures from their originall, and first estate. For trueth is before falshood, and good before evill, and the habit before privation. Veritas, saith Tertullian, in omnibus imaginem antecedit, e In his booke of prescript against haretickes. Contra Praxean; id verum quodcunque primum: id adulterum quodeunque posterius. postremò similitudo succedit. The trueth is before any counterfeite, similitude, on representation; the trueth is first, and then afterwards there are imitations. That therefore that is first in any kind, or sort of things, is truest and best: and consequently, that Church that hath prime and absolute Antiquity, is vndoubtedly the true Church.

This Antiquity, a Church may be sayd to haue, three wayes, either onely because the first constitution of it was most auncient, as taking beginning from the first publishers of heauenly knowledge, the Apostles of Christ, the immediate, indubitate, and prime witnesses of the trueth of God, whatsoever her declinings haue beene since; Or because as her first constitution was most auncient, in that shee receiued the faith from the Apostles, or such as shee knew vndoubtedly to hold communion with them, so she is not since gone from it, in whole, or in part, but still hath the same being shee first had: or thirdly, because the profession it holdeth is the same that was deliuered by the prime, immediate, and indubitate witnesses, and publishers of the trueth of God, though it began to be a Church but yesterday. The Antiquity of the first constitution of a Church is no sufficient proofe, or note of the trueth or soundnesse of it: Neither doe they that plead most for Antiquity, thinke it a good proofe for any company or society of Christians, to demonstrate themselues to bee the true Church of God, because they haue had the profession of Christianity euer since the Apostles times, by whose meanes they were first converted to the faith, & established in the profession of the same. For then the Church of Ephesus might at this day proue it selfe a true Church of God; yea many Churches in Aethiopia are yet remaining, which haue continued in the profession of Christianity, euer since the Apostles times. But this is all they say, that if any Church founded by the Apostles, or their coadiutors, & left by them in the true profession, as were the Churches of Rome, Antioche, Ephesus, & the like, can demonstrate that they haue not since departed from their first, and originall estate, they thereby doe proue themselues to bee the true Churches of God. And if any other that began since, as innumerable did, can shew that they haue the faith first delivered to the Saints, they therby proue themselues no lesse to be the true Church of God, then the former, which had their beginning from the Apostles themselues, and haue continued in a state of Christianity ever since. Doe we not see thē, that it is truth of doctrine, whereby the Church is to be found out, euen in the judgement of them that seeme most to say the contrary? they admitte no plea of Antiquitie on the behalfe of any Churches whatsoeuer, though established by the Apostles, vnlesse they can proue that they haue not left their first faith. So that this is still the triall, if they may be found to haue the trueth of profession, &c. Wherevpon Stapleton saith, Contr. 1. de Ecclesia q. 4. art. 1. exposit. art. notabili. 3. Ad notam Antiquitatis sibi vendicandam, non satis est quòd aliqua societas sub titulo Ecclesiae diu perdurauerit, aut prior extiterit, sed praetereà necesse est quòd sanam doctrinam semper, & priùs retinuerit. Hoc autem contra veteres haereses, maximè ipsis Apostolis coetaneas, notandum est. It is not a sufficient reason, for a societie of Christians, to chalenge to it selfe the note of Antiquitie, because it hath long continued, and beene before others in the profession of Christianitie; but besides it is required, that it haue aunciently, and ever holden the doctrine of trueth: This is specially to be noted against old heresies, whereof some began in the Apostles times. Ibidem in solutione argumentotum. And hee saith of the Churches of Greece, Aethiopia, and Armenia, that, though their Antiquitie did reach as high as the Apostles times, yet notwithstanding propter doctrinae novitates postea inuentas, veram antiquitatem non habent; because they haue brought in newe doctrine, they haue no true Antiquitie.

CHAP. 6

Of Succession.

HItherto we haue spoken of Antiquitie, which they make the first note of the Church. It followeth in the next place that wee speake of Succession. The ministerie of pastours and teachers is absolutely, and essentially necessary to the being of the Church. For how should there be a Church gathered, guided, and gouerned without a ministerie? Therefore the ministery of those whom God sanctified to himselfe, to teach, instruct and gouerne his people, is an essentiall marke and note of the Church, as wee haue already shewed. Now because the Church is not to last onely for some short time, & so to cease, but to continue to the end of the world, this ministery must continue likewise; which because it cannot continue in the same persons (all being subiect to death) it is necessary, that when some faile, others possesse the places they formerly held, which is to Succeede, Neither is this Succeeding of one into the place of another, necessary, onely by reason of that failing which is by death, but because the places of sacred ministery must not be vnfurnished; if either the wickednesse of them that are in place, cast them out, or their weakenesse cause a voluntary relinquishment of their office, and standing, others must succeede. Lawfull and holy ministery therefore is an inseparable, and perpetuall note of a true Church; for no Church can be without it; but Succession not so; For the Churches in the first establishment in the Apostles time had it not, and many Churches, which in sundry ages since haue beene founded, had none, their Bishops being the first, and succeeding none, in those episcopall chaires wherein they sate. If therefore we should cauill against them as they doe against vs, wee might deny Succession to bee a note of the Church, because there haue beene, and may be true Churches without it; as all at the first in the beginning of Christianity, and all others since newly founded, in their first beginnings. But because wee knowe they make not Succession of pastours and Bishoppes a note of the Church absolutely considered, but of that which being formerly established, is still to bee continued, by multitudes of men and people continually succeeding, and comming into the places of others that went before them, in the same profession of Christianity; Let vs see whether Succession of Bishops, and pastours may truely be sayd to be a note of the Church.

Absolutely and without limitation, doubtlesse it is not: For there may bee a continued Succession of Bishoppes, where there is no true Church, as at this day amongst the Grecians, Armenians, and Aethiopians, which yet are not the true Churches of GOD, in the opinion of them that plead for succession. Bellar. 1. tom. cont. 4. l. 4. c. 8. Ecclesia Constantinopolitana habet sucessionem à tempore Constantini, sed argumentum à successione aftertur ad probandum non esse ecclesiam vbi non est &c. Bellarmine therefore sayth, that Succession is inseparable, so that there can bee no Church without it; but that it is not proper, so that wheresoeuer it is found, we may assure our selues that there is the Church; so forgetting himselfe, who requireth in the notes that they be proper, and rejecteth our note of purity of doctrine free from pertinacious errour, because it may be found among schismatickes, though it be inseparable, and the true Church cannot be without it.

Contr. de Ecclesia in se. q. 4. art. 2. expos. art. notabili. 5. But Stapleton, handleth this point of Succession much better. For hee saith, that Succession is an inseparable, and proper note of the true Church: but not euery Succession, but that which is true, and lawfull. Let vs therefore see what hee requireth to make a true and lawfull Succession. First, there must be a place voide, by resignation, deprivation, or death; Neque qui per vim irrupit successor haben dus est, sed qui vim perpes. sus: nec qui contratiam sententiam tuetur, sed qui eâdem fide praeditus est, nisi quis fortassis ita successorem dicat, quemadmodum morbum sanitati, tenebras luci, tempestatem tranquillati, dementiam prudentiae succedere dicimus. Nazianz. in laudem Athanasij. Secondly, they that succeede must haue election, and ordination from them to whom it appertaineth to elect, and ordaine, Thirdly, they must not depart from the faith that was formerly holden, by them that went before, vnlesse any of them did first decline, and goe aside from the way of the first, and most auncient, that held those places before: and therefore in the catalogue of Bishops succeeding one another in each seuerall See, wheresoeuer any first began to teach any new and strange doctrine, different from that which was formerly deliuered, the thread and line of succession was by him either wholly broken, or some-what endaungered, according to the quality of the errour and the manner of defending, and maintaining the same. So that this is all which Stapleton saith, that wheresoeuer wee finde a Church once established, vnder a lawfull ministery, in the vndoubted profession of the trueth, if afterwards there be a Succession of Pastours and Bishoppes in the same place, and that none of them depart from the faith of the former, that so it may be evident, that what faith was first holden, is still holden by them that presently are in place, there wee may assure our selues to find the true Church.

Thus still wee see, that truth of doctrine, is a necessary note whereby the Church must be knowen and discerned, and not ministery, or Succession, or any thing else without it.

But, saith he, the people must not judge, which is true doctrine and which is false, by the particular consideration of the things themselues, but onely by the newnesse, strangenesse, contrarietie it hath with that which they haue learned of their pastours, guides, & forefathers. He alloweth then a kind of judgement to the vulgar sort, who must discerne which is the true doctrine & which is the false, though not by particular consideration of the things themselues that are taught, yet by the newnesse & strangenesse of them. Touching the judgement the people of God ought to haue of the doctrine of Christianity, I will speake when I come to the fourth part of my first and generall diuision. In the meane while it sufficeth, that not bare & naked Succession, but true, & lawfull, wherein no new, or strange doctrine is brought into the Church, but the auncient religiously preserved, is a marke, note, or character of the true Church.

CHAP. 7.

Of the third note assigned by them, which is Vnitie.

THe third note of the Church assigned by them is Vnity. There are many sorts & degrees of Vnity found in the Church: The first, in respect of the same beginning, and originall cause, which is GOD that hath called vs to the fellowshippe of his Sonne, and to the hope of eternall life. vers. 44. 10. 6. No man commeth vnto me, vnlesse my father draw him. The 2d, in respect of the same last end, wherevnto all they that are of the Church doe tend, signified by that pennie given to every one of the labourers. Math. 20. 8. 9. 10. Matth. 20. The third is in respect of the same meanes of saluation, as are faith, sacraments, holy lawes, and precepts, according to that Eph. 4. 5. Ephesians 4. One faith, one Baptisme, &c. The fourth, in respect of the same spirit, which doeth animate the whole body of the Church: There are diversities of graces, but the same spirit. 1. Cor. 12. 4. 1. Cor. 12. The fift, in respect of the same head Christ, and guides appointed by him; who, though they are many, yet are all holden in a sweete coherence and connexion amongst themselues, as if there were but one episcopall chaire and office in the world. Which Vnitie of Pastours and Bishops, though they be many, and ioyned in equall commission, without dependance one of another, Christ signified by directing his words specially to Peter, Feede my sheepe, feede my lambes, as Cypr. de vnitate Ecclesiae. Cyprian most aptly noteth. The sixt is in respect of the connexion, which all they of the Church haue amongst themselues, and with Christ, and those whom he hath appointed in his stead to take care of their soules. Rom. 12. 5. Rom. 12. Wee are one body, and members one of another. These being the diuers kindes, and sortes of Vnitie in the Church, let vs see what Vnitie it is, which they make a note of the Church. The Vnitie which they make a note of the Church is, first, in respect of the rule of faith, and vse of the sacraments of saluation; secondly, in respect of the coherence and connexion of the Pastours and Bishops amongst themselues; thirdly, in the due and submissiue obedience of the people to their Pastours.

This is it then which they say, that wheresoeuer any company, and society of Christians is found in orderly subiection to their lawfull Pastours not erring from the rule of faith, nor schismatically rent from the other parts of the Christian world, by factious, causelesse and impious diuision, that societie of men is (vndoubtedly) the true, and not offending Church of God. This note thus delivered, is the very same with those assigned by vs. But if any of them shall imagine that any Vnitie, and agreement whatsoeuer of Christian people amongst themselues, doth prooue them to bee the Church of God, wee vtterly denie it. For the Armenians, Aethiopians, and Christians of Muscovia, and Russia, haue euery of them an agreement amongst themselues, though diuided each from other, more perfect than they of the Church of Rome haue; which yet in the judgement of the Romanists, are not the true Churches of God.

CHAP. 8.

Of Vniversalitie.

THe next note assigned by them is Vniuersalitie. Concerning Vniversalitie, 1. Tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. c. 7. Bellarmine obserueth three things: First, that to the Vniversalitie of the Church is required, that it exclude no times, places, nor sorts of men; in which consideration the Christian Church differeth from the Synagogue, which was a particular Church tied to one time, being to continue but to the comming of Christ; to a certaine place, to wit, the Temple at Hierusalem, out of which they could not sacrifice; and to one family, the sonnes of Iacob. Secondly, he noteth out of Augustine, that to the Vniversalitie of the Christiā Church it is not required, that all the men of the world should be of the Church, but that at the least there should be some, in all provinces of the world, that should giue their names to Christ. For till this be performed, the day of the Lord shall not come, Math. 24. 14. Mat. 24. Thirdly, he noteth out of Dried •… , in his fourth booke, chap. 2. part. 2. de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, that it is not required, that this should be all at once, so that at one time necessarily there must be some Christians in all places of the world; For it is enough, if it bee successiuely. Whence, sayth hee, it followeth, that though but onely one Province of the world, should retaine the true faith, it might truely and properly be named the Catholicke Church, if it could clearely demonstrate it selfe, to be one with the Church and company of beleeuers; which if not at one time, yet at diuers times hath filled the whole world. This it cannot demonstrate, but by making it appeare, that it hath neither brought in any new, and strange doctrine in matter of faith, nor schismatically rent it selfe from the rest of the christian world.

This note of Vniversality, thus vnderstood, wee willingly admitte: For it is the same with those we assigne. For wee say, what Church soeuer can proue it selfe to hold the faith once deliuered to the saints, and generally published to the world, without hereticall innouation, or schismaticall violation, and breach of the peace, and vnitie of the Christian world, is vndoubtedly the true Church of God. But out of this which Bellarmine hath thus truely, wisely, & fitly obserued touching Vniversalitie, we may deduce many corrolaries of great consequence in this controversie touching the Church.

The first, that it may be the true and Catholike Church, which neither presently is, nor euer hereafter shall bee, in all or the most parts of the world, if it can continuate it selfe, and prooue it selfe one, with that Church which formerly at some time or times, hath beene in the most parts thereof. From whence it is easie to discerne the vanitie of that their sillie obiection against vs, who say our Church began not at Hierusalem, in the feast of Pentecost, but at Wittenberg, or Geneva, in this last age of the world; & that it is not likely, beginning so late, that euer it will so farre enlarge it selfe, as to fill all the whole world, & so become Catholicke, or Vniuersall. For wee doe not imagine, that the Church began at Wittenberg, or Geneua, but that in these and sundry other places of the Christian world, it pleased God to vse the ministerie of his worthy seruants, for the necessary reformation of abuses in some parts of that Catholicke Church, which beginning at Hierusalem, spread it selfe into all the world, though not at all times, nor all places, in like degree of puritie, and sincerity. So that, though the reformed Churches neither presently be, nor perhaps hereafter shall be, in all, or the most parts of the world, yet are they catholicke, for that they doe continuate themselues with that Church, which hath beene, is, or shall bee, in all places of the world, before the comming of Christ, and vndoubtedly already hath beene in the most parts thereof. The second, that the true Church is not necessarily alwayes of greater extent, nor the multitude of them that are of it greater, than of any one company of Heretickes, or mis-beleeuers. The third, that the true Church cannot bee at all times infallibly knowen from the factions of heretickes, by multitude, and largenesse of extent. The fourth, that this contrarieth not the sayings of Aug. psal. 101. conc. 2. reprehendit Donatistas dicentes ecclesiam in sola Africa remansisse. hunc locum Augustini explicat Bellarminus loco superius notato. Augustine, and others of the Fathers, who vrge the ample extent of the Church as a proofe of the trueth thereof; For that they liued and wrote in those times, when the Church was in her growth, and wee are fallen into the last and worst times, wherein shee is in her declining.

CHAP. 9.

Of the name and title of Catholicke.

THe Bell. 1. Tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 4. fift note assigned by them is the name and title of Catholicke; which they say, is an vndoubted proofe of the true Catholicke Church wheresoeuer it is found. And because our aduersaries doe not more insolently boast, and glory of any thing, than of the bare and emptie name, and title of Catholicke; I will therefore make it euident to all them, that know their right hand from their left, that howsoever it was in the dayes of the fathers, it is not now proper to the true Church, but common to Schismatickes, and Heretickes; and therefore, that it cannot now serue as a marke or note distinctiue, whereby the true Church may bee knowen from mis-beleeuers. This therefore is to bee reckoned amongst those things that are proper and peculiar to the true Church, but not perpetually proper; and so amongst those notes that may difference the true Church from the false, at some times and not at others.

The title of Catholicke doth most fitly expresse those, both Christian men and societies of Christians, which hold the common faith, without particular diuisions from the maine bodie of Christianitie. While therefore there was but the maine body of Christianity at vnitie in it selfe, and such portions of seduced and misseled people, as apparantly diuided themselues from it, the name of a Catholicke was a note and distinctiue marke, or character to know and discerne a Catholicke from an Hereticke, or Schismaticke by, and the naming after the name of any man, a note of particularity, and hereticall or Schismaticall faction. Wherevpon Paclanus in epist. ad sempronianum citatur à Bellar. loco superius notato. one of the auncient sayd fitly to this purpose, Christian is my name, and Catholicke is my surname: by the one I am knowen from Infidels, by the other from Heretickes and Schismatickes. But when the maine body of the Christian Church diuided it selfe, partly by reason of different ceremonies, vses, customes, and obseruations; partly through the ambitious striuings of the Bishops, and Prelates of the greatest, richest, and most respected places; partly by occasion of some different opinions; the name of Catholicke remained common to either of the parts thus diuided, sundred, and rent one from another, though on the one side rested not onely errour, but heresie also in the opinion of the other. For who knoweth not, that the Christians of the Greeke, and Orientall Church, are and haue beene as generally named Catholickes, as the friends and followers of the Westerne or Latine Church? Neither haue they any name, or note of faction, as all auncient Heretickes had, but as in former times before this schisme began, for distinction sake the whole Christian Church was divided into two moities, the one called the Occidentall, or Latine: and the other the Orientall, or Greeke Church: so are they by the same notes of difference and no other knowen at this day. Yet are the Grecians, Armenians, Aethiopians, and other in the East parts of the world, in the iudgement of the Romanists, not onely Schismatickes, but Heretickes also.

It 1. Tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 4. was therefore more than ordinary impudencie in Bellarmine to affirme, that the name of a Catholicke is a note of true Catholicke profession, when hee knew it to bee common to such as himselfe pronounceth Heretickes. And it is yet more intolerable that he sayth, there is no heresie which receiueth not her name from some particular man the authour and beginner of it: and that whosoeuer are named after the names of men are vndoubtedly Heretickes. For of what man had the Apostolici their name, whose authour and first beginner was neuer knowen, (as Ceterae huiusmodi pestes singulae singulos magistros, homines habuisae noscuntur, à quibus originem duxere, & nomen: quo nomine isto •… titulo que censebis? nullo; quoniam non ab homine illorum haereles &c. Bernard •… cantica ser. 66. Bernard sayth) that wee might assure our selues the Devill was authour of that damnable Sect? and who dare pronounce all the Thomists, Scotists, Benedictines, and the like, to be Heretickes? That wee may therefore make his folly to appeare in that hee sayth concerning Heretickes, and the naming after the names of men, as wee did in the former part, touching the name and title of Catholick, wee must obserue, that Heretickes sometimes haue their names from the matter wherein they erre, as the Monothelites in old time, and the Anabptists in ours; the first affirming, that there is but one will in Christ, whence they were named Monothelites; the other vrging rebaptization of such as are baptized by Heretickes, whence they are named Anabaptists, that is, rebaptizers: sometimes of that they arrogantly challenge to themselues and make pretence of, Nempe iactant se esse Apostolorum, successores, & Apostolicos nominant, •… lum tamen Aposto •… 〈◊◊〉 valentes, ostendere. Ber. in Cant. serm. 66. as the Apostolici, for that they challenged to themselues more than ordinary perfection, as equalling the Apostles, or comming neerer to their examples, and presidents, than other men: sometimes of the place where they began and most prevailed, as the Cataphriges: sometimes of the first authour of their heresie, as Maronites, Donatistes, and the like. Thus then wee see all Heretickes haue not their names from men.

But they will say, they were all Heretickes that were named after the names of men. Surely it is not to bee denied but that the naming after the names of men was in the time of the Primitiue Church, peculiar and proper to Heretickes and Schismatickes onely.

Neither were there any Christians in the first ages of the Church called after the names of men, but such as followed wicked seducers in Schisme, or Heresie: wherevpon it was a sure rule in auncient times, that whosoever professing thē selues Christians, were named after the names of men (as Nouatians of Nouatus, Pelagians of Pelagius) they were to bee holden for Heretickes. This rule is deliuered by Hierom, against the Contra Luciferianos prope finem. Luciferians. sicubi &c. If any where thou finde men professing Christianitie, called after the particular names of men, know them to bee the Synagogue of Antichrist, and not the Church of Christ. But as the honourable title of Catholicke, sometimes a note of the true and Orthodoxe Church, is now ceased to bee so; in like sorte the naming after the names of men, sometimes a note of Heresie, is now ceased to be so: which to bee most true the sundry, manifold and diuers names of Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictins, Augustinians, Thomists, Scotists, and the like, doe make it most apparant. And besides this, there are at this day innumerable Christians in the East parts of the world, that are Onuphrius in supplemento Platinae in vita Iulij. 3. called Nestorians, that hold not the Heresie of Nestorius, nor any other speciall Heresie, whence they might haue any such name of diuision, faction, or particularity.

For the better cleering of whatsoeuer may seeme doubtfull in this matter of names, titles, and appellations, wee must obserue, that they, which professe the faith of Christ, haue beene sometimes in these later ages of the Church, called after the speciall names of such men, as were the Authours, deuisers, and beginners of such courses of monasticall profession, as they made choyce of to follow, as Benedictins, and the like; sometimes of such principall men, whose judgement and opinion they embraced, and followed, in sundry matters of great moment in the controversies of religion, not yet determined by consent of the whole vniversall Church; and so in our times amongst the schoole Diuines, some following Thomas, and others Scotus, in many and sundry maine contradictory opinions, some were named Thomists, others Scotists; sometimes of such men, whose new, strange, and private opinions contrary to the Churches faith, they pertinaciously imbraced and followed, as Arrians, of Arrius, Eutichians, of Eutiches: yea, sometimes of some arch-hereticke, whose opinions & heresies they hold not, as at this day the greater part of Christians that are in Assyria, Persia, and the rest of the Easterne provinces, are called Onuphrius in vita iulij. 3. Nestorians, by all other Christians in those parts, as the Iacobites, Maronites, Cophti, & the like; yet doe they hold nothing that sauoureth of Nestorius heresie, as Onuphrius reporteth in the life of Iulius the third, in whose time sundry of them came to Rome.

These in likelyhood are called Nestorians, for that in former times the heresie of Nestorius prevailed much in those parts of the world: which now being clearely banished, the right beleeuing Christians of those parts are still notwithstanding called by that odious and hatefull name: or else it is by wrong and vniust imputation; as the Armenians are iudged by many to bee Eutichians, for that they receiue not the councell of Chalcedon In Concilio Florentino in decreto Eugenij 4. which they refused to subscribe vnto, vpon a false suggestion and apprehension, that in it the heresie of Nestorius condemned in the Councell of Ephesus, was reviued againe: sometimes of such as collected, gathered, and brought into a certaine Order, for the better direction of Gods people in his service, the prayers of the Church, and formes of administring the sacraments, and other holy things, or else augmented, altered, or reformed those that were before; So when there grew a division among the Churches of this part of the world, some following the forme of Diuine administration left by Ambrose, others imbracing that prescribed by Gregory, some were called In Ecclesia Gregorianâ est haec forma, per istam sanctam vnctionem &c. in Ambrosianâ est haec, vngo te &c. Bonavent. lib. 4. dist 23. q. 4. de sacramento vnctionis, Cassandet in praefat. in l. or d. Rom. Petrus Voraginisis in legenda Gregorij. 1. Ambrosian, and some Gregorian Churches: as likewise in our times when Luther, Caluine, and other worthy seruants of God had perswaded some states of Christendome to reforme, correct, and alter some things that were amisse, and to remooue and take away sundry barbarismes, errours, and superstitions crept into the prayers of the Church, with many grosse abuses, and grievous abominations formerly tolerated in the middest of the Church of God; those States, people, and Churches, which reformed themselues, abandoning superstition, and errour, were by some called reformed Churches; by other, Lutherane Churches. Neither was it possible, that so great an alteration, as the corrupt state of the Church required, should be effected, & not carry some remembrance of them by whom it was procured. Wee see the sincerity of our Christian profession concerning the Sonne of God, (whom we acknowledge coessentiall, coequall, and coeternall with the Father,) cleered, & published in the Nicen Councell, was ever after, for distinction from the manifold turnings and windings of Heretickes, endevouring to obscure, corrupt, alter, & adulterate the same; called the Nicene faith.

That the Church needed reformation when Luther began, and that it was not necessary, nor behoouefull to expect the consent of the whole Christian world in a generall Councell, I will make it euident when I come to the third part of my first generall division. In the meane while, it is most cleare and euident, that the naming after the names of men is now no certaine note of Heresie, or Schisme. For if the naming after the names of men were a certaine note of Heresie, or Schisme, then should all orders of Monkes and Friers, that are named after the names of their first authours, be prooued Heretickes: yea, the followers of Thomas, and Scotus, should be convinced of Heresie: and all the Christians that are named Nestorians, should be found Heretickes; which they which know them best, doe denie; yea then, all the Ambrosian and Gregorian Churches, must bee charged with Heresie, and Schisme.

THE THIRD BOOKE, OF THE TRVE CHVRCH DEMONSTRATED BY THE NOTES BEFORE AGREED VPON.
CHAP. 1.

Of the division of the Christian world into the Westerne, or Latine Church, and the Orientall, or East Church.

THus then having sufficiently examined those things which concerne the notes of the Church, so that it is evidēt to all not wilfully contentious, which are the true notes whereby the Church may be knowne: it remaineth, that by application of them we seeke out, which among so many diversities, and contrarieties in matters of religion, as are at this day found in the World, is the true, and Orthodox Church of God. And because our controuersies are not with Iewes, nor Pagan Infidels, as in the times of the fathers, but with such as together with vs professe themselues Christians, letting passe all those notes which serue to proue the trueth of Christian profession in generall, against heathenish and Iewish errours, let vs come to take view of the diuersities that are found among Christians, and, by the direction of the notes agreed vpon, see which is the true Church of God.

The Christian Church is divided at this day into the Westerne, or Latine Church, and the Orientall or East Church. The Orientall or East Church is divided, into the Greeke Church, the Nestorian or Assyrian Churches, and the Churches of the supposed Monophysits, as the Iacobites, Armenians, Cophti or Christians of Aegypt; the Aethiopians or Abissens, and the Maronites who are thought to be Monothelites. The Christians that are of the Greeke religion are of two sorts. First such as presently are, or lately were, subiect to the iurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Secondly such as neuer were vnder that iurisdiction and yet are of the same Communion: as the Melchites of Syria, and the Georgians. Of the first sort are all the Christians of Natolia except Armenia the lesser, and Cilicia; the Christians of Circassia and Mengrellia, and Russia, in Europe the Christians of Greece, Macedon, Epirus, Thrace, Bulgaria, Rascia, Servia, Bosina, Walachia, Moldavia, Podolia, and Moscovia, together with all the Ilands of the Aegean sea as farre as Corfu, besides a great part of the king of Polonia his dominions and those parts of Dalmatia, and Croatia that are vnder the Turke. The reason of this large extent of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople was. First the decree of the Councell of Chalcedon, subjecting vnto him all Thracia and Anatolia except Isauria and Cilicia belonging to Antioch, 28 Roman Provinces. Secondly the voluntary submission of the Grecians vpon the separation of the Churches. For thereby not only Greece, Macedon, Epirus, Candie, and the Iles about Greece, in all about 7 Provinces came vnder him, but Sicily also, and Calabria fell from Rome, and for a long time were subject to the iurisdiction of Constantinople. Wherevpon in prope finem. Curopalates the Metropolitans of Syracusa and Catana in Sicilia, of Rhegium, Severiana, Rosia and Hydruntum in Calabria are registred amongst the Metropolitans of that jurisdiction. Thirdly the conversion of sundry nations and people to the Christian faith by his suffragans and ministers wrought a great enlargement of his jurisdiction. The first of the Slavons, sayth Lib. 3. pa. 31. Cromerus, that were converted to the faith, were those of Bulgaria, who became Christian the yeare 860 in the time of Nicholas the first. About these there was much contention a long time betweene Rome and Constantinople, either of them clayming jurisdiction over them as having wonne them to the true knowledge and worshippe of God. But in the end the Grecians prevayled, and they were wholly put vnder the jurisdiction of Constantinople. Some thirty yeares after these, they of Rascia, Servia, Bosina, Croatia, Dalmatia and Illiricum received the Christian faith from their neighbours the Grecians, and Italians, in the time of the raigne of Suatoplugus amongst the Moravians, who gaue his name to Christ, and was the meanes of the conversion of Borivoius Duke of the Bohemians about the yeare 900. Not long after the conversion of the Bohemians about 980 yeares after Christ in the time of the raigne of Basilius and Constantine Emperours of Constantinople, the Russees began publickely to professe the Christian faith, Volodomirus their prince having married the Emperours sister and receiued teachers from the Patriarch of Constantinople. This prince after hee became a Christian, placed a Metropolitan at Kiovia, an Archbishop at Novograd, and in other citties Bishops consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Since which time the Russians adhere most constantly to the Greeke religion, & rites. After this the Polomans possessed themselues of sundry parts of Russia, but the Russians not long enduring that subjection, cast off the yoake and became free againe; yet continued not long so: for within short time after Russia in a great part became subject to the Lituanians partly by conquest, and partly by marriages, and from them was passed over againe to the Polonians. For Ludovicus King of Hungary, and Poland, had two daughters, of which the younger named Heduigis succeeded him in the kingdome of Polonia, who was married to Iagello prince of Lituania; and thereby all Lituania, and that part of Russia also that was subject to Lituania was joyned to the kingdome of Polonia for ever. But the histories report that while the Russees were diuided into many principalities, which fell out immediatly after the death of Volodomirus, one Iohn the son of Daniel, a prince amongst them, taking a good liking of the river, and tower of Mosqua repaired the tower before meane, and base; and made it the seate of his principality. So that the Russees subject to him were named Moscovites from the riuer and tower of Mosco. And when long after they of the posterity of Iohn, having joyned vnto them partly by marriages, partly by fraud, partly by force such people of that nation and language as lay neere vnto them formerly weakened by the incursions of the Tartars and others, and so enlarged their principality. All such Russees as were joyned to that empire, though much more noble and mighty then the Moscovites, were content to be named Moscovites, and yet still retayned the name of Russees also, as the Podolians are Russees and yet haue a peculiar name. These Moscovites by conquest obtained Novograde, and after that, those Russees that were called Severianenses fell from the subjection of the Lituanians to the Moscovites, either moued so to doe by the iniuries they had receiued from them as they pretended, or rather by reason of the difference in religion betweene them; and the good correspondence they held with the Muscovites in this respect, so that the principality of Mosco grew to bee exceeding great. The Duke of Mosco growing thus great obtained of the Patriarch of Constantinople to haue a metropolitan of Mosco, who was named Metropolitan of Russia, both by the Patriarch and others: aswell as the Bishop of Kiovia, who was long before so named and continueth yet still so to bee. In that part of Russia that is subject to the King of Polonia there are seaven Bishoprickes, whereof the Bishoppe of Kiovia is the Metropolitan. In the other which is subject to the great Duke of Mosco there are eleven Bishoprickes, whereof the Bishop of Mosco is Metropolitan, the Bishop of Novograde & Rascavium are Archbishops, the rest ordinary Bishops. All these as being at the first consecrated and placed by the Patriarch of Constantinople were vnder his jurisdiction. 4o The Turkes conquests haue beene an occasion of the enlargment of the Constantinopolitan iurisdiction; for when sundry parts of the Christian world formerly subject to Rome were brought vnder the bondage of the Turkes, the Bishops and Pastors like hirelings forsooke their flockes, over which, the Patriarch of Constantinople pittying their case, placed Bishops and Pastors of the greeke religion, who by little and little wonne them to the liking of the same. Thus wee see how farre the Constantinopolitan iurisdiction spreades it selfe, so that I thinke it will be found that the number of Christians vnder that Bishop with the Melchites and Georgians that are ioyned in communion with him, though never vnder his jurisdiction, doth farre exceede them of the Roman communion, vnlesse they draw in their new converts in the Indies to fill vp the number. Annotatio Onuphrij in vitā Bonifacij, apud Platinam. The division & separation betweene the Greeke & Latine Churches grew out of the ambitious cōtentiōs of the Bishop of Rome, & the Patriarch of Constantinople in this sort. In the time of the Nicen Councell and before, as appeareth by the Nicen. concil. can. 6. acts of the Councell limiting their bounds, there were three principall Bishops or Patriarchs of the Christian Church; namely, the Bishop of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. After which time, Constantinople before named Bizantium made great by Constantine, & being the seate of the Emperours, the Bishop of this See, not only obtained to haue the dignity of a Patriarch among the rest, Sub Theodosio seniore can. 3. & Socrates l. 5. cap. 8. but in the second generall Councell holden at Constantinople was preferred before both the other of Alexandria and Antioch, & set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome. Acts. 16. can. 28. in Graecis Codicibus. In the great Councell of Chalcedon, hee was made equall with him, & to haue all equall rights, privileges, & prerogatiues, because he was Bishop of new Rome: as the other of old. But not long contenting himselfe with this equality; the magnificencie, and glory of his City dayly increasing, making him proud, and insolent, hee challenged to be superiour, and would be named vniversall B. not challenging to himselfe to be B. alone but incroaching vpon the right of all other, Caeterarum sedium privilegia, & earundé episcoporum cōsecrationem ad se vnum revocare, eos que in ordinem cogere, & sibi subdere conatus, est. Leo epist. ad Anatolium; post consecrationem Antiocheni episcopi quam tibimet contra canonicam regnlam vindicasti &c. epist. 53. & thereby declaring himselfe greater, and more honorable then any of the rest, and the chiefe Bishop of the whole world, because his citie was the chiefe citie of the world. Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 76. 78. 82. lib. 6. epist. 168. 169. About this, was the contention betweene Gregorie the first, and Iohn of Constantinople; which not being ended in the dayes of Gregory, because the Emperour Mauritius was averse from him, favouring the claime of his aduersary, Beda in lib. de temporum ratione. Platina in vita Bonifacij, 3. Bonifacius obtained of Phocas to haue the mattter in such sort concluded betweene them, that the B. of Rome should haue the first and chiefe place in the Church of God, and the Patriarch of Constantinople the second: which conclusion was not of such force, but that the succeeding Bishops of Constantinople cō tinued the same challeng their predecessors made, & as any oportunity was offered, sought to aduance their pretended title, till at length there growing some difference between thē in the matter of the proceeding of the holy G, whome the Latines affirmed to proceede from the Father and the Sonne, the GREEKES from the Father only, either pronounced the other to be heretickes & schismatickes.

Wherefore let vs see what the religion of the Greeke Church is, and whether these Christians be so farre forth orthodoxe, that wee may account them members of the true Catholicke Church of God, or so in errour, that we may reject them as schismaticks & hereticks, though in number never so many. De consid. ad Eugenium, l 3. cap. 2. Bernard speaking of them, sayth, nobiscum sunt & non sunt, iuncti fide, pace diuisi, quanquam & fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis. That is, they are with vs and they are not with vs, they are of the same profession with vs touching matters of faith, but they hold not the vnity of the spirit in the band of peace; although they haue halted also, and in some sort declined from the straight pathes in matters pertayning to the Christian faith. Touching the state of these Christians, the Romanists lay downe these propositions. First, that there is a double separation from the Church of God, the one by heresie ouerthrowing the fayth, the other by schisme breaking the vnity. The second, that schismaticks, though they fall not into heresie, are out of the Church, cut off from being members of the same, and consequently in state of damnation. Beleeue certainely, and no way doubt, sayth St De fide ad Petrum, c. 38. Augustine, that not onely all Pagans, but all Iewes, hereticks, & schismaticks also, dying out of the communion of the Catholicke Church, shall goe into everlasting fire. The third, that the Graecians are Schismatically divided from the Roman Church, that they haue long continued so, that they are excommunicate with the greater excommunication thundred out against all Schismaticks in bulla coenae Domini, and consequently are in state of damnation. Tho: à Iesu l. 6. c. 8. p. 281. But whether they bee not only Schismaticks but haereticks also as some feare not to pronounce, they are not yet agreed. Institut. moral. l. 8, c. 20. q. •… 0. Azorius thinketh they are not to bee censured as hereticks, and yeeldeth a reason of his so thinking: because in those articles of the faith where they are thought to erre, they differ verbally onely, and not really from those that are vndoubtedly right beleevers; and giueth instance first in the question touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, wherein hee thinketh they differ but in forme of words from them that seeme to bee their opposites: and secondly, in the questions touching the Pope, his power, priviledges, and authority, concerning all which hee affirmeth, they haue no other opinion then Gerson & the Parisians, who were neuer yet pronounced heretickes, for they yeeld a primacie to the Bishop of Rome, but no supremacy. They acknowledge him to bee Patriarch of the West amongst all the Patriarches in order & honour the first as long as hee continueth orthodoxe, and seeketh not to encroach vpon the jurisdiction of others. But they deny as also the Parisians doe, that his judgement is infallible, or his power & authority supreame & absolute, they teach that hee must doe nothing of himselfe in things pertayning to the state of the vniversall Church, but with the concurrence of others his colleagues, and that hee is subject to a generall Councell. All which things were defined in the Councells of Constance and Basil, and the contrary positions condemned as haereticall. Neither want there at this day many worthy Diuines liuing in the Communion of the Roman Church, who most strongly adhere to the decrees of those Councells, and peremptorily reject those of Florence and Trent, wherein the contrary faction prevayled. For the whole kingdome and state of France admit those and reject the other, and would no lesse withdraw themselues from all communion with the Roman Bishoppe then the Grecians doe if they should once bee pressed to acknowledge that his power and authority is supreame and absolute, that hee cannot erre, and that hee may dispose the kingdomes and depose the kings & soveraigne princes of the world as the Iesuites and other the Popes flatterers affirme, and defend. Whence it will follow that they are not onely free from heresie, as Azorius resolueth but frō schisme also. So that after so great clamours, and so long contendings they must of necessity bee forced in the end to confesse, they haue done them infinite wrong and sinned grievously against God in condemning to hell for no cause so many millions of Christian soules redeemed with the most precious blood of his dearest Sonne. There are, sayth De eccl. lib. 4 cap. 2. Andreas Fricius, who thinke that the Russians, Armenians, and other Christians of the East part pertaine not to the Christian Church; but seeing they vse the same sacraments which wee doe, seeing they professe to fight vnder the banner of Christ crucified, and rejoyce in their sufferings for his sake, farre bee it from vs ever to thinke that they should bee cast off and rejected from being fellow citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God, having borne the burden, & endured the heate of the day, so many ages in the vineyard of the Lord. Nay rather I thinke there can be no perfect cōsociation & vnion of the whole Church without them. For the Latine Church alone cānot be takē for the vniversall Church, that which is but a part cānot be the whole. But some man happily will say, whatsoeuer we think of these differēces touching the power & authority of the B. of Rome, yet in the article of the proceeding of the holy ghost they erre damnably, & so are hereticks, & that Azorius was deceived when hee thought otherwise. Wherefore for the cleering of this poynt; first I will make it evident that not onely Azorius but sundry other great and worthy Divines thinke the difference about the proceeding of the holy Ghost to bee meerely verball. Secondly, I will shew how the seeming differences touching this poynt may bee reconciled. Thirdly, I will note the beginnings and proceedings in this controversie. The Grecians, sayth Lib. 1. d. 11. Peter Lombard, affirme, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father onely, & not from the Sonne, yet wee must know that the Greekes doe acknowledge the holy Ghost to bee the spirit of the Son, aswell as of the Father; because the Apostle sayth, the spirit of the Son: And trueth it selfe in the Gospell, the spirit Galat. 4. of trueth. Now seeing it is no other thing to bee the spirit of the Father and the Son, then to bee from the Father & the Son; they seeme to agree with vs in judgement touching this article of faith, though they differ in words. In notula quadam super finem epistolae de trisagio apud Scotum l. 1. d. 11. q. 1. Grosthed the famous and renowned Bishop of Lincolne, writing vpon a part of Damascen, deliuereth his opinion touching this controuersie in these words. The Grecians are of opinion that the holy Ghost is the spirit of the Sonne, but that hee proceedeth not from the Son but from the Father onely, yet by the Son; and this opinion seemeth to bee contrary to ours. For wee say the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father & the Son. But happily if two wise and vnderstanding men, the one of the Greeke Church, the other of the Latine, both true louers of the trueth, and not of their owne sayings, because they are their owne, might meete to consider of this seeming contrariety, it would in the end appeare that this difference indeede, and in trueth is not reall, but verball onely. For otherwise either the Grecians, or wee that are of the Latine Church are truely Heretickes. But who dares charge this Authour Iohn Damascen, or those blessed ones Basil, Gregorie the Diuine, or Gregorie Nazianzen, Cyril, and other Greeke Fathers of like esteeme with heresie. And again on the other side, who dares brand blessed Hierome, Augustine, Ambrose, Hilarie, and other like Latine Fathers with the note of heresie. Therefore it is likely that though there be contrariety in the words of these fathers, so that they seem to bee contrary one to another; yet in judgement & meaning they agree. De Ecclesia l. 4. cap. 2. Stanislaus, Orichovius, as Andreas Fricius reporteth, a man renowned for wit, eloquence, & profound science in divers kinds, hath written of the opinions of the Russians, and in an epistle to Peter Gamrat an Archbishoppe in Polonia, he sheweth how the differences touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, where they seeme especially to bee contrary vnto vs, may bee agreed and composed. Lib. 6. p. 24 •… Thomas à Iesu resolueth cleerely that this question touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost is onely de modo loquendi, and that the difference is not reall, which hee sheweth to be true in this sort. The Greekes, who deny the holy Ghost to proceede from the Sonne, acknowledge that hee is the spirit of the Sonne, and that hee is given vnto vs by the Sonne. Wee doe not say, sayth Damascen, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne, but wee name him the spirit of the Son. If any man, sayth the Apostle, haue not the spirit of Christ, hee is none of his. And wee affirme, that hee appeared by the Sonne, & was given vnto vs by him, for hee breathed vpon his disciples, & sayd vnto them, receiue the holy Ghost, but wee neuer say that the Sonne is the son of the holy Ghost, or proceedeth from him. They teach therefore, that the spirit is, & proceedeth from the Father by the Son: as the brightnesse is from the Sun, by the beame. And that, as wee may say, the brightnesse is the brightnesse of the Sun-beame, aswell as of the Sun, but not that the beame is the beame of that brightnesse: so the spirit is the spirit of the Son, but the Son is not the son of the spirit, So then they say, the holy Ghost proceedeth or receiueth essence & being from the Father onely, as from the originall & fountaine, but by the Son as a middle person in order of subsistence betweene them, receiving being immediatly from the Father, & so mediately deriving & cōmunicating it to him. Neither Greekes nor Latines therefore deny the holy Ghost to receiue being & essence from the Sonne, and consequently to proceede from him as from a middle person in order of subsistence betweene the Father & him in such sort, as the brightnesse that floweth from the sun is from the sun-beame betweene the sun and it. Neither of them deny the Father to be the fountaine, and the originall: as the sunne is the fountaine whence floweth both the beame, & brightnesse of light. And both agree that the Father from whom, & the Sonne by whom the spirit receiueth being, are one cause, or one beginning: and that by one eternall breathing the spirit receiueth essence or subsistence from them both, in such sort as the sonne and beame are one cause, and doe by one action send forth that shining brightnesse that floweth from them. By that which hath beene spoken sayth Thomas à Iesu, it is easie to vnderstand that those Greekes which seeme to differ from the Latines, differ but in words only, and that the Churches may easily be brought to a reconciliation and agreement, if they will but endeavour to vnderstand each the other: But the Latines and those Greekes that agree with them speake more fitly, & expresse the thing whereof they speake better then the other. Howsoever it is certaine that some of the Fathers expressed that they conceiued of this mystery in one sort, and some in another. Contr. Praxeam. Tertullian sayth, the holy spirit is from the Father by the Son; his words are, Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium. Lib. 2. de trinitate. Hilarie sayth, he is from the Father and the Son. His words are de patre & filio authoribus confitendus est, &c. When the holy spirit is x In epist. ad Hedibiam. sent, sayth Hierom, he is sent of the Father, and the Son; and in Scripture hee is called sometimes the spirit of the Father, sometimes of the Son. And Esai. 〈◊〉 . 7. again Spiritus à Patre egreditur, & propter naturae societatem à filio mittitur. That is, the spirit proceedeth from the Father, and in that he is of the same nature and essence with the Son he is sent of him. Why should wee not beleeue, sayth Tract. in Ioann. 99. Augustine, that the holy spirit, proceedeth from the Sonne also, seeing hee is the spirit of the Sonne. The Greekes say not expressely, that hee proceedeth from the Father and the Sonne; for in the creede of Athanasius as it is found in the Greeke, the words are, the spirit is of the Father not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding; without the addition of the Sonne. Nyssen in vita Greg. Thaumaturg. But some of them say he is, or receiued being from the Father, that he appeared by the Son, and is a perfect image of the Son. Chrys. hom. 76. in Ioan. Others, that not only the Father but the Son also sendeth the holy spirit. Epiphan. haere. 69. Some that hee proceedeth from the Father, and receiueth of the Sonne. And Maxim. in Zach. c. 4. citat. à Bessario. Tha •… . in epist. ad patriarchas orient. habetur in 7. Sy nodo actio. 3. others that hee is from the Father by the Sonne. In all which diversitie of words and formes of speaking there was one & the same meaning, and therefore no exception was taken by one against another. But the controversie that now is touching this point began in this sort. The first publishers of the Gospell of Christ deliuered a rule of faith to the Christian Churches which they founded, comprehending all those articles that are found in that epitome of Christian religion, which wee call the Apostles creed. But in processe of time, when Arrius and his complices questioned the deity of Christ, and denied him so to bee the sonne of God as to bee coequall, coeternall, and coessentiall with the father, Constantine called a Councell and assembled the Bishops of the Christian world at Nice a city in Bithinia; these Bishops cleared the poynt in controversie, and with vnanimous consent, composed a Symbole, contayning a full explication of whatsoever might bee questioned touching the deity of Christ. This forme of Christian profession was called the Nicen creed, and was received as a most excellent rule of faith by all right beleeuers throughout the world. In this creed there was nothing expressely put downe touching the holy Ghost more then was found in the Apostles creed, that wee beleeue in the holy Ghost. But when Macedonius and Eunomius denyed the deity of the holy spirit, the Fathers assembled in the first Councell of Constantinople, added to the Nicen creed these words. I beleeue in the holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who together with the Father and the Sonne is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets. So expressing his proceeding from the Father, without any mention of the Sonne. This creed, or forme of Christian profession was confirmed in the councell of Ephesus, and all they accursed that should adde any thing vnto it: meaning as it may well be thought to condemne such addition as might make any alteration, and not such as might serue for more full and definite explication. But howsoeuer, this Nicen creed thus enlarged in the Councell of Constantinople without any farther addition was confirmed, and proposed to the Christian world for a rule of faith in all the generall councells that ever were holden, and was so publickely received in sundry Christian Churches in their liturgies. But in time the Bishops of Spaine began to adde the proceeding from the Sonne, saying; Wee beleeue in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Sonne: And the French not long after admitted the same addition; but the Romans admitted it not, Wherevpon Charles the great in his time called a Councell at Aquisgrane, in which it was debated, whether the Spaniards, and after them the French had done well in adding to the creed the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Sonne. And whether supposing the point of doctrine to bee true, it were fit to sing and recite the creed in the publicke service of the Church with this addition, the Church of Rome, and some other Churches refusing to admitte it. Besides this, some were sent to Leo the third about that matter, but hee would by no meanes allow of this addition, but perswaded them that had given way vnto it, by litle, & litle to put it out, and to sing the creed without it. The same Leo caused the symbole to bee translated and written out in a table of siluer, in such sort as it had beene deliuered in the Covncels, placed the same behind the altar of S Peter, and left it to posterity, out of the carefull desire of preseruing the true faith as hee professed. And in this Symbol in the article touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, the Father onely is named in this sort: and in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father. Neither was this the private fancy of Leo only, for after his time Iohn the 8th shewed his dislike of this addition likewise, for writing vnto Photius patriarch of Constantinople hee hath these words. Reverend vid. Pithaeum. Sir, that wee may giue you satisfaction touching that addition in the creed (and from the Sonne) wee let you know, that not onely wee haue no such addition: but also wee condemne them as transgressors of the direct word, that were the first authours of this addition. And afterwards he addeth, wee carefully labour, and endevour to bring it to passe that all our Bishops may thinke as wee doe; but no man can suddenly alter a thing of such consequence, and therefore it seemeth reasonable to vs: that no man bee violently constrained by you to leaue out this addition. But in the yeare 883 the Romans also made the same addition to the creed in the time of Pope Nicholas the first. Heere by the way wee may note the inconstancy, irresolution, and vncertainty of the Roman Bishops, one of them admitting that as right and good which another not long after condemned as a transgression of the direct law. And farther that in matters of great importance other Bishops haue gone before them, and drawen them to doe that in the end which at first they misliked, so that all direction in former times was not sought from Rome. By that which hath beene said it appeareth that the difference betweene the Churches touching this point is not such as it should cause any division, or breach. Yet was this addition no sooner made, but so great dislikes grew vpon it, (many thinking nothing might be added, at least without a generall Councell, to the creed formerly published in so many generall Councels as a rule of faith:) that though the difference in trueth and in deede were but verball, yet either side endevoured to shew the other erred daungerously; and so this verball difference was an occasion amongst other things to cause a schisme and separation between them.

Thus having cleered this poynt, wherein, if in any thing, the Grecians may be thought to haue erred, let vs see what other errours are imputed to them. Citatus à Pratcolo. Guido Carmelita, and after him Prateolus impute vnto them sundry errours which Apud Possev. bibl. l. 6. c. 1. Lucinianus of Cyprus a learned Dominican and a worthy man, as hee is accounted by Possevine, sheweth to be falsely ascribed vnto them. As first, that simple fornication is no sinne. 2dly, that they condemne second marriages which hee sheweth to bee vntrue likewise, though the Priest blesse onely in the first, and not in the second. Thirdly, that they thinke the contract of marriage may bee broken, and the band dissolved at the pleasure of the parties. Whereas contrariwise, hee affirmeth, they allow no diuorce so as to permitte a second marriage, while both the parties liue. Fourthly, they are sayd to affirme that the sacrament consecrated on maundy Thursday, is of more force, vertue, and efficacy, then consecrated any other day. Wherein hee sheweth, that they are no lesse wronged then in the other imputations. Fiftly, they are charged to teach that it is no sinne to lend vpon vsury; and which is worse, that it is not necessary to make restitution of things vniustly taken away. In both which imputations hee sayth, they are much wronged. For they thinke vsury to bee sinne, and vrge the necessity of restitution. Sixtly, they are said to thinke, if a Priests wife die, hee ceaseth to bee a Priest any longer, which is as meere a slaunder as the rest were. So that it is true that Tho: à Iesu hath, that one of the principall things that maketh the Grecians so averse from the Latines is that they are wronged by them by vntrue reports and vnjust imputations. The things wherein they differ indeed from the Church of Rome are these. First they deny the Pope to be head of the vniversall Church, or to haue any supreame commaunding authority in the Church and over other Bishops: they say that there are fiue Patriarches or chiefe bishops of the Christian Church; to wit, the Bishop of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem, and amongst these they yeeld a primacy of order and dignity to the Bishop of Rome. So that in all Councels and meetings hee is to haue the first place in sitting, or giving voyce, in subscribing, or defining and determining things concerning the faith and state of the Church, but not any power or commaunding authority over them. Wee, sayth Marcus Ephesinus, thinke the Pope to bee one of the fiue Patriarches if hee bee Orthodoxe. But they that mette in the Florentine Councell and subscribed to the vnion there made, do teach, that hee is the Vicar of Christ, the father and teacher of all Christians. Secondly, in the ministring of baptisme they differ much from the Roman Church. For first the words of forme with them are; let the servant of the Lord be baptized, in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost: and not I baptize thee as in the Latine Church. 2ly, they dippe the baptized thrice in the water, whereas many among the Latines doe onely powre water vpon the top of the head. 3ly, they vse not salt, spittle, and the like as the Latinos doe. 4l, they Cyrill. catech, pag. 524. anoynt them with chrisom or holy oyle in the forehead, so as in the Latine Church they are anoynted in confirmation. And in some other parts also; saying, sigillum & obsignatio donispiritus sancti. that is, the seale and obsignation of the gift of the holy Ghost, and vse no other confirmation. Whereas the Latines make it a sacrament to bee ministred by none but a Bishop. 5ly, According to the old custome vsed in the Primitiue Church they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist to children when they baptize them. 3ly, They differ much more from the Latines touching the sacrament of the eucharist. For first they vse leavened bread, and some of them proceede so farre as that they thinke it no sacrament if it bee ministred in vnleavened bread. 2ly, They consecrate one loafe which they devide into many parts, and giue to the communicants. 3ly, They keepe the bread and wine covered vntill they come to blesse, and then drawing aside the curtaine they bring them into sight, and lift them vp from the mysticall table, that the people may see what heavenly foode is prepared for them. And to this purpose with them serveth the elevation. 4ly, They thinke the consecration is made by the prayers and blessing, and that the reciting of the words of Christ, this is my body, &c. serveth onely to put vs in minde what was then done when he first instituted this Sacrament, and to giue a power or aptnesse to the sacramentall elements to be chaunged mystically into his body and blood, whereas the Latines thinke the bare recitall of the words of Christ doe worke the consecration. 5ly, They pronounce the words of Christ aloud, that all may heare and vnderstand; the Latines so that they are not heard. 6ly, They giue the sacrament to the hands of the communicants, the Latines put it in their mouthes. 7ly, They condemne private masses, as appeareth by Marcus Ephesinus, who sayth, the Priest in the Latine Church eateth all and drinketh all himselfe, giving no part to any that are present, no not to the Deacon that assisteth him, and yet cryeth aloud take and eate. So doe they many things, sayth he, in the celebration of this holy mystery, contrary to the tradition receiued from the fathers, contrary to the words of Christ, and contrary to themselues, and their owne words. 8ly, They minister the communion in both kinds to all communicants, and thinke it necessary so to doe, the Latines minister it onely in one kinde to the lay people, and such Priests, and cleargie men as consecrate not, but are present onely to communicate. 9ly, They teach that there is a cōversion of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ. But such as that is, whereby the iron is turned into fire, or rather into a fiery nature, & being; whence it becōmeth burning iron. In which there is no abolishing of the substance, but such a change, that it is no longer meerely iron, but the nature and properties of fire appeare in it, rather then of iron. So that as iron is turned into fire, not by an absolute ceasing to be, or loosing of former properties, but by a suspension of them for a time, so that they appeare not, and by becomming one in such sort with the fire, that it hath all the properties and actiōs of it: so the bread is turned into the body of Christ, not by an absolute ceasing to bee; but by becomming one in such sort with Christs body thorough the presence of the spirit descending and comming downe vpon it, as that the communicating in the one, is the partaking in the other, and an imparting of all such graces as may, or doe flow from any vnion with the same. The bread and wine, sayth Orthodoxae fid. lib. 4. c. 14. Damascen, are so chaunged into the body & blood of Christ by the presence of the spirit, descending and comming downe vpon them, as that they are no longer two, but one and the same thing. And as the coale is no longer meere wood or iron, but so vnited to the fire, that it is become one with it; so the bread wherein wee communicate is no longer meere bread but vnited vnto the deity. Hee doth not say, the bread ceaseth to bee, or is abolished, but that it ceaseth to be that it was, meere bread. What kind of conversion this is, we may learne out of Catech. 3. pa. 525. Cyrill. Vosvncti estis, sayth he, vnguento, facti participes & consortes Christi, caeterum vide ne illud putes vnguentum tantum. Quemadmodum enim panis eucharistiae post sancti spiritus invocationem non amplius est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sed corpus Christi; sic sanctum hoc vnguentum non amplius est vnguentum nudum post invocationem, neque, siquis it a malit appellare, commune, sed donum Christi. Heere wee see, hee maketh the consecrated and holy oyntment to bee the gift of Christ, as the bread is the body of Christ; and so to cease to be meere oyle or oyntment: as the bread which wee breake ceaseth to bee meere bread, whereas yet no man imagineth any such transubstantiation of the oyle, or holy oyntment, as to abolish the nature and substance of it. But that the Greckes neuer dreamed of any such conversion of the bread and wine as should vtterly abolish the former substance, it is evident by Dialog. in confus. Theodoret in his dialogues. For whereas the Eutichian hereticke objects, that as the outward signes in the Sacrament of the eucharist are chaunged after they are consecrated, so the body of Christ after it was assumed, was changed into the divine substance: The Orthodoxe and right beleeuer answereth, that he is taken in that snare which he layd for others. For the mysticall signes doe not chaunge their nature after consecration, but remaine and continue in the same substance, figure, and shape, and are visible, and may be handled as before, but they are conceiued and beleeued to be that which now they are made, and are adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee. Heere wee see is no such change of the mysticall signes, as to abolish their substance and former being, for then the conversion in the Sacrament had beene such as the Hereticke imagined it to be in the body of Christ assumed; and so Theodoret could not truely haue sayd, hee was taken in the snare which he layd for others. Wherefore to conclude this poynt, the Crecians teach that there is a conversion of the sacramētall elements, but of that kinde which I haue before shewed, that abolisheth not the things which were, but maketh them to bee that they were not. Which may farther appeare in that they say likewise, there is a chaunge of the communicants into the being of Christ, and make the end of the Sacrament to be nothing else but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a transubstantiation into Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the making of them that communicate partakers of the diuine nature, according to that of the Apostle, who saith, Wee are made the body of Christ; and yet is not our former being abolished, but wee are made to bee that which wee were not, in a divine, and supernaturall sorte, according to that of Orthodoxae fider l. 4. c. 14. Damascen. Let vs come and receiue the body of him that was crucified, let vs partake of that divine burning coale that the fire of desire being kindled in vs by that coale, may burne vp our sinnes, and lighten our hearts, and that being changed into that devine fire, wee may become fire, and bee in a sort deified, and made partakers of the divine nature. All which changes neither abolish nor confound substances. For as De caen •… Do. mind. Cyprian sayth well, nostra & ipsius contunctio, nec miscet personas, nec vnit substantias, sed affectus consociat & confaederat voluntates. That is, the vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and vs, neither causeth any mixture of the persons, nor maketh them to be substantially the same, but joyneth affections and confederateth the wills. Lastly, touching the sacrament of the Lords boby and blood, they teach that it is a sacrifice, and that wee may the better conceiue what they meane, they lay downe these propositions. First, that vnder, the Law, two sorts of things were presented vnto God, gifts, and sacrifices. Giftes, as vessels of gold, or silver, and things of like nature: which were dedicated vnto God, and set apart from prophane, and ordinary vses. Sacrifices, as sheepe, oxen, and the like things, when they were slaine and their blood powred out; and generally all such things as were consumed in the fire. The second proposition is, that the body of Christ was both a gift and a sacrifice: for he was dedicated to God from his first entrance into the world, as the first fruites of our nature, & as the first borne of Mary his mother; and afterwards he became a sacrifice when he was crucified. The third, that bread and wine are presented vnto God in the holy sacrament in the nature of gifts before they are consecrated. The fourth, that the bread and wine are consecrated, and so chaunged as to become the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. The fifth, that it may be truely sayd, that there is not only an oblation in the holy eucharist, but a sacrifice also, in that the body of Christ which was once sacrificed is there. The sixt, that the bread cannot be sayd to be sacrificed, for then the sacrifices of the new Testament should not excell those of the old. The seaventh, that in the sacrificing of a liuing thing, the killing of it is implied. The eight, that the body of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee sacrificed in the eucharist, because hee can die no more, but is immortall and impassible. The ninth, that Christ may be sayd to be newly sacrificed and slaine commemoratiuely, in that the sacrificing of him on the altar of the crosse is there commemorated & liuely expressed, and the benefits of it communicated to them that are made partakers of those holy mysteries, according to that of In Hebr. 10. Lyra: Si dicas, sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in ecclesia; dicendum, quod non est ibi sacrificij reiteratio, sed vnius sacrificij in cruce oblati quotidiana commemoratio. Secundum illud Lucae 22. hoc facite in meam commemorationem. That is, If thou say, the sacrifice of the altar is daily offered; the answere is cleare and easie, that the body of Christ is not newly sacrificed on the altar, but whereas Christ once offered himselfe as a sacrifice on the crosse, the same is daily commemorated; according to that, Luk. 22, Doe this in remembrance of mee. And therefore Chrysostome writing vpon the Cap. 10. epistle to the Hebrewes hauing named it a sacrifice, addeth by way of explication, or correction, that it is a sacrifice, or rather the commemoration of a sacrifice. So that heerein they differ from the Romanists, who teach, that there is a new reall sacrificing of Christ. In the doctrine of freewill they doe not so clearely expresse themselues as S. Augustine, & others that follow him. For they teach, that we must first will the things that are right and good, and that God then helpeth, confirmeth, and setteth vs forward, so that they suppose hee followeth our wils and goeth not before them, least the liberty thereof might be prejudiced. Their meaning I thinke is, that no good can be wrought in vs without our consent, which S. Augustine also confesseth to bee true, but it is Gods grace that winneth, inclineth, and boweth vs to consent to that good which it selfe suggesteth, in which respect it may be truely sayd to goe before our will, and yet not to prejudice our liberty. If they speake not so distinctly touching this poynt as some others doe, it is not to be marvailed at; seeing the Greeke fathers are not so cleare in this point as the Latines are. Wherevpon Aloisius Lippomannus in catena aurea in his preface to the reader hath these words. I haue thought good to admonish thee, that if in this whole worke thou shalt any where finde any such sayings of Chrysostome; as that when man endeavoureth, and doth that which pertayneth to him, God will abundantly giue grace: thou wisely and warily reade that holy Doctour, least thou fall into any such errour, as to beleeue that Gods grace is given for our merits. For if out of merit, it is not grace. But farre be it from vs so to thinke, seeing wee cannot so much as endeavour, or doe any thing that pertayneth to vs without Gods grace preventing vs. According to that in the Psalme, His mercie shall prevent mee, and againe, his mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my life. And that of holy Church, Let thy grace O Lord wee beseech thee prevent and follow vs. Sixtly touching Iustification they lay downe these propositions. The first, that wee must haue faith to beleeue the things revealed vnto vs of God. The second, that this faith maketh vs see what the estate of mans nature should bee what it was at first, and how much we are fallen from that wee were. The third, that out of this faith must flow a dislike of those sinfull evils, into which wee are fallen, and a feare of wofull consequents, if wee be not freed from them. The fourth, that hence must grow a desire of remission of that which is past, of grace that we may cease to doe evill & learne to doe well, and of assistance of the same grace that wee may goe on, continue, and not be turned out of the good way when wee are entered into it. The fift, that no man obtayneth remission of sinnes without dislike of sin, and desire, and purpose to leaue off to doe euill. The sixt, that being thus converted vnto God, in longing desires of reconciliation, we must not doubt but assure ourselues of the obtayning of it. The seaventh, that being justified, no man canne bee saued without the studie & care of well doing, and that workes are necessary vnto saluation. The eight, that when wee haue done all, wee must confesse we are vnprofitable servants, that in many things we sin all. That if God doe marke and obserue our defects, we cannot abide it. That we must not trust in our workes, but in Gods mercy. That euen those things which seeme small to vs, deserue great punishment if God enter into judgement with vs. And that it is not our well doing, but his mercy that maketh vs escape condemnation. So that they differ from the Romanists touching the perfection of inherent righteousnesse, the merit of congruence, and condignity, and workes of supererogation. 7ly, The Romanists teach, that sins committed after baptisme, are not so remitted for Christs sake, but that wee must suffer that extremity of punishment which they deserue, and therefore either we must afflict our selues in such sort and degree of extremity as may answere the desert of our sinne, or bee punished by God heere, or in the world to come in such degree and sort that his justice may be satisfied. But they that are Orthodox, teach; First, that it is injustice to require the payment of one debt twice. Secondly, that Christ suffered the punishment due to all sinnes committed before and after baptisme, and therefore so satisfied the justice of God, that they that are partakers of the benefit of his satisfaction, so farre forth as they are made partakers of it, are freed from the guilt of punishment. Thirdly, that the satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated vnto vs vpon the condition of our faith and repentance without suffering the punishment that sinne deserveth. 4ly, That it is no lesse absurd to say, as the Papists doe, that our satisfaction is required as a condition, without which Christs satisfaction is not appliable to vs; then to say, Peter hath paid the debt of Iohn, and hee to whom it was due accepteth of the same payment conditionally if he pay it himselfe also. Fiftly, that as one man payeth another mans debt, and the paiment of it is accepted vpon condition of his dislike of former evill courses, and promise of amendment, and not otherwise: so it may be truely sayd, that neither Christ hath payd our debt, or God the Father accepted the payment of it for vs, but vpon condition of our sorrowfull conversion and repentance. Sixtly, That the penall and afflictiue courses which the sinner putteth himselfe into, may be named satisfactions dispositiuè, in that they put vs into an estate wherein wee are capable of the benefit of Christs satisfaction freeing vs from the punishment of sinne. In this sort, the Greekes vrge the necessitie of satisfactions, and not as the Romanists doe, which appeareth by the reasons and causes which they deliuer. Whereof the first is, that correcting our selues, & amending that which otherwise God by his chastisements must driue vs to doe, we may escape punishment. The second, that wee may pull vp the roote of sinfull evils, that is, the inordinate desire and pleasure wee had in things which either we should not desire or not so as wee doe. The third, that this correction may serue vs as a bridle to restraine vs from running into the like or worse evils hereafter. The fourth, that wee may frame ourselues to labour and a strait course of life, vertue being a laborious thing and requiring painefull endeavours. The fift, that wee may make it appeare to our selues and others that wee hate sinne truely and from the heart. These are true reasons why men should put themselues into penitentiall courses, and these only are assigned by the Grecians; but they neuer giue any such reason thereof as the Romanists fancie. And as they receiue not the Romish doctrine of satisfactions: so they neuer admitted any vse of such indulgences as are granted in the Roman Church, nor euer dreamed of any power in the Church of communicating the ouerplus of one mannes satisfactions & sufferings, to supply the wāt of another. Eightly, touching the estate of the departed; First they thinke that neither the Saints are already entred into the kingdome prepared for them, nor that the sinners are already cast into hell: but that both are in an expectation of that lot that remayneth for them, and shall so continue till the resurrection and judgement. This opinion prevaileth generally amongst all the Easterne Christians, and it was the opinion of many of the ancient Fathers. Secondly, they beeleeue that the soules of such men as excell in vertue, are worthy of eternall life, and such as meerely embrace this present world, of eternall punishment. But that they who were in a course of vertue, yet not without sundry defects, and die in the same, are not to bee punished eternally, nor yet to bee made partakers of Gods glorie till they haue obtayned remission of those sinfull defects in which they die without particular repentance. So that they beleeue there is remission of some sinnes, not remitted here, obtayned after this life. But whether they, whose sinnes are so remitted, be subject to any punishment after their departing hence, or God doe freely, without inflicting any punishment, remit them out of his mercifull disposition, & at the entreaty of the Church they doe not so cleerely resolue. A pologia Graecorum de Purgato rio. Though they incline to thinke that this remission is free, and amongst many other reasons for proofe of the same alleadge, that as some few good things in them that are generally & principally euill, shall haue no reward in the world to come; so some few evill things in them that principally embrace vertue, shall not bee punished. But if they be subject to any punishment, they all agree, that it is onely the wanting of the cleere light of Gods countenance that shineth vpon others; or the being in a strait or restraint, or the sorrowfull dislike of former evills, and not any punishment inflicted from without, to giue satisfaction to the justice of God, or to driue them to dislike that they formerly liked well; and so to purge them from the impurity of sinne, as they of the Church of Rome imagine. Thirdly, they pray for the dead, not as the Papists, to deliuer thē out of purgatorie, but for their resurrection, & the remission of their sinnes, and publicke acquitall in the day of judgement, the perfecting of whatsoeuer is yet wanting vnto them, the possessing of them of heavenly happines, and in the meane while the placing of them where in best sort they may expect till they bee perfected. Lastly touching the Saints departed they lay downe these propositions. First that truely and properly God onely is to bee invocated. Secondly, that Saints are invocated improperly and by accident onely. Thirdly, that Peter and Paul heare none of those that invocate them, but the grace and gift that they haue, according to the promise, I am with thee till the end of the world. Meaning; as it may bee conceiued, that the Saints heare not them that invocate them, but Christ the Sonne of God who was given vnto them, and promised to bee with them: and the holy Ghost which is likewise given vnto them, and abideth and dwelleth in them for ever. So that whatsoeuer their words seeme to import when they speake to the Saints, their meaning is to direct their petitions to that God that promised to bee with them, and to heare the petitions, and grant the requests of all such, as by them should bee converted, and should seeke to him, in hope to obtaine such things as by them hee made them promise of. The question is proposed, sayth Hugo de Sancto Victore, whether the Saints when wee intreat them to intercede for vs, doe pray for vs and how? The answere herevnto is, that the Saints are no otherwise sayd to pray for vs; but in that the favour, and acceptation they haue with God, induceth him to doe good to such as he findeth well affected towardes them for his sake. So that it is nothing whether they heare vs or not; for it sufficeth that God heareth vs to whom wee principally direct our selues. Ninthly touching Images. First they differ from the Church of Rome, in that they allow no Image of God. Who can make an Image, saith Damascen l. 4. c. 17. Damascen, of God, who is invisible, incorporeall, incircumscriptible? it is great folly and impiety to seeke to haue any representation of him that is an infinite and incomprehensible Spirit. Secondly, they admit no grauen, carved, or molten Images, of gold, siluer, wood, or stone, but thinke they savour of Heathenish superstition. Thirdly, they haue the Pictures of the Saints, not only for history and ornament, which might be allowed but so as in reference to Christ and his Saints, to bow and incline themselues before them, this they doe following the 2d Nicene Councell, which though it condemne all religious adoration of the Saints, and their pictures, & seemeth to permit no other acts of outward reuerence and respect to be done to pictures of Saints, then they yeeld to all sacred and holy things, as bookes, vessels, vestiments, and places dedicated to the service of God; nor the expressing of any other affections towards them, or remembrances of them, then holy men heere in this World beare one towardes another, and so come farre short of the conceipt of the Romanists; yet the Westerne Church in the time of Charles the Great, & a long time after, condemned that Councell, and the Image-worship, which they that met in that Councell, sought to bring in; neither can the Greekes bee excused from superstition in this point. Tenthly, they permit such as are to be Priests, if they like not to liue single, to marry wiues before they be ordained, and made Priests, & to liue with them after they are entred into that degree, & order: knowing that God hath ordained marriage, that it is honourable amongst all men, & that they that condemne Priests marriage, are the occasion of much sinfull impurity. The Romanists, saith Photius, doe so presse the law of single life, that many grievous scandals follow the same. For with them many Virgins become mothers that neuer were wiues, & many mothers are found to nurse the Children of such Fathers as may not be known. And yet these indeavour to make the true Priests of God, that liue in lawfull marriage, to be odious, and hatefull. So then the Graecians leaue it free to them that are to be ordained Priests to take vnto them wiues before their ordination, and to liue with them afterwards: but if they then refuse so to doe, they permit them not to marry afterwards. Yet if any doe, they dissolue not the marriage, but put them from the execution of their office and ministerie. Lastly, touching abstinence they differ not a little from the Church of Rome: for they fast Wednesday because on that day Iudas agreed with the Iewes to betray Christ, and Friday, because on that day Christ was crucified. But they fast no Saturday in the whole yeare, but onely Easter Eue. In the Lent they abstaine on Saturday from flesh, but all the yeare besides they freely eate flesh that day. They keepe foure Lents in the yeare. The first, that which the Westerne Christians obserue. The 2o from the Octaues of Whitsuntide, vntill the holydayes of Peter and Paul, which they call the fast of S. Peter. The 3d from the first of August vntill the assumption of the blessed Virgin. The 4th 6 weekes in the Advent, beginning presently vpon the feast of S. Philip according to the Kalendar of the Russions, and therefore call it the Fast of S. Philip. Their Monkes and Bishops, as hauing beene Monkes, doe neuer eate flesh. Lastly, they all abstaine from things strangled, and blood, obseruing as they suppose the Canon of the Apostles. Thus wee see the extent of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Religion of them that are vnder the same. This jurisdiction hath beene greatly straightned within these few yeares, for both the Russiaes; both that vnder the Moscovites, and the other subject to the King of Polonia are fallen from the same. But the number of them that professe the Greeke Religion is not diminished. For all those Christians still retaine their former religion, rites, and ceremonies. The metropolitan of Mosco, saith Possevine, was wont to be confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but now he is chosen by the Prince and consecrated by two or three of his owne Bish. without seeking any confirmation from the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom yet the Emperour of Russia sendeth yearely a certaine somme of money by way of almes. The occasion of this breach and falling off, Possevine saith, was the comming of a certaine Priest from Constantinople vnto Russia, in the time of Basilius. For this Priest finding the Muscovites to differ in some things pertaining to religion, not only from the Latines, but the Greekes also, freely reprehended them, and shewed his mislike, this his reproofe so enraged the Emperour, that though hee had sent for him before he came, yet hee cast him into prison, and would never release him, though the Great Turke wrote vnto him on his behalfe. Since this time the Moscovites seeke no confirmation of their metropolitan from the patriarch of Constantinople. The Russians that are vnder the King of Polonia in the yeare 1595 finding they could not haue recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople liuing vnder the tyranny of the Turke, in such sort as was fitt, fell from that jurisdiction, and submitted themselues to the Roman Bishop, yet not without reservation of the Greeke religion, and sundry limitations in subjecting them selues to that goverment, as wee may see at large in l. 6. pag. 328. Thomas à Iesu.

With these Christians, that presently are, or lately were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Melchits of Syria, and the Georgians hold communion, and are of the same religion with them. Touching the Melchites, were must obserue, that after the ending of the Counsell of Chalcedon, there grew a very great distraction in the East part of the world, for many disliked and questioned the proceedings in that Councell, and would not consent to the decrees of it. Amongst those that thus refused to admit the Councell, some ranne into dangerous errours and heresies, the Emperour Leo therefore for the remedying and preventing of evills of this kind, required the Bishs. of those parts by their subscription, to confirme the faith established in that Councell; and they that so did at the Emperours command, were by the rest in scorne and contempt, called Melchites, as if you would say, men of the Kings religion, of Melchi, which in the Syrian tongue signifieth a King, but they were indeede, and were reputed right beleivers, by all the sounder parts of the Church throughout the world. These fell from the Communion of the Roman Church when the Greekes did, and are wholy of the same religion; yet were they never subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople but of Antioch, Boter. relat. p. 3. l. 2. cap. de Melch. These for their number are reputed the greatest sort of Christians in the Orient. Their Patriarch resideth at Damascus whither the patriarchall seate vvas traslated; Antioch it selfe, (where they that belieued in Christ were first called Christians, and which was therefore named Theopolis the Cittie of God;) lying in a manner wast, or broken and dissevered into small villages, of which onely one, of about threescore houses, with a small temple, belongeth to Christians; but in Damascus there are aboue a thousand houses of Christians. The Maronites which inhabit mount Libanus haue a Patriarch of their owne, whom they honour as Patriarch of Antioch; as likewise the Iacobites of Syria haue a Patriarch of their owne residing in Mesopotamia, whom they account patriarch of Antioch. But the Melchites, who retaine the auncient religion of Syria, acknowledge none for Patriarch but their owne chiefe Bishop residing at Damascus, and reject the other as hauing departed from the faith, obedience, and Communion of the true Patriarch. The Georgians inhabit Iberia, they are, saith Volateran, great warriers, and cruell to their bordering neighbours. They are named Georgians, as some thinke, from S. George, whose banner they carry when goe to war against Infidels. But he rather inclineth to thinke they were the same that were named Georgians by Pliny, before Saint George was borne; and that it is not a name of sect, but of their Country named Georgia and Iberia. Thom. à Iesu l. 7. c. 21 They follow the opinions of the Grecians touching matters of Religion, and in their divine seruice & writings, they partly vse the Greeke tongue, and partly the Chaldee. They haue an Archbishop residing in mount Sina, in a Monasterie of S. Katherin, whom they obey without any further relation, or dependance. Betweene these and the riuer Tanais along the coast of Meotis and the Euxine sea, lye the Mengrellians, and the Circassians, who are not onely of the Greeke Religion, but subject also to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Thus hauing spoken of the Christians of the Greeke Religion, it remaineth, that wee come to the rest. Amongst whom the first that offer themselues to our consideration are the Assyrians, commonly named Nestorians. What the Heresie of Nestorius was, is knowne to all. For hee professed to beleeue, that the Sonne of Mary is a divine Man, and that GOD is with him, but would not acknowledge that he is GOD, and therefore would not yeeld, that it may bee truely said, that Mary is the Mother of GOD. But they that are now named Nestorians acknowledge, that Christ was perfect GOD, and perfect Man, from the first moment of his conception, and that Mary may rightly bee saide to bee the Mother of the Sonne of GOD, or of the Eternall Word; but thinke it not fit to call her the Mother of GOD, left they might bee thought to imagine that shee conceiued and bare the Divine Nature of the three Persons, the Name of GOD containing Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost. This scruple might bee tolerated in them; but they haue another leauen that sowreth the whole lumpe. For they are said to affirme, that the nature of man is imperfect without personalitie, and therefore that the Sonne of God who assumed not an imperfect humane nature, assumed the nature of man, together with the personalitie of the same. Whence it seemeth to follow, that there are two persons in Christ. For the clearing of this point it is to bee noted, that personalitie is nothing but the existence of nature in it selfe; which is in two sorts, potentally, or actually. The humane nature which the Sonne of GOD assumed, potentially existeth in it selfe, and would haue existed actually, if it had beene left vnto it selfe. And in this sense they say the Sonne of GOD assumed the nature of man, together with the personalitie of the same, that is, with a potentiall aptnesse to exist in it selfe. But it was not left, but prevented before it might actually exist in it selfe, and assumed into the Divine Person, and so suspended from actuall existing in it selfe. In which sense we rightly say the Sonne of God assumed the nature of man without the personalitie of the same, and that it must not be granted, that there are two persons in Christ, as there are two natures. Neither doe these Christians so say there are two persons in Christ, as if the humane nature did actually exist in it selfe, but onely to imply, that there is a potentiall aptnesse in it so to exist, if it were left vnto it selfe. Yet the forme of words which they vse is not to be allowed: for it savoureth of Heresie, and tooke beginning from Heresie. But that they haue no hereticall meaning it is more then probable, because otherwise they should contrarie and ouerthrow their former true Confession: that Christ was perfect GOD and perfect Man from the first moment of his conception. And that Mary that conceiued and bare him, may truely bee said to bee the Mother of the Sonne of GOD. And also because the Archbishop of the Indians was permitted to retaine his auncient Religion, when first he submitted himselfe to the Church of Rome. Which hee might not haue beene suffered to doe, if hee had erred in the article of the incarnation. These Nestorians inhabite, though mixed with Mahumetanes and Infidels, a great part of the Orient. For besides the countries of Babylon, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Media, where very many of them are found, they are scattered in the East Northerly to Cataia, and Southerly to India. So that in the histories wee finde mention of them, and no other sort of Christians in sundry regions of Tartary. These haue a Patriarch residing in Muzall on the riuer Tigris in Mesopotamia. This Muzall either is the citie of Seleucia, so honoured in times past, that the government of those parts was committed to the Bishop thereof with the name of a Catholicke, and place of Session in Councells next the Patriarch of Hierusalem; or, if that were destroied, the Patriarchall seat was thence translated to Muzal. In this citie, though subject to Mahumetans, the Iacobites haue three temples, the Nestorians fifteene, beeing esteemed to bee about forty thousand soules. Onuphr. in Iul. 3. Thomas à Iesu l. 7. part. 1 c: 3. & 4. In the time of Iulius the third, certaine of these Nestorians fell from the Bishop of Muzal, and tooke for their head Simon Sulaca of the order of Saint Basil. Who submitted himselfe to the Bishop of Rome, exhibited an orthodoxe confession of his faith, and was by him confirmed bishop of Muzal in title & name: but the other held the place still. So that when hee returned, he was forced to abide in Caramit. This Simon Sulaca made certaine Archbishops and Bishops, and caused the memory of Nestorius to bee put out of their liturgies, and in the end hee was slaine by the Turkes ministers. But Abdesu of the same order succeeded him, and after him Aatalla, after him the Archbishop of Gelu, and Salamas, renouncing the obedience of the Bishop of Muzal, was elected Patriarch, and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. So that there were foure Patriarches successiuely following one another, that held communion with the Church of Rome, but no one of them euer possessed that citie, but resided either in Caramit, Serit, or Zeinalbach in the confines of Persia. All these were vndoubtedly orthodoxe touching the article of the incarnation of the Sonne of God. And Leonard. Episcop. Sidon. citat: à Thom. à Iesu. ibidem. Elias one amongst the Bishops that held the seat at Muzal, desired to be joyned in communion with the Church of Rome, & sent his confession which was found to be orthodoxe and right: so that they of that faction also, seeme not to haue differed much in judgement touching any article of faith. The Nestorians are subject to these two Patriarches to this day. The Patriarch of Muzal hath vnder him 22 Bishops, more then 600 territories, in which there are at the least 22 rich and flourishing cities, and in euery of them 500 families; in Muzal 1000, whereof euery one contayneth about fortie persons. And other-lesser territories contayning about 200, or 300 families a piece, and thirty monasteries. In India also there are many families subject to this Patriarch, by the name of Patriarch of Babylon, to whom he was wont to assigne Bishops. There were in India before the Portugals comming, about some 15, or 16 thousand families. About some thirtie yeares since, their Archbishop fell from the Patriarch of Muzal, or Babylon to the Bishop of Rome, by the perswasion of the Portugals, yet retayning the auncient religion which was permitted. But his successor in another Synod holden at Diamper, not farre from Maliapur by the Archbishop of Goa in the yeare 1599, receiued the religion of Rome also, and suffered their liturgie so to bee altered as wee finde it in Bibliotheca patrum. z Auctarij tom. 2 in fine.

But let vs proceede to take a view of the particular poynts of their religion. First all cleargie men amongst the Chaldeans, and also all lay men that excell in devotion, receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood in their own hands vnder both kinds. The rest receiue into their mouths the bodie of the Lord dipt into the blood. They contract marriages within the degrees prohibited, marrying in the second degree without dispensation. Their Priests are marryed, and after the death of the first wife, haue libertie to marry the second or third time, or oftner. They minister the communion in leavened bread. They vse not auricular confession, nor confirmation. They deny the supremacie of the Pope. The specialties of the religion of the Indians or Christians of S. Thomas before they admitted any alteration were these. First they distributed the sacraments in both kinds. Secondly they vsed bread seasoned with salt, and in steade of wine (India affording none) the juice of raisons softned one night in water, and so pressed forth. Thirdly they baptized not their children till they were forty dayes old except in danger of death. Fourthly their priests were married, but excluded from the second marriage. Fifthly they had no images in their Churches but the crosse onely: Sixtly they denyed the supremacie of the Pope.

From the Assyrians and Indians vniustly named Nestorians, let vs passe to those Christiās that are supposed to be Monophysits, as the Iacobites, Armenians, Cophti or Christians of Aegypt, the Aethiopians or Abissens. These beleeue that the nature of God and man were so vnited in the person of Christ, that hee is truly God and truly man, and that after the vnion they remaine distinct in their being of essence and property, so that the diuinity is not of the same essence, substance and nature with the humanity: for the diuinity is infinite incomprehensible and increated, and the humanity is finite and a created essence, yet because they are vnited and conioyned in the vnity of the same person, they say they are but one nature, and will not acknowledge as wee do, that there are two natures in Christ. That we may the better know what we are to thinke of these Christians differing thus from us. I will first historically shew how this difference grew. Secondly more largely refute their opinion. And thirdly make it appeare that in respect of this difference they are not to be reiected as heritickes.

There liued at Constantinople a certaine man whose name was Eutiches, a priest and an abbat. This Eutiches in opposition to Nestorius, who divided the person of Christ, proceeded so farre that he confounded the natures, imagining a conversion of the divinity into the humanity, or of the humanity into the divinity, or a kind of mixtion of them. This Eutiches was well acquainted with Eusebius Bish. of Dorilaeum, who vnderstanding by conference with him that he was fallen into such a damnable haerisie, made the matter knowne to Flauianus the B. of Constantinople, wishing him to call Eutiches vnto him and sharply to rebuke him, least the faith might be indangered. Flavianus assoone as he vnderstoode thus much, called together 30 of his Bish. and in their presence asked of Eutiches, whether he did beleiue that Christs body is of the same substance with ours. He answered he had never said so hitherto but would seing they would haue it so: to whom Flavianus replied, that not they, but the fathers required him so to professe, and therefore if he did so beleeue, hee should anathamatize all that thought otherwise. To whom Eutiches answered he had never hitherto professed so to beleiue, yet would now for their sakes; but would never be induced to anathematize them that thinke otherwise, for that if hee should, he must as he supposed, accurse the holy Fathers and Scriptures, which doe so speake, that they deny Christs body to be of the same substance with ours. When Flavianus heard him thus speake, hee put him out of the order of Presbyters, and remoued him from his office and dignity of an Abbot. Eutiches thus degraded and depriued, resorted oft to the Emperour, complaining that he was wronged by Flauianus; wherevpon Theodosius then Emperour called a Councell at Ephesus, that it might be there examined whether Eutyches were duely proceeded against or not; and made Dioscorus Bish. of Alexandria president of the Councell: who caused the proceedings of Flauianus to be read, but suffered him not to say any thing in his owne defence, neither would he giue him leaue to aske any question if any doubt arose; & for Eusebius who was to accuse Eutiches he would not so much as suffer him to speake. The conclusiō was he deposed Flavianus, & restored Eutiches. Things being thus violētly carried, they that supplied the place of the B. of Rome, returned, home and made all known to Leo the Bish. He presētly went to Valentinian, who wrote to Theo •… osius to call another Councell, but he refused so to do, thinking Dioscorus had duely proceeded. But after his death Martianus called a Councell at Chalcedon. In the first Session of this Councell, Dioscorus appeared, where he clearely anathematized those that bring in either a confusion, conversion, or commixtion of the Natures of God and man vnited in Christ. So condemning Eutyches, whom out of partiality and sinister respect he had formerly acquitted. But yet professed, that after the vnion wee must not say there are two Natures, but one Nature of the Sonne of God incarnate, and told them he had to this purpose sundry testimonies of the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyrill. For confirmation of this his saying, Eustathius Bishop of Beretum produced an Epistle of Cyrill to Acacius Bishop of Melitinum, Valerianus of Iconium, and Successus Bishop of the Province of Diocaesarea, wherein more fully explaining certaine things contained in his former Epistles, he saith expressely, wee must not say, there are two natures in Christ, but one nature of the Sonne of God incarnate. Which when they of the East disliked, he brought forth the booke, & reade the very same words vnto them, and after the reading of them, brake forth into these wordes. Whosoeuer saith, there is one nature, to deny the flesh of Christ which we beleeue to be consubstantiall with ours, let him be anathema: and whosoeuer saith there are two natures to make a division in Christ, let him be accursed also; adding that Flavianus admitted this doctrine of Cyrill, and therefore that he was vnjustly condemned by Dioscorus. But Dioscorus answered, that he condemned him, because he affirmed that there are two natures in Christ after the vnion, whereas the Fathers tell vs, wee must not say there are two natures after the vnion, but one of the Word, incarnate. And after this time he refused to appeare any more in the Councell. Wherevpon for his former violent, and sinister proceedings, and for his present contumacie he was condemned, and deposed; and not for heresie, as is expressely deliuered by Anatolius in the Councell. For whereas there was a forme of Confession composed, which Asclepiades recited in the Councell; wherein was contained, that Christ consisted of two natures: there arose presently a great doubt amongst the Bishops; the Nobles and great men therefore that moderated, spake vnto them in this sort. Dioscorus saith, that Christ consisteth of two natures; Leo that he consisteth in two natures, without mutation, confusion, or division, whom follow yee? to whom the Bishops rising vp, answered with one voice, as Leo so we all beleeue: accursed bee Dioscorus. At the hearing hereof Anatolius said, Dioscorus was not deposed for erring in faith, but because he excommunicated Leo Bishop of Rome, and refused to come into the Councell when as hee was required so to doe. Neither was the forme of Confession recited by Asclepiades rejected as ill, but as imperfect. That which some alledge, that Dioscorus had beene condemned as an Hereticke, if he had appeared, is childish. For if the Fathers there assembled had judged his sayings hereticall, they might, and no doubt would haue condemned him as an hereticke though absent: aswell as the Councell of Ephesus condemned Nestorius though absenting himselfe, and asmuch as in him lay declining their judgment. So the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches as an Hereticke, and deposed Dioscorus for his contumacie, and other sinister, violent, and disordered proceedings in that second Councell, wherein he was President, & so ended. But after the ending thereof there arose woful distractions & divisions in the Christian world. For besides those that followed Eutyches in his Heresie, there were many found; who though they were far frō adhering to cursed Eutyches, yet disliked the proceedings against Dioscorus, and stifly maintained that forme of Confession that was published by Asclepiades, not only as good, but as perfect & sufficient. Affirming that 2 natures were vnited in Christ without mutatiō, conversiō, cōmixtion, or confusiō: but that being vnited they are no longer two, but one. So that we may say Christ cōsisted of 2 natures, but wee must not say hee consisteth in 2 natures as Leo and the councell. Vrging to this purpose that authority of Cyrill. That wee must not say there are 2 natures in Christ, but one of the Word incarnat. His words are, Post vnionem, sublata in duo diuisione, vnam esse credimus filij 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Nestorianus agnoscit Verbum incarnatum, sed dum duas nominat naturas, diuidit & seiungit ab invicem.

This opiniō prevailed mightily in those times, & continueth in many Christian Churches till this day. For the Christians of Aegypt, Aethiopia, Armenia, & the Iacobites of Syria defend the same, accursing Eutiches as an Hereticke; and acquitting Dioscorus, yea honouring him as a good, and holy man. Wherefore seeing it is against the law of charity to condemne so many millions of soules to hell, vnlesse they bee cleerely convinced of heresie, let vs more exactly consider what it is they say. First therefore they teach, that Christ is truely God and truely man, that hee receiued his diuine nature of his Father before all eternity, his humane nature from his mother in the fulnesse of time. Secondly, they accurse all them that spoile him of either of these natures. Thirdly, they say that these natures were so vnited, that there was no confusion, mixtion, or conuersion of one of them into another; nor such composition as that a third nature might arise out of them. Fourthly, that the deity, and humanity of Christ, are not all one. Fiftly, they confesse, that it may truely bee said, the Diuinity of Christ is aliud natura; that is, a thing of different condition and nature from his humanity. Sixtly, that they are not of the same nature and substance. Seaventhly, that their properties are not the same, the one being finite, and the other infinite. So that this is it which they say; that the 2 natures which were vnited in Christ remaine after the vnion, without mixtion, confusion, or conuersion in their distinct being of essence, and properties: but are become one, first in the being of subsistence; 2 in respect of mutuall inexistence; and 3 in communion of mutuall operation, in that the one doth nothing without the communion, and concurrence of the other. And in this sort is that saying of Cyrill to be vnderstood, when hee sayth, there are not 2 natures in Christ, but one nature of the Word incarnate, that is, the 2 natures vnited, are not 2 and distinct, but one in subsistence. For the nature of man hath no subsistence, but that of the Word communicated vnto it, in which they are one. And so it is expounded in the 8 Canon of the fifth generall Councell. Apud Thom. à Iesu, l. 7 par: 〈◊〉 . c. 14. Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth, that when hee conferred with the Patriarch of the Iacobites to this purpose, hee cleerely accursed Eutyches confounding the natures of God and man in Christ; but yet affirmed that they are so vnited, that there is one personated nature, arising out of 2 natures not personated. Professing that they thinke as the Latines doe touching the thing it selfe, but differ from them in forme of words, more aptly expressing the thing, as they suppose. Apud Thom: à Iesu, l. 7. p. 1. c. 13. Tecla Abissen, saith the Aethiopians thinke there is but one nature in Christ. Being asked whether they thinke there is one nature resulting out of the two natures that were vnited. Hee answereth, that they say no such thing: but that they professe simply that there is one nature, and that is the diuine nature, meaning, as it seemeth, that the diuine nature onely subsisteth in its owne subsistence, and that the humanity is drawne into the vnity of the same. Thom. à Iesu, l 7. c. 6. Thomas à Iesu reporteth, that in the time of Gregorie the 13th, there were certaine learned men sent into Aegypt to winne the Christians of those parts, to joyne in communion with the Roman Church. And that in the yeare 1582, a Synod was holden at Cair, where at the third meeting after six houres disputation touching the 2 natures of Christ, all with one consent by Gods happy direction decreed, as the truth is, touching the thing it selfe: anathematizing all them that should spoile him of either nature; who being God and man receiued his deity from the Father, and his humanity from his mother. And though the Christians of Aegypt refuse to say there are 2 natures in Christ, yet they confesse him to bee God, and man. Lib. 17 Orthodoxiae citatus à Genebrardo Chron. ad annum, 1153. Nicetas sayth, the Armenians are Monophysits, and that Immanuell the Emperour, in the yeare 1170 sent Theorianus to conferre with their Catholicke, or chiefe Bishop, and to reclaime them if it might bee from that heresie. The disputation betweene them hee setteth downe at large. But Genebrard feareth not to censure him, pronouncing that both hee, and Theorianus were deceiued, if that bee indeede the answere of the Armenian Bishop to the objections of Theorianus, as is there put downe. For nature beeing sometimes taken for a part, sometimes for the whole consisting of the severall parts; as in Aristotle sometimes it importeth the whole, sometimes the parts of which the whole consisteth; the Armenian Bîshop sayd truely, the things whereof Christ consisteth are of different nature, or difference in nature, and that they are but one nature in that they are so joyned & put together, that they are one in the being of subsistence, that one of them inexisteth in the other, and either of them hath a communion of operation with the other. But hee in no sort imagineth that they are so one as if a compounded nature did arise out of the putting of them together, in such sort as the nature of man is a compound nature, arising out of the putting together of the soule and body. So that these Christians are vnjustly charged with the heresie of the Monophysits aunciently condemned. For they imagined that the two natures vnited in Christ are become one in the being of essence, and property, but these confesse them to remaine distinct in both these respects, and to become one onely in respect of the being of subsistence, mutuall inexistence, and the communion the one hath with the other in action, and operation: comparing this vnion to that of the iron and fire. Neither is it to bee marvailed at, that they are thus wronged. For as Genebrard noteth, the Greekes often thus wrong the orientall Christians, laying an imputation of heresie vpon them out of sinister respects. So that they are to bee suspected as often as writing of the Syrians, Maronits, Aetbiopians, Persians, Indians. Georgians, Aegyptians; they call them Iacobits, or Nestorians. For they that travell into these parts finde them to bee orthodoxe and right beleeuers, differing from other parts of the true Church rather in certaine ceremonies then in substance. Hauing thus cleered these Christians from the imputation of heresie vndeservedly layd vpon them: let vs proceed more particularly to consider of the specialties of religion professed by them, and first of the religion of the Iacobits.

The Iacobits haue their name from one Iacobus of Syria surnamed Zanzalus, liuing about the yeare of our Lord 530. Who, amongst others that rejected the Councell of Chalcedon, laboured greatly to perswade the people of Syria to refuse the same; and taught them to beleeue, that the two natures which were vnited in Christ, after the vnion are become one, not in such sort as Eutiches imagined, who confounded them into one, but as Dioscorus taught who made them to bee one by adunation without mixtion, or confusion. That this was his opinion it is evident by his followers. Who honour Dioscorus as a Saint, and condemne Eutyches as an hereticke. These, as Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth are dispersed thoroughout the c •… ties, regions, and townes of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylon, mixt with other sects, and their number is so great, that there are fifty thousand families of them. They chiefely inhabite in Aleppo of Syria, and in Caramit. They haue, and long haue had, a Patriarch of their owne; to whom they yeeld obedience. For wee reade of the Patriarch of the Iacobits in the time of Heraclius the Emperour. This Patriarth resideth in Caramit, but the Patriarchicall Church is in the monastery of Zafra, without the city Moradin in Mesopotamia. They were before the breach subject to the Patriarch of Antioch, but when they fell off from other Christians in opinion, they departed from the Patriarch that then was, and entitled one of their owne making to that honour: supposing the other to be in errour, and themselues right. And euen to this day they account their chiefe Bishop Patriarch of Antioch, calling him alwayes Ignatius. And to him the Metropolitan of Hierusalem, whom the Iacobites call the fifth Patriarch, is subject. As aunciently the Bishops of Hierusalem were before the Councell of Chalcedon. Which tooke from Antioch the 3 Provinces of Palestina, and assigned them to the Bishop of Hierusalem, for his Patriarchicall jurisdiction. Besides the Bishop of Hierusalem who acknowledgeth him for his Superiour, he hath vnder him 7 Archbishops, with many Bishops. Let vs therefore take a view of their Religion. Touching the 2 natures in Christ, they beleeue as I haue already deliuered. The other particulars of their Religion are these. First, they confesse their sinnes to God onely, and not to the Priest, or but very seldome; so that many communicate without confession. Secondly, they admit not Purgatory nor prayers for the dead. Thirdly, their Priests are married. Fourthly, they consecrate the Eucharist in vnleavened bread. Fifthly, they minister the Eucharist in both kindes. Sixthly, they vse circumcision euen of both sexes. Seuenthly, they signe their children before Baptisme, with the signe of the Crosse, imprinted with a burning iron, some in the arme, some in the forehead, that they may be knowne to be Christians, and that if euer they fall away, they may by this marke be knowne to be Apostataes. Hence grew the false report, that they baptized with fire. Eightly, they adde to the trisagium this Appendix, qui crucifixus est pro nobis. And heereupon are charged to attribute the passion of death to the Divinity, and consequently to the whole Trinity: which is made more probable, because they acknowledge but one nature in Christ. Touching this Hymne it is to be noted, that in the time of Theodosius the Emperour there was a most feareful Earthquake, which specially appeared in Constantinople, where the wall with 57 towres fell down, so that the people were forced to goe out of the City, and to abide in the fields to avoide the danger of the ruines. While they were crying Curie eleeson, a childe was suddenly taken vp into the aire, and vpon the prayers of the godly, let downe againe to the ground without any hurt, who when hee was come downe, told them he had heard a Quire of Angels singing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Willing them so to sing, that the Earth-quake might 〈◊〉 . When Proclus the Bishop heard this, he commanded the whole Congregation so to sing, and the Earth-quake ceased, and immediatly the childe died. H •… vpon Theodosius the Emperour commaunded this Hymne to be sung in all Christian Churches throughout the world. So that it grew to be in great request. C •… nt. 〈◊〉 pag. 14 •… 6 Petrus Gnapheus Bishop of Antioch, added to this Hymne, qui crucifixus est pro nobis, and was bitterly reproued by many Bishops for so doing. 〈◊〉 . Bibl p. 〈◊〉 Ephraim, Bishop of Antioch, finding that certaine were divided from the communion of other Christians in respect of this addition, telleth them, that they of the East vnderstand this Hymne of Christ, and so sinne not in adding, qui crucifixus est pro nobis. But they that inhabit Constantinople, & the Nestorian parts vnderstand it of the Trinity, & therefore endure not this addition, because it is impious to attribute the passiō of death to the blessed Trinity. The Vicar of the Patriarch of the Iacobites being confer'd with by some Westerne Christians about this addition; told thē, that they vnderstand this Hymne of Christ, & so apply the passion of death on the crosse to Christ only, & not to the holy Trinity. 9 They deny the supremacie of the Pope. Next to these in order are the Armenians, these inhabit Asia in that part which lieth between the mountains Taurus & Ca •… casus: their country Armenia reacheth frō Cappadocia to the Caspian sea. They are subject to 2 Patriarchs: for the greater Armenia is subject to one, & the lesser to another. The Patriarch of the greater Armenia resideth in the monastery & Church of E •… meazin neere the city Eruan in Persia. The families that are subject to this Patriarch, are more then 150000, besides exceeding many monasteries, Bishops, Priests, religious men, & Deacōs. There are also certain primats, or rather Patriarches, of this Armenian nation in the remotest parts of Persia, & in Constantinople: who though of right they should be subiect to this Patriarch, yet sometimes acknowledge no such thing. The Patriarch of the lesser Armenia resideth in the citty Sis in Cilicia named at this day Caramania. This Patriarch hath vnder him 24 Prelates, Archbishops, and Bishops, besides three hundred Priests, and exceeding many Deacons and Clarkes liuing of almes and their owne labour, and about twentie thousand families of Christians which liue in Citties villages and Castles of Syria, and Cilicia: and twenty monasteries, in every of which there are an hundred religious persons. These Armeniaes, both the greater & the lesser, are lately taken by the Persians from the Turke and added to the Persian Empire. Touching their religion, Nicephorus attributeth vnto them sundry damnable haerisies concerning the Trinity, and the incarnacion of Christ, but most vntruly according to Genebrards observation, before mentioned, as may appeare by their owne confession extant, sent by the mandate of the Catholique of Armenia to the Patriarch of Constantinople not 50 yeares agoe: by which it is evident that they are Orthodox in these points. The specialties of their religion are these. First touching the two natures in Christ they are of the same opinion with the Iacobites formerly expressed. Secondly they admitte only three generall Councells; they reiect that of Chalcedon: they condemne Leo Bishop of Rome: they accurse Eutiches, and honour Dioscorus. Thirdly theyadde to the Trisagium as the Iacobites also doe, qui crufixus est pro nobis: but in the same sense as they doe, and without any haereticall meaning. Fourthly they affirme with the Graecians, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father only. Fifthly they thinke the soules of the iust shall not inioy heauen happinesse till after the resurrection. Sixthly they deny purgatory, and pray not for the dead. Seaventhly they deny marriage to be a Sacrament. Eightly they deny the locall presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament. Ninthly they deny that the Sacraments giue grace. Tenthly they thinke that the Eucharist is to be giuen to all that are baptized together with their baptisme. Eleauenthly they mingle not water with wine in the holy Eucharist. Twelfthly they condemne the adoration of images. Thirteenthly they admitte married priests, and as some say admitte none to be saecular priests except they be married, and yet exclude the second marriage. Fourteenthly they fast Wednesday and Friday, and on those daies eate neither oile nor fish, neither do they drinke wine, and they abstaine in like sort the whole lent; saue that on Saturday and Sunday they eate butter, cheese, & egges. Fifteenthly in the Lent they neuer consecrate but on Saturday, and Sunday, what dayes they fast not. 16 Out of Lent they eate flesh on all Saturdaies throughout the yeare. 17 From Easter till Whitsontide they fast not any Friday but freely eate flesh. 18 They know not the ember fasts. 19 They solemnize not Christmas day on the 25th of December but fast that day, and in steede of it keepe the day of the Epiphany, as Christ birth day, according to an auncient See Casaub. Custome, as we may read in Epiphanius, and Chrysostom. 20 On Saturday before Easter they eate egges and cheese in the euening, saying that Christ rose in the euening. 21 They eate not of such beasts as are iudged vncleane in the Law. 22 Thom. à Iesu l. 7. c. 23. They admitt not the Sacrament of auricular confession as it is in the Roman Church, neither of confirmation or extreame vnction. 23 They deny the supremacy of the Pope. Lastly they are charged to deny originall sinne, but vniustly as it seemeth seing they teach Thom. à Iesu l. 7. c. 17. that the children of infidells not baptized goe to hell with their vnbeleeuing parents.

Hauing spoken of the Iacobites and Armenians, it remayneth that wee come to take a view of the religion and rites of the Cophti, and Abyssens or Aethiopians. The word Cophti is not a name of sect, but of countrie, importing no more then an Aegyptian Christian. The particulars of the religion of the Cophti are these. First they reject the Councell of Chalcedon, they condemne Leo Bishop of Rome, they accurse Eutyches, and honour Dioscorus, and Iacobus Syrus as holy men, and touching the incarnation, teach as the Iacobites & Armenians doe: refusing to acknowledge two natures in Christ, and yet confessing him to be truely God, and truely man: and accursing them that spoile him of either nature, or deny that they remaine in him distinct, and vnconfounded, in being and property, in sort before expressed. Secondly, they adde to the Trisagium as the former, but in the same sense, and without all touch of heresie. Thirdly, they permit none to baptize but a Priest in what necessity soeuer, nor any where else but in the Church, nor before the fortieth day. Fourthly, they dip the baptized into the water after the manner of the Greekes, but pronouncing the words as the Latines doe. Fiftly, they presently anoynt the baptized and minister the Eucharist to them in both kinds. They sometimes vsed Circumcision, but now haue abrogated that custome at least in Alexandria and Cair: happily since the Synod there holden, whereof I spake before. Sixtly, they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kindes; the Priests neuer celebrate without the assistance of the deacons, and the subdeacons: and these alwayes communicate with the Priest, but the saypeople seldome, but onely at Easter. Seaventhly, they consecrate in leavened bread. Eightly, they neither minister extreame vnction, nor the Eucharist to the sicke. Ninthly, they giue the inferiour holy orders euen to children so soone as they are baptized. 10 They acknowledge that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne, yet leaue out those words, and from the Sonne in the creed. 11, They contract marriage in the presence of the Priest, and in the face of the Church, after the manner of the Roman Church, but with more ceremonies. 12 They sometimes dissolue marriage, and permit a second marriage. 13, They admit married Priests. 14, They admit not purgatory nor prayer for the dead. 15, They reade in the Churches certaine fabulous things, as the booke called secreta Petri and the gospell of Nicodemus. 16, They deny the supremacy of the Pope, and thinke him no lesse subject to errour than other Bishops. They condemne the Latine Church, as erring in sundry poynts of religion, and therevpon refuse to communicate with the Christians of these parts. And though Baronius haue a large narration of an embassage, sent from the Church of Alexandria to Clement the eight; wherein is reported that Marke the Patriarch, and with him all the Bishops and people subject to that jurisdiction, submitted themselues to the Bishop of Rome, as to the head of the Church: yet afterwards it was found to be a meere imposture, and cousenage, as Thomas à Iesu reporteth. But Casaubone telleth vs, that the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote a most pious letter to the now Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, desiring to joyne in communion with the Churches of England, &c. Which letter vnder his Patriarchicall seale is to bee seene: besides another letter to the same purpose from a Bishop of Asia. To this Patriarch are subject all the Christians of Aegypt, the Christians of Habassia, that small remainder of Christians that are found about the Bay of Arabia, and in mount Sina Eastward, or in Afrique as farre as the greater Syrtes Westward. And vnder this jurisdiction, the Nubians also were, as some thinke, before their defection from Christianity. Nubia being a part of Habassia, which was put vnder the Bishop of Alexandria by the Concilij Nicen: l. 3 c. 36. Nicen Councell. The number of Christians in Aegypt is greatly diminished. For whereas Descrip. terrae sanctae, part. 2. c. 〈◊〉 . Burchardus reporteth, that in his time, about 320 yeares since there were found in Cair alone aboue fortie Christian temples, Bar. tom. 6. •… n fine. now there are but three in Cair, and no more in Alexandria. And the number of Christians is esteemed to bee about fiftie thousand in that great, and populous Countrie. But in Habassia almost innumerable. For the kingdome of Habassia subject to that great Monarch, whom wee by errour call Praester Iohn, they Iohn Encoe or Belul, is as large in circuit, and compasse of ground, as Italy, Germany, France, and Spaine: but nothing so populous, nor without mixture of Mahumetans and Pagans in some parts of it.

The Habassines haue a Patriarch of their owne, whom in their Language they call Abuna, that is, our father. This Patriarch was to haue the seuenth place in sitting in generall Councels next after the Bishop of Seleucia, Concil. Nicen. l. 3. Can. 36 as appeareth by the Arabique Booke of the Nicene Councell, translated by Pisanus, but hee is subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and being elected by the Habassine Monkes of S. Antonies order residing at Hierusalem, he is consecrated & confirmed by him, and so sent to Habassia. And answereably hereunto in their Liturg AEthiop tom 6. •… iblioth. Patrum. Liturgie they pray for the Patriarch of Alexandria before their owne Patriarch, terming him the Prince of their Archbishops. Wherefore let vs descend to take a view of their Religion. First, touching the Holy Trinity they are orthodoxe professing as we doe. Concerning the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, they thinke as the Iacobites, Armenians, and Aegyptians before-mentioned; teaching, that two natures were vnited in Christ: but that after the vnion they are become one; not by mixtion, conversion, confusion, or such a composition, as that a third should arise, and result out of them, but by coadvnation only in sort before expressed. So that they may be said to be one nature not in the being of essence, or propertie, which cannot be conceiued without confusion: but in respect of the being of subsistence, the mutuall inexistence of one of them in another, and the Communion of action, or operation, one of them doing nothing without the other Tecla Abis •… . apud Thom à Iesu l. 7. c. 13 Thirdly, they reject the Councell of Chalcedon, they condemne Leo Bishop of Rome, they accurse Eutyches, and honour Dioscorus, and Iacobus his Disciple. Fourthly; they are baptized in the name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, in such sort as other Christians are, but they are also circumcised both Male and Female, which may seeme to cut them off from the fellowship of true Christians, and the hope of saluation: according to that of the Apostle, if yee be circumcised yee are fallen from grace, and Christ can profit you nothing.

For the clearing of this point, Lib. 7 c. 12 Thomas à Iesu deliuereth these propositions. First, that Circumcision and other legall observations were so abrogated after the promulgation of the Gospell, that the continuing of them became not only a dead thing, and of no force, but deadly also. So that Cerinthus & Ebion thining otherwise, were condemned as Heretickes. 2 That some legall observations, though not as legall, may bee, nay are retained and continued amongst Catholique Christians. For the better vnderstanding of this proposition he noteth, that legall and ceremoniall things may be obserued foure wayes. First, as they are legall, that is, with an intention to keepe the Law, and to doe as the Law prescribeth, and in this sort Christ submitted himselfe to bee circumcised. Secondly, that things prescribed or forbidden in the Ceremoniall Law may bee done or omitted, not onely in respect of obedience to the Law, but as figuring the comming of Christ, or as figures of Christ to come, as •… a 2 ae qu. 104. art. 3 Thomas Aquinas sheweth. So the holy Fathers that liued before Christ kept this observation. Thirdly, we may doe or omit such things as are commaunded or forbidden in the Ceremoniall Law, neither as figures of Christ to come, nor as being bound by the Law so to doe, or not to doe; but onely to make it knowne that such Lawes were not euill but of God, howsoeuer they are now no longer to haue any binding force. Thus the Christians after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, before the full promulgation of the Gospell, retained circumcision for a time, that they might bury the Synagogue with honour. Fourthly, such things may be done or omitted as the Law forbiddeth or prescribeth, materialitèr sine vllâ formalitate vel respectu ad legem veterem; that is, though the same thing be done that is there prescribed, yet it is not done as there prescribed, but for other ends; as we keepe the feast of Pentecost which the Iewes obserued, but not because it was prescribed in the law, nor for the same reasons for which they kept it; for it was therefore a solemne day with them, because as on that day the law was given vnto them vpon mount Sina, but with vs because on that day the law of the spirit and life was given: so in like sort some Christians consecrate in vnleavened bread, yet are they not to be condemned as Iewish, seeing the reasons of their observation are very different from those motiues the Iewes had. So that to omit or doe such things as are forbidden or Commaunded in the ceremoniall law, materialiter tantum, that is, without anie of the former respects, is vndoubtedly lawfull: as if a man should bee circumcised, or should abstaine from swines flesh, for physicall considerations, or keepe Saturday holy as many Christians doe: but to omit or doe such things as are forbiden or prescribed in the ceremoniall law, because they are there forbidden or prescribed, or as figures of Christ, is hereticall: wherefore let vs see in what sort the Abissens vse circumcision. Apud Damian: à Goes. Zagazabo professeth that they vse it onely as an auncient observation of their Countrie, which they had receiued before they became Christians, even from the time that the Queene of Sheba went to see Solomon, and that they retaine it onely for the honour of their nation, that they may thereby shew that they are of the stocke of David: and indeede Herodotus speaking of certaine nations that were circumcised, before the comming of Christ, amongst the rest hee numbreth the Aethiopians: which being soe, I see not why wee should censure them as heretickes for this observation. William Reinolds speaking of the Abyssens hath these words. The Abyssens Christianly, and as wee that beleeue as Christians should, doe Baptize their infants, and that they may shew from how noble a stock they are come, circumcise them also, but not as if circumcision were of any force, or a man might put any trust in it as the Iewes doe: which being soe, I would no more condemne them in respect of Circumcision, then a man that should abstaine from swines flesh which was forbidden by the Law, vpon the advise of his physician onely. Caietan and Bartholomeus de Medina thinke they sinne not in retaining this observation; but supposing it to be lawfull, whether it be fit they should be tolerated still soe to doe, many taking offence at it; I had rather (sayth Caietan) heare the Church speake, then other particular authors. Some impute to them that they are not Circumcised, onely, or principally for the causes before expressed, but in imitation of Christ, and consequently to fullfill the law, which was the end of circumcision, and therevpon condemne them as observers of the Ceremoniall Law. But first it will hardly be proved, as I thinke, that they vse circumcision in imitation of Christs circumcision. And secondly it will not follow if it be so, that they are circumcised to the same end he was: but only that they desire to be like vnto him, in the outward act, and to haue that done vnto them in the honour of him. So that I rather encline to the opinion of Caietan, and Bartholomeus de Medina, who acquit them; then to that of Soto and others that condemne them vpon this supposall. The particular points of their religion are these. First they think that the soule is ex traduce. Secondly they vse the same forme of words in baptizing that the Latines doe: saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, & of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost. 3 None baptizeth with thē but the Priest or in his absence the Deacon. 4 Their males are not Baptized till the 40th day, their females till the 80th: till which time the mother is not purified, nor entereth into the Church, but if there be danger of death they are baptized sooner: but they must not suck the brests of the mother vntill shee be purified. They are vniustly charged, that they Baptize with fire: for there is none amongst them that do so; but in some Provinces they 〈◊〉 . signe themselues in the forehead; either that they may differ from the Mahumetans, or for the cure of diseases incident to the eyes. 5 On twelfe day in memory of the baptisme of Christ they goe forth in great multitudes to the riuer, and after many praiers said by the priests they put them selues into the water, but no man is newly baptized. 6 They thinke that the infants of beleeuing parents are sanctified in the vvombe: as Hieremie, and Iohn the Baptist were: and therefore if they die without Baptisme dare not pronounce of them as the Romanists do. 7 They deny confirmation & extream vnction to be sacraments. 8 Touching the Eucharist they consecrate ordinarily in leauened bread, but on Maundy Thursday in vnleavened bread and in wine; or the juice of raisons moistened in water and so pressed out. They minister the Communion in both kinds to all, both Clergie men, and Lay-men. The priest ministereth the bread, and the Deacon the wine in a spoone. They giue this Sacrment to infants, when they are baptized, in this sort. The priest dippeth his finger into the consecrated wine and putteth it into the mouth of the child. They haue neither eleuation, nor reservation, nor circumgestation, as the Roman Church hath. They all Communicate twice every weeke, but the Sacrament is neuer ministred in private houses no not to the Patriarch, or Emperour him selfe. 9 Touching purgatorie they beleeue that soules after death are detained in a certaine place named in their tongue Mecan aaraft (id est) locus alleviationis, that is, a place of refreshing: in which the soules of such as die, not hauing repented of their former sinnes in such full and perfect sort as was sitting, are detained, and so whether the soules of good men doe enioy the vision of God before the resurrection they resolue not. 10 They say no masses for the dead; they bury them with crosses, and prayers, but specially they vse the beginning of St Iohns Gospell. The day following they giue almes and so a certaine number of dayes and make feasts also. 11 They grant no indulgences. 12 They haue no cases reserued. 13 They beleeue that the Saints do intercede for vs; they pray vnto them; they haue painted images but none molten or carued: they much esteeme them in respect of those holy ones they represent, and make sweete perfumes before them. 14 Their Priests receiue no tithes, but they haue lands on which they liue. 15 Their Bishops and Priests are married but may not marry a second wife and continue in those degrees and orders, vnlesse the Patriarch dispence with them. 16 They thinke it vnlawfull to fast on Saturdaie, or Sundaie: and vrge to that purpose the Canon of the Apostles. 17 They keepe Saturday holy as well as Sunday; following the Auncient Custome of the East Church, they eate flesh on that day throughout the whole yeare; except only in Lent: and in some Provinces they eate flesh on that day euen in the Lent also. 18 They fast Wednesdaies and Saturdaies till the Sunne setting, and celebrate not on those dayes till the euening. 19 Betweene Easter and Whitsontide they eate flesh freely on those daies. 20 They abstaine from things strangled, and blood, observing the Canon of the Apostles in so doing, as they suppose. and besides forbeare to eate of such kinds of meate as were forbidden by Moses Law. 21 The Emperour hath a supreame authority in all causes, aswell Ecclesiasticall, as Civill, though the Patriarch also exercise a spirituall iurisdiction. 22 They deny the supremacy of the Roman Bish. But they yeeld a primacie vnto him acknowledging him to be the first amongst Bishops.

Hauing spoken of the Grecians, Assyrians, and supposed Monophysites, it remaineth that wee come in the last place to treate of the Maronites. Touching the name Baronius sheweth that it was not from any heretick named Maron, but that there was a holy man so named: and that in honour of him a certaine 〈◊〉 Tom. 7. ann, 518. num: 49. Synod. sub Menna act. 5. monastery was founded: which was named the monastery of St Maron: & that all the monkes of that monastery were named Maronites. These in time as it may be thought ioyned them selues to the Monophysites formerly described, though happily not without some litle difference. And hence all the Christians that professed to beleeue so as these did, were named Maronites. They haue a Patriarch of their own who claimeth to be Patriarch of Antioch. He resideth in a monasterie some 25 miles from Tripolis in Syria. He hath vnder him some 8 or 9 suffragan Bishops. These Maronites inhabit mount Libanus, and some of them in Damascus, Aleppo, and some parts of Cyprus. Mount Libanus is of such extent that it is in compasse 7 hundred miles. It hath no cities but villages which are neither few nor small. Within this compasse none inhabite but Christians, though vnder the Turke. For they redeeme it at a high rate, and pay an intollerable tribute to liue without mixture of Mahumetans. The particulars of their Religion are these. First, they beleeue that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father onely. 2 They blesse & consecrate the water so often as any are to be baptized; And not as in the Roman Church, on the Saturday before Easter only for the whole yeare. The reason of which observation is, for that at Easter and at Whitsontide onely in the Primitiue Church they ministred Baptisme, which they did because in baptisme men are mortified to sin, & quickned in the life of grace by vertue of Christs death, resurrection, and giuing of the spirit. All which things were cōmemorated in these solemnities. 3 They neuer baptize males and females together, lest they should contract a kind of affinity. 4 None baptizeth with them in what necessity soeuer but a Priest or Deacon. 5 They require not the intention of the Minister, but thinke the faith of the Church sufficeth. 6 They baptize not a male till the 40th day, nor a female till the 80th, in respect of the impurity of the mother which they thinke continueth so long. 7 They seeke no confirmation from the Bishop, nor haue any other anointing then that which is vsed in baptisme. 8 They consecrat the Eucharist in vnleauened bread in a massie loafe, out of which they giue a peece to euery cōmunicant. 9 They giue the Sacraments to Lay men in both kinds. 10 They celebrat but once in one day, vpon one & the same altar. 11 They think the Person of the Holy Ghost to be in the holy oile, in such sort as the Person of Christ is in the Eucharist. 12 They thinke that the Eucharist receiued into the mouth, goeth not into the stomack, but presently diffuseth it selfe through all the members of the body. 13 On fasting-dayes they celebrate not till the euening, which custome Tho à Iesu saith, is not to be altered, affirming that it was most auncient in the Church of God; the Councell of Cabilon related in the De •… ons dist. 1 Can. 〈◊〉 . decrees, prescribing that they should celebrate the Sacrament in the Ember fasts, in the euening, & on the saturday before Easter in the beginning of the night. And although, saith he, the Church yeelding to our infirmity, permit the Latines to doe otherwise, yet where the old custome may be kept, it is not only not to be takē away, but much to be cōmended; that men when they fast may put it off as long as may be before they eat any thing. In former times they did not eat in Lent till the euening, as appeareth by the Councell formerly mentioned. Which custom continued till the time of Tho: Aquinas, for he saith, they did eat nothing in his time on their fasting daies till the 9th houre, in which houre Christ gaue vp the ghost. 14 they 〈◊〉 2a 2ae q. 147. art. 7. think it not lawfull to carry the Eucharist to them that are sicke. 15 Touching marriage they haue these opinions. 1 they think the state of marriage is not inferiour to virginity. 2 they thinke if the son contract without consent of the father, the father may voide the marriage, & so likewise the father of the wife. 3 they think the bond of marriage is dissolued by adulterie, & that the parties separated may marry again. 4 they permit not the father & the son to marry with the mother & the daughter: nor 2 bretheren with 2 sisters. 5 they dislike the marriage of widdowes of 60 yeares of age. 6 they allow not the 4th marriage, whereas Hierom saith, non damno bigamos imò nec trigamos, ac si dici potest octogamos, that is, I dare not condemne thē that marry the 2d, 3d, or 8th time. 16 touching orders. 1 they ordain children of 5 or 6 years of age deacons. 2 no man is ordained a Priest or deacon amongst thē except he haue first contracted matrimony, & that with a virgin, not with a widow or woman dishonoured; but neither of these is permitted to marry a 2d wife. 17 they think it vnlawfull to eat of things strangled, or bloud. 18 they judge it vnlawfull to fast Saturday or Sunday. Lastly they teach that no man entreth into the kingdome of heauen vntill the generall judgement. These Maronites are now said to bee joyned in Communion with the Church of Rome since the time of Clemens the eight; but how far forth they haue changed either their opinions or their rites and ceremonies, it doth not appeare. These onely and the Indians of all the Christians of the Orient hold Communion with the Church of Rome.

Out of all that which hath beene said, two things are obseruable. First, that by the mercifull goodnes of God all these different sortes of Christians, though distracted and dissevered, by reason of diuersity of ceremonies and outward obseruations, different manner of deliuering certaine poynts of faith, mistaking one another, or variety in opinion touching things not fundamentall, doe yet agree in one substance of faith, and are so far forth orthodox, that they retaine a sauing profession of all diuine verities absolutely necessary to saluation, and are all members of the true Catholicke Church of Christ. The second, that in all the principall controuersies touching matters of religion betweene the Papists and those of the reformed Churches, they giue testimony of the trueth of that wee professe. For first they all deny and impugne that supreame vniuersality of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which the Bishop of Rome claimeth. Secondly, they thinke him subject to errour as all other Bishops are. Thirdly, they deny that hee hath any power to dispose the principalities and kingdomes of the world, or depose kings. Fourthly, they acknowledge all our righteousnesse to be imperfect, and that it is not safe to trust therevnto, but to the meere mercy and goodnesse of God. Fiftly, they admit not the merit of congruence, condignitie, nor works of supererogation. Sixtly, they teach not the doctrine of satisfactions, as the Romanists do. 7 They beleeue not Purgatorie, neither pray to deliuer men out of temporall punishments after this life. 8 They reject the doctrine of the Romanists touching indulgences and pardons. 9 They beleeue not there are seaven Sacraments. 10 They omit many ceremonies in baptisme which the Roman Church vseth, as spittle, &c. 11. They haue no priuate masses. 12 They minister the communion in both kindes to all communicants. 13 They beleeue not transubstantiation, nor the new reall sacrificing of Christ. 14 They haue the diuine service in the vulgar tongue. 15 Their priests are married, and though they permit them not to marry a second wife without speciall dispensation, yet if any doe, they doe not voyde nor dissolue the marriage. 16 They make no image of God. 17 They haue no massie images but pictures onely. 18 They thinke that properly God onely is to be invocated, and howsoeuer they haue a kinde of invocation of Saints, yet they thinke that God only heareth them and not the Saints.

CHAP. 2.

Of the harsh and vnaduised censure of the Romanistes, condemning all these Churches as Schismaticall, and hereticall.

ALL these Churches & societies of Christians, in number many, in extent large, in multitudes of men and people huge and great, in continuance most auncient, in defence of the Christian faith constant, and vndaunted (though enduring the malice, and force, of cruell, bloody, & potent enemies) the Bishop of Rome with his adherents judgeth to be hereticks, or at least Schismaticks, & consequently, to haue no hope of eternall saluation; for that it is, on the perill of euerlasting damnation, imposed vpon euery soule, to bow, & do reuerence, at the sight of his triple crowne, to kisse his sacred feet, & to beleeue nothing, more, nor longer, then his holinesse shall decree, & define. And therefore the most part of the Christian world is plunged into hell, abandoned into vtter darkenes, & reserued in chaines vnto the judgment of the last day, In concilio 2. Episcopus Constantinopolitanus suit antepositus Alexand •… no & Antiocheno in concilio chalcedonensi act: 6. ad istum canonem addiderunt oportere eum p •… a habere priuilegia cum Romano Pontifi •… e: sed c •… m a legatis reclamatum esset, non ausi •… t pa •… um priuilegio •… um mentionem facere Bellar. 1. Tom. contro. generali de pontifice. l. 2. c. 18. euer since that schismaticall acte, of the base, ignoble, & contemptible Councel of 600 Bishops assembled at Chalcedon; who, forgetting themselues, presumed to equall another B. to the peerelesse and incomparable Vicar of Christ, his Vicegerent generall on earth; in comparison of whose greatnesse, all other Episcopall, and Patriarchicall dignity, regall or Imperiall maiestie, is no more then the light of a candle at midday, when the sunne shineth in strength. But because wee haue not receiued the marke of this Antichrist and child of perdition in our foreheades, nor sworne to take the foame of his impure mouth, and froath of his words of blasphemie, wherein hee extolleth himselfe aboue all that is named God, for oracles and infallible certainty and the rule of our faith. Let vs therefore see what that heresie & schisme is, that cutteth of from the company of right beleeuers, in such sort, that whosoever is convinced of it, is thereby clearely without all hope of eternall life.

CHAP. 3.

Of the nature of heresie, of the diuerse kinds of things, wherein men erre, and what pertinacie it is that maketh an heritique.

HEresie is not every errour, but errour in matter of faith; nor every e •… ror in matter of faith; (For neither Iewes, nor Pagans, are said to bee heritickes, though they erre most damnably in those things, which every one that will be saued must beleeue, and with all the malice, fury, and rage that can be imagined, impugne the Christian faith, and verity) but it is the errour of such as by some kind of profession haue a Occam di •… l. l. 3 partis 1. cap. 2. 3. beene Christians; so that only such, as by profession being Christians, depart from the trueth of Christian religion are named heritickes.

Occam dial. l. 4. partis 1. cap. 3. tract. 1. 2. partis. cap. 10. These are of two sorts: For there are haeretici scientes, and there are haeretici nescientes; that is, there are some that are wittingly heretikes, some vnwittingly. For though no man do, or can wittingly erre, or be deceiued; yet a man may wittingly be an heriticke, and though no man thinke that to be true which he knoweth to be false, or that to be false which he knoweth to be true, which were wittingly to erre; yet a man may forsake that which he knoweth to be the profession of Christians, iudge it erronious, false and impious, & choose some other kind of religion: which is wittingly to be an heriticke. Such are Apostates, which depart from that which they know to be the Christian faith.

Heretickes vnwittingly are such as thinke, that they do most firmely cleaue to the doctrine of Christ, his blessed Apostles, and holy Church, and will not be induced to thinke the whole profession of Christians to be false, and erronious, as do Apostates; yet doe erre in many particulars that pertaine to the faith, and thinke that to be the onely true Christian profession which indeede is not, as did the Marcionites, Manichees, and the rest of that sort.

The things that pertaine to the Christian faith and religion, are of two sorts: for there are some things explicitè, some things implicite credenda; that is 〈◊〉 Occam dial. Tract. 1. 2. part. cap. 10. there are some things that must be particularly and expressly knowne and beleeued, as that the father is God, the sonne is God, and the holy Ghost God, and that yet they are not three Gods, but one God; And some other, which though all men, at all times, be not bound vpon the perill of damnation to know and beleeue expressely, yet whosoever will be saued must beleeue them at least implicitè, & in generality, as that IOSEPH, MARIE, & IESVS •… edde into Egypt.

Men are bound to know and beleeue things particularly, and expressely; either in respect of their office, and standing in the Church of God; in which consideration, the pastors, & guides of the Church, (who are to teach others) are bound to know many things, which others of more private condition are not: or else for that they are particularly offered to their consideration; and so a Lay-man, finding it written in the Scripture, that Onesimus was a fugitiue seruant, and recommended to Philemon his master by Paul, is bound particularly to beleeue it, which a great Bishop not obseruing, or not remembring, is not: or lastly, because they doe essentially and directly concerne the matter of our saluation. Dubius in fide est Hereticus & infidelis, quod vtique veritatem habet, cum quis deiis dubitat quae per eruditionem sacrae scripturae certâ tenetur & explicitâ fide tenere: neque enim generalis sufficeret credulitas in multis. Gers. p. 3. l. 〈◊〉 . de co so •… at, prosa 1. Hee that erreth in those things which euery one is bound particularly to beleeue, because they doe essentially, and directly concerne the matter of our salvation, is without any farther enquirie to bee pronounced an Hereticke.

Neither neede we to aske, whether he joyne obstinacie to his errour: for the very errour it selfe is damnable; as if a man shall deny Christ to be the Son of GOD, coessentiall, coequall, and coeternall with his Father, or that we haue remission of sinnes by the effusion of his bloud. But other things, that doe not so neerely and directly touch the substance of Christian faith, and which a man is not bound vpon the perill of damnation expressely to know and beleeue, but it sufficeth if he beleeue them implicité, and in praeparatione animi, that is, if he carry a minde prepared, and ready to yeeld assent vnto them, if once it shall appeare that they are included in, and by necessarie consequence to be deduced from those things which expressely he doth and must beleeue; Deut 34. 4. as that Moses saw the promised land, but entred not into it: 1 Kings 1 •… or, that the Queene of the South came from the vttermost endes of the world to heare the wisedome of Salomon. A man may bee ignorant of, and bee deceiued in them, and yet without all touch of heresie, or perill of damnation, vnlesse hee adde pertinacie vnto errour. Neither doth euery pertinacie joyned with errours in this kinde, make them Heresies: For, all they are in some degree to bee judged pertinacious, that neglect the censure, and judgment of them, whom they should reverence, and regard; and stand in defence of those errours, which if they had vsed that carefull diligence which they should, in searching out the truth, they had not fallen into; but that onely, when men erring in things of this kinde, they are so strongly carried with the streames of misperswasion, that rather than they will alter their opinion, or disclaime their error, they will deny some part of that which euery one that will be saued, must know and beleeue.

Socrat. l. 7. c. 32. So in the beginning, Nestorius did not erre, touching the vnitie of Christs person in the diuersitie of the natures of GOD and man: but only disliked, that Mary should be called the Mother of GOD: which forme of speaking, when some demonstrated to be very fitting, and vnavoidable, if Christ were GOD and Man in the vnitie of the same person, he chose rather to deny the vnitie of Christs person, then to acknowledge his temeritie, and rashnesse; in reprouing that forme of speech, which the vse of the Church had anciently receiued and allowed.

CHAP. 4.

Of those things which euery one is bound expressely to know and beleeue; and wherein no man can erre, without note of heresie.

SEeing then the things which Christian men are bound to beleeue, are of so different sort and kinde, let vs see which are those that doe so neerely touch the very life, and being of the Christian faith, and religion, that euery one is bound particularly and expressely to know and beleeue them, vpon perill of eternall damnation. They may most aptly be reduced to these principal •… heads.

First, concerning God, whom to know is eternall life, wee must beleeue and acknowledge the vnity of an infinite, incomprehensible, and eternall essence full of righteousnesse, goodnesse, mercie and trueth; The trinitie of persons subsisting in the same essence; the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, coessentiall, coeternall, and coequall; the Father not created, nor begotten; the Sonne not created, but begotten; the holy Ghost not created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

Secondly, wee must know, and beleeue, that God made all things of nothing, that in them hee might manîfest his wisedome, power, and goodnesse; that hee made men and Angels capable of supernaturall blessednesse, consisting in the vision and enjoying of himselfe; that hee gaue them abilities to attaine therevnto, and lawes to guide them in the wayes that leade vnto it; that nothing was made euill in the beginning; that all euill entred into the world by the voluntary aversion of men and Angels from God their Creator; that the sinne of Angels was not generall, but that some fell, and others continued in their first estate; that the sinne of those Angels that fell, is irremissible, and their fall irrecouerable; that these are become diuels and spirits of errour, seeking the destruction of the sonnes of men; that by the misperswasion of these lying spirits, the first man that euer was in the world, fell from God by sinfull disobedience and apostasie; that the sinne of the first man is deriued to all his posterity, not by imitation only, but by propagation and descent, subjecting all to curse and malediction; yet not without possibilitie, and hope of mercifull deliuerance.

Thirdly, wee must beleeue, that for the working of this deliuerance, the Sonne of God assumed the nature of man into the vnity of his diuine person; so that hee subsisteth in the nature of God, and man, without all corruption, confusion, or conuersion of one of them into another: that in the nature of man thus assumed hee suffered death, but being God could not be holden of it, but rose againe, and triumphantly ascended into Heauen: that hee satisfied the wrath of his father, obtayned for vs remission of sinnes past, the grace of repentant conuersion, and a new conuersation, joyned with assured hope, desire, and expectation of eternall happinesse,

Fourthly, wee must constantly beleeue, that God doth call, and gather to himselfe out of the manifold confusions of erring, ignorant, and wretched men, whom hee pleaseth, to be partakers of these precious benefits of eternall saluation: the happy number and joyfull society of whom wee name the Church of God; whether they were before, or since the manifestation of Christ the sonne of God in our flesh. For both had the same faith, hope, and spirit of adoption, whereby they were sealed vnto eternall life; though there bee a great difference in the degree, and measure of knowledge, and the excellencie of the meanes, which God hath vouchsafed the one, more then the other.

Fiftly, wee must know, and beleeue, that for the publishing of this joyfull deliverance, and the communicating of the benefits of the same, the Sonne of God committed to those his followers, whom hee chose to bee witnesses of all the things hee did and suffered, not onely the word of reconciliation, but also the dispensation of sacred and sacramentall assurances of his loue, set meanes of his gracious working: that those first messengers, whom hee sent with immediate commission, were infallibly led into all trueth, and left vnto posterities that summe of Christian doctrine that must for euer be the rule of our faith: that these blessed messengers of so good and happy tidings, departing hence, left the ministerie of reconciliation to those, whom they appoynted to succeede them, in the worke so happily begun by them.

Lastly, wee must know, and be assuredly perswaded, that seeing the renouation of our spirites and mindes is not perfect, and the redemption of our bodies still remaining corruptible is not yet; therefore God hath appointed a time when Christ his sonne shall returne againe, raise vp the dead, and giue eternall life to all, that with repentant sorrow, turne from their euill and wicked wayes, while it is yet the accepted time and day of saluation; and contrary wayes, cast out into vtter darkenesse, and into the fire that neuer shall bee quenched, all those that neglect, and despise so great saluation.

That all these things, and these onely, doe directly concerne the matter of eternall saluation, is euidently proued by vnaunswerable demonstration. For how should they attaine euerlasting happinesse, that know not God the originall cause and end of all things, the object, matter, and cause of all happinesse? that know not of whom they were created, of what sorte, to what, whereof capable, and how enabled to it, how farre they are fallen from that they originally were, and the hope of that which they were made to be, whence are those euills that make them miserable, and whence the deliuerance from them is to be looked for, by whom it is wrought, what the benefits of it are, the meanes whereby they are communicated, to whom, and what shall bee the end both of them that partake, and partake not in them? Wee see then that all these things, and these onely essentially and directly touch the matter of eternall saluation.

Other things there are that attend on them, as consequents deduced from them, or some way appertayning to them: whereof some are of that sorte, that a man cannot rightly be perswaded of these, but hee must needes see the necessary consequence, and deduction of them from these, if they bee propounded vnto him: as that there are two wils in Christ; that there is no saluation, remission of sinnes, or hope of eternall life out of the Church; Theodoret. in ep. decretorum diuinorum. Aug. de moribus Manicheorum, lib. 2. cap. 15: Tertul. contra Marcio, l. 1. that the matrimoniall societie of man and wife is not impure, as the Marcionites, Tatianus, and other supposed; nor any kinde of meates to bee rejected as vncleane by nature, as the Manichees and some other Heretickes fondly and impiously dreamed: other things there are that are not so clearely deduced from those indubitate principles of our Christian faith; as namely, concerning the place of the Fathers rest before the comming of our Sauiour Christ; concerning the locall descending of Christ into the hell of the damned.

In the first sorte of things which are the principles that make the rule of faith, a man cannot be ignorant and bee saued. In the second, which are so clearely deduced from those principles, that who so aduisedly considereth them, cannot but see their consequence from them, and dependance of them, a man cannot erre and be saued; because if he beleeue those things which euery one that will bee saued must particularly know, and beleeue, he cannot erre in these. The third a man may be ignorant of, and erre in them without danger of damnation, if errour bee not joyned with pertinacie.

The principall grounds of Christian doctrine, aboue mentioned, are the whole platforme of all Christian Religion; The rule of faith so often mentioned by the Auncient, by the measure of which all the holy Fathers, Bishops, and Pastours of the Church, made their Sermons, Commentaries, and Interpretations of Scripture. This rule (euery part whereof is prooued so neerely to concerne all them that looke for saluation) we make the rule to trie all doctrines by; and not such platformes of doctrine, as euery Sect-master by himselfe canne deduce out of the Scriptures vnderstood according to his owne private fancie, Annot. in Rom. 12. as the Rhemists falsely charge vs. This rule is deliuered by De praescriptionibus aduersus hereticos & aduersus Praxean. Tertullian. Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 3. Irenaeus, and other of the Fathers: and with addition of conclusions most easily, clearely, and vnavoydably deduced hence, by Theodoret in his Epitome Dogmatum.

CHAP. 5.

Of the nature of Schisme, and the kindes of it, and that it no way appeareth that the Churches of Greece, &c. are hereticall, or in damnable schisme.

OVt of this which hath beene deliuered, it is easie to discerne what is Heresie, and what errours they are, that exclude from possibility of saluation. It remaineth to speake of Schisme and the kindes and degrees of it. Schisme is a breach of the vnity of the Church. The vnity of the Church consisteth in three things: First, the subjection of people to their lawfull Pastours; Secondly, the connexion, and communion which many particular Churches, and the Pastours of them haue among themselues: Thirdly, in holding the same rule of faith. The vnity of each particular Church depends of the vnity of the Pastour, who is one, to Ecclesiae salus in su •… itacerdotis dignitate pe •… et, •… ui si non exors quaedam & ab on 〈◊〉 eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesia eff •… entur s •… hismata quot sacerdotes. Hier. contra Luciferianos. whom an eminent and peculiar power is giuen, and whom all must obey: In respect of this first kinde of vnity, consisting in the subjection of each people, or portion of the flocke of Christ to their lawfull Pastours, if they who should obey this one Pastour, as being in the stead & place of Christ, doe either wholly withdraw themselues, refusing to be subject to any Ministerie, like Numb. 16, 1. 23. Core and his complices, pretending that all the people of God are holy, and that the guides of the Church take too much vpon them; or when one is elected, doe set vp an other against him, and forsaking the right, cleaue to him that hath no right: This is the first kinde of Schisme.

Secondly, because there must be Cyprian. de v •… tate Ecclesiae. an vnitie, not onely among the parts of each particular Church, but also of many particular Churches, and the Pastours, and guides of them among themselues: the Churches which forsake the communion of other Churches without just cause, doe fall into Schisme. And if they not onely refuse to communicate with them, in the performance of the acts of religion, vpon causelesse dislike, but swarue from the rule of faith, the other doe constantly hold; they become not onely schismaticall, but hereticall also.

These are the seuerall kindes of Schisme, of which one is much more daungerous then another. The forsaking the rule of faith, or absolute refusall to be subject to the holy Ministerie, saying as they did, Are not all the people holy? you take too much vpon you, &c. is damnable Schisme. In each Church, wherein there must be one Pastour, hauing eminent, and peerelesse power, when one is lawfully called, they who presume to set vp an other, if they know the former to be lawfully possessed of the place, or their ignorance thereof bee affected, or they be so violentlie carried with the streames of contention and faction, that they would not yeeld, though the right should appeare vnto them, this Schisme is likewise damnable. In sch •… mate prae •… tam du •… o, temerarium, ini •… osum & scandalosum est, a •… ere omnes tenentes istam partem vel al •… eram, vel omnes neutral •… •… sse vniversa •… ter extra statum 〈◊〉 , vel But if it be doubtful, and men carry mindes readie to yeeld, when they shall see the right, it is not so.

When whole Churches with their Pastours, and guides, diuide themselues from other, refusing to communicate with them, if this separation grow out of pride, and Pharisaicall conceit of fancied perfection, and absolute holinesse, as did the Schisme of Novatus, Donatus, Lucifer, and others of that sort, it is damnable Schisme; but if out of ignorance, or errour, not ouerthrowing the rule of faith; or ouer earnest vrging of ceremonies, rites, and observations, as the c •… mmunicatos, vel 〈◊〉 de schis •… e 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 •… de mo •… h •… endi tempore schis •… . 〈◊◊〉 . Ecc •… es. 〈◊◊◊〉 . c. •… 3. separation of Victor Bishop of Rome, and the Churches of Asia, had beene, if Irenaeus had not interposed himselfe, or striuing for precedence; it is dangerous, but not damnable, vnlesse it be joined with such pertinacie, that though it should appeare they were in errour, or did amisse, and contrary to the rule of charitie, they would not yeeld.

This being the nature of Schisme and Heresie, and these the kindes and degrees of them more or lesse dangerous, let vs in the next place see, what is to be thought of all those Churches of Graecia, Armenia, Aethiopia, Russia before mentioned; Every of which is in some sort rent, and divided from other. Wee dare not with the proud Romanists, condemne so famous Churches, as culpable of damnable Heresie and Schisme, and cast so many millians of soules into hell, for every difference in matter of opinion, or rent from the other parts of the body of the Church.

All Diligenter consider •… dum esset, quid dicere vellent; vel inueniēdum esset medium expediens, vt omnia ponerentur ad concordiam, non persistendo in omnimodâ probatione huius articuli contra eos; vix enim convincerentur homines qui velint repugnare. Nota hic, quomodo aliquae determinationes Parisijs factae duntaxat ligant diocessanos, & si sic dici posset de Latinorum Ecclesiâ, Notate si de vno articulo fieri posset non articulus, ponendo res in talem statum in quali erant ante determinationem, exemplum; determinatio Bonifacij annihilata fuit per quendam successorem eius. si Graeci habeant consuetudinem conferendi beneficia &c. & ad hoc facit, quod dicunt aliqui, eos aliâs scripsisse Papae, potentiam tuam recognoscimus, avaritiam tuam implere non possumus, viuite per vos. Gers. part. 4. serm. de pace & vnitate Graecorum. these therefore holding the rule of faith, and beleeuing all those things, that are on the perill of eternall damnation to bee particularly and expresly knowne and beleeued, and their seperation not growing (for ought wee know) out of Pharisaicall and damnable pride, as did that of Nouatus, Donatus, and the like, but out of error, not directly contrary to the rule of faith, or some other humane infirmitie, and defect; and it no way appearing that their obstinacie is such, that, though they knew they did amisse, they would still continue so to do; wee accompt them in the number of the Churches of God, and doubt not but that innumerable liuing, and dying in them, notwithstanding their sundry defects, imperfections, and wants, are, and haue beene saued. Wee conclude therefore, that their Schismes, and seperations are sinfull, wicked, and dangerous, and their errours inexcusable, insnaring the consciences of many to endlesse perdition, and greatly endangering all that are, or haue beene misse-led with them; but not damnable, excluding from all possibility of salvation. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nullâ pertinaci 〈◊〉 defendunt, praesertim quam non audacia suae praesumptionis pepererunt, sed à seductis & in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cautâ solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati, cum iuvener •… t, ne quaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi. Aug. epist. 162. Glorio Eleusio &c. Wee make a great difference betweene them, that were the first Authors and beginners of these diuisions, and such as walke in the wayes, and insist in the steps of their misse-led, and seduced fathers: betweene such as are more, and such as are lesse deepely plunged into errour.

CHAP. 6.

Of the Latine Church, that it continued the true Church of God euen till our time, and that the errours wee condemne, were not the doctrines of that Church.

TOuching the Latine Church likewise wee are of the same opinion, that it continued still a part of the Catholike Church, notwithstanding the manifold abuses and superstitions that in time crept into it, and the dangerous and damnable false doctrine that some taught, and defended in the middest of it. It is therefore most fond and friuolous, that some demand of vs where our Church was before Luther began? For wee say it was, where now it is: if they aske vs, which? wee answere, it was the knowen and apparant Church in the world, wherein all our Fathers liued and died; wherein Luther and the rest were baptized, receiued their Christianity, ordination, and power of ministery. If they reply, that that Church was theirs, and not ours, for that the doctrines they now teach, and wee inpugne, the cerimonies, customes, and observations, which they retaine and defend, and wee haue abolished as fond, vaine, and superstitious, were taught, vsed, and practised in that Church wherein our fathers liued, and dyed; wee answere, that none of those points of false doctrine and errour which they now maintaine, and wee condemne, where the doctrines of that Church constantly delivered, or generally receiued by all them that were of it, but doubtfully broached, and deuised without all certaine resolution, or factiously defended by some certaine onely, who as a dangerous faction adulterated the sincerity of the Christian verity, and brought the Church into miserable bondage.

Touching the abuses and manifold superstitions which wee haue remoued; it is true they were in that Church wherein our fathers liued, but not without signification of their dislike of them, and earnest desire of reformation, as shall appeare by that which followeth. Epist. ad Corint. 1. Epist. ad ga •… atas. reuel. 2 12. 18. As therefore the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Pergamus, and Thyatira, had in them emulations, diuisions, neglect of discipline, contempt of the Apostles of Christ, some that denied the resurrection of the dead, that ioyned circumcision and the workes of the law with Christ in the work of saluation, thē that maintained the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, & suffered the woman Iesabel, which called her selfe a Prophetesse to deceiue the people of God, & make thē cōmit fornication, & eate things sacrificed vnto Idols, &c. yet it is not to be thought, that all that were of these Churches, with one consent denied the resurrection, & fell into al the errours, & euils aboue mentioned; For then doubtlesse these societies had ceased to be the true, and Catholicke Churches of God: so though sundrie dangerous, and damnable errours were broached in the midst of the Church and house of God, in the dayes of our Fathers, which did fret Gers. part. 1. de potestate ec •… es. consid. 12. as a canker, as Gerson confesseth, yet were they not with full approbation generally receiued, but doubted of, contradicted, refuted, and rejected, as vncertaine, dangerous, damnable, and hereticall. And as in the reformation of those Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Pergamus, and Thyatira, if some had still persisted in the maintenance of those errours and abuses reproued by the Spirit of God, and the blessed Apostles of our Sauiour Christ, whiles other moued by the admonition of the Spirit of God, and the wordes of the holy Apostles, reformed themselues; and so a diuision or separation had growen, it had beene a vaine challenge for the stiffe maintainers of errours and abuses, to challenge the reformed part for noueltie, to aske of them where their Church was before this reformation began, seeing it was euen the same, wherein in one communion they formerly liued together, with toleration of all those euills which the one part still retained, and the other justly rejected: So when many Princes, Prelates, and great States of the Christian world, haue in our dayes shaken off that yoke of miserable bondage, whereof our fathers complayned, remooued those superstitious abuses they disliked, condemned those errours in matters of doctrine, which they acknowledged to bee daungerous, and damnable, fretting as a canker, and insnaring the consciences of many: It is no lesse vaine and friuolous for the Patrons of errour, to aske vs which, and where our Church was, before the reformation beganne; for it was that wherein all our Fathers liued, longing to see things brought backe to their first beginnings againe, in which their predecessours as a daungerous and wicked faction tyrannized ouer mens consciences, and peruerted all things, to the endlesse destruction of themselues and many others with whom they prevayled.

If they shall further reply, that that Church wherein our fathers, liued was not ours, because there were many things found in it, which wee haue not; who seeth not, that this reason stands as strong against them, as against vs? For there are many errours and superstitions, which they haue reiected, and doe not retaine at this day, which were in being in the dayes of our Fathers. And besides, this obiection would haue serued the Patrons of errour in the Church of Corinth, Galatia, and the rest: For they might haue sayd, after those Churches were reformed, that they were new, and not the same that were before; For that in the former, the resurrection of the dead was denied, circumcision vrged and practised, discipline neglected, and the Apostles of Christ contemned, which things afterwards were not found in them. As therefore this had beene a shamelesse objection of those erring miscreants against the godly and well-affected in those times, so it is in ours. And as those errours were not generall in those Churches, so were not they which we haue condemned, in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued. As those errours and heresies were not the doctrines of the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and the rest; but the lewde assertions of some, perverting, and adulterating the doctrine of the Churches: so likewise the errours, which wee condemne at this day, whereupon the difference groweth betweene the Romish faction, and vs, were neuer generally receiued, nor constantly deliuered, as the doctrines of the Church: but vncertainly, and doubtfully disputed, and proposed as the opinions of some men in the Church, not as the resolued determinations of the whole Church.

CHAP. 7.

Of the seuerall points of difference betweene vs and our adversaries, wherein some in the Church erred, but not the whole Church.

FOr neither did that Church, wherein our Fathers liued, and died, holde that Canon of Scripture, which the Romanists now vrge; nor that insufficiencie they now charge it with; nor corruption of the originals; nor necessitie of following the vulgar translation; nor the heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certaine barbarous Schoolemen, as that there are three different estates of men; the first of pure nature, without addition of grace, or sinne; and two other, the one of grace, the other of sinne: That all those euils, that are found in the nature of man, since his fall, as ignorance, concupiscence, contrariety betweene the better and meaner faculties of the soule, difficulty to doe well, and pronenesse to doe euill, were all naturall, the conditions of pure nature, that is, of nature, as considered in it self, it would come foorth from God: That these euils are not sinfull, nor had their beginnings from sinne, that they were the consequents of Nature in the state of creation, but restrained by addition of supernaturall grace, without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect: That men in the state of pure nature, that is, as they might haue beene created of GOD in the integritie of Nature, without addition of grace, and in the estate of originall sinne, differ no otherwise, but as they that neuer had, and they that haue lost rich and precious cloathing; so that originall sinne is but the losse of that, without which natures integrity may stand: that no euils are brought in by the fall, but Nature left to her selfe to feele that which was before, but not felt, nor discerned while the addition of grace bettered Nature. None of these errours touching the estate of mans creation were the doctrines of the Church, but the private fancies and conceits of men.

So likewise touching originall sinne, there were that taught, that it is not inherent in each particular man borne of Adam, but that Adams personall sinne is imputed onely: that the propagation of sinne is not generall, Mary being conceiued without originall sinne: That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart, or positiue euill, but privatiue onely; and that therefore there is a third place, neither hell nor heauen, named Limbus puerorum; which is a place, where, as some thinke, they who are condemned thither, though they bee excluded from the kingdome of Heauen, and all possibility of euer comming thither, yet are in a state of naturall happinesse, and doe enioy the sweet content of eternall life. These Pelagian heresies were taught in the Church of God, but they were not the doctrines of the Church; being condemned, rejected, and refuted, as contrary to the Christian verity, by many worthy members and guides of the Church: who as they neuer receiued these parts of false doctrine: so likewise the Church wherein they liued, neither knew, nor approved that distinction and difference of veniall and mortall sinnes, which the Romanists now teach, nor power of nature to doe the workes of the Lawe according to the substance of the things commanded, though not according to the intention of the Law-giuer, to loue God aboue all and to do actions morally good, or not sinfull, without concurrence of speciall grace, nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of some thing in vs positiue or priuatiue; nor merit of congruence and condignity; nor workes of supererogation; nor counsels of perfection, as they now teach; nor iustification by perfection of inherent qualities; nor vncertainty of grace: nor seaven Sacraments properly so named: nor locall presence: nor Transubstantiation: nor orall manducation of the body of Christ, nor reall sacrificing of it for the quick & the dead: nor remission of sinnes after this life: nor tormenting of the soules of men dying in the state of saluation in a part of hell, hundred of yeares, by divels in corporall fire (out of which, prayer should deliver them) nor that the Saints heare our prayers, know or are acquainted with our particular wants: nor the grosse Idolatry in those times committed, and intollerable abuses found in the number, fashion, and worship of their images: nor their absolution, as now they define it: nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superfluitie of Saints merits not rewardable in themselues, to be disposed by the Pope for supplie of other mens, wants to release them out of Purgatorie by way of indulgence: nor the infallibility of the Popes iudgment, and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depose Princes, and dispose of their crownes, and dignities, and that whatsoeuer he doth he may not be brought into order, or deposed by authority of the whole Christian world in a generall Councell. These are the errours which wee condemne and our adversaries maintaine and defend: these, wee are well assured, were not the doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers liued and dyed, though, wee do not deny, but they were taught by some in that Church. All these we offer to proue to be errour in matter of our Christian faith, and that seeing wee could no longer haue peace with our adversaries, but by approuing these impieties, wee had iust cause to divide our selues from them, or (to speake more properly) to suffer our selues to be accursed, anathematized, and rejected by them, rather than to subscribe to so many errours, and heresies, contrary to the Christian, and Catholike verity.

CHAP. 8.

Of the true Church, which, and where it was before Luthers time.

THus then it appeareth, which wee thinke to haue beene the true Church of God before Luther or others of that sort were heard of in the world: namely that, wherein all our Fathers liued and died, wherein none of the errours, reproued by Luther, ever found generall, vniforme, and full approbation, in which all the abuses remoued by him were long before by all good men complained off, and a reformation desired. And therefore though wee accknowledge Wickliffe, Husse, Hierome of Prague, and the like; who with great magnanimity opposed them selues against the Tyranny of the See of Rome, and the impiety of those who withheld the trueth of God in vnrighteousnesse, who being named Christians serued Antichrist (Serm. 33. omnes amici & omnes inimici, omnes necessarij & omnes adversarij, omnes domestici & nulli pacifici, serui Christi serviunt Antichristo. as Bernard complained of some in his time) to haue beene the worthy servants of God, and holy martyrs, and confessours, suffering in the cause of Christ against Antichrist: yet doe wee not thinke that the Church of God was found onely in them, or that there was no other appearance, of succession of Church and ministerie, as Stapleton and other of that faction falsely impute vnto vs. For wee most firmely beleeue, all the Churches in the world, wherein our Fathers liued and died, to haue beene the true Churches of God, in which vndoubtedly salvation was to be found: and that they which taught, embraced, and beleeued those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend against vs, were a faction only in the Churches, as were they that denied the resurrection, vrged circumcision, and despised the Apostles of Christ, in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia.

If any of our men deny these Churches to haue beene the true Churches of of God, their meaning is limitted in respect of the prevailing faction, that was in the Church, and including them and all the wicked impieties by any of them defended, in which sense their negatiue is to bee vnderstood. For howsoever the Church (which is not to be charged with the errours and faults of all, that in the midst of her did amisse) held a sauing profession of the trueth of God: yet there were many, and they carrying the greatest shew of the Church, that erred damnably, and held not a sauing profession of diuine trueth: wherevpon De potestate ecclesiastica consid. 12. Gerson sayth, that before the councell of Constance, the false opinions touching the power of the Pope did fret like a Canker, & preuailed so far, that he would hardly haue escaped the note of heresie, that had said but halfe so much, as was defined in the Councell of Constance, by the vniuersall consent of the whole Christian world.

Lib. 2. distinct. 26. q. 1. art. 1. dist. 30. q. 3. Gregorius Ariminensis sheweth, that touching the power of nature to doe things morrally good; and to fulfill the law without concurrence of speciall grace, touching the workes of infidels, predestination, reprobation, and punishments of originall sinne, the heresies of Pelagius were taught in the Church; and that not by a few, or contemptible men, but so manie and of soe great place, that he almost feared to follow the doctrine of the Fathers, and oppose himselfe against them therein. The same doth Dial. Apolog. iudicium de concilio Constantien •… . Gerson report concerning sundry lewd assertions preiudiciall to the states of Kings and Princes, which the Councell of Constance could not bee induced to condemne, by reason of a mighty faction that preuailed in it, though many great ones much urged it, and though they made no stay to condemne the positions of Wicklife and Hus, seeming to derogate from the state of the Clergie, though many of them might carry a good and Catholike sense, if they might haue found a fauourable construction. Whereupon he breaketh into a bitter complaint of the partialities, and vnequall courses holden in the Church, and protesteth, that he hath no hope of a reformation by a councell, things standing as they then did.

The like complaint did In libro de praedestinatione. Contarenus make in our time, that if any man did debase the nature of man, deiect the pride of sinnefull flesh, magnifie the riches of the grace of God, and vrge the necessity of it, hee was iudged a Lutheran, and pronounced an Hereticke; though they that gloried in the name of Catholikes, were themselues Pelagian heretickes, if not worse then Pelagians. Alas, saith Occam prol: comp. err. Iohannis 22. Occam, the time is come the blessed Apostle Saint Paule, 2. Timoth. 4 prophecied of, When men will not suffer wholesome doctrine, but hauing their eares itching, after their owne lustes, get them a heape of Teachers, turning their eares from the trueth, and being giuen, vnto fables. This Prophecie is altogether fullfilled in our daies. For behold, there are many that peruert the holy Scriptures, and deny the sayings of the holy Fathers, reiecte the Canons of the Church and ciuill constitutions of the Emperours, which molest, persecute, bring into bondage, and without mercy torment and afflict euen vnto death, them that defend the trueth; And, that I may conclude many things in fewe words, with harl •… ttes foreheades, and execrable boldnesse, doe endeavour to subuert imperiall and regall power, and to ouerthrow all lawes both of GOD and man. Neither are these young men, or vnlearned, but they are the elders of the people, High Priests, Scribes, Pharises, and Doctours of the Law, as they were that crucified Christ: so that wee may rightly say of our times, that which Daniel long since pronounced in his 13 Chapter, Iniquity is gone out from Babylon, from the elders and iudges which seemed to governe and rule the people: For many that should bee pillars in the Church of God, and defend the truth euen vnto bloud, doe cast themselues headlong into the pit of heresies. Thus spake he in his time of the corrupt 〈◊〉 of the Church, wherein so damnable a faction prevailed, daungerously perv •… ting all things, that in the end he submitteth all his writings to the judgment & correction of the true and Catholicke Church; but not of the Church of malignant miscreants, heretickes, schismatickes, and their favourers.

CHAP. 9.

Of an Apostasie of some in the Church.

THus then we thinke with In 2. Thess. 2 nisi venerit disces •… io primum, exponunt aliqui de discessione à Romano imperio: alii de recessu à Rom: Ecclesia, à quá •… am diu est quod recessit Graecia: sed saluo melio •… i iudicio, mihi videtur melius intelligendum de recessu à fide Catholica: non tamen in telligendo, quod omnes sint à fide catholica (sicut exponunt aliqui) recessu •… , quia durabit in aliquibus usque ad finem mundi; sed quia maior pats credentium discedet ab câ. Lira, that as there was an Apostasie or revolt of many kingdomes from the Romane Empire, and of many Churches from the communion of the Romane Church; so there hath beene an Apostasie from the Catholick faith in the midst of the Church not for that all at any time did forsake the true faith, but for that many fell from the sinceritie of the faith, according to the saying of our Sauiour, a when the time of Antichrist draweth on, iniquity shall abound, and the charity of many shall waxe cold: and that 1 Timoth. 4, In the last times some shall depart from the faith, attending to spirits of errour: and 2 Timoth. 3. In the last dayes there shall bee perilous times, men shall be louers of themselues, men of corrupt mindes, reprob •… e concerning the faith. This hee speaketh, of an Apostasie in the middest of the Church it selfe; answerably to that of Nazianzen, who saith, that as when one taketh water into his hand, not onely that which hee taketh not vp, but that also which runneth forth and findeth passage betweene his fingers, is divided b Orat in laudem Athanasii. and separated from that which he holdeth inclosed in his hand: so not onely the open and professed enemies of the Catholicke verity, but they also that seeme to bee her best and greatest friends, are sometimes divided one from another.

There is no cause then, why it should seeme so strange to our Adversaries, that our Divines affirme, there hath beene an Apostasie from the Faith, not of the whole Church, but of many in the Church, dangerously erring and adulterating the Doctrine of Faith deliuered by Christ and his blessed Apostles. And that some say, this Apostasie began sooner, some later: For if wee speake of those grossest illusions, wherewith men were abused in these latter ages, surely that degree of Apostasie did not enter into the Church in former times. For there was no thought in any Christian man liuing sixe hundred yeares agoe, No mention of Indulgences in Peter Lumbard, nor others of that time, and the Schoolemen speake very doubtfully of them. that the Pope could dispense the merits of the Saints, and giue pardons; Nimi •… um, ut pace omnium bonorum dixerim, haec novitas non dicam haeresis, necdum in mundo emerserat, ut sacerdotes illius qui regna •… e facit hypocritam propter peccata populi, docerent populum: quod malis regibus nullam debeat subiectionem, et licèt iis sacramentum fidelitatis fecerit, nullam tamen debeat fidelitatem. Sigebertus in Chron. an. 1088. that hee might depose Princes for supposed heresie: Diu haec consue •… udo obtinuit, ut praesentibus omnibus Eucharistia distribuere •… ur. Et certè •… ota sacrae precis quam canonem vocant compositio, publicae tantum missae accōmodata videtur: quo fit, 〈◊〉 nonnulli •… eteris Rom: ordinis expositores, qui apud nos sunt, canonem in publicá tantum, non autem quotidi •… â et privatâ actione legend •… contendunt Cassander Praef. in li. ord: Rom. à se editi. that the Sacrament not receiued, but elevated, gazed on, and adored, is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead; •… onavent. l. 3. dist. 3. q. 2. that Mary was conceiued without originall sinne; that the people are to be partakers of the Sacrament but onely in one kinde: and sundry other things of like nature. But if we speake of a declination from the sincerity of the Christian Faith, it is certaine it began long agoe, euen in the first ages of the Church.

Of this sorte was the errour, that the soules of the iust are in some part of hell till the last day, as De anima, cap. 32. habes etiam de paradiso à nobis libellū quo constituimus omnem •… nimam apud inferos sequestrari in diem Domini. Tertullian, Irenaeus contra haereses prope finem. Irenaeus, and sundry other of the auncient did imagine: Sixtus Senens. Biblioth. li. 6. annot. 345 & that they see not God, nor enjoy not heauens happines till the generall resurrection, which was the opinion of many of the Fathers.

That all Catholicke Christians, how wickedly soeuer they liue, yet holding the foundation of true Christian profession, shall in the end, after great torments endured in the world to come, be saued as it were by fire. This was the errour of sundry of the auncient, who durst not say, as Origen, that the Angels, that fell, shall in the end be restored; nor as some other, mollifying the hardnesse of Origens opinion, that all men, whether Christians or Infidells; nor as a third sorte, that all Christians, how damnably soeuer erring in matter of faith, shall in the end be saued; Sicut diaboli & omnium negatorum & impiorum qui dixerunt in corde suo non est Deus, credimus aeterna tormenta, sic peccatorum atque impiorum, quorum opera in igne probanda sunt, moderatam arbitramur & mixtam clementiae sententiam iudicis. Hiero. in comment in Esaiae 66. prope finem. Et contra Pelagianos, l. 1 Christianos in peceato praeventos saluandos post poenas scribit. but thought it most reasonable, that all right beleeuing Christians should find mercy, whatsoeuer their wickednesse were. This opinion was so generall in Aug: de civitate Dei li. 21. cap. 24. 25. 26. 27. proponit opinionem Origeni •… & aliorum, & enchiridio ad Laurentium, c. 67. ait eos, qui credunt Christianos impios & peccatores post poenas saluandos, & tamen Cátholici sunt, humanâ quadam benevolentiâ sibi falli videri. Augustines time, that very fearefully he opposed himselfe against it, and not daring wholly to impugne that which he found to haue so great and reuerend authours, he qualified it, what he could, and so doubtingly broached that opinion, which gaue occasion to the Papists of their heresie touching Purgatory. For, saith he, if they would onely haue vs thinke, that the soules of men liuing wickedly heere in this World, may through the goodnesse of God, and the prayers of the liuing find some mitigation of their paines in hell, or haue their punishments suspended, and differred for a time, yet so, that they be confessed to be eternall; I would not striue with them: yea, saith he, it may be, that men for some lighter sinnes and imperfections cleauing to them while they are here, may finde pardon & remission in the world to come, and be saued as by fire: which whether it be so, or whether there be no other purging but in this life by the fire of tribulation, he professeth he knoweth not, nor dareth not pronounce.

Sixtus Senensis bibliothecae sancta li: annotatione, 233. vbi ostendit Hiero: & August: summâ cum reverentiá dissenti •… e, quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum & multi martyres Chiliastarum opinionem amplectebantur. Of this sorte was the opinion of a double resurrection; the first of the good, who should liue in all happinesse on the earth, a thousand yeares before the wicked should be awaked out of the sleepe of death; and another after the thousand yeares expired, when the wicked also should rise and goe into euerlasting fire, and the good into euerlasting life, which they supposed to bee the second resurrection. How generally this errour spread it selfe in the true Church, they that haue but looked into the writings of the fathers, and monuments of antiquitie, cannot bee ignorant.

Cyprianus de lapsis Aug: contra 2. Epistolas Pelag: ad Bonifacium li. 1. cap. 22. H •… pogno: l. 5. epist. 107. Vitali. Rhenanus in lib. Tertull. de corona militis ostendit baptizatos statim sāctae communionis participes effecto •… . Maldonatus in 6. Ioh. Missam inquit facio Aug. & Innocentij 1. sententiam, quae sexcentos circiter annos viguit in ecclesia, Eucharistiam etiā infantibus necessari •… . The opiniō of the necessity of infants receiuing the sacrament of the Lords body and blood, as well as Baptisme, did possesse the mindes of many in the Church, for certaine hundreds of yeares, as appeareth by that Augustine writeth of it in his time, and Hugo de S. Victo. eruditionis theolog. de sacramentis, l. 1. c. 20. Pueris recens natis idem sacramentū in specie sanguinis est ministrandū digito sacerdotis, &c. Hugo de sancto victore, so many hundred yeares after him; Censura orientalis ecclesiae. c. 9. yea, the Greeke and Damianus a Goes. Aethiopian Churches continue that errour and the practise of communicating infants assoone as they are baptized euen vnto this day.

Touching predestination, how many obscurities vncertainties, and contrarieties shall we finde? Sixtus Senensis bibliothecae sanctae, l. 6. annotatione, 251. Surely before Augustines time, many great & worthy prelates, and doctors of the Church, not hauing occasion to enter into the exact handling of that part of Christian doctrine, did teach, that men are predestinate for the foresight of some thing in thēselues. And Aug, himselfe, in the beginning of his conflicts with the Pelagians, was of opinion, that at the least, for the foresight of faith, men are elected to eternall life: which 1 Retractatio, c. 23. & de praedest. sanctorum cap. 3. afterwards he disclaimed as false and erronious, and taught that mans saluation dependeth on the efficacie of that grace which God giueth: and not his purpose of sauing, vpon the vncertainty of mans will. This doctrine of Augustine was received and confirmed in the Church against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. And Bellar. li. 2. c. 11. de gratia & libero arbitrio. Bellarmine professeth that Augustines doctrine, in this case, is the doctrine of the Church; yet so, that many followed the former conceipt, as wee Refutat Grego. Arim. lib. 1. dist. 40. q. 1. art 2. may easily see by the writings of the Schoole men, many of which do teach that men are elected for the foresight of some thing positiue or priuatiue in themselues.

Howe, farre some did Montanise in the matter of second marriage, so farre disliking it, that they would not haue it blessed in the Church, but imposed penance on them that married a second wife after the death of the first; Hierome against Iouinian & Presbyter in conviu •… o secundarum nuptiarum interesse non debet, maximè cum praecipiatur secundis nuptijs poenitentiam tribuere: quis ergo erit presbyter, qui propter conuiuium illis consentiat nuptijs? concilium Neocesariense can. 7. Amb. in cap. 7. 1 Cor: Primae, inquit, nuptiae sub benedictione dei celebrantur solenniter: secundae etiam in praesenti carent-gloriâ, id est, benedictione. Rhenanus in arg: in e •… hort. Tertull ad castitatem: omnes (inquit) veteres, atque adeo Hiero: ipse matrimonio parum aequi suerunt: certè constat Hiero: hac de causà Romae malè audisse. certaine auncient provinciall Councells, are proofes more then sufficient.

Touching the state of Saints departed, their generality of presence in all places, their vniversall knowledge of all things, and admirable working every where, where their memories are solemnized: are not more confidently affirmed by Hier: contra Vigilantium. Hierome, and Greg. dial. 4. cap. 33. Gregory, than they are modestly denyed, and doubted of by Aug. de cura pro mortuis. Si tanti Patriarchae quid erga populum a bijs procreatum ignorauerunt &c. Augustine, Hugo eruditionis theologicae de Sacramentis fidei. l. 2. part. 16. cap. 11. Hugó de sancto victore, Glossa in Esaiae 63. the Author of the glosse and others.

That there were superstitions and abuses in the primitiue Churches, wee haue such witnesses, as the Romanists dare not except against. Doth not Hier. Contra Vigilantium. Hierome confesse, that the burning of lights at noone day, vsed in some Churches, was an act of zeale, but not according to knowledge? Did not a Concilium Elibertinum can: 34. 35. Councell forbid those pernoctations in the cemeteries and places ef the martyrs buriall: which when Vigilantius reproued, Hier. contra Vigilantium. Hierome with such fiercenesse and rage, as cannot well be excused, traduced him as the vilest monster the earth did beare. Bellar: l. 3 de cultu sanctorum. cap. 17. quoniam paulatim occasione nocturnarum vigiliarum ab •… quidam i •… repere coeperant, vel potius flagitia committi, placuit ecclesiae nocturnos conventus, & vigilias proprie dictas intermittere, ac solum in ijsdem diebus ieiunia celebrare. Are not these vigils long since abolished?

Doth not Aug. de moribus ecclesiae cath. l. 1. c. 34. in ipsavera religione quidam superstitiosi sunt &c. Augustine confesse there were certaine adoratores sepulchrorum, et picturarum, worshippers of Tumbes and Pictures in the Church in his time. It is therefore much to be maruailed at, that our aduersaries charge us with I know not what impiety, for that wee say, there hath beene a defection not only of heretickes from the Church, and faith, but also in the Church, of her owne children, from the sincerity of the heauenly trueth, sometimes more, and sometimes lesse; in some things by some, and in some other by others: That this defection began long agoe, but found greater and stronger opposition in the first six hundred yeares then after; there being in later times a great decay of the auncient piety: whence it came, that many moe and worse errours then euer before were broached: and they which were in some beginnings before, were augmented, and more dangerously defended. In which sence some of our men haue said, that Greg. ita vixit vt vsque ad nostra tempora neminem ex successoribus parem habuerit. Platina in vitá Greg. idem in vita Stephani 3. seueros & graues viros reformidat hic noster clerus: quid ita? quia in tanta licentia malunt viuere, quam bene monenti aut cogenti obtemperare: ob eam rem Christiana religio quotidie in peius labitur. Gregory was the last of the Good Bishops, and the first of the bad. For that all things since his time, haue greatly decayed: and the state of the Church beene much corrupted.

CHAP. 10.

Of their errour who say, nothing can be amisse in the Church, either in respect of doctrine or discipline.

IT is vaine, saith Gers. declarat defectuum virorum Ecclesiasticorum. Gerson, that some object, the Church is founded on a Rocke, and therefore nothing can be amisse either in the doctrine or discipline of it, nothing that should neede any reformation. If it be so, saith he, then where is the observation of that Canon, that Clarks goe not into Innes or Tavernes? that Monkes in their owne places attend onely prayer, and fasting, without intermedling with Ecclesiasticall or secular busines? whence is the superfluous pompe and Princely state of Cardinals and Bishops, making them forget that they are men? what say they to that abhomination, that one man holdeth two hundred or three hundred Ecclesiasticall benefices? That the sword of excommunication is so easily drawne out against the poore for euery trifle, as for debts? and that the Lords of the Clergie, vse it for the maintenance of their owne temporall states? That strangers are appointed by the Pope to haue cure of soules, not vnderstanding the language of them, ouer whom they are set, nor liuing amongst them?

Open your eyes, saith he, and see if the houses of Nuns be not stewes of filthy harlots: if the consecrated Monasteries be not Faires, Markets, and Innes; Cathedrall Churches, dennes of theeues, and robbers; Priests, vnder pretence of maides, keepe harlots: consider, whether so great variety of pictures and images be fit, and whether it occasion not Idolatrie in the simple. Looke vpon the number & variety of religious orders, the canonising of new Saints, though there be too many already, as Briget of Suetia, Charles of Britaine, the feasts of new Saints being more religiously kept than of the blessed Apostles. Enquire, if there be not Apocryphall Scriptures, hymnes, and prayers in processe of time, either of purpose, or of ignorance brought into the Church, to the great hurt of the Christian faith. Consider the diversities of opinions, as of the conception of Mary, and sundry other things. Gers. de directione cordis consideratione 16. et sequentibus. See, if there be not intollerable superstition in the worshipping of Saints, innumerable observations without all ground of reason; vaine credulity in beleeuing things concerning the Saints, reported in the vncertaine Legends of their liues: superstitious opinions of obtaining pardon and remission of sins, by saying so many Pater nosters in such a Church before such an Image: as if in the Scriptures and authenticall writings of holy men, there were not sufficient direction for all acts of piety & devotion without these fabulous and frivolous additaments: nay, which is yet worse, see if these observations, in many Countries and Kingdomes of the World, bee not more vrged than the Lawes of God; euen as wee shall finde in the decrees and decretals, a Monke more seuerely punished for going without his coule, then for committing adulterie or sacriledge.

CHAP. 11.

Of the causes of the manifold confusions and euils, formerly found in the Church.

THese are the euils, deformities, and sores of the Church, which this worthy man in his time cōplained of: The causes where of he thought to be principally two. First, the neglecting of the Lawes of GOD, and direction of the Scriptures, & following humane inventions: Secondly, the ambition, pride, & couetousnesse of the Bishop of Rome. Touching the first, which is the neglect of divine lawes, & infinite multiplying of humane inuentions, he pronounceth confidently, there can be no generall reformation of the Church, without the abolishing of sundry canons and statutes, which neither are, nor reasonably can be obserued in these times, which doe nothing else but insnare the consciences of men to their endlesse perdition. Gers. part. 1. sermo. in die circumcisi. consid. 1. That no tongue is able sufficiently to expresse, what euill, what danger, what confusion, the contempt of holy Scripture (which doubtlesse is sufficient for the gouernment of the Church, for otherwise Christ had beene an vnperfect lawgiuer) and the following of humane inuentions hath brought into the Church. For proofe hereof, saith he, let vs consider the state of the clergie, to which heauenly wisedome should haue beene espoused: but they haue committed whoredome with that filthy harlot, earthly, carnall, and diuelish wisedome: so that the state of the Church is become meerely brutish & monstrous; heauen is below, and the earth aboue: the spirit obeyeth, and the flesh commaundeth; the principall is esteemed, but as accessary; and the accessary, as principall: yet some shame not to say that the Church is better gouerned by humane inuentions, than by the diuine law, and the law of the Gospell of Christ; which assertion is most blasphemous. For the Euangelicall doctrine, by the professours of it, did enlarge the bounds of the Church, and lifted her vp to heauen; which these sonnes of Hagar, seeking out that wisedome which is from the earth, haue cast downe to the dunghill. And that it is not wholly fallen, and vtterly overthrowne, and extinct, it is the great mercy of our God and Sauiour.

Touching the second cause of the Churches ruine, which is the ambition, pride and couetousnes of the Bishop and Court of Rome, he boldly affirmeth that whereas the Bishoppes of Rome challenging the greatest place in the Church, should haue sought the good of Gods people, they contrarily sought onely to aduance themselues: Gers. post tractatulum de vnitate ecclesiae addit 4. considerationes ad sulcimentum praemis •… orum in 4 habentur haec verba. ad imitationem Luciferi adorari volunt vt dij, neque reputant se subditos esse cuiquam, sicut filij Belial sine iugo; nec sibi posse dici, cur ita facis, nec Deum timent, nec homines reuerentur. In imitation of Lucifer, they will bee adored and worshipped as Gods. Neither doe they thinke themselues subiect to any, but are as the sonnes of Beliall that haue cast off the yoke, not enduring whatsoeuer they doe, that any one should aske them why they doe so. They neither feare God, nor reuerence men. Gers. de concilio generali vnius obedientiae. Wherevpon hee feareth not to deliuer the opinion of many good and worthy men in his time: That there beeing a Schisme in the Church, by reason of the contention of the three Popes, which continued for a long time in that age wherein hee liued, it were good to take the aduantage of the time, and neuer to restore to any Pope againe that vniversall administration of the temporalities of the Church, and swaying the jurisdiction of the same; but that it were best, that all things were brought backe to that state they were in the times of the Apostles, or at least in the times of Syluester and Gregorie; when each prelate in his owne iurisdiction was permitted to gouerne them committed to his charge, and dispose of the temporalities belonging to the Church, without so many reseruations, & exactions, as haue beene since brought in; Gers: part. 3. de potestate ecclesiae, papa ita praesideat bonis Ecclesiasticis, vt de ijs statum habeat sufficientem & decentem, sed non ita vt caput grauidum m •… ra reliqua ob •… uat mole suâ. De concilio generali vnius obedientiae. The Popes in time getting all into their owne hands, with so many abuses, fraudes, and Simonies, all seruing to maintaine the state of the Romish Court, and of that head thereof, which long since grew too heauie for the body to beare.

Neither was this the priuate opinion & conceipt of Gerson only, but Petrus de Aliaco, Cardinalis Cusanus, Picus Mirandula, & innumerable more of the best, wisest, and holiest men the Church had, saw those abuses, errours, vncertainties, and barbarismes, wherewith the glory of the Church was greatly blemished, and almost quite defaced, and wished and expected a reformation. Gers. de signis ruinae ecclesiae. Moderno tempore v •… squisq. interpretariet trahere n •… veretur sacram Scriptur •… , iura sanctorū que patrū instituta, ad libitū suae volūtatis, &c. Yea, nothing was more certainely looked for, a long time before Luther was borne, than the ruine of that pompous state of the Church, the staying of the furious, couetous, and tyranous proceedings of the Court, and Bishop of Rome, and the freeing of the Church from that Aegypticall bondage, wherein it was holden.

CHAP. 12.

Of the desire and expectation of a reformation of the corrupt state of the Church; and that the alteration which hath beene, is a reformation.

WHen Innocentius 4 in Matheo Parisi. in Henrico 3. 844. nonne Rex Anglorum noster est 〈◊〉 & mancipium &c. Pagin: 847. papam Antichristum pronunciat. Pagin. 848. eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis: eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis. the Pope resolued to accurse, Anathematise and excommunicate Grostead the renowned Bishop of Lincolne, because he contemned his papall Bulles and Letters (who was therefore in his time named Romanorum malleus & contemptor) The Cardinalls opposed themselues, saying, hee was a right good man, and holier then any of them: the things he charged the Pope with, most true, and that therefore it was not safe thus to proceede, least some tumult should follow; especially, say they, seeing it is knowne there must be a departure from vs, and a forsaking of the Romane See. The same Grosteade, a little before his death, complayning of the wicked courses holden by the Romanists, whose scourge he was; said, the Church should neuer finde any ease from the oppressiue burdens laid vpon her, nor be deliuered from the Aegyptiacall bondage, shee was holden in, till her deliuerance were wrought in ore gladij cruentandi, in the mouth of the sword all bathed in bloud.

Philip de Comines, l. 8. c. 2. Hee preached that the state of the C •… urch should be reformed by the sword, &c. Sauanorola, holden by many for a Prophet, surely a renowned man for pietie and learning, tould the French King Charles the eight, hee should haue great prosperity in his voyage into Italy, and that God would giue the sword into his hand: and all this, to the end hee should reforme the corrupt state of the Church, which if hee did not performe, he should returne home againe with dishonour, and God would reserue the honour of this worke for some other; and so it fell out. Guicciardin. At that time, when Luther began to reprooue the abuses of the Church of Rome, things were in so bad state, that not onely the blood of Christ was prophaned, the power of the keyes by abuse made contemptible, and the redemption of soules out of purgatory, set as a stake at dice by the pardon-sellers to bee played for: but so many grieuances there were besides, that all the world sighed vnder the burden of them, and wished that some man of heroicall magnanimitie would oppose himselfe. When God had stirred vp so worthy an Instrument, what did the Pope and his adherents: Surely, as Guicciardin reports, there were that yeere many meetings in Rome, to consult what was best to bee done. The more wise and moderate sorte Hist. lib. 13. wished the Pope to reforme things apparantly amisse, and not to persecute Luther, least continuing those intollerable disorders, abuses, and villanies whereof all good men complayned, and persecuting him, that reprooued them with so great applause of the whole Christian world, men should thinke innocencie, vertue, and piety in him to be persecuted and oppressed, and so be incensed against so pertinacious and stiffe maintainers of the Churches confusions. This counsaile would not be followed; whence ensued this alteration of things wee now see, resisted by the Pope and Papists, set forward by many Christian Countries: kingdomes, and States, and long before wished for, and foretold, before it came to passe. For what is now done in this reformation, which Cameracensis, Picus, Sauanorola, Gerson and innumerable other worthy guides of Gods Church long before thought not necessarie to be done, as appeareth by that wee haue already deliuered touching that matter. Reformatio ecclesiae fieri non potest sine abolitione statutorum multorum super excommunicationibus & caeteris traditionibus nimis multiplicatis &c. Gers. de Concilio vnius obedientiae. Thus then it being evident, that the number of lawes, canons, and customes formerly in vse, and by vs taken away, was a burthen to the Church, and an insnaring of mens consciences: That in the feasts, fasts, holy-dayes, worship of God, and honour of his Saints, there were abuses in that very kinde, which wee haue reprehended, and that a reformation was wished for, and the Popes were so farre from setting it forward, that when they saw the States of the world ready to accomplish it, euen with division of themselues from them, they would in no sort consent vnto it (though the wisest about them perswaded them to it as the likeliest way to keepe all in quietnesse:) seeing it was necessary for the good of the Church, to free it selfe from that bondage it was formerly holden in vnder the Pope, taking all into his owne hands by innumerable sleights, and treading downe vnder his feete the Crownes of Kings, and jurisdictions of Bishops, as hath beene shewed, and proued out of Authors not to bee excepted against: seeing in matters of doctrine, wherein we dissent from them, we found vncertainty, contradiction, and contrarietie, some saying that we now say, and others that which they defend, and the things they defend, not hauiug the consenting testimony of other Churches in the world, as of Armenia, Grecia, Aethiopia &c. nor the certaine approbation of antiquity; and the places of Scripture, on which they were grounded, being most apparantly mistaken, as now in this light of the world themselues are forced to confesse: Picus Theor. 〈◊〉 . loquens de erratis glos •… atoris, non mirum est, inquit, aetatis vitium fuit: perierunt enim tum & in desuetudinem abierunt bonae literae & excultiores disciplinae pessundabantur. Haec non referrem, nisi conduceret in commune notari scriptorum huiusmodi, non dicam, imperitiam, sed arrogant •… m impudentiam, perinde, quasi pec •… dibus aut truncis scribant, non hominibus. Erasm. in scholiis in praefat. Hier. in Pentateuchum Mosis. seeing it is certaine, there was great ignorance of tongues, and all parts of good learning, Bonaventura recedit â curiositate quantum potest, non immiscens positiones extraneas, vel doctrinas seculares, Dialecticas aut Philosophicas terminis Theologic •… s obumbratas, more multorum: vnde factum est, vt ab indevo •… scholasticis, quorum (proh dolor) maior est numerus, ipse minus extiterit frequentatus. Gers de exam. doctr. neglect of the studie of Scripture, & mixture without all judgment of things profane with divine, Multa quae in decretis nominantur Apocrypha. & ita apud Hier. habentur, nihilominus in officiis divinis leguntur: multa item quae apud nonnullos vera non creduntur. Picus theo. 6. Propter barbariem nescio quam latinitati & compositio •… additam abhorrent viri docti à lectione officii. Platina in vita Gregor. 1. Sunt meo iudicio iila de Constantino Apocrypha, sicut fortassè quaedam alia longa & magna scripta Sanctis Clementi & Anacleto Papis attributat in quibus volentes Romanum sedem plusquam Ecclesiae expedit, exaltare, se penitus fundan •… . Cusan. concord. cath. lib. 3. cap. 2. See the censure of Erasmus and other. vpon the bookes falsely attributed to Ambr. Ier. August. and the rest. seeing innumerable errours, superstitions, barbarismes, and tautologies were crept into the prayers of the Church: Gers. part. 3. dial. apolog. iudicium de Concilio Constantiensis. seeing there was great corruption, ignorant mistaking, and shamelesse forgeries, of the monuments of antiquitie, & writings of Ecclesiasticall Authours, in favour of errours then maintained, which haue beene detected in this age wherein learning is revived, and with, and out of learning, the purity of Religion: seeing it was long before resolued, the Church must be reformed: Remotiones statutorum & canonum antiquorum aut additione novorum fieri nequeunt rationabilitèr pro totá Ecclesiâ, sine communi consens •… , alias possit esse statim nimi •… diversitas: no •… o tamen dicere quin in multis partibus possit Ecclesia per suas partes reformari: immò hoc necesse esset, & ad hoc sufficerent Concilia Provincialia. Gers. de Concilio vnius obedientiae. that this reformation was neuer likely to be obtained in a generall Councell, and that therefore seuerall kingdomes were to reforme themselues: seeing it was then feared the proceeding in this reformation thus seuerally without generall consent, would breed too great difference in the courses that would be taken, as wee see it hath now fallen out, to the great griefe of all well affected, who mourne for the breaches of Sion: seeing notwithstanding this disadvantage, in that one part of Christendome, knew not what another did in this worke of reformation, nor consulted with other, that so they might proceede in the same, in one and the same sort; yet it so fell out by the happy providence of God, that there is no essentiall, fundamentall, or materiall difference among those of the reformed Religion, whose confessions of faith are published to the view of the world: (howsoeuer the heate, ignorant mistaking, & inconsiderate writings of some particular men, & the diversity of ceremonies, rites, & obseruations, make shew of a greater division, than indeed there is) it is most vndoubtfully cleare, and evident, if wee be not wilfully blinded, that this alteration of things in our times, was a reformation, & not as our adversaries blasphemously traduce it, an heretical innovation.

CHAP. 13.

Of the first reason brought to prooue that the Church of Rome holdeth the faith first deliuered; because the precise time, wherein errours began in it, cannot be noted.

NOtwithstanding, to stop the mouths of our adversaries, whom a spirit of contradiction hath possessed, and to satisfie all such as bee any way doubtfull, I will by application of the notes of the Church formerly agreed vpon, examine the matter of doubt, and answere all such reasons as from thence are taken, and by them vrged against vs, either for proofe of their profession & faith, and the soundnesse of their owne Church, or reproofe of ours. The first note assigned by them is Antiquity; by which they vnderstand not simply & absolutely long continuance in the profession of Christianity, but the retaining and hauing that faith which was first delivered to the Saints by the Apostles, the immediate and prime witnesses of the trueth which is in Christ. Let us therefore see, how they indeavour to make proofe that they now hold that auncient profession. This they indeauour to demonstrate three wayes. First it being confessed the Church of Rome was the true Church, established in the faith by the blessed Apostles, and the faith thereof commended and renowned throughout the world; they thinke they can prooue there hath beene no change, alteration, or departure from that sincerity which some times was found in it. Secondly, they offer to shew the consent and agreement of that forme of doctrine they now teach, and that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did teach in their times, and commended to posterity in their writings. Thirdly, they presume they can shew, that our doctrine, who dissent from them, is nothing else but the renewing of old heresies long since condemned, in the best times of the Church, by consent of the whole Christian world: If they could as easily proue these things, as they confidently vndertake it, there were no resisting against them. But seeing they faile therein so much, that very children may discerne their weakenesse, therefore I will propose whatsoeuer I find alleaged by any of them in this kind, that carrieth any shew of probability; that all men may see, how weakely their perswasion is grounded in these things which are of greatest consequence. First therefore let vs see, how they proue there hath been no change in the doctrine, discipline, profession, and state of the Romane Church since the Apostles times.

Bellar. Tom. 1. contro. 4. lib. 4. cap. 5. de nota Antiquitatis. In every great and notable mutation, say they, may bee obserued the author, the time, place, beginnings, increasings, and resistance made against it. But the protestants are not able to note these circumstances in that mutation in matters of religion, which they suppose hath been in the Church of Rome. Therefore it is evidently convinced, there hath beene no such mutation. For the more full answering of this obiection wee must obserue, that there are 4 kinds of mutation, or change in matters of religion: The first when the whole essence of religion is changed; such is the change from Paganisme to Christianity, or from Christianity to Paganisme. The second when the essence remaining the same, the state is changed; such was the change of Iudaisme into Christianity, there being in the later, new sacraments, ceremonies, and a new ministery, that was not in the former, and the performance of that which was but in expectation onely before. The third is, when not the whole essence and state of religion, but some parts of it only are so changed, that some impugning, and denying those things, which others alwayes did and doe hold most certaine, the opposition is so great, that there groweth an apparant separation betweene them, the one sort refusing to communicate with the other. As when the Arrians denied the Sonne of God to be coessentiall, coequall, and coeternall with his Father. The fourth, when men so bring in new opinions, and obseruations into the Church, that yet both they and other, not led away in the same errour, hold communion still. In the three first kindes of mutation, all those circumstances they speake of may be noted, but not alwayes in the fourth. Now the mutation in matters of faith and religion which hath beene in the Romane Church, is of the fourth and last sorte. For the errours thereof were so brought in, that both they that were the authours of them, and others that neuer fell into them, were both of one communion, as I will make it most cleare and euident in that which followeth. And therefore it is most absurde to require vs to shew these circumstances they speake of.

Secondly, for the better clearing of this matter, wee must note, that the aberration which hath beene in the Church of Rome from her auncient purity and simplicity, consisteth in foure things: First, in certaine canons, lawes, and traditions, euill and hurtfull from the beginning. Secondly, in the multitude of lawes and canons, in respect of the number growing to be a burden. Thirdly, in that the state of things, and conditions of men altering, the same constitutions and ordinances become hurtfull, that were formerly good; or in that, things instituted to one end, are in processe of time applied to another; or euill and dangerous opinions, corrupting the vse of that which was not wholly to be misliked in the beginning, are newly added. Fourthly, in errours in matter of faith. Touching that aberration of the Church of Rome, which consisteth in the bringing in of lawes, canons, and constitutions hurtfull from the beginning, wee can note the beginning of it, and assigne who were the authours of such lawes. But when the lawes themselues are not euill, but the number of lawes, Canons, and constitutions is a burden to the Church, and the euill complayned of, it is most foolish to vrge vs to shew the first authour thereof. As likewise, when lawes not euill in the beginning, by alteration of times grow hurtfull, or when things from one vse grow to another. Eruditionis theologicae de sacramentis. li. 1. cap. 20. Hugo de sancto Victore, noteth that the custome was to communicate little children in the Sacrament of the Lords body and bloud: which being in time ceased, yet still they continued in his time to giue wine, though not consecrated, to children new baptized, which hee confesseth to be a superstitious and foolish custome; yet it is not possible to shew the beginning of it. The aberration in the Church of Rome, in matters of doctrine, was in such things, and so carried in the beginnings, that the Authours of those new and false opinions, were not disclaimed and noted as damnable heretickes, as were those that erred in things most cleerely resolued before: or that erred with such pertinacy, that they diuided themselues from all that thought otherwise; But the Authours of these errours, and they that were free from them, were, notwithstanding these differences, both of one communion. And therefore the circumstances by them required in these mutations, cannot bee shewed, as it will easily appeare by these instances following.

CHAP. 14.

Of diuers particular errours which haue beene in the Church; whose first Authour cannot be named.

THe opinion of two resurrections of mens bodies, the first of the See the ninth cha. of this book, where they are named that defend these erronious opinions, whose Authours and first deuisers are not know •… . good, the second of the wicked, (there being betweene the one and the other a thousand yeares) was an errour; but the Authour of it is not knowen. For I hope the Romanists will not say, the Fathers learned it of any hereticke the first authour of it. The opinion that the soules of the just are in hell, and see not God till the generall resurrection, was an errour; but they cannot tell who was the first author of it. The opinion that all Catholique Christians how wicked soeuer, shall in the end be saued as by fire, was an errour, but the Author is not knowne. The opinion that men are elelected for the foresight of some thing in themselues, is an errour, or else the doctrine of Augustine, who was of that opinion sometimes, but afterwards condemned it in himselfe and others. The opinion that infants could not be saued, vnlesse they were not onely baptized, but did receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body, was anerrour; but the Author of it is not known. The opinions, that the bookes of Wisedome, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees, and the like, are Apocryphall, and that they are Canonicall, are contradictory, and the one of them an errour in matter of Faith; yet is not the Author of that errour knowne. The innumerable contradictory opinions holden in the Church of Rome, touching matters of Faith, Bellar lib 5. de potestate temporali Pontificis cap. 1. Waldensis doctrinalis fidei. l. 2. art. 3. q. 78, negat potestatem Papae quoad regna Principum, & Sigebertus in Chro nico an. 1088. Stapleton controv. 3. q,4. proponit contratias opiniones de infallibili Papae iudicio, & ait, non esse de fide quòd non possit errate. as that the Pope is Soueraigne temporall Lord of all the World, and all Kings and Princes hold of him in fee, and that he is not: that he may depose Kings erring in Faith, and persecuting the faithfull, and that he may not: that papally he cannot erre, and that he may, and sometimes doth; and many other like; must needes be errours on the one side or other; yet is not the authour of those errours to be nominated.

Liquet ex lectione antiquorum, Eucharistiam laicis in manus datam olim, nunc in os: olim dominicumsanguinem •… stulis hauriebant, & etiam Rom. Pontifex quoties publicè sacrificat, aureo calamo sugit sanguinem dominicum è calice cum diacono & subdiacono. Rhenanus in annot. in lib. Tertul. de coronâ militis. It was doubtlesse, in the confession of the adversaries, the custome of the Westerne or Latine Church aswell as of the rest, to communicate in both kindes: when and where that custome of communicating the Lay-people only in one kinde began, cannot be precisely noted. Apud veteres absolutio nisi satisfactione purgatis ferè non impertiebatur. Lindan. panopliae l. 4. c. 70. It was the custome to impose penance first, and after the performance of it, to giue absolution: now, absolution is first giuen, and then penance imposed to be performed afterwards: when this alteration began, it cannot be noted. Bonavent. l. 3. dist. 3. q. 2. It was the generall opinion, that Mary was conceiued in sinne: it grew afterwardes to bee generally thought, shee was not. The first Author of this latter opinion cannot bee knowne, nor of the former neither, as I suppose. Caiet. opusculorum tom. 1. tract. 15. c. 7. seruauit Ecclesia multo tempore hunc stilum, ut exprimeret in literis relaxationem ab iniunctis poenitentiis, &c. in tantum ut dubitet an Papa dederit aliquando indulgentiam, non •… olum ab iniunctis. sed â quom odosibet debitis poenis pro peccatis: & tamen fatetur Petrum Paludanum, & Iohannem Monachum in extravaganti Bonifacii de Iubilei expositione, tale aliquid referre, & formam plenariae indulgentiae tale aliquid probare agnoscit: sed ait ed •… tam illam formam secundum illam opinionem valdeut videtur communem, scilicet quod indulgentia liberet ab iniunctis et non iniunctis poenis The custome was to graunt Indulgences or Relaxations onely from injoyned penance: the forme of these was afterwards altered: I thinke it can hardly bee noted by whom, &c. Lindan. Panopl. l. 3. c. 11. The custome was on the dayes which they kept as Fasting-dayes, not to eate till three a clocke in the afternoone, or till the euen; so that to dine and not to fast were Synonymies in the Primitiue Church; but in the Romish Church they did dine on their Fasting-dayes, and therefore said their Euensong betweene tenne and eleuen a clocke in the morning: I thinke it hard to note precisely the time when this alteration beganne. Thus then we see there may be, & haue beene many alterations in the state of Religion, and matters of Faith in the Church of Rome, though all those circumstances they vrge vs to shew, cannot bee noted in them. And therefore the first reason brought to proue, that the Romish Church is not departed from the first and originall purity, is found too weake.

CHAP. 15.

Of the second reason brought to proue that they hold the auncient faith; because our men, dissenting from them, confesse they dissent from the Fathers; where sundry instances are examined.

LEt vs see the other. The other way, whereby they indeuour to prooue the antiquity of their faith and religion, is by shewing the agreement and consent betweene it, and the doctrine of the Primitiue Fathers. This, they say, they cannot do, but either by proposing the seuerall parts of Christian doctrine deliuered by the Fathers, and comparing the doctrine of their Church with it, or out of our owne confession. The first course they thinke would be too tedious, and therefore they indeauour to prooue by o •… owne confession that the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and of the auncient Fathers, is all one.

The greatest Diuines, say they, of the reformed Chuches, when they impugne the assertions of the Romanists, confesse they go against the streame of all Antiquity. Therefore they are forced to confesse the doctrine of the Fathers, and of the Church of Rome to bee all one. This is a vile and wicked calumniation: neither are they able to iustifie it. Bellar. lib. 4. cap. 9. de concilijs, & Ecclesia Caluin. institut. l. 2. c. 2. 4. But let vs see what they say: Caluine (they say) in the article of free will condemning the Romane Church of errour, is forced to reiect, and refuse the iudgment of all Antiquity. For the clearing of this, wee must obserue, that the will of man may bee sayd to bee free in divers sorts. First from necessity of seeking and hauing diuine support, helpe, and assistance: secondly, from diuine direction and ordering: thirdly, from sinne: fourthly, from misery: fiftly, limitation of desire, naturall necessity, and constraint. These being the diuerse kinds that may be conceiued of the freedome of mans will, Caluine denyeth the will of man to bee, or euer to haue beene free from the necessity of seeking, and hauing diuine support, helpe, and generall assistance, without which it hath no force or faculty at all. Secondly hee denyeth it to be free from diuine direction, ordering, and guidance: for in this sort, neither the willes of men nor Angells, were so free in the day of their creation, as to exempt themselues from the ordering of the diuine prouidence, which most sweetely disposeth all things. Thirdly, from misery there is no freedome in this world, nor from the bondage of sinne, without the benefit of grace making free. Habemus (sayth De gratia & libero arbitrio. Bernard) liberum arbitrium, sed nec cautum a peccato, nec tutum a miseria. Wee haue sayth Bernard, free will, but neither so wary as to avoid sinne, nor so safe, as to be free from danger. From limitation of desire, naturall necessity, and constraint, he confesseth the will to bee free, though it bee subiect to a condicionall or morall necessity, which by Bernard is most aptly named malè libera necessitas. The will of man being thus ouer ruled by diuine providence, and in so diuerse sorts inthralled to sinne and misery, Caluine thinketh the titles of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and liberum arbitrium, taken from the Philosophers, and vsed by the Fathers, to bee too glorious to expresse a thing so weake and miserable; and that in his opinion it is not safe to vse these words, vnlesse wee adde, for the clearing of our meaning, the limitations with which the Fathers doe restraine them; which yet many will not so carefully obserue, as they will vnadvisedly sucke the poyson of errour out of the words themselues. Thus then wee see Caluine confesseth, the Fathers vsed these words in a good and godly sort.

But, sayth Bellarmine, hee feareth not to pronounce, that all the Fathers (Augustine excepted) are so vncertaine, perplexed, and doubtfull in the deliuering of this point, that a man can gather no certainty out of them: Surely it is most true that he saith of them, they are doubtfull & vncertaine in this point; yet so that it appeares, that in this ambiguitie ascribing little or nothing to the power of mans will, they giue all the praise of well doing to the holy Spirit of God. Caluin. instit. lib. 2. c. 2. 9. To this purpose he alleageth sundry excellent sentencesout of Cyprian, Eucherius, and Chrysostome, and concludes, that it was the drift of these Fathers, howsoeuer they seeme sometimes too much to amplifie the power of mans will, yet wholly to driue men from the confidence in their own strength, to seeke their strength in God. This then is all that Caluine sayth, that before Augustine was stirred by the Pelagians, exactly to examine these things that concerne the grace of God, and power of nature, the Fathers delivered not this point soe distinctly, as afterwardes it was, nor so fully, but that some things were found in their writings not soe fitte, as was to bee wished. Prosper. in epist. ad Aug. de reliquijs Pelagianae haereseos. obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt: vt ea, quae de epist. ad Romanos, ad manifestationem Dei gratiae praeuenientis electorum merita proferuntur á nullo vnquam ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta, vt nunc sentiuntur, affimant. That this is most true, the writings of the Fathers themselues will witnesse, and the Testimonies alleaged out of them by the Pelagians against Augustine, will sufficiently prooue it; which are no otherwise answered by him, than they are by Caluine, Aug. de praedestinatione sanctorum cap. 14. quid opu •… est vt eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad soluendum quest. one versari &c. eodem modo respondet. Bellar. lib. 2. de gratia & libero arbitrio. c. 14. that their drift was to deiect the pride of sinfull flesh, and extoll the greatnesse of Gods mercy and goodnesse; That if they spake some things not so distinctly and fully as men did afterwards, it is not to bee marvelled at, seeing they did not purposely enter into the examination of these things, before the Pelagian heretickes (whose heresie was in these things) were knowne in the world.

For the farther iustifying of Caluines censure, let the Reader consulte Bibliothecae sanctae lib. 6. annot. 251. epist. Prosper. & Hi'arij inter opera Aug. Sixtus Senensis, alleaging many testimonies out of the Fathers, affirming, that men are elected to eternall life, for the foresight of some thing in themselues. And surely this should not seeme incredible, that many of the Fathers were in this errour; seeing Augustine himselfe was of this opinion, before he entred into conflict with the Pelagians: which errour when he corrected, most men disliked his doctrine touching election, the grace of God, and power of nature, as it appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hilarius, for that he seemed vnto them to ascribe so much vnto the grace of God, and detract so much from the power of mans will, that they greatly feared his doctrine would weaken that carefullnesse that should bee in men to arise from sinne, discourage them from all good indeauours, and giue an occasion of negligence, and carelesse slouthfullnesse. That which Bellarmine addeth, that Caluin disliketh that saying of Augustine that mans will concurreth with grace, not as precedent vnto it, but as following after it, and as a handmaide attending on it, is most false. For Caluin. instit. lib. 2. cap. 3. 7. hee approoueth the saying of Augustine, but reproueth the Master of sentences for misseunderstanding and misseapplying it.

Ibidem. Caluin. l. 3. cap. 11. sect. 15. That which followeth, that Caluine dissenteth from Augustine in the matter of iustification, is of the same nature. For he saith only, that, though nothing be to bee disliked in the matter it selfe deliuered by Augustine, for In Psalm. 142. & in libro de perfectione iustitiae, cum rex iustus sederit in throno quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor? aut quis gloriabitur se mundum esse à peccato? nisi fortè qui volunt in suâ justitia non in ipsius iudicis misericordia gloriari, & Hieron, contra Pelagianos, lib. 1. tunc iusti sumus cūm nos peccatores fatemur, & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit misericordia. that it is plaine, that acknowledging the imperfection of inherent iustice, and thinking it our greatest perfection to know our owne imperfections, and seeke remission of our sinfull defects, he cannot but acknowledg the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to be that, in confidence whereof we stand in the sight of God: yet his manner of deliuering this article is not so full, perfect, and exact, as wee are forced to require in these times, against the errours of the Romanists: For that, when hee speaketh of grace, hee seemeth for the most part to vnderstand nothing else thereby, but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth vs to become newe creatures: seldome mentioning the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ.

Ibidem. Lib. 2. 14. 3. That which Bellarmine chargeth Caluin with, in the next place, argueth his intollerable impudencie. Caluin (sayth hee) doth thinke, that the sonne of God is subiect to the father in respect of his Deitie: which because all the Fathers deny, he pronounceth they all erred, and that their errour cannot be excused. Let the Reader peruse the place, and he shall finde that Calvin saith no such thing, but the cleane contrary.

Indeed Hugo de S. Victore in his questions on the 1 Epist. to the Corinth. 15. saith, that CHRIST is subject to his Father according to his divine nature, and sheweth that many haue beene of that opinion. But Caluin saith no such thing; neither doth hee charge the Fathers with any errour touching the distinction of the Natures of God and Man in Christ, or the vnity of his Person: but saith onely, that some of them applying those things distinctly to one of the natures of Christ, which are applyable to the whole Person of the Mediatour, entangle themselues in some doubts, which otherwise might easily be cleared; which will easily appeare by that place of Hugo before mentioned. The kingdome (saith Hugo) which Christ shall deliuer to his Father, & so become subject vnto him, either was giuen vnto him in that he was God, and then he cannot resigne it, nor become subject to his Father, because in that respect he is equal vnto him, whence we say, equalis Patri secundùm diuinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem: Or in that he was man; and that seemeth not conceiuable; For the nature of man is not capable of that infinite power, that is implyed in the Kingdome which God gaue his Sonne. He answereth, that he may be said to be subject to his Father, in that he is God, because though he haue the same essence with him, yet he hath receiued it from him. How aptly this may be said, I will not now examine: but how in this sense he may be said to giue vp his kingdome to his Father, is yet more hard to conceiue.

In 1 Corint. 15. Filius ostendet non se esse ex quo •… mnia, sed per quem sunt omnia: & hoc erit tradere regnum Deo & patri. Ambrose saith, he may be said to giue it vp, not by reall resigning of that he had, but by bringing vs to his Father, and shewing vs that Fountaine whence he receiued it, and all that fulnesse whereof we are partakers: These are doubts, which Calvin saith, that the Fathers doe not cleare, attributing the Kingdome of Christ vnto him distinctly, in respect of this or that nature. But he affirming, that the Kingdome of Christ doth not agree vnto him distinctly or seuerally in respect of this or that nature, but to the whole person considered in both natures, easily expresseth himselfe. For, saith he, God gaue to his Sonne by eternall generation, the same essence he had in himselfe, and with it the same power and kingdome, and this he shall neuer resigne. Hereunto agreeth Hugo in the place abouementioned, saying, Secundum humanam naturam ad aequalitatem patris sublimatus est dum verbo consubstan tiali patri in un am person •… humana natura unita est. Secondly, he gaue to the nature of man not by formall transfusion, but in the Person of his Sonne, (which in the admirable worke of the Incarnation he bestowed on it, to support and sustaine it) all that power he had originally in himselfe, and eternally gaue his Sonne: so that the Sonne of God, after the taking of our nature into the vnity of his person, administreth not his Kingdome without the vnion, knowledge, assent, and cooperation of the nature of man, which he shall continue to doe, while wee neede mediation, and till he haue brought vs to his Fathers presence, and to the cleare view, and sight of his Majestie. Then shall hee cease to rule in this sort any more; his humane nature shall not neede to bee interposed any longer, but he shall appeare in the glory of his Godhead; then shall he be subject to his Father in the nature of man, in more speciall sort then now he is; because though now he be inferiour vnto God in that he is man, and so subject to him, yet that nature of man intermeddleth with the administration of the Kingdome in such sort, as then it shall cease to doe, though it shall neuer lose that power and kingdome which in the Person of the Son of God it is honoured with.

CHAP. 16.

Of Limbus patrum, concupiscence, and satisfaction, touching which, Caluine is falsely charged to confesse, that hee dissenteth from the Fathers.

THe Ibid. l. 2. 16. 9. next imputation is touching Limbus patrum, supposed to be a place below in the earth neere hell, if not a part of hell, which Caluin pronounceth to bee but a fable, though it haue great authours and patrons; as if this were so strange a thing, that a fable and meere fancie should finde approbation among some of the Fathers. The opinion of the Millenaries, I suppose, Bellarmine thinketh but a meere fancie; yet had it great and reuerend patrons. If hee say, that all the Fathers did hold the opinion of Limbus, and that Caluin opposeth himselfe against them all, hee is cleerely refuted by In Epist. 99. ad Euodium. vnde illis iustis qui in sinu Abrahae erant cum ille ad inferna descenderet nondum quid contulisse •… inueni, à quibus secundum beatificam praesentiam divinitatis nunquam video recessisse, & ibid. Quia ne ipsos quidem inferos vspiam scripturatum locis in bono appellatos potui reperire. Quod si nusquam in diuinis authoritatibus legitur, non vtique sinus ille Abrahae, id est secretae cuiusdam quietis habitatio aliqua pars inferorum credenda est. Augustine, who doubted of it. Besides that their popish Limbus supposed to haue beene a receptacle for the soules of the Patriarches, but only till the death and resurrection of Christ, as being then emptied by him, is a meere priuate conceite of their owne, wanting the testimonies of the most auncient Fathers. Supra. cap. 9. For Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others did thinke the soules of all men to bee holden in hell till the last day. And if it were resolued that there was such a Ibid. l. 3. 3. 10. Limbus, as they fancie, yet their Schoolemen are not agreed of the place; neither dare they affirme, that it was below in the earth, though they seeme most inclineable to that opinion.

The next false reporte that Bellarmine maketh of Caluin, is, that he opposeth himselfe against all Antiquitie, in the question whether concupiscence in the regenerate be sinne or not. This hee endeauoureth to make good in this sorte. Calvin (saith he) professeth, that Augustine hath truely and faithfully gathered the opinions of all the Fathers, and that his iudgement is their iudgment; but he opposeth himself against Augustine; therefore against all the Fathers.

This assumption we deny. For Calvin no way dissenteth from Augustine, but saith onely, it may seeme, that there should be some little difference betweene Augustine and vs; For that wee affirme concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne, but he is fearefull to call it sinne, vnlesse it be consented vnto; naming it rather an euill, sickenesse, infirmity, or the like. But else-where taking away this doubt, he saith, that Augustine feareth not sometimes to call it sinne: whereby the consent and agreement betweene Augustine and Caluin appeareth. It were easie to shew, that not onely Augustine, but the Fathers generally were of the same opinion, that we are of, and that the popish opinion is a most dangerous and damnable errour, if this were a fit place to enter into the exacte handling of that question.

But let vs see the rest of his objections. Caluin (saith he) in the matter of Ibid. l. 3. 4. 38. satisfaction, chargeth all the Fathers with errour. This is as true, as the rest. For Caluin doth not say, they erred in this matter of satisfaction; for he sheweth plainely, they were far from the absurditie of the Popish conceipt: but he saith disiunctiuely only, that either they erred, or at least vsed some phrases and formes of speech that may seeme hard, and neede a good, and fauourable construction; rather than to be wrested to a worse sense then they were vttered in, as the manner of the Popish Sophisters is to deale with the writings of the Fathers.

For the clearing of this matter we must obserue, that, in sinne, there are two things; the sinfulnesse, & the punishment which for it the iustice of God inflicteth. Both these are taken away by Christ, but in a different sort. The sinfulnes, by the operatiō, working, & infusion of grace; & the punishmēt by the imputatiō of Christs sufferings, who suffering that he deserued not, freeth vs frō that wee were deservedly to haue suffered. From one of these wee cannot bee freede, vnlesse also wee bee freede from the other; and in what degree wee are delivered from the one, wee are discharged from the other: if wee be freed onely from the dominion of sinne, we are onely discharged from the condemnation of eternall death; if from all sinnefullnesse, wee are discharged from all touch of any puuishment. Poena aeterna in temporalem in remissione culpae: temporalis magna & supra vires, in temporalem quae viribus competit, in sacerdotis absolutione commutatur. Alex, de Hales part, 4. q. 2 1. memb. 2 a •… t. 1. 2. God vpon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternall puishment due vnto it, through Christ doth exact of every man a temporal satisfaction answerable to the fault committed. Reformat. of a de formed Cathol. by D. B. P. cap. 6. of satisfaction. But the Romanists do teach touching sinnes committed after Baptisme, that God contenteth not himselfe, with the most perfect abolishing and extinguishment of all sinnefullnesse, by working of Diuine grace, & the satisfaction of Christs sufferings, but that he doth require that we suffer the extremity of that wee haue deserued, onely some little mitigation procured by the bloudshead of Christ, and the eternity excepted, from which our ceasing from sin doth free vs: the punishment of sin being eternall, because sinne is eternall.

Hence it commeth, that they teach, that if wee will not suffer and endure the extremity of punishment wee haue deserued, wee must make some other recompence to Gods iustice for it. This is a blasphemous assertion, and contrary to the doctrine of all the Fathers, who know and teach as wee do, that the iustice of God, and his wrath against sinne is satisfied in Christ; that this satisfaction is imputed to vs, not continuing in, but ceasing from sinne; that according to the degree of our ceasing from sinne, this satisfaction is diversly imputed; Sane vbi prorsus de medio factum fuerit omne peccatum, causa quidem •… mnino sublat •… , nec ipse quidem de inceps manebit effectus. Ber. in Psal. Qui habitat. Serm. 10. So that if wee cease from sinne onely so, that it hath no more dominion over vs, it is imputed in such sort as it dischargeth vs only from condemnation: but if wee wholy cease from sinne, it is so imputed vnto vs, as that it freeth vs from all punishment whatsoeuer. So that if there were found in any of vs a perfect leauing & forsaking of sinne, GODS iustice would lay no punishment vppon vs. But the Romanistes thinke it might and would for precedent sinne, though now wholly forsaken and quite abolished.

It is true indeede, that the Fathers sometimes vsed the name of satisfaction in their writings, but to another purpose than the Romanists doe. They knew, that euils are cured by contraries, and therefore in the curing of sinfull soules they prescribe that, which Caluine also doth, that men hauing offended in yeelding too much to their owne desires, pleasures, delights, and profits, should, for the freeing of themselues from the euill of sinne, deny something to them selues which otherwise they might lawfully enioy: which if they do not, they shall in the punishments which God will bring vpon them, tast the bitternesse of that that seemed sweete vnto them in sinne. This exercise of repentant mortification, the Fathers called satisfaction; not as if the iustice of God were not satisfied in Christ, or wee were tied, yea though wee should wholly forsake sinne, yet to satisfie for that is past, by suffering so much as our sinnes haue deserued; or else to doe some painefull thing equiualent to such sufferings, which is the popish errour: But because wee must doe that in this kind of repentant mortification, which may be sufficient, for the finding out of the depth of that wound which sinne hath made in the soule, for remouing the causes of it, the extinguishment of that remaineth of it, the taking away the occasions, and the preuenting of the reentrance of it againe. This if wee do, wee shall preuent the hand of GOD, which otherwise would smite vs, not to be satisfied in the course of his Iustice, (which at our hands cannot bee looked for, and which is aboundantly satisfied in Christ, and would not touch vs for any thing past, if by perfect forsaking of sinne wee were fully ioyned vnto him) but to driue vs by bitter sorrow to purge out that sinfullnesse, and those remainders which our precedent sinnes left behind them, in respect whereof wee are not yet fully ioyned to Christ. These remainders of sinne, if wee dislike, cast off, and forsake, and iudge and condemne our selues, as the Apostle speaketh, wee shall not bee iudged of the Lord for them. This happie course of preventing the hand of God, & turning away his punishments by bitter and afflictiue recounting of our sinnes, the Fathers call Satisfaction. Some sayings of the Fathers it may bee there are which are hard, and must with a favourable constructiō be reduced to the sense we haue expressed: and that is all that Calvin saith; for which how justly he is blamed, let the Reader judge.

CHAP. 17.

Of Prayer for the dead, and Merite.

THe Ibid. l. 3. c. 10. next calumniation is concerning prayer for the dead. Let the Reader obserue, what it is that Bellarmine is to proue, and he shall find that he doth nothing but trifle. For, he is to proue that Calvin confesseth, that more then a thousand & three hundred yeares since, the Popish doctrine, and custome of prayer for the dead did prevaile, and was generally receiued in the whole Church of God throughout the world. This if hee will proue, he must reason thus. The custome of praying to deliuer the soules of men out of the paines of Purgatory, is the custome and practise which the Romane Church defendeth, and Calvin impugneth: but this custome Calvine confesseth to haue beene in vse more then a thousand and three hundred of yeares since: therefore he acknowledgeth the doctrine and practise of the Romane Church to be most ancient, and to haue beene receiued a thousand & three hundred yeares agoe. The Minor proposition of this reason is false: and Calvin in the place cited by Bellarmine, protesteth against it, most constantly affirming, that the Fathers knew nothing of Purgatorie, and therefore much lesse of prayer to deliuer men from thence. But Bellarmine will reply, that the custome of praying for the dead, was most auncient. We answere, The custome of remembring the departed, naming their names at the holy Table in the time of the holy mysteries & offering the Eucharist (that is the sacrifice of praise) for them, was a most ancient and godly custome, neither is it any way disliked by vs. Epiph. haeres. 75. And surely it appeares, this was the cause that Aerius was condemned of hereticall rashnesse, in that he durst condemne this laudable and auncient custome of the commemoration of the dead. Liturgia Chrysostomi. We offer this reasonable seruice, that is, the Eucharist of praise & thanksgiuing, to thee O Lord, for all that are at rest in the saith of Christ, euen for the Patriarckes, Prophets, &c. In this sort they did most religiously obserue and keepe, at the Lords Table, the commemoration of all the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, & confessours, yea of Mary the Mother of our Lord, to whom it cannot be conceiued, that by prayer they did wish deliuerance out of Purgatorie, sith no man euer thought them to be there: but if they wished any thing, it was the deliuerance from the power of death, which as yet tyranniseth ouer one part of them; the speedy destroying of the last enemy, which is death, the hastning of their resurrection, and joyfull publique acquitall of them in that great day, wherein they shall stand to bee judged before the Iudge of the quicke and dead. This was the practise of the whole church, and this the meaning of their commemorations and prayers, which was good, and no way to be disliked. Notwithstanding, it is most certaine that many particular men extended the meaning of these prayers farther, and out of their owne private errours and fancies vsed such prayers for the dead, as the Romanists themselues (I thinke) dare not justifie: and so it is true, that Calvin saith, that many of the Fathers were led into errour in this matter of prayer for the dead, and not that all, as if the whole Church had fallen from the truth, as Bellarmine falsely imputeth vnto Calvin, who saith no such thing.

First therefore, it was an opinion of many of the Fathers, that there is no judgment to passe vpon men till the last day; that all men are holden either in some place vnder the earth, or else in some other place appointed for that purpose, so that they come not into heauen, nor receiue the reward of their labours, till the generall iudgement. Out of this conceipt grew that prayer in Liturgia Iacobi 2. Iames his Liturgie, that God would remember all the faithfull that are fallen asleepe in the sloepe of death, since Abell the iust, till this present day, that he would place them in the land of the liuing, &c. And the like are found in the masse booke. Sixtus Senensis bibliothec. sanct. lib. 6. annot. 345. Of this opinion was Iustin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, Ambrose, Gerts. serm. in festo Paschae. Hodie, in quit Christus, mecum eris in Paradiso. Lucae, 23. Propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae, Iohan, 22, quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum vel tubarum coram Philippo avu nculo tuo per theologos Parisienses de virgine beata, & credidit potius theologis Parisiensibus quam Curiae. Iohannes Romanus Pontifex, and sundry other.

The second opinion was, that men may be deliuered from the punishments of sinne after this life, if they die in the profession of the true faith, how vvickedly soeuer they liued, or at least, if the punishment of such bee eternall and cannot be ended, yet it may be deferred, or mitigated. Supra pag. 87 How many of the Fathers were in this errour, and made prayers for the dead vpon this false perswasion, that all Christians, how wickedly soeuer they liued, may find mercy at Gods hands in the world to come, at the entreatie of the liuing, they that haue read any thing can soone report.

Thirdly, whereas there are three estates of the soules of men, the first, in the body; the second, when they are seuered from the body, and stand before God immediately and instantly vpon the dissolution; and the third, after they haue receiued their particular iudgement; the Preces pro commendatione ani •… ae apud Cassandrum in lib. Precum Ecclesiast. godly doe not onely recommend them vnto God while they are yet in their bodies; but when departing thence, they goe to stand before the iudgement seate of God, they accompany them with their prayers and best good wishes, euen to the presence of the Lord. Hence were all those prayers, that were vsed on the dayes of the obites of the Saints, conceiued respectiuely to their passage out of this world, and the dangers they doe by the goodnesse of God escape in that fearefull houre of their dissolution, which prayers were againe repeated in the anniuersarie remembrances of their obites. Officium pro defunctis in Anniuersarijs. Of this sorte was that prayer in the Masse booke. Libera Domine animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni, & de profundo lacis: libera eas de ore leonus, ne absorbeat eas tartarus, ne cadant in obscurum: &c. Deliuer, O Lord, the soules of all faithfull ones departed, from the paines of hell, and the deepe Lake; deliuer them from the month of the Lion, that hell swallow them not up, and that they fall not into the dungeons of vtter darkenesse. How hard this was, to vse these prayers in a set course, in the dayes wherein they did only commemorate, and represent the dayes of mens departure hence, and so to pray for them long after their death, as if they were but euen then in the passage, and so in daunger of falling into the hands of their ghostly enimies, and not yet secure and assured of their eternall future state; (Bellar. lib. 2. cap. 5. de Purgatorio. which yet Bellarmine confesseth, is the best construction can be made of them) I leaue to the consideration of the wise. These are the seuerall kindes of praying for the dead, all which I hope Bellarmine dareth not justifie: but for the Romish manner of praying for the dead, it hath no certaine testimony of Antiquitie, no man euer thinking of Purgatorie, till Augustine, to avoide a worse errour, did doubtingly run into it; after whom many in the Latine Church embraced the same opinion, but the Greeke Church neuer receiued it to this day. Thus then we see how vniustly Calvin is traduced by Bellarmine, in this matter of prayer for the dead, and how weakely he prooues, that it is confessed, that their opinion and the doctrine of Antiquitie is the same. His Ibid. l. 3 15. 2. next challenge is scarce worth the mentioning, much lesse the refuting. Caluin saith, the Fathers were farre from the popish errour touching merites, and that yet they vsed the word, whence men haue since taken occasion of errour. Therefore hee dissenteth from all Antiquity, and acknowledgeth the Romane faith to bee the auncient faith and religion. Truely, I am weary in following of him in these senselesse fooleries.

CHAP. 18.

Of the Fathers strictnes in admitting men into the ministerie: of single life, and of their seuerity in the discipline of repentance.

THat Ibid. 4. 4. 10. which followeth is altogether of the same kinde: Calvin saith, the Fathers were too seuere, in that they required more in them, that were to be ordained to serue in the holy ministery of the Church, than the blessed Apostle Saint Paule doth require; Therefore saith Bellarmine hee dissenteth from all Antiquity, and confesseth the Romish doctrine and practice to bee most auncient. This consequence is very weake. For the Romanists retaine nothing of that auncient seuerity, but breake all the Canons of discipline that the Fathers obserued, by their ordinary dispensations, or rather dissipations of all order, and neglect of all rules of orderly government. Synodus. sex. can. 14. & Neocaesariensis can. 11. For where is that Canon obserued, that no man attaine to the order and degree of a Presbiter, till he be thirty yeares of age: Synodus Chalcedonensis can. 6. that no man bee ordained loosely, or at randome, but to bee imployed in some certaine charge of ministery; that Gerson. declarat. defectuum virorum Ecclesiasticorum. one man haue no title, interest, and liuing in two Churches; whereas, in the Church of Rome, one man hath two hundred, or three hundred ecclesiasticall liuings; Synodus Sardicensis. can. 1. that men ambitiously and couetously goe not from one Church, because it is meaner, to another because it is greater? Caluin therefore was not so ignorant as to thinke the Romanists to bee too seuere in the obseruation of discipline, and therein to be like the primitiue Fathers; hee saith therefore the cleane contrary to that which Bellarmine imputeth vnto him; that in the choise of such as were to be admitted into the holy Ministery, the Fathers of the Primitiue Church followed the prescription of Saint Paule, and the examples of the blessed Apostles, that they proceeded therein with very great and religious reuerence, and inuocation of the name of God, that they had a set forme of triall and examination, according to which they made inquirie both into the life and doctrine of them that were to be chosen; but that contrariwise in the Church of Rome there haue beene very few found to bee chosen for the space of an hundred yeares last past, that the old Canons reiect not as wholly vnworthy of ecclesiasticall honour & imployment, as Drunkardes, Adulterers, Sodomites, and the like Monsters, to passe by lesse matters, as that boyes of tenne yeares of age, by the Popes dispensations haue beene admitted to Bishoprickes. The Church of Rome then, by her pactise, condemneth the whole course of proceeding in former times, which Caluin reuerenceth as most religious, and wisheth that things were brought backe to that auncient order againe. Onely he saith, that the Fathers of those times may seeme a little to haue exceeded, in too much seuerity, in that they required more things in them that were to bee elected, then the blessed Apostle Saint Paul doth. This censure neede not seeme so strange vnto vs, if wee remember Concilium Neocaesari. Cano. 12. Eusebius. lib. 6. c. 42. Cornelius speaking of Novatus his ordination sayth many withstood the fact, affirming that none baptized in bed, as he was, should bee admitted into Ecclesiasticall order. that such as had beene baptized by heretickes, or when they were in feare and danger of death, which were named Clinici in those times, might not (vnlesse their conuersation, learning and deserts afterwards were very highly approoued) be admitted into the ministery; Concilium •… elense canon. 5. Leo in Epist. episcopis per Campaniam, &c. ne vidua •… um mariti. that he which had married a widow, though he were now free, she being dead, might not enter into the degree and order of Ministery; that hee which had one wife, yea, though it were before hee became a Christian, or were baptized, and after his being a Christian, his first wife beeing dead, married another, was iudged vncapable of Ministeriall order; against which Ierome declaimeth in his Epistle to Oceanus: Behold, sayth he, Men suppose Adulteries, whoredomes, Incests, Sodomitries, Paricides, impieties against God, and whatsoeuer things are so wicked, that they are not to be named, are washed away in Baptisme, and that after all these horrible crimes a man may bee admitted to the Ministery, as being washed from them in the lauer of new birth: but if a man had a wife before, which was no crime, and after his Baptisme shee being dead, marry another, he may not. Thus, saith he, these hypocrites (for so in the heate of his passion he calles them) doe straine at a gnat, and swallow a Camell. For this, Ruffinus challengeth him, as a contemner of the constitutions and decrees of the Fathers, though he shew that innumerable not onely Presbyters, but Bishops, were in all the parts of the world admitted, contrary to the prescript of these pretended Canons. That which Calvine addeth, that in processe of time they forbade marriage, and forced all them that would enter into the holy Ministery to liue single, was neuer generall, nor in one sort.

Socrates l. 1. c. 8. In the Councell of Nice, Paphnutius disswaded the Bishops from putting those of the Clergie from the matrimoniall societie of their wiues, affirming that marriage is honourable among all men, and the bed vndefiled, and that the forcing of single life would bring many euils into the Church. This Counsell and perswasion of Paphnutius was not onely yeelded vnto by the Fathers of that Councell, but Can 13. in the sixt generall Councell, the Fathers there assembled, condemned the practice of the Romane Church in forbidding marriage, not onely as hard, iniurious, and being an occasion of many euils, but as contrary to the Canons of the Apostles of Christ; from whence it is, that all the Churches of the world (the Church of Rome onely excepted) admit married men, continuing in the state of marriage, into the holy ministery: as, the Churches of Armenia, Graecia, Syria, Aethiopia, Russia, and whatsoeuer Christians there are in any part of the world.

Sigebertus in Chronico 1074. Greg. Papa celebrata Synodo uxoratos sacerdotes a divino officio removit, & laicis missam corum audire interdixit: ex quâ re tam grave oritur scandalum, ut nullius haeresis tempore, Sancta Ecclesia graviori schismate s •… ssa sit: paucis continentiam tenentibus, aliquibus eam causa quaest •… s & iactantiae simulantibus, multis incontinentiam periurio aut multipliciori adulterio cumulantib •… , &c. Laici sacra mysteria temerant, baptisant infantes, sordido aurium humore pro sacro chrismate ut •… . Lambertus Schafnaburgensis, Fol. 201. si •… scribir, Hildebrandus Papa cum Episcopis Italiae decreuerat, ut sacerdotes non habeant u •… ores, habentes aut dimittant, aut deponantur. Adversus hoc decretum vehementer infre •… to •… a factio Clericorum, hominem planè haereticum & vesani dogmatis esse, &c. Hildebrandus moriens confes •… est Deo, Sancto Petro, & to •… i Ecclesiae, se valdè peccasse in curâ pastorali, & suadente Diabolo contra 〈◊〉 genus odiu •… & iram concitasse. Sigebertus in Chronic. An. 1088. How long it was before this decree of forced single life prevailed in the Latine Church, and what resistance there was made against Pope Hildebrand for the same, by the whole Cleargie of Christendome, calling him heretike, monster, and enemie of mankinde, author of all mischiefe, impurity, and confusion; the histories of those times report; affirming that vpon the publishing of that his decree, there followed such disturbance of the peace of the Church, such confusions, indignities, contempts, and profanations of all holy things, as that the Church was neuer so grievously and daungerously afflicted in any of her most bloody persecutions vnder the Heathen Emperours, nor in her greatest conflicts with heretickes. What good successe this decree had after it prevailed, and what a pure and holy Clergie it represented to the world, let Gers. de vitâ spirituali ani •… 〈◊〉 . 4. corrolar. 14. et part. 4. de exterminatione schismatis. Gerson report, who acknowledgeth that the places of holy Ministery were possessed by adulterers, wantons, Sodomites, and such like monsters: that the number of the offenders in this kinde was so great, as that there was no proceeding against them; that the canons against Concubinaries notorioussie so knowne, requiring all men to refraine from communicating with them, could not now bee continued; that it were best to permit them to keepe harlots, fot the avoyding of greater euils, and to tolerate their wickednesse in that kinde, as the stewes are permitted.

Thus then I hope it doth appeare to be true that Calvin saith, that they did ill deserue of the Church, that forced her Ministers to single life; Platina in vita Pii 2. and that, the speech of Pope Pius the second, was most true, that what reason soeuer they had that forbade marriage in former times, there were more reason in our times to leaue it free againe. Now Ibid. l. 4. 12. 〈◊〉 . let vs proceed to consider his next exception against Caluine; in proposing whereof he reasoneth thus. Caluine thinketh that all the Fathers were of opinion, that after the remission of sinne men must suffer the punishment their sinnes deserue, to satisfie Gods Iustice; and that therefore they were so seuere in imposing penance on them that had offended: but this is the opinion of the Romanists, which Caluine so much disliketh; therefore hee confesseth the doctrine of the Romanists to haue beene the doctrine of all the Fathers. The Maior or first proposition of this reason is a most vile calumniation: for Caluine denieth that the Fathers were of that opinion the Romanists are of, touching the punishments of sinne after remission of them, as hath beene sufficiently cleared already. Neither doth hee dislike the Fathers severity vpon that ground; for then he should condemne their imposing of penance, absolutely, as a thing wholy vnlawfull; which he doth not, but most highly commendeth it: onely whereas the end of these penitentiall corrections was, and is, to remooue and take away ill examples, to provide that neither Gods name be blasphemed, nor others provoked and incouraged to do euill, by seeing them that offend to escape without condigne punishment, and that the sinner may be brought to a right sense, knowledge, dislike, and forsaking of his sinne: when it appeareth that the sinner is truely penitent, and carefully indeavoureth to satisfie the Church which was scandalized by him, there must be great consideration had, least he be swallowed vp with ouermuch heauinesse, and so fall into desperation. In this respect, Caluine thinketh those courses of auncient discipline, in putting men from the communion of the Church, for the space of three, foure, or seaven yeares, and sometimes for the whole time of their life, to haue beene very daungerous, vnlesse they were wisely moderated by the discretion of the Pastours, as he confesseth they were: without which moderation, who doth not see they were carnificina conscientiarum; a cruell, bloody, and mercilesse tormenting, and murthering of the soules of men? Now as the severity of the Primitiue Fathers was very great in the prescription of these Canons, yet mixed, tempered, and sweetened with good moderation in the execution of them, and therefore not to be disliked; Aug. epist. ad Macedonium 54. Conc. Tolletan. 6. Can. 8. l. Erasmus in •… epitaphio Fabiolae ait August. semel lapso aperire Ecclesiae fores, relapso claudere: nec tamen huic claudere fores caeli cui claudit fores templi. Ambros. de poenitentiá li. 2. c. 10. S •… verè agerent poenitentiam, iterandam posteà non putarent: quia sicut vnum baptisma, ita vna penitentia: quae tamen publicè agitur. nam quotidiani nos debet poenitere delicti: sed haec delictorum leuiorum, illa grauiorum. so their extreame seuerity towards those that fell after penitencie, whom they eiected, and cast out of the Church, without hope of a second reconciliation, cannot well be excused. This denying of reconciliation to such as fell after they had once before done open and publique penance, the Bellar. l. r. de paenitentia c. 21. Lindan. Panop. l. 4. c. 62. vbi reprehendit Rhenanum, qui dicit nonnullos veteres in h •… cfuisse opinione, & inter eos August. Papists restraine to solemne penitencie; which they distinguish from publike and open, as being imposed for sinnes of the highest nature; otherwise confessing, that the Fathers seuerity connot be excused. But this distinction of publike and solemne penitency, is a meere devise of their owne, without any ground of authority or shew of proofe. For how doth Bellarmine proue the difference of these two kinds of penitencie? Surely he saith, solemne penitencie is imposed onely for the most greeuous crimes; publike, for those that are not so grieuous; but proueth it not. Further hee addeth, that solemne penitencie could not be twise imposed, publike might, and they that had done it bee admitted into the Clergie; that solemne penitencie could not be imposed vpon married folkes without consent, nor vpon yong folkes, publike might; that none but Bishops might reconcile those that were enjoyned solemn penitencie, but those that had beene enioyned publike penitencie, others of meaner conditiō might absolue. August. Seleucia epist. 109. distinguit 3 em poenitentiam: quarum prima agitur ante baptismum: secundam agunt homines, si post baptismum ita peccauerint vt excommunicari & posteà reconciliari mereantur: est etiam poenitentia, bonorum & humilium penè quotidiana, in qua pectora tundimus, dicente •… dimitte &c. illa vtique quae humanae fragilitati quamvi •… parua tamen crebra subrepunt. These fained distinctions of theirs betweene solemne & publike penitencie haue no testimonie of Antiquitie, but it is cleare and euident they were all one: and therefore seeing they mislike the denying of reconciliation generally to such as fell after publike penitencie, they cannot justifie the Fathers who did so deny it.

CHAP. 19.

Of the Lent fast, of Lay-mens Baptisme, and of the sacrifice of the Masse.

THe Ibid. Lib. 4 12. 20. next allegation is touching the Lent fast: wherein, as in the former, Caluin is charged to condemne the iudgement and practice of all antiquitie. That the falsehood of this allegation may the better appeare, wee will lay downe what Caluin liketh or disliketh in the matter offasting in generall, and particularly in the sette Fast of fortie dayes, aunciently obserued in the Church before the ioyfull solemnities of the resurrection of Christ. First therefore he acknowledgeth the vse and necessity of fasting, to be continued amongst Christians to the end of the world, as well as formerly it was amongst the Iewes. Secondly, hee sheweth that fasting is not a thing that God requireth in respect of it selfe, but respectiuely to certaine ends, and as seruing to expresse, and set forward the inward affections of the heart. Thirdly, he sheweth what those ends are; namely, to tame the flesh, to giue a greater edge vnto our prayers, to testifie, expresse, and set forward what may be our dislike of sinne, and of our selues for sinne, to testifie our humiliation and dolour proceeding from the fearefull apprehension of Gods displeasure, to make it appeare we take no pleasure in any thing till God be reconciled to vs, to amerce and punish our selues for our manifold abuses of Gods good creatures, and lastly to shew that in holy meditations and contemplations we foretaste the sweetenesse of that heauenly Manna, which maketh vs for a time to forebeare to taste of any sweetenesse of corporall meates; thereby shewing the excellencie of that spirituall life, which we shall liue in heauen, without any of these outward nourishments, beeing filled with the happy fruition, vision, and enioying of him that is the fountaine of life.

The faults, hee findeth, are, when men seuer this outward exercise from the inward affection, when they thinke it a thing for it selfe respected, and coommanded by almighty God, and a matter of rare and speciall vertue, & merit in it owne nature. The Fathers, hee confesseth, did rightly and truely deliuer the nature of religious fasting; yet so, that, by their exceeding great admiration and commendation of it, they may seeme to haue giuen some occasion of that erronious perswasion, that it is in it selfe highly pleasing to God. This, sayth Calvine, I doe the rather thinke, for that there was, and appeared superstition euen in their times, in the obseruing of that principall fast of fortie dayes, in that both the common people thought the keeping thereof in it owne nature a thing highly pleasing God, (whereas no fast is accepted, but respectiuely to the ends aboue mentioned;) and the Fathers commended it vnder the name of an Imitation of Christ; Iansenius comment. in concord •… m eyang •… am, c. 15. in 〈◊〉 •… ba cum 〈◊〉 quadraginta dies. whereas it is plaine, that Christ did not fast principally for that end, that wee should follow his example, but to beginne the new law, as Moses did the old: and therefore to take it as imposed vpon vs, by Christs example, in the nature of a precept, and to be done in imitation of Christ, and as being in it selfe a thing pleasing vnto GOD, for that it is an imitation of his Sonnes action, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Caluin rightly noteth, and not voide of superstition, and errour.

Now that the Fathers either erred themselues in this sort, or sought to abuse others, neither Calvine, nor wee euer thought. For they neuer imagined, that the principall reason that mooued the authours and beginners of this fast to prescribe it, was the onely imitation of Christs fast, or because they thought it it in it owne nature a thing respected by God, meerely as an imitation of his Sonnes action; but that, whereas it is very fit, there bee a solemne time at least once in the yeare, wherein men may call themselues to an account for all their negligences, repent them of all their euill doings, and with prayers, fastings, and mournings turne vnto the Lord; this Bellar. lib. 2. cap. 16. de bonis operibus in particulari ostendit istas fuisse rationes instituendae quadragesimae. time was chosen as fittest, both because that heerein wee remember the sufferings of Christ for our sinnes, which is the strongest and most prevailing motiue that may bee to make vs hate sinne, and with teares of repentant sorrow bewaile it, (which could no otherwise bee taken away but by the bloud shed of the Sonne of GOD) as also for that after this meditation of the sufferings of Christ, and conforming our selues to them, his joyfull resurrection for our justification, doth immediatly present it selfe vnto vs in the dayes following; in the solemnities whereof, men were wont with great devotion to approach to the Lords Table, and they which were not yet baptized, were by Baptisme admitted into the Church. Thus then it was not without great consideration, that men made choice of this time, wherein to recount all their negligences, sinnes, and transgressions, and to prepare themselues by this solemne act of Fasting, both for the better performance of their owne dueties in those ensuing dayes of joyfull solemnitie, as also to obtaine at Gods handes, the gracious acceptance of such as they offered vnto him to bee entred into his couenant. For Synod. Antisiodorensis Can. 18. Leo ep. 4. ad vniversos episcopos per Siciliam constitutos, prohibet baptisare nisi tantum in Festis Paschatis & Pentecostes, nec permittit in Festo Epiphaniae, licèt eo die Christus putetur baptisarus á Iohanne. Rhenanus in lib. de corona militis per tempora Caroli Magni & Lu. dovici Augusti, neminem, excepto mortis articulo, praeterquam in Pascha & Pentecoste, baptisant, ut indicant leges ab illis sancitae prohibentes aliis temporibus baptismum celebrari. the manner was in the Primitiue Church, neuer to present any vnto Baptisme, vnlesse it were in the case of necessity and danger, but onely in the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost. Thus then these being the reasons mouing to institute a set and solemne Fast, and to appoint it at this time and season of the yeare, rather than any other; for the limitation of the number of dayes, men had an eye as to a convenient direction, to Christs Fast of forty dayes in Mat. 4. 2. Exod, 34. 28. 1 Kings 19. 8. the dedication of the new Covenant, which number also Moses, as being the giuer, and Elias as being the restorer of the olde Law, kept and obserued before him: not as if they had beene precisely and absolutely tyed by force of these examples; for then they would precisely haue kept that number, which yet they did not: for the Saturdayes and Sundayes deducted, which Ambrosius in lib. de Eliâ & ieiunio. c. 10 Quadragesimâ, totis, praeter Sabbatum & dominicum ielunatur diebus. were not aunciently fasted, neither in the Greeke Church, nor in some of the Latine Churches, there remaine not forty dayes; and if onely the Sondayes bee deducted as in the Latine Church, there will want of the number: for those in capite Ieiunii, which being added to the rest, make vp the number of 40. were not obserued from the beginning, Hanc additionem esse valdè antiquam in Latinâ ecclesiâ, patet ex Alcnuio, inquir Bellar. l 2. c. 15. de bonis operibus in particulari. Greg. homil. 16. dicit ieiunium quadragesimae constare 36. diebus: tametsi enim non ignoraret addi solere 4 dies ad numerum 40. perficiendum, tamen sciebat etiam quadragesimam propriè dictam non ultra 36 dies extendi. Bellar. l. 2. c. 16. de bonis operibus in particulari. but added afterwards.

Our Divines therefore doe teach, that Fasting is commaunded by Almighty GOD, not as a thing in it selfe regarded, but respectiuely to those ends before mentioned; that GOD hath set no certaine times of Fasting, but that the Church may appoint vpon set and ordinary, or speciall and extraordinary occasions and causes, times of fasting, and that men are bound to obey.

The Fast of Lent they doe not dislike, but thinke it may be kept as a convenient tradition of Antiquity, (dispensable by authority of the Church, vpon due consideration of times and persons,) so that no false nor superstitious opinions bee added; but the practise of the Romanists they condemne: for that whereas they pretend to follow the ancient custome of fasting, & to be tyed vnto it, they retaine no Ieiunia no stra quae & vini copia natant, & piscium varietate carnis superant delicias, adeò que cum Deo ludere videntur dum pro intercepto qui ex ouis oritur calore, olei flammas, vini aestum, omnis que generis aromatum ignes infare •… nt stomacho, veteribus Christianis omnibus fuisse non modò incognita, sed & intolerabilia, adeo que a •… ominanda constat: vmbra tantum veri ieiunij cernitur in catholicâ ecclesiá, ieiunium, quod ante non nisi ad horam tertiam pomeridianam soluebatur. antè meridiem 〈◊〉 , atque in eam rem non modo mysteria, sed vesperae suum mentientes tempus anticipantur. Lindan. Panopliae. lib. 3. cap. 11. shew of the auncient fast, but make a meere mocke of God & man, as their own best friends are forced to confesse, besides their erronious opinions of merit & satisfaction, & grosse superstition in the difference of meates. Thus then we did not put down the true & right vse & exercise of fasting, but the mockery of it, & do wish that in the ful establishment of the Churches, the ancient discipline of fasting, due cōsideratiō had of times & conditiōs of men, may be restored again. If any of our Diuines seeme to dislike that there should be any set fasts, as being Iewish, it is not the generall resolution of the reformed Churchs, but the priuate opinion only of some particular m •… , who were carried with the hate of Romish errours and superstition in the set fasts, to dislike them wholly; which aduisedly I see not how they could doe, and I am well assured many of very great esteeme, do allow and approue the vse of them.

The next obiectiō is most friuolous. Caluin saith, Ibid. Lib 4, 15. 12. Lay men long since presumed in times of necessity to baptize; werein, whether they did well or not, the Fathers in those times, wherein they were suffered thus to do, could not, nor did not resolue: what can be inferred of this? Whether they did well, or not, Caluin saith, the Fathers were not resolute, and hee think eth their doing can hardly be excused from vsurpation of that which no way pertained to them; therefore, saith Bellarmine, he dissenteth from all antiquity, & confesseth the doctrine of the Romish Church to be most ancient. Let Bellarmine giue vs leaue to reason from his speeches in the same sort, & he will soone perceiue he hath wronged Caluine. Lib. 1 de sacramento baptismi. cap. 7. Bellarmine saith, the Fathers were doubtfull whether, if men not yet baptized, should attempt to baptize, it were baptisme or not; he pronounceth peremtorily it is; therefore he dissenteth from all antiquity. As likewise they August. l 7. de bapt. cap. 53. non audet definire, sed ait expectandam Detreuelationem: at Bellar. de sacramentis in genere lib. 1. cap. 28. ait definitum in concilijs, scilicet Florentinó & Tridentino. doubted, whether baptisme administred sportingly, were true baptisme or not: he & his consorts make no question of it: therefore they dissent from all antiquitie.

But Ibid. Lib. 4. 18. 21. let vs proceed to the next allegation. Caluin saith it is most certaine, that all antiquity is clearely against the Romish doctrine of the reall sacrificing of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, & that the Fathers did most rightly conceiue of this sacred mystery, without derogating any way from the sufficiencie and plenitude of Christs sacrifice. A man would hardly thinke any man would allcage this place, to proue that Caluin confesseth the doctrine of the Fathers, and the opinion of the Romanists are all one: and yet this doth the Iesuite: so forcible and powerful he is in reasoning, that what a man most constantly denieth, he can proue hee affirmeth. But he will say, that Caluin in the same place doth except against the Fathers. Surely he saith, hee thinketh they cannot be altogether excused, in that they soe much vrged the mysticall sacrificing of Christs body in the Sacrament, and thereby made it carry a kinde of shew of a new, and newly repeated sacrifice: for that by misconstruction of that they meant well, others turned the Sacrament into a new offering of the Sonne of God for the quicke and dead. The reason doubtlesse, that mooued the Fathers so much to vrge that mysticall sacrificing of CHRIST in the blessed Sacrament, was, for that they liued in the middest of Iewes and Gentiles: both whose religion consisted principally in sacrifice: the Fathers therefore to shew that Christian Religion is not without sacrifice, & that of a more excellent nature than theirs were, did much vrge that Christ once offered for the sinnes of the World vpon the aulter of his Crosse, is dayly in mystery offered, slaine, and his blood powred out, on the holy Table: and that this sacrifice of Christ, slaine for the sins of the world, thus continually represented, and liuing in our memories, is the sacrifice of Christians. If any man shall alleage, that these were reasons sufficient to moue the Fathers to speake as they did, notwithstanding any occasions of errour that might by ignorant men bee taken, Caluine doth not pertinaciously resist, for he sayd only what hee thought, not peremptorily iudging, or condemning those, whom so iust and good causes haue made honourable in the Church for ever.

CHAP. 20

Of the inuocation and adoration of Saints: touching which the Century-writers are wrongfully charged to dissent from the Fathers.

THus then I hope it appeareth, that Caluine doth not confesse that the doctrine of the Romanists hath any testimonie, or approbation of Antiquity. Ibid. Bellarmine therefore passeth from him to the writers of the Centuries, in whom hee hopeth to find something for his purpose; but they steade him as little as Caluine did. Let vs therefore take a view of that hee sayth. Touching free-will, iustification, merits and the like, there is nothing in them, but that which hath bin sufficiently, I hope, cleared in Caluine; the things they say, being the same. Centur. 3. c. 4 col. 83. Only two things I find imputed to them by Bellarmine, and not to Caluine. For first they are supposed to acknowledge the Popish invocation of Saints, to haue beene in the time of the Fathers, and allowed, by them. Centur. 3. 4. col. 85. Secondly, they are charged to blame the Fathers, for magnifying too much the excellency of Martyrdome, the praises whereof Bellarmin saith they dislike, because they will not admit that Martyrdome is a kind of baptisme, seruing for the expiation, & washing away of sin.

Touching the inuocation of Saints, it is euident it was not known in the first ages of the Church, nor approoued by the Primitiue Fathers: but because it hath mightily preuailed in these later times, & the superstition and idolatry there in committed, hath beene such as cannot be excused; therefore for the better answering of Bellarmines cauils, and the satisfying of our selues and others, let vs consider from what grounds, and by what degrees it entred into the Church.

First there was in the Church from the beginning, a true and certaine resolution, that the Saints departed do in generall tender, respect, and wish well vnto their brethren, and fellow seruants, whom they haue left behind them, in the warfare of Christ in this worlde. Secondly, men grew afterwards to thinke, that men departing out of this world, carry with them the remembrance of the state of things, wherein, departing hence, they leaue them: and that out of their loue which neuer falleth away, they do most carefully recommend vnto God the particular necessities of their brethren made knowen vnto them while they liued there. Si quis istu •… nostrum prior diuinae dignationis celeritate praecesserie, perseveret apud Dominum nostra dilectio pro fratribus & sororibus nostris, apud misericordiam patris non cesset oratio. Cypr. epistola •… 7. Thirdly, from hence it came, that men entreated their friends yet liuing, that if they preuented them, and came before them into Christ their maisters ioyfull and happie presence, being freed from the daungers, miseries, and euils of this present life, they would not forget to recommend them vnto God, that are in them still. Fourthly, whereas by an auncient custome, they did remember the names of the departed, at the LORDS table, giuing thankes vnto GOD that had made them soe glorious in their life and death through his goodnesse, and praying him by their examples to frame them to the like, and besides kept the anniuersarie remembrances of the dayes of their death, as if they had beene their birth dayes, with all tokens of ioy: in the orations they Nos autem Martyribus nostris non templa sicut dijs &c. nec sacrificamus Martyribus, sed vni Deo & Martyrum & nostr •… sacrificium immolamus: ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei qui mundum in confessione eius vicerunt suo loco & ordine nominantur: non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat inuocantur. Aug. de ciuitate Dei lib. 22, cap. 10. Sacrificia pro ijs semper vt meministis offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones & dies anniversariâ commemoratione celebramus. Cypr. epist. 34. made to sett forth the goodnesse of GOD towards them, and to propose their example for imitation, they did sometimes by way of Apostrophe speake vnto them, as if they had beene present, and had sense and apprehension of that they spake (whereof yet they were doubtfull, as appeareth by Oratione in laudem Gorgoniae: Si hoc praemium sanctis animabus á Deo confertur, ut ista persentiscant &c. & in Iulianum, alloquitur pias animas Imperatorum, dicens, si quis mortuis sensus, &c. Gregory Nazianzen, In Epitaphio Nepotiani stupet animus, manus tremit, caligant oculi, balbutit lingua, quicquid dixere, quia ille non audit, mutum videtur. Hierome, & others; and not contented thus to commune with them, they entreated them, if they had any sense or knowledge of things in this world, to be remembrancers for them, and the Church here below. This was a kinde of doubtfull compellation & soliciting of them, If their state were such, as that they could take notice of these things, that they would not forget to procure the good of their brethren; but was no invocation, which is a retyring of our selues in all our needes, necessities, and distresses, with assured hope of helpe, to him that wee know can stede vs in what distresse soeuer wee bee.

Thus then, though the Fathers did sometimes, when they had particular occasions to remember the Saints, and to speake of them, by way of Apostrophe turne themselues vnto them, and vse wordes of doubtfull compellation, praying them, if they haue any sense of these inferiour things to bee remembrancers to God for them, yet shall our adversaries neuer proue, that they did prostrate their bodies, bow their knees, or make prayers to them, in a set course of devotion, but this both adoration and invocation of Saints and Angels, was directly condemned by them. We honour the Saints, saith Adversus Vigilantium ad Ripatium Presbyterum 110. Ierome, but doe not worship or adore any creature, neither Angels, Archangels, nor any name that is named in this world, or that which is to come. Theodoret: in Epist. ad Colos. qui legem defendebant, cos etiam ad angelos colendos inducebant, dicentes fuisse legem per illos datam. Mansit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia & Pysidia: quo circa Synodus quoque quae conuenit Laodiceae, quae est Phrygiae metropolis, lege prohibuit ne precatentur Angelos: & in hodiernum usque diem licèt videre apud illos & eorum finitimos oratoria Sancti Michaelis, Illi ergo hoc consulebant, utique humilitate utentes dicentes, universorum deum nec cerni, nec comprehendi, nec ad eum 〈◊〉 posse. & oportere per Angelos diuinam conciliare benevolentiam: hoc autem dixit in humilitate et cultu Angelorum. The Councell of Laodicea, reported by Theodoret, directly condemneth this kinde of adoration and invocation, not of Saints onely, but of Angels also.

The Popish distinction of Latria and Doulia, doth not answere these authorities and testimonies of Antiquity: for those erring miscreants mentioned by Paul, the Councell of Laodicea, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others, did not thinke the Angels to be God, or equall to the Most High, neither did they worship them in such sort, as to ascribe infinite greatnesse vnto them, which the Papists meane by their Latria: but they gaue spirituall worship and adoration vnto them, in an inferiour and lower degree, such as the Papists call Doulia: because they thought them to mediate betweene God and mortall men in very high and excellent sort. Either then the Fathers condemned these without cause for worshipping creatures, or they meant to restraine more than that adoration, which ascribeth infinite greatnesse to him that is adored; which vndoubtedly they did, euen the least and lowest degree of spirituall worship, or worship in spirit and truth. This most clearely appeareth to bee so, by that of the seuenth Con •… um Nicenum 2. generall Councell, which though it did not onely confirme the placing of pictures in the Church, but prescribed that they should be worshipped, yet the Fathers of that Councell expounded themselues, that they meant nothing else thereby, but a reuerent vsage of them, approaching to them, embracing and kissing of them, in such sort as men vse to doe to the bookes of holy Scriptures, and all sacred vessels, and things consecrated to the vse of Gods seruice; but permit not any the least part of spirituall worshippe, or worshippe in spirit and trueth the Scripture speaketh of, to be giuen vnto them; for if it be, they judge it Idolatrie. But the Romanists at this day giue spirituall worshippe to creatures, and thinke they sinne not, if it be not in so high a degree, as to ascribe vnto them infinite greatnesse. Epiphanius contra Collyridianos haeresi 79 omnem adorationem creaturarum damnat.

Dicunt Walsingam & Henricus: reuereri, est animo reputare magna bona quae quis videt aut existimat esse in alio, parui pend •… ndo in comparatione eorum bona quae considerat in seipso: honorare, est reuerentiam existentem intus in anima, opere exterius indicare: hinc est, quod honor •… icitur exhibitio reverentiae in testimonium virtutis eius quem reueremur: laudare est honoratum p •… o bonis quae in ipso sunt alijs commendare: glorificare autem, est laudes honorati largè, latèque praeconizare. propter quod dicitur esse gloria frequens fama cum laude: adoratio est, in id, quod reuerendum, laudandum, •… onorandum glorificandum est propter eminentiam sanctitatis & virtutis, totam spem ac fiduciam subijciendo se illi proij •… ere, propter quod ado •… atio dicitur cultus propter diligentem intentionem erga id quod adoratur: illud enim coli dicitur, cui quis studiosè intendit operam suam illi exhibendo. Waldensis tom, 3. titulo 12. de sanctis adorandis, cap. 118. Adoration implieth in it three actes. First, an apprehension of the excellencie of that which is adored. Secondly, an acte of the will, desiring to doe some thing to testifie our acknowledgement of this greatnes, and our subjection and inferioritie. Thirdly, an outward acte expressing the same. Wee say therefore that Adoration proceeding out of the apprehension of the excellencie of that is worshipped, and the desire to testifie our acknowledgement of it, is of two sortes or kinds: For either it is limited to certaine times, places and things, when, where, and wherein, the excellencie of that wee worship, presents it selfe vnto vs, and requireth our acknowledgement of it; as is the worshippe of Kings, Princes, Prelates, and Prophets, in their kingdomes, Courts, Churches, and Schooles, ruling, guiding, teaching, and instructing: or else it is spirituall, which in all places, at all times, and in all things causeth him that worshippeth to bow himself before that hee worshippeth, and thereby to testifie his acknowledgement of the excellency of it, which he findeth in euery time, place, and thing to present it selfe vnto him. This kinde of Adoration, subiecteth not only the body, but the spirit and minde also, to him whose greatnesse it thus acknowledgeth. This worship, we say, is proper to God. For he onely at all times, and in all places and things, seeth, beholdeth, guideth, and taketh care of vs, and ruling, disposing, and commaunding vs, inwardly and outwardly, worketh our good.

But the Romanists say, the Saints doe so likewise, though not in so excellent sort as God doth: for they suppose, that they know all things that concerne vs, that they watch ouer vs with a carefull and vigilant eye, that they carry vs in their hands, and by their mediation procure our good from God, the fountaine of all good; and therefore they worship them with spirituall worship. The miracles that God wrought in times past by them made many to attribute more to them, than was fitte, as if they had a generalitie of presence, knowledge, and working; but the wisest, and best aduised neuer durst attribute any such thing vnto them.

August. de cura pro mortuis. Whether, saith Augustine, the Saints be present euery where, or at least wheresoeuer their memorialls are kept, or whether they remaine in one place only, and praying onely in generall for the Militant Church, God doe worke by himselfe, or his Angels, that which is fit for the confirmation of the faith they professed, and the good of such as remember them, I dare not pronounce. And who knoweth not, that hee inclineth to that opinion, that they doe not particularly see, know, and entermeddle with humane things, and confirmeth this his iudgement with sundry excellent reasons and authorities? This opinion did the Interlinearis glossa in Isaiae 63. Authour of the glosse follow, and Hugo de sancto victore erudit. Theolog. de sacramentis fidei, lib. 2. part. 16. cap. 11. quaerunt nonnulli de animabus carne solutis, vtrum cognitionem habeant eorum quae in hac vitâ gerunt •… r, & an preces supplicantium audiant, difficile est de huiusmodi dijudicare: quidam ex patribus quaedam dixerunt, quasi nihil sit quod non videant, qui vident omnia videntem: sed ego non praesumo ita iudicare, &c. Hugo de sancto victore, and the Church of God neuer defined otherwise: howsoeuer Ierome in his passion against Vigilantius seeme to say the contrary, and Greg. dial. 4. cap. 33. Gregorie endeauour to confirme it, saying, hee that seeth God, who seeth all things, cannot but see all things in him. But Occam tract. 1. part. 2. cap. 3. vbi confutat Iohannem 22. haeresem esse pronunciat dicere videntes Deum nulla ignorare, &c. Magister lib. 2. distinct. 11. accipiendum dicit dictum, Greg. de his quorum cognitio beatum sacit cognitorem, vt sunt ea quae pertinent ad mysteria trinitatis &c. sed haec explicatio verbis Greg. non conue •… t moral. 12. c. 13. nullo modo credendum est quia foris sit aliquid qd ignorent. Occam, and sundry other excellent Schoolemen, reiect this saying of Gregorie; and Gregorius Ariminensis resolueth peremptorily, that neither Saints, nor Angels know the secrets of our hearts, but that this s Greg. Arimi. l. 2. distinct. 9. 10. q. 1. ex 2. Paralip. ex dicto Salomonis. Tu solus nosticorda filiorum hominum. & ex libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, secrctacordis ille solus novit, probat nullam creaturam cognoscere cogitationes cordium nostrorum. is reserued as peculiar to God alone.

If then the Saints (for ought wee know) do not see, know, and intermeddle with our particular affaires, but pray only in generall, there remaineth nothing else safely to bee donne by vs, but to seeke vnto GOD; and then all these both Saints and Angells shall loue vs in him, and what in them lyeth procure our good. August. de vera religione c. 55. Behold, sayth Augustine, I worship one God, one beginning of all things, that fountaine of wisdome and happinesse whence all things that are wise and happie haue their wisdome and happinesse; whichsoeuer of the Angels loueth th •… GOD, I am sure hee loueth mee, whosoeuer abideth in him, and can heare the prayers, and take notice of the wants of mortall men, I am well assured, hee doth heare mee, when I pray to God, and endeauoureth to giue mee the best furtherance hee can. Let therefore those Adoratores partium mundi, worshippers of parts and portions of the world, tell mee, what good Saint or Angel hee doth not assure vnto himselfe, which worshipeth that one God, whom euery one that is good doth loue and desire to please. Hence it came, that though some particular men did aunciently, at sometimes, when they had occasion to speake of them, doubtfully sollicite the Saints, and desire them, if they had any apprehension of these inferiour things, to bee remembrancers for them vnto God: yet no man prayed vnto them with bowed knees, in set courses of deuotion and prayer. Neither was there any forme of inuocation of Saints brought into the seruice of the Church for a long time, as appeareth by that of De ciuitate Dei li. 22. c. 10. Augustine, who sayth, they are named by the Minister in the time of the holy mysteries, but not innocated.

For how could there be any inuocation of them generally receiued and allowed, or constantly resolued on and vsed, in the set courses of the prayers of those primitiue Christians; when they knew not, nor were not certainely resolued, whether the Saints do know, or intermeddle with the particular affaires of men in this world: seeing the Romanists themselues confesse, it were not fit nor safe to pray to Saints, if they did not heare vs? Now it is no way likely, that any generall opinion was holden in those times, of the vniuersall presence, knowledge, and habilitie of Saints to steade them that seeke unto them, seeing it was a long time doubtfull in the Church, whether the faithfull departing out of this world, bee immediatly receiued into heauen, and enioy the happie presence of God, or whether they remaine, or stay in Abrahams bosome, or some place of rest, till the day of the resurrection. Yea it is knowne to all them that haue perused the monuments of Antiquitie, that See cap. 9. Iraeneus, Iustin Martyr, Tertullian, and sundry others were of opinion, that none of the iust are in Heauen till the end and consummation of all things, but that they are below in some part of hell, or in some hidden & inuisible place sequestred from the presence of God, till the second comming of the sonne of man. Now seeing the inuocation of Saints presupposeth that they pray for vs in particular, and particular prayer for vs knowledge of our wants, which the presence and sight of God is supposed to afford them; if they do not yet enioy the presence of God, as many of the Auncient (though falsely) did thinke, wee see not how in their iudgment there should be any safe and fruitfull inuocating of them. Bel. l. 1. de sanctorum beatitudine cap. 20. For the absence from GOD, and the not enioying of his sight and presence, is the reason alleaged by our adversaries, why the Fathers in the time before Christ, neither prayed in particular for the Church on earth, nor were prayed vnto, as being in Lymbus, and not in heauen.

Howsoever, it is most certaine, if we looke into the auncient practise of the Church, that the Saints in their anniuersarie solemnities and holy daies, were not prayed vnto, but remembred only, proposed for imitation, & rather prayed for, then prayed vnto, as it appeareth by that Bicl. lect. 85. in canonem missae. Innocentius reporteth, that in the Feast of blessed Leo, the auncient custome was, to pray that the solemnitie of that day, and the oblations then offered might bee auaileable to his soule, for the encrease and consummation of his glory: which since hath beene altered, & the prayer is now, that by his mediation this Festivall solemnity may availe, and be to the good of them that obserue and keepe it. So that it cannot be shewed by our adversaries, See how the auncient missals were abandoned, in praefat. Cassandri in libr •… Romani ordinis à se editi & in vitâ Greg. 1. apud Voraginensem. that, before the auncient Liturgies were abandoned, and those brought in by Gregory had gotten into their place, there was any invocation of the Saints found in the publique prayers of the Church; but when their names were remembred, men prayed only to God, that he would giue them grace to follow their examples, & make them partakers of that happinesse, which those blessed ones already enjoy. And at that time, when this alteration began, the invocation was not brought into the Liturgie and publique prayers of the Church, in direct forme, but men prayed still vnto God only, though desiring him the rather to respect them, for that not only their brethren on earth, but they also that are in heauen, cease not (prostrate before his sacred Majestie) to pray for them. Neither is there any other forme of prayer found in the Missall, Ab bas Nocherius de sancto Gallo sequentias pro pneumis composuise dicitur, quas Nicholaus Papa ad missam cantari concessit. Hugo de sancto Victore erudi •… . theol. de officiis eccles. l. 2. c. 11. Durand. rational. divin. offic. l. 4. ait Nocherium sequentias pro pne umis alleluia composuisse, sed alios post plerasque addidisse. but in the sequences and Litanies onely.

Wherefore to conclude this matter concerning the invocation and adoration of Saints and Angels, seeing the Fathers did not in their sette courses of devotion make prayers to the Saints; but when they had particular occasions to speake or thinke of them, vsed doubtfull compellations, desiring them, if they had sense of these things, to be remembrancers for them vnto God, seeing for ought we know, the Saints are not particularly acquainted with the state of things here below, seeing no degree of spirituall worship is to bee giuen to any creature: we invocate them not, but pray vnto God onely, assuring our selues, that if they can heare vs, or any way further our suites, they will doe it, when we pray vnto God, as Augustine rightly obserueth.

Aug. de verâ reli gione 55. We adore them not, but rest in the judgment of the same Augustine, that the Saints are to be honoured for imitation, but not to be adored for Religion: that they doe not seeke, desire, or accept any such honour, but will haue vs to worship God onely, being glad, that we are their fellow-servants in well-doing. The Romanists evasion, that God is onely to bee adored with that highest kinde of religious worship which is named Latria, which yeeldeth to him that is worshipped infinite greatnesse: but the Saints may be adored with an inferiour kinde of religious worship, named Doulia, is directly contrary to De verâ religionc c. 55 Augustine, who speaking of Saints & Angels, saith, Honoramus eos charitate, non servitute: Wee honour them with the honour of loue, but not of Doulia, or service. If they say, they haue this distinction frō Austine, it is true: but he doth not vse it to this purpose, (to make difference of two sorts of religious or spirituall worship, the highest degree whereof should be Latria, the lowest Doulia: neither doth he anywhere call the honour giuen to Saints Doulia, but nameth it the honour of loue and fellowship, but he vseh to distinguish religious worship (euery degree whereof he calleth Latria) from that externall and ciuill worship, dutie, and seruice, that men yeeld to their Princes, Masters, and Rulers, which is fitly named Doulia, a seruice: but it is De verâ religione c. 55. servitus corporis, non animae, a seruice of the body, and not of the minde. For men, notwithstanding this servitude, haue their mindes and their thoughts free, as being knowne to none, nor ouerruled by none but GOD onely. But the service of the spirit and minde, in the lowest degree that can be imagined, is due vnto GOD onely, and not to bee giuen to any creature: for no creature knoweth the secrets of our hearts; no creatute can prescribe lawes touching the inward actions & thoughts of the mind, not hauing knowledge of them, nor power to punish them that should offend.

It is therefore an impious conceipt of the Papists, that the Saints both can and doe know all our inward actions and secret thoughts, approuing, or reprouing, excusing or accusing them: and that as presidents of our whole life and conuersation; and that therefore they are to bee honoured and worshipped, with spirituall service, or seruice of the spirit and minde. Thus then it is true the Centurie writers report, that in the third and fourth age after Christ, there were some beginnings of that superstition, which afterwards grew to be intolerable in the adoration and inuocation of Saints and Angels; but neither they, nor wee are so ignorant, as to thinke, that the inuocation of Saints, or the adoration of them preuailed in the Church within the compasse of the first six hundred yeares; neither doe they (as Bellarmine is pleased to slaunder them) taxe that, as idolatry in the Romane Church, which they find to haue beene the practise of all the Fathers; for they finde nothing of the Romish Idolatry in these glorious lights of the Christian world.

CHAP. 21.

Of Martyrdome, and the excessiue prayses there •… f found in the Fathers.

THe next allegation, against them, is touching Martyrdome; which, Bellarmine saith, they suppose the Fathers did too immoderately and excessiuely magnifie and extoll. The reason of this their censure, hee thinketh, is, because they will not admitte it to bee a kinde of Baptisme, and to wash away sinne, as both the Romanists and the Fathers teach. For the better cleering of this point, and the answering of this obiection, we must remember, that whereas the ordinary and set meanes of saluation is Baptisme, so that no man carelessely neglecting, or wilfully contemning it, can be saued; The Fathers notwithstanding doe constantly teach, that if men be excluded by ineuitable impossibilitie, they may be saued without it; and that faith and the inward conuersion of the heart, flying vnto GOD in Christ, through the gracious instinct and sweete motion of the sanctifying spirit, may bee reckoned a kind of Baptisme: because thereby they obtaine all that which should haue beene sought in the Baptisme of water: And because if an ordinary degree of faith doe sometimes obtaine saluation without the Baptisme of water, much more that which maketh men willing to suffer death for CHRIST; therefore they affirme, that Martyrdome, and the constant suffering for Christ, is also fitly named Baptisme.

So that there are three kinds of Baptisme: Flaminis, Fluminis, Sanguinis; Of water, of the spirit, and bloud.

It appeareth by Epist. 77. Bernards Epistle to Hugo de sancto victore, of this Argument, that there were some in his time, who, though they thought that Martyrdome doth supply the defecte of Baptisme, yet would not grant, that faith, and the inward conuersion of the heart, without such suffering, doth so; and therefore though they confessed that Martyrs, not baptised with the Baptisme of water, may be saved, yet they denyed, that others, though repenting, beleeuing, and conuerting vnto God, can possiblie obtaine remission of their sinnes without the sacramentall washing. Against these, Barnarde reasoneth in this sorte. If Martyrdome doe supply the defect of Baptisme, it is not poena, but fides; not the suffering, but the faith of the sufferer that makes it bee of so great force. Nam absque fide, quid est Martyrium, nisi poena? For were it not for faith, what were the passions of Martyrs, but bitter and vncomfortable torments onely? Shall then that which maketh Martyrdome bee esteemed in steade of Baptisme, be so infirme and weake, that what it giues to another thing, it shall be denyed to haue it selfe? The sheading of our blood for Christ, is an vndoubted proofe and demonstration of a very great, constant, and vnmoueable faith; but it is not God, but men that take notice of faith by these proofes. For God doth often see and pronounce the faith of a man dying in peace, to be as great, as the faith of a Martyr: for that though it be not proued by Martyrdome, it is ready for Martyrdome, and animates him that hath it, to suffer any thing if neede should require.

This which Barnarde hath thus deliuered touching this point, is the constant doctrine of the Fathers; neither doe wee, or the Authours of the Centuries dislike any thing in it, but wee condemne the vaine and idle disputes of the Romish Schools, touching these three kinds b Bellar. li 1. de sacr: Bapt. cap. 6. N •… des •… t Theolog. vt Dom •… us à Soto, Martinus Ledes. in 4. d. 3. q. vnic. art. 11. qui docent martyrium non dare gratiam ex opere operato, nec dare vllum gradum gratiae, praeter eum qui respondet merito charitatis ipsius martyris. Probabilior sententia est, martyrium ex opere operato conferre primam gratiam, ita vt si quis ad martyrium accedat adhuc in peccatis existens, tamen sine affectu ad aliquod peccatum et cum fide et dilectione in •… hoata, & poenitentia t •… li qualis requiritur ad baptismum aquae, in virtute mar •… yrij justificab •… tur. of Baptisme, especially in that they teach concerning Martyrdome, that it giueth grace ex opere operato; so that if a man not iustified, nor yet in the state of grace come vnto it, and do not ponere obicem, hee shall by vertue thereof obtaine grace, & haue the effects of it wrought in him, in such sort as in the Baptisme of water. This not onely wee condemne, but many amongst themselues, affirming that Martyrdome hath no force to worke or procure our good, farther then the greatnesse of our faith and loue, which is therein tried, approued, and made manifest, doth worke it.

The Centurie writers reproue not the Fathers for any such errour, as the Papists doe maintaine, touching the force of Martyrdome, but they dislike that the Fathers did vse so many Hyperboles, and Rhetoricall amplifications, in the praysing of Martyrdome, (though in a good sense:) that the Romish Sophisters haue from thence taken occasion of their errour, touching the merite, satisfaction, and expiation of sinnes, which they fancie to bee in the blood of Martyrs, of which impietie the Fathers neuer thought. Thus then it doth not appeare by any thing which Bellarmine hath, or can alleadge, that wee confesse the faith of the Romanists to bee the auncient profession of the primitiue Christians, but rather the contrary is constantly defended by all our Diuines in the places produced by him.

CHAP. 22.

Wherein is examined their proofe of the Antiquitie of their doctrine taken from a false supposall, that our doctrine is nothing else but heresie long since condemned.

LEt Ibid. vs therefore come to his third part, wherein hee vndertaketh to proue that the doctrine of the reformed Churches, opposite to the faith and profession of Rome, is the same with the old heresies long since condemned by the vniuersall consent of the whole Christian world. In this part hee is so shamelesse, that I blush at the very thought of that hee so doctorally and grauely deliuereth, as if it were truer than trueth it selfe; whereas in his conscience he knoweth it to be an vntrueth, so grosse and apparant, that the diuell himselfe will bee ashamed of it. Hee reckoneth twenty seuerall heresies of damned Arch-heretickes, euery of which he pronounceth, that wee silly men defend and imbrace as the sacred trueth of God.

Let vs for our better satisfaction, and refutation of so vile a slaunder, take a view of the particulars. Hee placeth in the front the heresie of Simon Magus, and his disciples, Irenaeus, l. 1. contra haereses, cap. 20. which was, that the Angels made the world, that the Prophets were inspired from them, and deliuered their pleasure, not the will and pleasure of the high God, and that therefore the things commaunded by them, were not in themselues good, or to bee respected; that God was displeased with their gouernment, and would exempt his own from it, & haue them free to doe what they list, for that men are saued by his fauour, and not in doing those things, which though they were commaunded and imposed as good, by Moyses and the Prophets mis-ledde by the Angels, yet were not naturally so, but by accident onely. This, he saith, is the errour of the Protestants; for they thinke God made the world, and not the Angels, that Moyses and the Prophets spake as they were inspired of him, that the things they cōmaunded are just and holy, that there is no way of saluation, but by hauing that righteousnesse the Law of Moses prescribeth, which all they that are saued, haue; First, by imputation of that perfect righteousnesse and obedience to Moses Law which was found in Christ, to merit our good; & secondly, by the operation & infusion of sanctifying grace from him, making them to hate sinne, to loue righteousnesse, & walke in the wayes of Gods commaundements; so that sinne hath no more dominion ouer them. Surely, I thinke, if the diuell himselfe fate as Iudge in this case, hee could not but condemne the impudencie of this his shamelesse disciple.

Ibid. But he addeth; Eunomius taught, that if a man would embrace his profession, he should bee saued, though he continued without repentance & remorse in all maner of most damnable wickednesse; & that others, whom Augustine refuteth in his booke, De fide & operibus, were of opinion, that all Christians, how damnably soeuer they liue, holding the trueth of Christian profession, may, and shall be saued, This, he saith, is the doctrine of the Protestants. If any of vs euer wrote, spake, or thought any such thing, let GOD forget euer to doe good vnto vs, and let our prayers bee rejected from his presence: but if this bee as vile a slaunder, as euer Satanist devised, the Lord reward them that haue beene the Authours & devisers of it, according to their workes. But let vs see, doth he make no shew of proofe? doubtlesse he doeth.

De captivitate Babylonica cap. de Eucharistia. Luther, saith he, pronounceth, that there is no way to haue accesse vnto God, to treate with him touching reconciliation, & acceptation into his fauour, but by faith; that God regardeth not workes; that a true Christian is so rich in faith, that he cannot perish though he would, nor how wickedly soeuer he liue, vnlesse he refuse and cease to beleeue.

For the cleering of these places of Luther, wee must remember that which In Claue Scripturae, de varia ope •… um praedicatione. tract. 6. titulo. duplex iustitia et iustificatio. Illyricus hath fitly noted to this purpose: that there are two Courts of Gods Iudgements & most righteous proceeding towards the sons of men: the one, he calleth forum iustificationis, the other novae obedientiae: In the first hee saith, God requireth perfect righteousnesse, fully answering that his Law prescribeth; which being no where to bee found but in Christ, no way apprehended but by faith: in this respect, & sitting in this Court of exact tryall, he regardeth no workes, vertues, or qualities, finding nothing of worth, or worthy to be respected, but looketh to our faith onely, & for Christs sake onely, at the sole and onely suite of Faith, forgiueth sin, & imputeth righteousnesse. Notwithstanding because he neuer saith to any sinner, Thy sinnes are remitted, but that he addeth, goe and sinne no more, & that vpon perill of forfeiting the benefite receiued, and that some worse thing should betide vnto him: therefore there is another Court, wherein he sitteth & giueth commaundement for new obedience and workes of righteousnes, though not requiring so strictly that perfection which formerly hee did, but accepting our weake indevours, & study of well doing: and in this sort it is, that hee will judge vs in the last Day according to our workes.

Thus then wee see, how that, though Faith be neuer alone, yet in procuring vs acceptation with God, it is alone: and that though God regard none of our vertues, actions, & qualities, as being of any worth in the strictnes of his Iudgment, but reject them as vnpure, & vncleane, & respect nothing but the humble sute & petition of Faith, for the purpose of justification: yet when we are justified, he requireth of vs a new obedience, judgeth vs according to it, & crowneth vs for it. That which Luther addeth, that a man cannot perish though hee would, and how wickedly soeuer hee liue, vnlesse he cease to beleeue; may seeme hard at the first sight, but not to them that doe knowe, that Luther is farre from thinking that men may bee saued, how wickedly soeuer they liue; for he constantly teacheth, that Iustifying faith cannot remaine in that man, that sinneth with full consent, nor be found in that soule wherein are peccata vastantia conscientiam, (as Melancthon speaketh, following Augustine) that is raging, ruling, preuailing, laying wast and destroying the integrity of the conscience, which should resist against euill and condemne it.

This is all then that Luther saith, that no wickednesse with which faith may stand, can hurt vs, soe long as faith continueth: but if sinne once become regnant, and so exclude faith, wee are in the state of damnation. Against this doctrine of Luther, or any part thereof, neither Bellarmine, nor the gates of hell shall euer be able to prevaile. Wee see then how iustly wee are charged with the heresies of the Simonians, Eunomians, and the like monsters; surely as iustly, as Bellarmine may be charged with true and honest dealing, in this imputation and other that follow.

CHAP. 23.

Of the heresie of Florinus, making God the author of sinne, falsely imputed to Caluine and others.

THe Ibid. next heresie which they say wee are fallen into, is the heresie of Florinus; who taught that God is the cause and author of sinne. This he sayth, Caluin, Luther, Martyr, and sundry other of the greatest Diuines of the reformed churches haue defended in their writings. Of this sinfull, wicked, and lying report, wee are sure GOD is not the Author, but the diuell; and therefore wee doe not fully accord with Florinus. But that it may appeare, how truly these men write, and speake of things of soe great moment, I will onely positiuely lay downe what wee thinke of this matter, and the adversaries slaunders will bee sufficiently refuted. For the clearing of our opinion touching this poynt, I will first set downe the different kinds of sinne. Secondly what God may be sayd to will or decree touching the first entrance thereof. And thirdly what when it is entred.

Sinne as wee know is nothing else but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a transgression of the law. The law is partly affirmatiue requiring, partly negatiue forbidding the doing of a thing. Hence it followeth that all sinne is either of omission or commission, Sinne of omission is the not doing of that the Creature is bound to do. Sinne of Commission is the doing of that the creature is bound not to doe.

The not doing of that the creature is bound to doe, God may be sayd to will and decree foure wayes. First by effectuall opposing against the doing of it; & in this sort it is impious to thinke, that God decreed the omission or not doing, of that the creature stands bound to doe. Secondly by discouraging and disswading from the doing of it: which is no lesse absurd and impious then the former. Thirdly, by deniall of that grace, concurrence, and assistance, without which it cannot be done; this cannot bee imagined in respect of the state of mans first creation, but wee must make God the Author of sin: and therefore there is none of vs that doth attribute any such thing vnto God. But contrarywise Instit. l. 1. 15. 8. lib. 2. 3. 1 •… . citat. Aug. de correptione & gratia. Caluin whom Bellarmine seemeth most to challenge, noteth fitly to this purpose out of Augustine: that God gaue Adam posse si vellet, sed non velle quod potuit, power to stand and continue in his vprightnesse if he would, though hee did not inseparably hould him to it, but left him to his owne choice: whence followed that euill we now complaine of. Fourthly, by deniall of that grace, assistance, and concurrence, without which he seeth the creature will not be moued nor wonne to doe it; though it haue other more then sufficient graces, motiues, and encouragements, to induce it therevnto. In this fourth sense many feare not to say, that God negatiuely, or privatiuely, decreed the sinne of omission, or the not doing of that the creature was bound to doe, in that he decreed the deniall of that, without which he knew it would not be done. But some there be that feare thus to speake, chusing rather to say, that God onely permitted, then that in any sense he decreed the sinne of omission, in the first entrance of it. Yet these, if they rightly vnderstand that permission which they speake of, agree with the other in sense and meaning. For God may bee said to permit the not doing of a thing three wayes. First, when he requireth not the doing of it, neither will dislike the omission of it: and in this sense it is impious to say, that God permitteth the sinne of omission: For hee requireth the doing, and will punish the not doing of that, the omission whereof is sin. Secondly, God may be said to permit a mans not doing of a thing, in that hee leaveth him to himselfe, to doe, or not to doe the same, without any particular providence or care, in ordering, or disposing, the motions, and resolutions of his will: which to thinke is no lesse impious then the former. Thirdly, hee may bee sayd to permit the not doing of a thing, when hee doth not worke vpon a man in such sort, as onely hee knoweth hee will be wrought to the doing of the same. Deum permittere, saith Cumel. dis varia in primam & primam secundae pa. 162. Cumel, nihil aliud videtur esse, quam subtrahere illam maiorem gratiam, quam si tribueret, Petrus non peccaret, & hoc quoad primum peccatum: vt servet suavem modum providendi in omnibus; vel vt servet multipliciter dispositionem concurrendi cum libero arbitrio; vel vt ostendat se dare gratis illam gratiam cuicunque dat. When God is said to permit sinne, saith Cumel, no other thing seemeth to bee meant, but that hee de •… eth that more potent and prevailing grace, which if hee should giue, hee that now sinneth, would not sinne; and this hee doth in respect of the first sinne, that hee may hold a sweete course in guiding all things, so as to suffer them to worke according to the condition of their nature, that in diuerse and different sorts, hee may dispose of his concurrence with the liberty of mans will; and that hee may make it appeare, that to whomsoeuer hee giueth that more potent and prevailing grace, hee giueth it freely. In this sense, God may truely be said to permit the sinne of omission. And because hee knoweth infallibly such omission will bee, whensoeuer hee doth not so worke vpon a man, as hee knoweth hee must be wrought vpon, if ever hee bee brought to the doing of that good which is required of him, hee may bee sayd priuatiuely to decree it: seeing hee may rightly be said in a sort, to decree the not doing of a thing, when hee decreeth the deniall of that, without which he knoweth it will not be done. Praefinitio duplex est, sayth Li. 〈◊〉 . q. 1. con •… . 1. Rispolis, positiua, negatiua: positiua, quâ Deus apud se quasi deliberat, velle in tempore determinare physicè per aliquod auxilium voluntatem hominis alicuius: negatiua quâ deliberat non confe •… re alicuisuum auxilium efficax; & quia voluntas infallibiliter deficiet circa quamcunque materiam virtutis, nisi efficaciter moveatur à diuina voluntate ad bene operandum; in materia verbi gratiâ temperantiae, cognoscit evidenter voluntatem creatam peccaturam. Sic bona cognoscuntur praefinitione positiuâ; mala negatiuâ, quam potius permissionem appellabimus. Et post; Nos, quando dicimus Deum praefinijsse peccatum, hoc non intelligimus quantum ad decretum impositionis malitiae, sed quantum ad subtractionem gratiae. There is a two fold decree of God, the one positiue, the other negatiue; the positiue is that whereby God determineth with himselfe, in such time as he thinketh good, to encline the will of man to the doing of a thing, by his effectuall working and powerfull helpe: the negatiue is when he determineth not so to worke a man to the doing of a thing; and because man will not doe the same, vnlesse he be so effectually wrought vnto it, he seeth it will not be done, and that man will sinne in omitting it. So that God knoweth future good things, because hee hath positiuely decreed them; and future euill things, because he hath privatiuely decreed them; the which wee rather •… all permission. And againe; When wee say God hath decreed sinne, we speake not of any positiue decree of making a man euill; but of a privatiue decree of not working him to doe good. So that if there be any difference amongst Divines touching this point, it is onely in forme of words.

The sinne of commission, which is the doing of that the creature is bound not to doe, is meerely positiue. For as the affirmatiue part of Gods Law is broken, by the not putting that in being which it requireth, or not so as it requireth: so the negatiue is violated precisely, by putting that in being which it would not haue to bee, or by putting it in being in such sort as it would not haue it to bee; & yet euery sin is an euill, & the nature of euill is privatiue. For the clearing therefore hereof, the Ariminens. l. 2. d. 34. 35. 36. 37. q. 1. art. 1. Divines do note, that we speake of euill formally, and denominatiuely. Formally, euill is nothing but the not being of some good, in that thing wherein it should be. Denominatiuely a thing may be said to be euill, either by actiue denomination, because it depriueth some thing of that good it should haue, in which sort poison is saide to be euill; or by passiue denomination, as those things are said to be euill, that want, and are depriued of that good they should haue. The sin of omission is formally euill, because it is negatio boni debiti inesse, the not doing of that good act which should be done, & from it the sinner is denominated euill by passiue denomination, as wanting that good which he should haue. Sin of commission is an euill act. Euill acts are of 2 sorts; for either they are euill onely ex fine & circumstantiis, in that they are not done to a right end & rightly: or ex genere & obiecto: the former are denominated euill by passiue denomination, as wanting some circumstances that should make them good: the latter are such as no circumstances can make good, neither are they denominated euil frō the want of circumstances, which they should or might haue, but by actiue denomination, because by way of contrariety, they depriue the sinner of that orderly disposition, that should be found in him; & some other of that good which pertaineth to him. As it appeareth in the acts of injustice, spoyling men of that which is their owne; and in the acts of blasphemie against God, or the hate of God, in which the sinner as much as in him lieth, by attributing vnto God that which is contrary to his nature, or denying that which agreeth vnto the same, maketh him not to be that which he is, & hating him, wisheth he were not, & endeavoureth to hinder what he would haue done. From this kind of sin; the sinner is denominated euill, partly by denomination passiue, in that he wanteth that orderly disposition that should bee in himselfe: & partly by actiue, in that he depriueth as much as in him is, some other of that good which pertaines to him. Some not rightly obseruing these things, & finding that some sinnes are positiue acts, whereas the nature of euill is privatiue, distinguish that which is materiall in the sins of commission, & that which is formall; the substance of the act, & the difformity of it: making the one positiue, & the other privatiue, consisting in the want of that rectitude which should be in it. But these men seeme not rightly to conceiue the things whereof they speake. For the sin of omission is formally euill, & a want of rectitude, in that the good act that should be done, is omitted. But the sin of commission if it be an euill act, ex genere & obiecto, is denominatiuely euill, not by passiue denomination, as wanting that rectitude that should be in it: but by actiue, in that by way of contrariety, it depriueth the sinner of that orderly disposition that should be found in him: & others of that good that pertaineth to them. That that sin of commission, that is, an euill act ex genere & obiecto, is not denominated euill passiuely, frō the want of rectitude due vnto it, it is evident, in that no rectitude is due to such an act. For what rectitude is due to the specifical act of hating God? or what rectitude is it capable of? Greg. de Valentia, finding this to be true, & yet willing to defend the distinctiō, of that which is formall, & that which is material, of some thing positiue, & some thing privatiue in the sin of commission, saith; that euill acts, as particularly the act of injustice, may be considered 2 wayes. First in the proper & specificall nature of iniustice; & so it is no subiect capable of the perfection of vertue, neque huius perfectionis negatio est in illo priuatio, sed pura negatio; neither is the deniall of this perfection in respect of such an act so considered a priuation, but a meere & pure negation. 2l, Secundum communem quandam rationē illi & actui iustitiae; vt versantur circa materiam communem ipsi, & iusticiae, scilicet rem alienam; & sic subiectum aptum est ad perfectionem iustitiae, et hui •… perfectionis negatio est in illo priuatio. In a generalitatie, in respect of that which is common to it & the contrary act of iustice, as they are both conuersant in things pertaining to other men; and in this sort it is a subiect capable of rectitude, and the perfection of vertue: his meaning is, that a morall act, conuersant in things pertaining to other men, considered in a generality, is indifferent either to bee an act of iustice giuing to euery one his own: or of iniustice depriuing others of that which pertaineth to them: & that the omission of the act of iustice, is a priuation of such rectitude, as might be found in this kind. So that whēsoeuer any act of iniustice is don: first there is a want of rectitude, that is, an omissiō of the good act of iustice, which might & ought to haue bin donne, & 2ly the producing of an evill act, contrary to that good act that is omitted: & 2 kinds of sin do allwaies concurre, the one of omission, the other of commission, the one is a meere priuation of rectitude, & the difformity of it is priuatiue, in the other which is a sin of cōmissiō specifically cōsidered, there is no priuatiue wāt of rectitude, for it is capable of none: & in it there is nothing but meerly positiue: & the difformity that is foūd in it, is precisely a positiue repugnance to the Law of God. Lib. 6. de auxilijs diuinae gratiae. disp. 44. Aluarez saith, the sin of commission is a breach of a negatiue law which is not broken but by a positiue act contrary to the prescript of right reason: as Tho: Aquinas teacheth 2a 2ae. q. 79. ar. 2. 3. 4. And the same is further confirmed, because the same Thomas Quest. 2. de malo ar. 1. ad. 4. elswhere saith, that in the sin of omission there is nothing but priuation, if we consider it as it is in it selfe: but the sin of cōmission is some positiue thing. Because saith In primam secundae q: 79. ar. 1. & 2. Caietan sin consisteth aswell of a cō version to an obiect contrary to the obiect of vertue, as of an aversion from the Law; there is in sin a double nature of euill, the one arising from the obiect, the other frō the not obseruing of the law; the first is positiue, the 2d priuatiue; the first inferreth the 2l. For it cannot bee that a man should hate God, but that in so doing, he must breake the Law. For there are some acts simply & intrinsecally euill, so that to doe them is to sin: of which sort is the act of hating God. Besides one cōtrary depriueth the subiect wherein it is found, & maketh it vncapable of the other, so long as it is in it: as the hate of God maketh a man vncapable of the loue of God, & of the hate of such things as are contrary to God, & should be hated. So that there is a double nature of evill; the one positiue, the other priuatiue: & the one of these is the cause of the other. Tom. 2. d 2. q. 13. punc. 3. ar •… . 5. Greg. de Valentia saith, it is consequent vpon the opinion of Caietan: that sin formally as sin is a positiue thing: which thing he also expressly affirmeth in 1am 2ae q. 71. ar. 6. There are that hold (saith Disp. vatia ad primam & primam secundae. pa. 104. Cvmel) that the formal nature of sin (he meaneth the sin of commission) consisteth in some positiue thing, to witt in the manner of working freely, with positiue repugnance, to the rule of reason, & the Law of God. Difformitas in actu cōmissionis (saith Lib 3. Sent. q. 12. Ockam,) non est nisi ipsemet actus elicitus contra praeceptum diuinum, & nihil penitus aliud dicit: Q •… ando elicit quis actum quem non debet; si non teneatur ad oppositum actum, difformitas non est carē tia alicuius rectitudinis debitae inesse, nec illi actui, nec voluntati; sed si teneatur, tunc est duplex peceatū, cōmissionis & omissionis, et hoc est carentia alterius actus debiti inesse, et it a rectitudinis debitae inesse voluntati. that is, The difformity in an act of commission, is nothing but the very act which is done contrary to the Law of God neither doth it imply any thing else. So that when a man produceth an action which he should not do; if he be not bound to do the contrary, the difformity that accompanieth such an actiō, is not the want of any rectitude, that should be either in that action, or in the will; but if he be bound to do the contrary, then there are 2 sins found in him, the one of cōmissiō, the other of omissiō, & this latter is the want of another act that should bee donne, & consequently of a rectitude that should bee in the will but is not, when it faileth to bring forth that action, that in duty it is bound to doe. But some man will say, this must not be granted; for if wee admitte not the distinction of that which is formall, & that which is materiall in the sin of commission; the difformity, & the substance of the act; & that the one is positiue, and the other priuatiue; God hauing a true efficiency in respect of the substance of the act, & that which is positiue in it, we must acknowledg that he hath a true efficiency in respect of the whole, euen the difformity aswell as the substance, & consequently make him the author of sin. They who make this objection, seeme to say some thing, but indeed they say nothing: for this distinction will not cleere the doubt they moue, touching Gods efficiency & working in the sinful actions of men. Whensoeuer, sayth l. 2. d. 37. q. 〈◊〉 . Durandus, two things are inseperably ioyned together, whosoeuer knowing them both & that they are so inseperably ioyned together, chooseth the one, chooseth the other also: because though happily he would not choose it absolutly as being evill, yet in that it is ioyned to that which he doth will, neither can be seperated frō it, it is of necessity that he must will both. As it appeareth in those voluntary actions that are mixt: as when a man casteth into the sea those rich commodities, which he hath dearly bought, & brought from a farre, to saue his owne life, which he would not doe but in such a case. Hence it followeth that the act of hating God & sinfull difformity, being so inseperably ioyned together, that the one cannot bee diuided from the other, (for a man cannot hate God but he must sin damnably,) if God doth will the one he doth will the other also. This of Durand is confirmed by Metaphystom. 1. d. 2 •… . Sec. 4. p. 522, Suarez, who saith, he shall neuer satisfie any man that doubteth, how God may be cleared from being author of sin, if hee haue an efficiency in the sinfull actions of men: that shall answere, that all that is sayd touching Gods efficiency & concurrence, is true in respect of the euill motions & actions of mens wills materially considered, & not formally in that they are evill & sinfull. For the one of these is consequent vpon another. For a free and deliberate act of a created will, about such an obiect, & with such circumstances, cannot be produced but it must haue difformity annexed to it. There are some operations or actions, saith Disp. vari ad primam & primam secundae pag. 104. Cumel, that are intrinsecally euill, so that in them we cannot separate that which is materiall, from that which is formall, & wherein the sinfulnes of sin consisteth: as it appeareth in the hate of God, & in this act when a man shall say & resolue, I will do euill. So that it implyeth a contradiction, that God should effectually worke our will to bring forth such actions, in respect of that which is materiall in them, & not in respect of that which is formall. And this seemeth yet more impossible if wee admit their opinion who think, that the formall nature & being of the sin of commission, consisteth in some thing that is positiue, as in the manner of working freely, so as to repugne to the rule of reason & law of God. So that it is cleare in the iudgment of these great diuines, that if God haue a true reall efficiency, in respect of the substance of these sinful actiōs, he must in a sort produce the difformity, or that which is formall in thē.

Wherefore for the clearing of this point, we must obserue, that there are 3 opiniōs touching Gods cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their effects. The 1st, that God hath no immediate influence, but mediate only, in respect of volū tary agēts. And according to this opiniō it is casie to cleare God frō the imputatiō of being author of sin, & yet to acknowledg his cōcurrence with 2d causes in producing their defectiue effects. If the will of the creature, saith Lib. 2. dist. 37. q. 1. Scotus were the totall and immediate cause of her action, & that God had no immediate efficiency but mediate only in respect thereof as some think: it were easie according to that opinion, to shew how God may bee freed from the imputation of being author of sin, and yet to acknowledge his concurrence with second causes, for the producing of their effects. For whether we speake of that which is materiall or formall in sinne, the will onely should be the totall cause of it, and God should no way be a cause of it but mediatly, in that hee caused and produced such a will, that might at her pleasure doe what shee would. Durandus seemeth to incline to this opinion, supposing that 2d causes do bring forth their actions & operations, by & of themselues, & that God no otherwise concurreth actiuely to the production of the same, but in that he preserueth the 2d causes, in that being & power of working, which at first he gaue them. But they that are of sounder judgment resolue, that as the light enlightneth the aire, & with the aire all other inferior things: so god not only giueth being & power of working to the 2d causes, & preserueth them in the same, but together with them hath an immediate influence, into the things that are to be effected by the God, saith Caietan, being the first cause, worketh & produceth the effects of all 2d causes immediatly, tum immediatione virtutis, tum immediatione suppositi, that is, not onely so, as that the vertue & power of God the first agent, immediatly sheweth it self in the production of the effect, but so also that he is an immediate agent, between whom & the effect produced, no secondary agent intercedeth. Yet are we not to conceiue that he is an immediate agent, immediatione suppositi, as he is immediatione virtutis, for hee produceth immediatly euery effect of euery 2 cause, in respect of all that is found in any such effect, immediatly immediatione virtutis, that is, so as that his vertue and power, more immediatly & effectually sheweth it self in the production of euery such effect, then the power and vertue of the 2d cause; but hee produceth euery effect of euery 2d cause, immediatly immediatione suppositi, that is, as an immediate agent betweene whom and the effect, no secondary agent intercedeth, not in respect of all that is found in such an effect, but of some things only, as existence, and the last perfection of actuall being. For to giue being, is proper to God, as to make fire is proper to fire. So that between God the supreme agent, and being, communicated to the effects of 2d causes, there is nothing that commeth betweene, that by force and power of it owne, can produce any such effect. So that God as an immediate agent bringeth forth such effects, and all 2 causes in respect thereof are but instruments only. But in respect of those things found in the same effects, into which the 2d causes haue an influence by vertue of their owne proper for me, Caietan confesseth that God doth not so produce them as an immediat agent, but that the 2d causes doe mediate between him and them, & as secondary principal agents bring forth their effects. Yet are not these, that is, the first & the 2d causes partiall, but totall causes of all those effects which they produce. For the cleering whereof we must obserue, that a cause may bee said to be totall, either totalitate effectus, that is, because it bringeth forth the whole effect, though some other cause haue such efficiencie also in respect of the same, that without the helpe of it, it cannot bring forth any such effect; as when 2 men draw a ship, either of them produceth the whole effect, and moueth the whole ship, but yet not so wholly, but that either hath need of the others helpe and concurrence. Or secondly a cause may bee said to bee totall, totalitate causoe, and that in 2 sorts: either so, as to produce the whole effect without any concurrence of any other cause: in which sense neither God, nor the creature, neither the first, nor the 2d cause, must be said to be a totall cause; or so, as that though some other do concurre, yet the being, power of working, and actuall cooperation of it, is wholy from the agent with which it doth concurre, and so God is a totall cause of all those effects, that he produceth by, and together with the 2d causes. So that the opinion of them who thinke, that God hath no immediat influence into the effects of 2d causes, nor immediate concurrence with such causes in producing their effects, is to be exploded out of all Christian schools & Churches as profane & heathnish. Wherfore there are, who finding that this first opiniō is not to be admitted, flie to a 2d, little better then the former. For they acknowledge that God hath an immediate influence into the effects of all 2d causes, but they think it to be general, indefinit, & to be •… ted & determined, by the different concurse of 2d causes. It is true indeed; that God worketh all things as an vniversall cause: but this may bee vnderstood; wayes. For first a cause may be sayd to be vniuersall, in the vniuersality of predication, as opposit to speciall or particular; as an artificer in respect of this & that speciall kinde of artificers, is generall, and is an vniuersall cause of all workes of arte, and they of such speciall workes, as are incident to their seuerall kinds. Secondly, a cause may bee sayd to bee vniversall, in that it extendeth it selfe to effects of all sorts, in respect of something common to them all, and not in respect of that which is proper to each of them; vnlesse the working of it bee limited and directed by something else. The fire warmeth the water with which poison is mingled, in the same sorte that it doth any other water, and without any difference of it own action. And the actions of the sun & fire are such, as that men make vse of thē to vvhat purposes they please, & accordingly as their vvorking is differently applied, bring forth differēt effects. Thirdly, a cause may be sayd to be vniversall, because the efficiencie and vvorking of it, extendeth it selfe to many things, according to the seuerall differences of them, without being limited and determined by any other thing. These men suppose that God is an vniversall cause in the second sense, and that his concurrence & influence, is indefinit & generall, and such as may be taken and applied by second causes, in what sort they will. So that the actions of free vvill, & the actions of euery other second cause, haue from the freedome of the wil, & the particular quality of the second causes, that they are of this or that sort, good or bad: & not from the concurse or influence of the first cause, which is finde •… init, as is the concurse & influence of the sun vvith other inferiour causes, and as one man may make offer of his helpe & concurrence, to whatsoeuer another vvill make vse of it. So they suppose that God offereth his concurse to second causes, to be vsed by them, to what purpose & in what sort they will. According to this conceipt, they suppose they can easily cleere the doubt, and free God from all imputation of being authour of sin, though he concurre immediatly with second causes, in, & to the producing of those actions that are sinfull. For, say they, his concurse & influence is indefinit, and is by them applied in ill sorte, to ill purposes. But first, this conceipt cleereth not God, from being authour of sin. And secondly, it cannot stand with the grounds of Philosophie or diuinity. That it cleereth not God from being authour of sin, but rather layeth this imputation on him, it is euident. For if the concurse of God be generall, indefinit, & indifferent, and to be determined by the creature, to the producing of good or euill, it followeth; that when the will of the creature determineth it selfe to the specificall act of sin, God also determinately concurreth with it in particular, to the producing of such an acte in kinde. That this consequence is good it is evident, because whosoeuer shall offer his help, concurrence, & cooperation, to another indifferently, for the producing of good, or euill, the actes of sin, or vertue, as it shall please him, he concurreth in trueth & indeede, to the producing of the acte of sin in particular, as it is such an act, if by the will of the other, his concurrence & cooperation bee determined to such an acte in particular. Wherefore if God for his part, offer onely a generall concurse, & such as is indifferent to the producing of actes of vertue or sinne, accordingly as the will of the second cause shall determine it: it will follow that God concurreth determinately or in particular, to the producing of the acte of sin; as being determined to the producing of such an act in particular, by the will of the creature, before he come to actuall cooperation or concurrence. Secondly, this conceipt cannot stand with the grounds of true Philosophie or diuinitie. For if Gods concurse were onely generall and indefinit, to bee determined by the will of the creature, the will of the creature should bee before the will of God, in respect of the particularity of things: yea in respect of some reall acte, as an acte, it should be simply the first agent. For according to this fancie, because the creature inclineth to such an acte, & to put a thing in being, therefore God cooperateth. Whence it will follow, that there are 2 beings of things, & that God is not simply the first cause of all those things that haue being. 2ly It pertaineth to diuine prouidence, determinately to will, & aforehand to appoint, what afterwards shall be: to moue second causes to certaine and determinate effects, & so to dispose all things, that they may attaine the ends for which they were created. But this could not be, if his concurse were indefinite, & generall only. 3ly If it were as these men imagine, the determination of the will of the creature, should not bee within the compasse of things ordered by diuine prouidence, and so God should not haue particular prouidence of euery particular thing. That this is consequent vpon the fancie of indefinite concurse, it is euident. For if Gods concurse bee indefinite and in generall only, then doth hee not truly and efficiently worke, that the will of the creature shall in particular encline to, and bring forth such an indiuiduall actiō. And if he be not the cause that it so enclineth & worketh; his prouidence extēdeth not to such working, seing his prouidence extēdeth to those things only, wherein he hath a working. So that if these things were soe as these men imagine, Gods prouidence should extend it selfe to contingent things, in a generality only, in that he hath giuen to intellectual creatures a freedome, to what, whē, & how it pleaseth thē, & in particular in respect ofthings, of this nature, hee should haue a presidence onely and no prouidence. Neither doth that which is alleaged by these men, touching the indifferēt cōcurse of the Sunne, or that of a man offering his concurrence in a generality only, proue that Gods concurse is such. For the Sunne is a finite and limited thing, hauing something in act, & somthing in possibility, & so is man likewise; & therefore they may be determined, to produce such & such indiuiduall acts, by the concurse of some other cause. But God is a cause of infinite perfection, and a pure act, hauing nothing admixt of possibility: so that his action and will, cannot bee determined & limited by any other. Wherefore the resolution of the best diuines is; that Gods concurse & influence, is not into the effects of 2d causes only, but into the 2d causes thēselues. So that he doth not only by an immediate concurse & influence, concurre with the 2d causes, for the bringing forth of such effects as they determine themselues vnto, but he hath an influence into the 2d causes thēselues, mouing & working thē to bring forth effects; & such effects, as he thinketh good to worke thē vnto. This is proued by sundry reasons. First (as we see) 2d causes do not only produce some certaine effects & operations, as within some certaine kind, but they giue vnto thē their last actuall perfection, & to bee. But this they cānot giue, vnlesse they be made cōpleate in vertue actiue, by the first agent: because an agent must be no lesse actuall, then the effect or operation it bringeth forth. But euery created agent is mixed & compounded, of actuall being & possibility, & is not so actuall, as an execution, that is a 2d act; therefore before it can bring forth any execution or effect, it must be made cō pleate in vertue operatiue, by the actuall motion of the first agent. 2ly, To bee is a most vniuersall act, & the proper effect of God onely; therefore if wee will speak formally, & properly, 2d causes, in that they giue being to their own effects, are but instruments of God: whence it will follow, that they must be moved by him in nature, before they giue being to any of their effects. For an instrument doth nothing, towards the producing of the effect of the principall agent, vnlesse it be actually moued by the principall agent. 3ly Euery such thing as is somtimes an agent in act, sometimes but potentially only, must be moued by some mouer that is a pure act, & hath nothing mingled with it of possibility, before it eā bring forth any actiō. But the will of the creature is somtimes actually in actiō, somtimes but potētially only: therefore it must be moued by the first act, before it can bring forth any action. Which must bee granted; for that otherwise the will of the creature, in respect of some actions, should bee the first mouer of it selfe, and the first determiner. That which is wrought by God, in and vpon the second causes, to make them actually to bee in action, is a thing that hath a kinde of incompleate beeing, in such sort as colours haue a being in the aire, and the power of the act in the instrument of the artificer; and so often as 2 causes, whether of naturall or supernaturall order, haue in respect of the forme inherent in them, a sufficient actiue power in the nature of the first act, to bring forth their effects; the helpe or precedent motion of God, whereby he moueth and applyeth the same actiue powers to operate, is not a qualitie, but is more properly named a powerfull motion, whereby the first, and most vniversall agent so worketh vpon them, that the 2d causes are actually in action, euery one in sort fitting to the nature & condition of it. And to this purpose it is that Tho: Aquinas hath, that habituall grace is a quality, but the actuall help whereby God moueth vs to will a thing, is not a quality, but a certain motion of the mind. And surely it will easily appeare, that there is a great difference between these. For the habite doth perfit the power of the soule, as a forme or first act, implying possibility in respect of actuall operation; because the habite doth not determine the power actually to worke, but fitteth it only for action, & inclineth it thereunto. But this actuall helpe & mouing, putting forth the 2d causes into their actions, doth not perfit the power of working, but makes thē actually to be in action. Lastly, the habit in respect of the nature of it, may be the cause of diuerse actions, but that actuall help & mouing whereof we speak, determineth the will to one individuall action, & yet taketh not from it a power of dissenting, and doing otherwise. Disp. 24. part. 238. Alvarez a great & learned Archbishop, that hath lately written with good allowance of the Church of Rome, layeth downe these propositions. First, that God by an effectuall will, predetermined all such acts of men and Angels, as are good; and all such as are not euill ex obiecto, though in individuo they be euill, & sins ex malâ circumstantiâ, Which he proueth out of the 10th of Esay, where Almighty God saith, Assur is the rod of my wroth, he is my staffe, I will send him to a deceiptfull nation, & against the people of my fury will I giue him a command. & a litle after. Shall the axe boast against him that cutteth with it? or shall the saw bee lifted vp against him that draweth it? as if a rod should be lifted vp against him that lifteth it, & the staff which is but wood. Here it is evident that Assur sinned ex malâ circumstantiâ, in subduing the nations; and yet it is cleere that God predetermined, that he should waste and destroy the nations, & that he sent him to that purpose, and moued him so to doe. His 2d proposition is this, that whatsoeuer is positiue, & of being, in an act of sin, though intrinsecally, & ex obiecto euill, it hath God for the first mouing cause, & he doth primarily & originally predetermine the will of the creature by an actuall motion, to such an act, in that it is an act, & in that it hath being, and yet not to the difformity of it. But Cumel disputeth strongly against this proposition in this sort. There are certain acts, saith he, intrinsecally euill, so that in them that which is materiall, cannot bee separated à formali malitiâ peccati, that is, from the difformity or sinfulnesse of such an act. So that it implyeth a contradiction, that God should determine our wills freely to bring forth such an action, in respect of that which is materiall in it, and not to determine it to bring forth the same action, in respect of that which is formall. And this reason hath greater force against them, that hold that the formality of sinne, consisteth in some thing that is positiue, as in the manner of working freely, with positiue repugnance to the Law of reason, and of God. For if God predetermine, and effectually moue, to the producing of euill actions, in respect of that which is materiall in them, and the substance of the act; hee must necessarily also predetermine the same actions, in respect of all their positiue conditions and circumstances: as the freedome of working, and the positiue repugnance to the Law of God. And if he determine the will to worke repugnantly to the Law, he must needs moue and determine it to sinne; seeing to sinne is nothing else, but to repugne vnto the law. So that it must not bee sayd, that God is the originall cause, that man hath any such action of will, as is euill ex obiecto. For if hee should originally and out of himselfe will any such acte, he must bee the authour of sinne: seeing such an acte is intrinsecally euill, so that it cannot be separated from difformity: but whosoeuer willeth the substance of such an acte, must also will the difformity annexed therevnto, in the same sorte as hee willeth the substance of it, as is already proved.

Wherefore that wee may rightly conceiue, how God may bee said to will actions of this kinde: I will lay downe these propositions. First, that of the sinne of omission no higher cause needeth to be sought, then the deficient will of the creature; and that God no otherwise decreed the enterance of it, but in that he decreed the deniall of that grace, without which hee knew such omission would bee. The second, that the sinne of omission is in order before the sinne of commission. The sinne of omission was first in the Angells, sayth Wickliffe, as it is also in every man that sinneth. Omission, saith Alexander of Hales, in the order of sinnes, so farre forth as wee may conceiue, that there is any order amongst them, is before commission. The third, that the sinner falling into the sinne of omission, putteth himselfe, not onely into an estate of aversion from God, but of opposition also, and being adverse vnto God: and so into a necessitie of committing sinne, so long as hee continueth in that state. For hee that is opposite to God, if he haue any action at all, must of necessity haue such as are repugnant to the will and law of God. The fourth, that God the vniversall mouer, who moueth and worketh all things, to bring forth such actions, as are fitting to their condition, ceaseth not, to worke and moue vpon men, & Angels, after they are become averse: but hee still moueth, and impelleth them to doe things, fitting to that condition wherein hee findeth them, as he doth all other things, and as hee worketh in and together with all second causes, such effects as are fitting to their condition. So hee bringeth forth in and with these thus auerse, actions fitting to such an estate of aversion, and adverse opposition, that is, such as are beside and contrary to the rule of righteousnes. So that to conclude this point, God neither worketh the creature to be evill, for it becommeth euill of it selfe, by falling into the sinne of omission; nor simplie and absolutely moueth and determineth it to doe euill: but hee moueth it to doe things fitting to the condition wherein it is, even after by it owne fault it is become evill, and produceth in and together with it, such actions as are fitting to that estate: that is, such as are euill. And his will being that nothing shall be without action, nor without action fitting to the condition thereof, hee hath setled it by an effectuall and positiue decree, that hee that will be averse and evill, shall not but doe euill, so long as he is and will bee, in such an estate and condition. If wee speake, saith Gregorius Ariminensis de prima mala voluntate, non habuit causam efficientem, quia nulla res fuit quae aliquid faciendo faceret illam malam, sed ipsa desistendo à bona volitione facta est mala: sed malae volitionis aliqua est causa. That is, If wee seeke out how the will of the creature at first became ill, there is no efficient cause thereof to bee found, for there was nothing that did any thing to make it euill, but of it selfe by desisting to will that it should, it became euill: but of the acte of willing what it should not, there is a positiue cause. It is excellent to this purpose that Luther hath, in his booke de servo arbitrio against Erasmus. Reason yeeldeth, sayth hee, that God worketh all in all, and that nothing can be done without him; for hee is omnipotent, and this pertayneth to his omnipotencie, as Paul saith to the Ephesians. Now Satan and man fallen from God, and forsaken of him, cannot will that which is good, that is, such things as please God, or such as hee would haue to be done; but being turned away to desire such other things as shall please themselues, they cannot but seeke those things that are their owne. This nature of men and Angels thus turned from God, is not nothing, neither is Satan and a wicked man nothing; neither can wee say they haue no nature, nor will; though they haue a corrupt and auerse nature. Therefore that which remaineth of nature in a wicked man, and in Satan, as a creature and the worke of God, is no lesse subject to omnipotencie, and the action of God, then all other creatures and workes of God are. Whereas therefore God moueth, and worketh all in all, hee moueth and worketh also in Satan, and the wicked man, and hee worketh in them in such sorte, as is fitting to that they are, and as hee findeth them, that is, so, that being evill and averse, & yet carried on with the motion of diuine omnipotencie, they cannot but doe such things as are averse, & euill. As if a horseman shal driue a horse that goeth but on two, or three feete; hee maketh him goe so as hee must needs goe, if hee goe at all, so long as hee is thus lame, that is, haltingly. But what should the horseman doe? hee driueth on the lame horse, with the other that are sound: they goe well, this ill. It cannot bee otherwise, vnlesse the horse bee freed from his lamenesse. Heere wee see by this comparison, how that when God worketh, in and by them that are euill, such things are done as are euill, but that God cannot doe euill, though hee produce in and by them that are euill, such things as are euill, because hee being good cannot doe euill. Yet doth hee vse ill instruments, which cannot but bee moued with the motion of his power, nor cannot but doe euill if they bee moued. So that the fault is in the instruments which God moueth, and will not suffer to be idle, that euill things are done, when he moueth them; no otherwise than if a Carpenter vsing an ill axe, should cut, or rather teare the timber ill favouredly. And hence it commeth, that the wicked cannot but alwayes doe amisse, and sinne. Because being carried on by the motion of diuine power, they are not suffered to doe nothing, but are forced to will, desire, and doe that which it fitting to the state wherein they are: till they be altered by Gods holy grace, and spirit. And herevnto agree all the best learned in the Roman Schooles. If the name of sinne, saith Gregorius Ariminensis, be taken improperly for an euill act, as for such an acte as whosoeuer doth sinneth, for example, for the acte of v Li. 2. d. 34 3 •… . 36. 37. q. 1. art, 3. willing something, that should not be willed, or for some other inward or outward acte which the sinner doth; there is some doubt whether God be an immediate efficient cause of such a sinfull acte, or not: and there are solemne opinions one contrary to another touching that point. But without peremptory defence of the one or the other, which might argue rashnesse, for the present I hold the affirmatiue as more probable, and as it seemeth to me, more consonant to the sayings of the Saints. And hee addeth, whereas some speake of the difformity of such a sinfull acte, denying God to bee any efficient cause thereof; Si per difformitatem intelligatur aliqua entitas, quaecunque & vbicunque sit, illam coagit Deus, nec scio oppositum dici à Sanctis. Doctores aliqui moderni dicunt, quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo, difformitas tamen ipsa non est à Deo. Quod dictum potest habere bonum intellectum, non quidem concipiendo quòd difformitas sit aliqua entitas ab actu distincta, quae non causetur à Deo: sed intelligendo quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo, non tamen est difformis, in quantum est à Deo. Nam non est difformis nisi in quantum contra rectam rationem fit ab homine, non autem à Deo qui nihil agit contra id quod ab eo agendum esse recta ratio indicat. Deus non est eiusdem rei secundum idem actor & vltor; sed est eius actor, in quantum entitas quaedam, eius verò vltor in quantum est malum. Est autem malum in quantum malè fit, & ideo punit eum à quo male fit pro eâ. If by the difformity they vnderstand any being, or any thing that is positiue, whatsoever and wheresoever it is, God is a cause thereof, neither doe I know, sayth hee, that the contrary is deliuered by the Saints. Indeede there are certaine moderne Doctours that say, that though the acte wherein difformity is, bee from God, yet the difformity is not; which their saying may haue a good sense, not conceiving that the difformity is any positiue thing distinct from the acte, whereof God should not be an actor: but so vnderstanding it, that though the act which is done otherwise then it should be done, be of God, yet it is not done otherwise then it should bee done, as it is done by God: for God doth nothing in producing such an acte that hee should not doe but the creature onely. So that, as the Divines doe tell vs, God is not an actor and a punisher of the same thing in respect of the same: but hee is an actor of the thing in that it is a thing done, but a punisher in that it is ill done. And therefore he punisheth him that hath done ill in doing ill, himselfe, hauing done the same thing well. Quid mirum, saith De casu Diaboli c. 20. Anselm, si dicamus Deum facere singulas actiones, qu •… fiunt mala voluntate, cùm fateamur eum facere singulas substantias, quae fiunt iniustâ voluntate, & inhonestâ actione: that is, What strange thing is it, if wee say, that God produceth all those actions which sinfull men doe wickedly, seeing we confesse he produceth all those substances, which are brought forth by a sinfull desire of the will, and an vnhonest action? God produceth & formeth the same child in the womb, which a man begetteth in adulterie, & yet man only sinneth, & not God. Hug. eruditi Theolog. de Sacram. lib. 1. part. 4. c. 12. 13. Si verò dicitur, saith Hugo de S. Victore, Deus vult malum, grave est auditu, & non facilè recipit hoc pia mens; de bono quod malumvult, Videtur enim hoc solum dici cum dicitur Deus vult malum, quia bonus malum diligit, & approbat quod pravum est, & amicam sibi reputat iniquitatem, & gaudet quasi de consimili, & bonum put at quod malum est: & ideo refutat hoc menspia, non quia quod dicitur non benè dicitur, sed quia quod bené dicitur, non benè intelligitur. Non enim hoc solùm dicitur, sed ex eo quod dicitur, aliquid intelligitur quod non dicitur. Quoniam malum esse vult, & malum non vult: that is, If it be said, that God willeth the thing that is euill, men hardly endure to heare it, and a pious and good minde doth not easily admit, that he that is good, willeth the thing that is euill: for wee conceiue nothing else when we say, God willeth that which is euill, but that hee that is good, loueth that which is euill, and approueth that which is wicked. And therefore a good minde reiecteth such a speech, not because it is not right and good, but because that which is rightly said, is not rightly vnderstood, For this speech is not so to be taken, as if God loued, or approued that which is euill, but something is to bee vnderstood which is not expressed. And the meaning of this speech is, that God willeth the being of euill, or that euill shalbe, and yet willeth not euill, that is, approueth it not. Now when it is said, that God willeth the being of euill, or that euill shalbe, the meaning of this saying of Hugo is; concerning the sinne of omission, that he willeth it no otherwise, but onely in that he denieth that grace, which onely he knoweth, would worke the doing of the contrary good; and concerning the sinne of commission, that he produceth in and together with them, that by falling into the sinne of omission are become euill, such actions as are euill. There are, saith Li. 1. q. 13. art. 1. Cameracensis, who hold, that God hath an efficiencie, and is a cause producing the action that is sinfull, and that he may and doth cause & will that which is sin; as Ockam, Bradwardine, and sundry other renowned Doctors. Lib. 1. q. 14. And elsewhere he saith, that according to the opiniō of the master of the sentences, God only permitteth those euils which are sinne, & that he neither willeth their being, or not being. For if he did will their being, hee should be the cause of them; which he thinketh must not bee graunted; and if hee did will their not being, they should not be. But Bradwardine, and others hold, that God willeth those euils that are sinnes, & that in respect of euery thing, he hath an act of will, either that it shalbe, or not be, and not a meere negation of such act. If wee speake saith In sen. l 3. q. 12 Ockam of the sinne of commission, wee must not thinke that the will of the creature hath an efficiencie, and is so the cause of that act, but that God also who as immediately produceth euery act of the creature, as the creature doth it selfe, hath his efficiencie, and is a cause also euen of the difformity that is found in such an act, aswell as of the substance of the act. Seeing as we haue already shewed, the difformity in an act of commission, is nothing else but the very act it selfe that is done contrary to the precept. Yet doth not God originally moue the creature to doe any such euill act; but contrarywise so made it, and would haue so continued it, if the fault had not beene in it selfe, that it should neuer haue done any euill act. But finding it by it owne fault averse and turned from him, notwithstanding all the gracious meanes he vsed to retain it, hee goeth on mouing & carrying it forward with restles motions, and produceth in and with it thus averse, actions fitting to such an estate, and such as it must needes bring forth, if it bring forth any at all; that is, such as are euill. Thus he doth without all fault of his, who must not cease to doe his worke of mouing and carrying forward all things with restlesse motions, though by their owne fault being put out of due course, they doe not attaine their wished good, but runne themselues into endlesse euills. Thus then God did onely by substraction and denyall of that grace, without which hee saw the creature would not be wonne to continue in that state of good wherein it was to be created, decree & purpose, the entrance of the sinne of omission and auersion; but presupposing this purpose, and foreseeing that which would follow vpon it, by his consequent & conditiouall will, he positiuely decreed the other which is of commission. For seeing man must needes seeke an infinite good, & loue it infinitly, & if he seek it not in God, must seeke it elsewhere; God did decree that man not continuing to adhere to him, should seeke his chiefe good in him selfe, & so consequently fall into selfeloue, pride, & all other euils of that kind. This is the opinion of many worthy diuines in the Romane Church, and this is that Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza, & the rest meant, if any where they affirmed that God doth effectually moue, impell, and incline sinfull creatures, to do such things as are euill: namely that God hath setled such a course in things, that they that wil not do what they should, shall do that they should not; & that hee will not suffer them that fall from him to doe nothing, but will effectually moue them to will, desire, & do that, which is fitting to the estate into which they put themselues, so long as they continue in the same, & will not be reclaimed & wonne to returne to him againe. And this is agreable to that of S. Augustine that God enclineth or moueth no man to euill, but that hee enclineth such as are euill, to this or that euill. With whom Cap. 〈◊〉 . Anselm writing vpon the epistle to the Romans agreeth, where he saith, that God may be said to deliuer men vp to their owne harts desires, when being prone to euill; he stayeth them not: & addeth, that it is also manifest, that God doth work in the harts of men, to incline their wills whither soeuer he pleaseth, either to choose things that are good out of his mercy, or to choose things that are euill according to their deserts, the reasons of his iudgement being sometimes manifest, sometimes hid, but alwaies iust. For because men haue run into some sins, they afterwards fall into many: & God, that long expecteth the sinner, looking that hee should returne, when he findeth that he returneth not, but cōtemneth both his iustice & mercy, he casteth some thing in his way, at which hee may stumble & fall yet worse then before. Inter primum peccatū apostasiae, & vltimam poenā ignis, media quae sunt, & peccata sunt, & poenae peccati. Whatsoeuer sins do come between the first sin of apostasie, & the last punishment which is that of eternall fire, they are both sins & punnishmēnts, & therefore God may iustly deliuer vp such as fall from him by the first sin of apostasie, & depart from him, vnto their owne harts desires, for the committing of such things as are not seemly.

Thus then we may resolue touching the entrance of sinne. First, God purposed eternally to make man a rationall and intellectuall creature, indued with knowledge of all things, and faculty and power to make choise of what hee would. Secondly, Man could not be thus made, and bee naturally free from possibility and danger of making an euill choise, disposing amisse of himselfe, & offending against the lawes of his righteous Creator. Thirdly, God wanted not gracious meanes whereby to hold him inseperably to himselfe, and to preserue him infallibly from falling away, though hee were not, nor could not be, naturally free from possibility of falling. Fourthly, God foresaw, that, if man were so created and left to himselfe as afterwards hee was, hee would sinfully depart from him. Fifthly, hee saw that it was best to create and leaue him so, and that if sinne should enter, hee could take an occasion thereby of the manifestation of greater good, then the world otherwise could ever know. Sixtly, seeing the determination of mans will, that if he should be thus created and left, hee would auert from him and sinne would enter, hee determined soe to create him and leaue him, and to giue way that sinne might enter. Thus then wee doe not say that God did absolutely, without all prescience of the determination of mans will, determine and decree that sinne should enter; but that, foreseing what would be the determinatiō of his will, if he were so created and left to himselfe, as in his diuine wisedome he saw it to be fittest, he determined so to create and leaue him, and purposed by subtraction of grace to giue way vnto the sinne of auersion, or omission, and permissiuely to suffer it for to enter; and by a positiue decree resolued, that auerting himself from the fountaine of all goodnesse, and the rule of all righteousnesse, hee should runne into innumerable dangerous euils, and grieuous sinnes of commission.

But Bellarmine will say, Calvine denieth that Gods determination, decreeing what shall bee, dependeth on this prescience, and that his prescience presupposeth his purpose and decree. Scotus, li. 1. dist. 41. quest. vnica sola permissio alicuius actus, & certitudo de permissione non facit ce •… titudinem de illo actu, quia oportet habere aliquam causam effectiuam: igitur ex hoc quod Deus prae •… t se velle permitter Luum •… peccare, ex hoc, in •… quam, solo non uidetur quòd sc •… t Luciferum peccaturum. Soluitur haec objectio, quia Deus non solum scit se permissurum, sed etiam scit se non coop •… aturum c •… ad actum necessarium, et per consequens omittet: & scit se cooperatu •… ad substantiem actus prohibiti sine debitis circumstantijs, & per consequens committet. This expl •… catio. of Scotus •… leateth the meam •… g •… f •… luine & Beza, when they say. God cannot foreknow fu •… t •… thinas, vnlesse he co •… cur otherwise than by bare pe •… issie. See the places objected by Bell •… mine l. 2. c. 4. de a •… one gratiae & statu p •… cati. For answere hereunto wee must remember, that there is a double prescience; simplicis intelligentiae, and visionis. The first is of all those things that are possible, and which vpon any supposed condition may bee; as was that prescience of God, whereby hee foreknew, that if in Tyrus and Sidon those things should be done, which afterwards were done among the Iewes, they would repent. This doeth not presuppose the decree of God, but extendeth to many things God doth not decree, nor purpose to bee, as it appeareth in the example proposed, The other is of those things onely which hereafter shall bee; and this presupposeth some acte of Gods will. For seeing nothing can bee vnlesse some act of Gods will doe passe vpon it, at least not to hinder the beeing of it, nothing can bee thus foreseene, as beeing hereafter for to bee, vnlesse some decree of God doe passe vpon it. Of this kinde of prescience, Caluin speaketh, and not of the other. For that first kinde of prescience what the creature would doe, if it were so created, and left to it selfe, as afterwards it was, was before any decree of God, or determination what hee would doe. But that other, to wit, what hereafter shall be, not so; and therefore Caluin rightly affirmeth, that Gods foresight of the entrance of sinne, presupposed his decree that it should enter.

Thus I see not what can be disliked by our aduersaries in our doctrine thus deliuered, nor what difference can be imagined betweene them and vs, touching the entrance of sinne. But, Lib. 2 cap. 17. de •… one g •… ae & statu p •… ati. sayth Bellarmine, Caluine affirmeth, that the end, for which God purposed to make man, was the manifestation of the seuerity of his justice, and the riches of his mercie; and that the consideration of this end, was the first thing that was found in God, when hee thought of creating man: so that this purpose was before and without respect vnto the prescience of any thing that afterwards might or would be in man; And that because there was not any thing wherein hee could shew either mercie or Iustice, vnlesse sinne did enter, therefore secondly hee purposed, that sin should enter. So that first hee purposed to punish before hee saw any cause, and then purposed the entrance of sinne, that there might be cause; which is no lesse inexcusable from iniustice, cruelty, and tyranny, than if he should purpose to punish, and so doe, without any cause at all. Thus, sayth hee, it should seeme, that the first originall and spring of sinne, is from the will of God, according to Calvines opinion.

For answere hereunto wee must note, that Caluine doeth no where say, that God did purpose the manifestation of his mercie and Iustice before all prescience, but onely before that, which is named praescientia visionis. Secondly, that Caluin doeth no where pronounce, that simply & absolutely the end wherfore God purposed to make man, was the manifestatiō of the severity of his justice, & the riches of his mercie, or that hee might saue some, and condemne others; But as I conceiue according to Caluines opinion, foure things are implied in Gods purpose of creating man. First, what hee meant to bestow vpon him. Secondly, what he meant to deny vnto him. Thirdly, the foreknowledge what would fall out, vpon the bestowing of such benefits onely, and the denying of others, namely, Sin, & Apostasie. Fourthly, his purpose, notwithstanding his foreknowledge, to bestow vpon him onely such benefits of his rich and abundant goodnesse, and no other. So then the end of those benefits, which God purposed in such sort, and in such degree and measure, to bestow vpon man in his creation, was not the manifestation of his mercie and Iustice, neither did he purpose the entrance of sinne originally out of his owne liking, that he might haue matter of punishment, as Bellarmine injuriously chargeth Calvine to affirme; But the end of his purpose of bestowing such benefites onely, and no other, notwithstanding his fore-knowledge what would fall out, if so hee did, was, that he might shew his mercie and Iustice in sauing and condemning whom he would. And against this, Bellarmine neither doeth, nor can except.

Thus hauing cleared those doubts that occurre in the doctrine of the Divines of the reformed Churches, touching the entrance of sinne; Let vs come to the second part, and see what it is, that they attribute vnto God, when sin is entred. The actions they attribute to God, when sinne is entred, are three: Limitation, direction, and condigne punishing of one sinne with another. For the first, that God setteth bounds to wicked men in their wickednesse, not onely in respect of the effect and event, but also of the very inward purpose, affections, and designes, and at his pleasure stoppeth them when hee will; I thinke none of our adversaries will make any question. For the diuell himselfe was limited how farre he should proceede in afflicting Iob c 1. •… z. Math. 8. 31. Iob: and could not enter into an herde of swine, without leaue obtained. For though the will to doe euill be not of God, yet the power is; for there is no power that is not of God.

Touching the second; which is direction, though God bee not the Authour and causer of euill, nor may be thought without impiety to put it into men, yet when he findeth it in them, hee directeth it, not onely in respect of the kind wherein; the persons against whom, and the time when it shall breake forth; But also in respect of the end and effect: in which sense it is that Lib. 2. c. 13. de amis •… ione gratiae & statu peccati. Bellarmine and Stapleton both say, that though GOD incline not simply and absolutely vnto euill, yet hee inclineth and bendeth the willes of them that bee wicked, that they shall be wicked in this sort, rather than that, at this time, than at some other, against such men, rather than against those they more maligne and desire to despite, if they were left to themselues. Hugo de S. Victore lib. 1. de sacramentis part. 5. cap. 29. This God doth in that he openeth the passage, and maketh way for wickednesse to come foorth and shew it selfe in what sort he pleaseth, and stoppeth all other. Euen as a man being in a high Tower, and desiring to cast himselfe downe, there being many passages thorough which he might cast himselfe out, if a man should stoppe all but one, though hee might not justly bee saide to bee the cause of the fall of him that should thus cast away himselfe, Ibid. Hugo. Qui praecipiti qua vult ad rumam viam aperit, quodammodò ipsum inclinat, non impellendo, sed permittendo, & non tenendo: nec autor illiest ruendi, sed incedendi ordinator. yet might hee rightly bee said to bee the cause, why he fell rather this way, and out of this window or passage, then any other. So doth God order, dispose, and direct the wickednesse of men, to breake out in what sort, at what time, and against what persons he pleaseth, and no otherwise; and is author ordinis in malo, though not mali. k Thomas in comment. c. 9. ad Rom. citatut a Bella •… . l. 2. c. 13. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati.

When we say he openeth the way & passage for wickednesse to break forth, wee must vnderstand that he doth this in two sorts; either by not hindring it from breaking forth in some one kinde, which hee suffereth no otherwise to shew it selfe, or in that he positiuely inclineth it hither rather then thither, not by way of cause but of occasiō offered. In which sense it is, that Dauid saith, God Sam. 16. 10. commanded Shemei to curse him, not as if God had eyther inwardly or outwardly perswaded him so to do; But because, finding him full of malice against Dauid, he so prospered Dauid before, that he durst not reuile him, not had no cause to insult vpon him: But now he presented him to his eyes in such a miserable estate, forsaken of many, and pursued by his owne sonne, as he knew would occasion these words of insultation, and bitter malediction. Thus then God commanded Shemei to curse Dauid, not by precept, outwardly requiring him so to do, nor by perswasiō, inwardly inclining him to so vile an actiō; but by, direction, inclining him, by words of malediction to expresse his bitter affection (which long before desired to vent it selfe) now at this time, and for the punishment of Dauids sinnes, rather then at an other time and in another sort.

So when wicked men had spoyled Iob. 1. 21. Iob he sayd, The Lord hath giuen, & the Lord hath taken away, imputing it to God; not as if he had made them to become Robbers, but for that being such, hee directed their wickednesse, and vsed it to the triall of his servant, opening a passage for their wickednesse, and presenting to them such things as hee knew would occasion this outrage. Acts 2. 23. As lakewise the Iewes, in crucifying Christ, are said to haue done nothing but that which God had before resolutely determined, not as if God had purposed their wickednesse, but only because knowing what was in them, he was pleased to direct, guide, and turne their wickednesse and furious malice, to the effecting of his owne purposes.

The third action that wee attribute vnto God, is, that hee punisheth one sin by an other. In punishments, In annotationibus clucidatorijs quaestionum in epistolam Pauli ad Roman. 1. cap. illa verba, Tradidit illos Deus. Hugo de sancto victore noteth three things: The matter, with which a man is punished; the contrariety betweene it, and the party punished; and the order of consequence, that where such an offence went before, such an euil shall follow, to make the party offending feele the smart of it. In those punishments which be punishments onely, & not sinnes, God is the author and cause of all these three things implyed in the nature of punishments: in those which be punishments, and sinnes, God is author only of the order of consequence, & the contrariety between them, & the nature of the parties punished; not of the matter wherwith they are afflicted & punished. As for exāple: Pride is punished by envie; Enuie is not of God, but the contrarietie betweene it, and the soule of man, which maketh it bitter and afflictiue, is: And the order of consequence, that where pride went before, enuy must follow. Neither doth God only punish one sinne with another, when there is such a dependance of one vpon the other, that where one goeth before, the other must follow: But oftentimes, when there is no such necessary dependance, yet he withdraweth his grace, and for the punishment of one sinne, letteth men runne into another. In this sense, there are three things attributed to God, in the punishment of wicked and godlesse men: The blinding of their vrderstanding: The hardning of their hearts, and the giuing of them vp vnto a reprobate sense.

These things God is said to doe three wayes: First, by subtraction and deniall of that grace which should lighten the vnderstandings, and soften and mollifie the hearts of men: Secondly by giuing leaue to Sathan to work vpon them, & no way either strengthning them against him, or weakning his force: Thirdly, occasionally and by accident, when God doth that which is good, which yet hee knoweth, through the euill disposition that is in men, will increase their wickednesse, and make it greater then it was before.

CHAP. 24.

Of the heresies of Origen, touching the Image of God; and touching hell, falsely imputed to Caluin.

IN the third place, the Iesuite, fearing that men should thinke hee were neere driuen and wanted store, hee chargeth Caluin at once with two heresies of Origen. The first concerning the Image of God; the second touching Hell and the punishments of it.

Heresi. 64. & in Epistola ad Iohannem Episcopum Hierosolymitanum. Touching the first, it is true that Epiphanius chargeth Origen with heresie, For saying that Adam lost the Image of God by his disobedience and sinne: but how iustly, it is very doubtfull; Seeing neither Hierome, nor Theophilus Alexandrinus, most diligently noting his errours, make any mention of it. And therefore it may bee probably thought, as Contra Hereses: lib: z. Adam & Eua. Alphonsius à Castro noteth, that if any such thing was found in the workes of Origen, it was so deliuered by him, as that it might carrie a good construction, and free from heresie. But leauing it vncertain what it was that Origen meant by the losse of Gods Image. For the cleering of Caluin, wee must note that which 1. Parte summae quaest. 93. art. 4. vbi ait glossam distinguere triplicem imaginem: creationis, recreationis, & similitudinis, prima inuenitur in omnibus; 2. in iustis tantum: tertia verò solum in beatis. Thomas Aquinas (no hereticke I hope in Bellarmines iudgment,) beeing a Canonized Saint of the Romish Church, hath fittely obserued to this purpose.

Hee noteth, first, that the Image of God consisteth in the eminent perfection which is found in men, expressing the nature of God in an higher degree, then any excellencie of other creatures doth. Secondly, that this perfection is found principally in the soule. Thirdly, that it is threefold. First, naturall, which is the largenesse of the naturall faculties of vnderstanding and will, not limitted to the apprehension or desire of some certaine things only, but extending to all the conditions of beeing and goodnesse, whose principall obiect is God; So that they neuer rest satisfied with any other thing, but the seeing and enioying of him.

The second kind of this perfection is supernaturall; when the soule actually, or at the least habitually knoweth and loueth God aright, though not so perfectly as hee may, and shall bee loued hereafter. The third is when the soule knoweth and loueth God in fulnesse of happinesse. The first is of nature, the second of grace, and the third of glory. The first of these is neuer lost, no not by the damned in hell. The second, Adam had, but lost it, and it is renued in vs by grace. The third wee expect in heauen. To thinke the Image of God, considered in the first sort, to be lost, is heresie; but Caluin is free from it. To thinke it lost in the second sort, is the Catholique doctrine of the Church: for, who knoweth not that man hath lost all right knowledge and loue of God, by Adams fall?

Some restraine the name of the Image of God, to the excellency of the soules nature, framed to know all things, and neuer to rest satisfied in any thing, vnder God: And so generally and absolutely denie, that the Image of God can bee lost or blotted out. These make a difference betweene the Image of God, thus restrained to the largnesse and and admirable perfection of the naturall faculties of the soule, and the similitude or likenesse of God, which appeareth in the qualities and vertues of it, making him that possesseth them, partaker of the diuine nature, which they confesse to be lost.

Now this similitude is all one, with the Image of God in the second consideration set down by Aquinas; and therefore in this matter Caluin erreth not, but writeth that which is consonant vnto the truth.

Touching the second part of this imputation, it is true that Hier. in Epist. ad Avitum. Origen erred, thinking hell to be nothing else but horror of conscience; But he that looketh in the place in Caluin cited by the Iesuite, shall see, that he saith no such thing, but the cleane contrary. So that the Reader shall finde Bellarnne to be constant, and stil like himselfe, adding one calumniation to another.

CHAP. 25.

Of the heresie of the Peputians, making women Priests.

THe fourth Heresie, imputed vnto vs by our adversaries, is that of the Peputians, who gaue women authoritie to intermeddle with the sacred ministerie of the Church. That we doe so likewise, they indeavour to proue, by misreporting the words of Luther. There are two things therefore which Luther saith, in the place alleadged by them. First, that in absolution and remission of sinnes in the supposed Sacrament of Penance, a Bishop or ordinary Presbyter may doe as much, as the Pope himselfe; which Lib. 2. verb. absolutio. Alphonsus à Castro, writing against Heresies, confesseth to bee true. The second, that when, and where, no Presbyter can be found to performe this office, a Lay man, yea or a woman in this case of necessitie, may absolue; which our adversaries neede not to thinke so strange, seeing themselues giue power to women, to baptise in case of necessitie: which (I thinke) is as much a ministeriall acte, as to absolue the penitent, in such sort as absolution is giuen in the Church of Rome. And yet they would thinke themselues wronged, if from hence it should bee inferred, that they make women Priests and Bishoppes. But Bellarmine reporteth the wordes of Luther, as if hee should say absolutely, that a woman, or childe, hath as much power and authority from God in these things, as any Presbyter or Bishop: wherein hee is like himselfe.

Absolution, in the Primitiue Church, was the reconciling and restoring of penitents to the peace of the Church, and to the Communion of the Sacraments, from which during the time of their penitencie, they were excluded. This in reason none could doe, but they to whom the dispensation of the Sacraments was committed, and who had power to deny the Sacraments. The Popish absolution is supposed to bee a Sacramentall acte, Sacramentally taking away sinne, and making the party absolued partaker of the remission of it. This is a false and erronious conceite. LVTHER thinketh it to bee a comfortable pronouncing, and assuring of good to the humble, penitent, and sorrowfull sinner: which though ordinarily, and ex officio, the Minister bee to doe, yet may any man doe it with like effect, when none of that ranke is, or can be present. Thus when the matter is well examined, it is meerely nothing, that Bellarmine can proue against Luther.

But that which hee addeth, touching our late dread Soueraigne ELIZABETH of famous memorie, that shee was reported and taken as chiefe Bishop within her dominions of England &c. is more then a Cardinall lye, and might beseeme the father of lyes, better then any meaner professour of that facultie.

For the Kings, and Queenes of England, neither doe, nor haue power to doe, any ministeriall act, or act of sacred order, as to preach, administer Sacraments, and the like: But that power and authority, which we ascribe vnto them, is, that they may by their princely right, take notice of matters of Religion, and the exercise of it in their kingdomes; That they may, and in duty stand bound, to see, that the true Religion bee professed, and God rightly worshipped: That God hath giuen them the sword to punish all offenders against the first or second Table, yea though they be Priests or Bishops. That neither the persons, nor the goods of Churchmen are exempted from their power: That they holde their Crownes immediatly from God, and not from the Romish Antichrist; That it was the Lucifer-like pride of Antichrist, which appeared in times past in the Popes, Matheus Paris in Hentico 3. de Innocentio 4. p. 844. wheē they shamed not to say that the Kings of England were their villanes, vassalls, and slaues. Thus then the fourth supposed heresie we are charged with, proueth to be nothing but a diuelish slander of this shamelesse Iesuite.

Wee say therefore, to silence this slanderer, that we all most constantly hold the contrary of that he imputeth vnto vs; And that wee thinke, there is no more daungerous or presumptuous wicked boldnesse, then for any man not called, set a part, and sanctified therevnto, to intermeddle with any part of the sacred ministerie of the Church.

CHAP 26.

Of the supposed heresie of Proclus and the Messalians, touching concupiscence in the regenerate.

THe fift heresie, which hee endevoureth to fasten vpon vs, is, he saith, the heresie of Proclus, of whom Heres. 64. Epiphanius maketh mention. But what was the heresie of Proclus? Let Bellarmine tell vs, for our learning. It was (sayth he) that sin doth alwayes continue and liue in the Regenerate: for that concupiscence is truely and properly sin, which is not taken away by Baptisme, but only allaied, stilled, and brought, as it were, into a kind of rest and sleepe by force thereof, and the working of faith. In this, Bellarmine sheweth his intolerable either ignorance, or impudence, or both. For Epiphanius, in the place cited by him, refuteth the heresie of Origen, who denied the resurrection of the bodies of men, as thinking such bodily substances, which we see are continually subject to alteration here in this world; not capable of immortality; And that God did put these bodies vpon Adam and Eue, after their sin, at that time when he is said to haue made them coates of skinnes. This Epiphanius refuteth, shewing that God, who only hath immortality, made man though out of the earth, yet by the immediate touch of his owne hands; that he breathed into him the breath of life, for that he meant he should be immortall; that man had flesh and blood, and a true bodily substance before his fall, as is prooued by that of Adam concerning Eue, This is now flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone; that there was no euill found in the World, such as death is, in the beginning; that man voluntarily sinned against God, and therevpon God brought in death; that euen as the Schoolemaster vseth correction, not for any delight he hath in it, but for that thereby he intendeth to bring his Schollers to forsake their negligent and disordered courses, and to doe those things he prescribeth to them; in like sorte, God seeing that sinne was entred, brought in punishments to represse it: and seeing that it would be eternall, if man did continue immortall, he brought in death to make an end of it. For (saith Epiphanius) sin is so deepely rooted in vs, that it cannot bee quite killed nor pulled vp by the rootes, while the body and soule remaine together, Euen as (sayth hee) when some wilde figge tree groweth in the walles of a Goodly and stately building, and defaceth and hideth the beauty and glory of it, the boughes and braunches may be cut or broken off, but the roote which is wrapped into the stones of the building, cannot bee taken away, vnlesse the walles bee throwen downe, and the stones cast one from another: So the sinne vvhich dvvelleth in vs, hath the rootes of it so invvrapped into our nature & the parts of it, that hovvsoeuer the boughs and braunches may be cut and broken off, the roote remaineth vvhile vve carry about vs this body of death, & vvill cause more branches to grovv foorth till by death, the parts of our nature, to vvit, the soule and the body, bee sundred and diuided. And as the vvall may be raised againe, and the stones thereof in due sort laid together, when the rootes of the trees, which formermerly grew into it, be taken forth: So when the roote of sin is remoued by death out of mans nature, God will bring these parts of his nature together againe, and giue him that immortality both of body and soule, which he intended to him in his creation, and would haue giuen him, had not death beene necessary for the rooting out of that sinne hee voluntarily fell into.

That sinne is soe deepely rooted in the nature of man, that it cannot bee plucked vp but by death, Epiphanius saith it is euident, by that of the Apostle, who pronounceth of himselfe, that to will was present with him, but he found no ability to performe: That the good hee would do, hee did not, and the euill that bee would not doe, that hee did; And, that yet it was not hee that did it, but sinne that dwelleth in him; By this (sayth hee) it is proued, that sinne is not pulled vp by the rootes, that it is not dead but liuing, that there is no man but hath euill thoughts and desires, which growe from this bitter roote of sinne, which neither Baptisme, nor faith do wholly remoue or kill, that sinne is only repressed, resisted, and stilled from raging and preuailing in such sort as it did before, but not wholly taken away.

Thus then wee see, that Epiphanius most excellently deliuereth that, in the defence of the trueth against Origen; and such like heretickes, which Bellarmine imputeth vnto vs, as heresie condemned by Epiphanius. Wherein surely he was either grosly abused by others, making him beleeu Epiphanius sayth that, which most peremptorily hee denyeth; or else hee was vvilling to deceiue and abuse others.

Howsoeuer, this aduantage wee haue gotten thereby, that our assertion, that sinne remaineth after Baptisme, and that the roote of it is not taken away, nor killed, till by death the soule and body be diuided, is proued to be the auncient doctrine of the Primitiue Fathers.

But if Epiphanius faile him, Bellarmine hath another author, whereon to relye. For hee saith, Hereticarum fabularum: li. 4. These heretickes thought, that baptisme doth not take away originall sin, which is the roote of all other, nor deliuer us from the power of Sata •… , nor giue spirit & grace to resist sin. These errours we condemne, & therefore wee are •… ly charged with the heresie of the Messali •… ns. Theodoret reporteth, that the Messalians were condemned for heretickes, because they thought that Baptisme as a Razar shaueth away sinnes past, but doth not take away the roote of sinne, and that therefore for that purpose wee must flye to the force of prayer.

This opinion of the Messalians, touching the not taking away the roote of sinne, in such sort as they vnderstoode it, and Theodoret disliked it, wee also condemne. For wee thinke, that Baptisme doth not only take away sinnes past, but the very roote of all sinnes, which is Originall sinne, though not wholly; (for then wee should dissent from Epiphanius before alleaged) yet in such sort, as I will deliuer in that which followeth.

The errour of the Messalians, Bellarmine attributeth vnto vs, because wee teach that concupiscence in the Regenerate is sinne. For the better clearing of this point, wee must obserue, that the Romanists doe erre most daungerously in the matter of originall sinne, and naturall concupiscence. For first they teach, that the contrariety betwene the spirit and the flesh, the pronenesse inordinately to desire things transitory, sensible and outward, and the difficulty to that which is best, are the primitiue conditions of the nature of man: And consequently, that concupiscence, neither after, nor before Baptisme, in the Regenerate nor vnregenerate is sinne or punishment of sinne, but a condition of pure and sole nature. For if man had beene created in a state of pure nature (that is, hauing all that pertaineth to the integrity of nature, and nothing else) it would haue beene found in him. Neither doe they make any doubt, but that GOD might haue created man in the beginning, with all those defects hee is now subiect vnto, and yet without all sinne.

For, the beeing subject to them argueth not sinne: but whereas they were restrained, bridled, and suppressed by addition of supernaturall qualities, the hauing of them at libertie, by voluntarie losse of those qualities, is not without sinne.

Thus then, howsoeuer they talke of concupiscence in the Regenerate, and would seeme to deny it to be sinne in them onely, yet they doe as well deny it to be sin in men not Regenerate, as in the Regenerate, and make it onely a punishment of sinne, if yet they yeeld so much vnto the truth. For indeede according to their erroneous conceit, concupiscence is a sequele of nature, and not a punishment of sinne: so that all that they doe or can say, is nothing but this, that concupiscence was naturall, and such a thing as might bee found in the integrity of nature, that it was restrained by supernaturall grace, added aboue that nature requireth for the perfecting of her integritie; that the hauing it now free and at libertie, to prouoke, moue, and incline vs to sinne, is the punishment of that sinne, whereby we depriued our selues of supernaturall grace.

But wee say, contrary to this absurd conceite of theirs: First, that all these defects and euils, to wit, contrariety betweene the better and meaner faculties of the soule, pronenesse to doe euill, and difficultie to doe good, doe arise and grow out of the want of that originall righteousnesse, the property whereof is, to subject all vnto God, and to leaue nothing voide of him.

Secondly, that this righteousnesse was essentially required to the integrity of nature. So that there is no state of sole and pure nature, without addition of sinne or grace, as the Papists fondly imagine; for that the nature of man is such, as must either be lifted aboue it selfe by grace, or fall below it selfe, and be in a state of sinne.

Thirdly, that all declinings and swaruings from that perfect subjection vnto God, and entire conjunction with God, which grace worketh, are sinnes and decayes of natures integrity: and consequently, that concupiscence, being a declining from that entire subiection to, and conjunction with God, is truely and properly sin, whatsoeuer our adversaries teach to the contrary.

Fourthly, that originall righteousnesse is said to bee a supernaturall quality, because it groweth not out of nature, and because it raiseth nature aboue it selfe; But that it is naturall, that is, required to the integritie of nature.

Neither should it seeme strange to any man, that a quality not growing out of nature, should be required necessarily for the perfecting of natures integrity; seeing the end and object of mans desires, knowledge, and action, is an infinite thing, and without the compasse & bounds of nature. And therefore the nature of man cannot, as all other things doe, by naturall force, and things bred within her selfe, attaine to her wished end; but must either by supernaturall grace bee guided and directed to it, or being left to her selfe, faile of that perfection shee is capable of, and fill her selfe with infinite euills, defects, and miseries.

This may suffice for refutation of the vaine and idle conceits of the Papists, concerning three estates of man, the one of grace, the other of nature, and the third of sinne. Out of which we may obserue, that howsoeuer they indeavour to make shew of the contrary, yet indeede they thinke that concupiscence is not sinne, neither in the regenerate, nor vnregenerate. Whereupon it is that Lib. 5. c. 13. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati. Hugo de sancto Victore dicit concupiscentiam spiritus inordinatam esse culpam: concupiscentiam carnis poenam & culpam, &c. Alex. de Ales p. 2. q. 105. memb. 2. art. 〈◊〉 . Bellarmine, speaking of the guilt of concupiscence, which the Diuines say is taken away in Baptisme, though the infirmity remaine, saith, it must be vnderstood of that guilt, which causeth concupiscence, not which is caused of it. For (saith he) originall sinne maketh guilty, and subjecteth men to concupiscence, but concupiscence doth not make them guilty that haue it, and therefore it is not sinne, neither before, nor after Baptisme.

But we say with, Contra Iulianum lib. 5. Augustin, Sicut caecitas cordis, quam removet alluminator deus, & peccatū est, quo in deum non creditur; & poena peccati, qua cor superbū dignâ animadversione punitur; & causa peccati, cùm mali aliquid caeci cordis errore cōmittitur: ita concupiscentia carnis, aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus, & peccatum est, quia inest ei inobedientia contra dominatum mentis; & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis inobedientis; & causa peccati est, defectione consentientis, vel contagione nascentis. As the blindnesse of heart, which God remooueth, when hee lightneth those that were formerly in darkenesse, is a sinne, in that by reason of it, men beleeue not in GOD; and a punishment of sinne, wherewith the proude hearts of wicked men are iustly punished; and a cause of sinne, when, erring by reason of this blindnesse of heart, they doe those things that are euill: so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit doth striue and couet, is a sinne, because there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind; and a punishment of sinne, in that it falleth out by the iust iudgment of God, that they who are disobedient vnto God, shall finde rebellious desires in themselues; and it is a cause of sinne, in that men either by wicked defection consent vnto it, or by reason of the generall infection of humane nature, are borne in it.

Wee thinke therefore there should be no question made of concupiscence, and other like defects and euils found in the nature of man, but that they are in their owne nature sinfull defects. And hereof, I am well assured, none of the Fathers euer doubted: but how farre they are washed away and remitted in Baptisme, which is the matter about which Bellarmine wrangleth and taketh exception against vs, let vs now consider.

part. 4. qu. 8. de sacramento baptismi. membro. 8. art. 2. Alexander of Hales, the first and greatest of all the Schoolemen, noteth diuers things most fitly to this purpose, out of which wee may easily resolue, what is to bee thought of this matter. First therefore hee obserueth, that there are two sortes of sinnes: some naturall, which are in the person from the generall condition of nature; some personall, that are acted by the person, and so defile the nature, as all actuall sinnes. Secondly, that concupiscence is of the first kind, being an euill contracted and cleauing to nature, not personally acted, or wrought by vs. Thirdly, that concupiscence may bee considered, either as it hath full dominion, and is a prevailing thing in them that haue it: or as it is weakened, and hath lost that strength, dominion, and command which formerly it had. Dicitur concupiscentia culpa ante baptismum quia tum dominatur & habet carentiam dibitae iustitiae sibi conjunctam Alex. de Hales part. 2. q. 105. membro. 7. art. 1. Fourthly, that concupiscence, while it hath dominion, is a sinne defiling, and making guilty, both the nature & person in which it commaundeth all: But if it lose this dominion, it cleaueth to the nature only, and is not imputed to the person for sinne, vnlesse hee some way yeelde vnto it, bee drawen by it, or suffer himselfe to be weakened in well doing, by the force of it. Fiftly, that the benefits of grace are not generall, but speciall, & of priuiledge, not freeing the whole nature of man from sin and punishment, as sin corrupted and defiled all, but that they extend onely personally to some certaine. Sixtly, that when men are borne anew in baptisme, they are freed from all that sin which maketh their persons guilty before God, and consequently from all punishments due to them, for any thing their persons were chargeable with. Peccatum originis transit reatu, manet actu. in actuali peccato praecedit actus, sequitur reatus, nec dicitur in originali peccato actus peccati quo fit, vel quo est, sed quo •… emanet ad exercitium. Alex. de Hales part. 2. q. 105. membro. 6 But because they still remaine in that nature, which is of the masse of malediction, therefore sin cleaueth to their nature still, and they are subject to the common punishment of hunger, thirst, death, and the like. Seauenthly, that the dominion of that sin, which is of nature, is taken away by the benefit of regeneration in Baptisme. Whence it commeth, that the persons of men baptized are not chargeable with it, though they remaine still in that nature wherein it is. And consequently that the punishments, which they are subject vnto (because they remaine in the communion of that nature which is not generally free, from sin,) cease to be vnto them in the nature of destroying euils, serue to diverse good purposes, and turne to their great benefit.

So then wee say with the Fathers, and best learned of the Schoolemen, that concupiscence in men not regenerate is a sinne, corrupting and making guilty both the nature and the person wherein it is; and that in the Regenerate it cleaueth to nature as a sinne still, but hauing lost the dominion it had, so that it cannot make the person guilty, not prevailing with it, nor commaunding ouer it. Regnum amittit in terra, perit in caelo: It is driuen from the kingdome it formerly had in the Saints of God, while they yet remaine on earth, but it is not vtterly destroyed till they goe from hence to heauen. Thus then, I hope, it appeareth that wee are far from the errour of the Messalians, and doe fully accord with the Catholike Church of God, and that the Romanists are not far from the heresie of Pelagius.

CHAP. 27

Of the heresies of Nouatus, Sabellius, and the Manichees.

THe sixt heresie, that wee are charged with, is that of Nouatus, who would not haue those that fell in the time of persecution, reconciled and receiued againe to the communion of the Church vpon their repentance. But wee receiue all Penitents whatsoeuer, and therefore this lying slander may be added to the rest to make vp a number.

But they will say, the Nouatians were condemned for denying penance to be a Sacrament, and that therein at least wee agree with the Nouatians. This is as false as the rest: for it is most certaine, that the absolution which was giuen in the Primitiue Church, disliked by Nouatus, was not taken, as a sacramentall acte, giuing grace, & remitting sinnes, but as a judiciall acte receiving them to the peace of the Church, and the vse of the Sacraments, which had beene formerly put from them. See that whichwee haue noted cap. 7. out of Alex. of Hales & Bonauent affirming that the Minister is a mediator betweene God and men, dealing with God by way of intreaty, with men by way of command: by prayer and petition obtaining for sinners remission at Gods hands: and by authority and power resting in him, restoring them to the Churches peace. This, the best and most iudicious of the Schoole-men confesse, besides the infinite testimonies that might be alleaged out of the Fathers to proue the same. It was then an admitting to the vse of the Sacraments, not it selfe a Sacrament.

But Caluin sayth, that the speech of Hierome that poenitentia is secunda tabula post naufragium is impious, and cannot be excused, and therefore it seemeth he inclineth to the Nouatians heresie, in denying the benefite of penitencie to distressed and miserable sinners, that seeke it. Li. 1. de mendacio, ad Consentium, cap. 4. Augustine in his booke De mendacio ad Consentium, maketh it a disputable question, whether a man, that vsually lieth, speaking trueth at some one time, with purpose to make men thinke it like the rest of his lying speaches, wherewith they are well acquainted, may not be said to lie when hee speaketh trueth, because hee intendeth to deceiue, and doeth deceiue. Surely, if this man should speake any trueth, I feare the Reader would thinke it a falsehood, because his ordinary manner is seldome or neuer to speake any trueth. Doeth Caluine say the speach of Hierome is impious, and not to bee excused, as hee reporteth he doeth? Surely no: but that if it be vnderstood as the Papists vnderstand it, it cannot bee excused. For they conceiue thereby, that the Sacrament of Penance is implied, which Hierome neuer thought of.

But hee will say, the Nouatians refused to haue those, that they baptized, to receiue imposition of hands, with which was joyned in those times the anoynting of the parties with oyle. Surely so they did, but so doe not wee: for we t •… inke of the vse of imposition of hands, as Hierome doeth in his booke against he Luciferians. But touching the vse of oyle though at that time there was no cause for the Nouatians to except much against it, yet now that it is made the matter and element of a Sacrament, and that by a kinde of consecration, the ground whereof wee know not, wee thinke we doe not offend in omitting it, See Dionysius ecclesiasticall •… ierarchie. cap. 2. part, 2. where a great number of ceremoniall obseruations arch mentioned, whic are long since growne out of vse in the Church of Rome. no more than the Church of Rome, in omitting innumerable ceremoniall obseuations of like nature, that were in vse in those times.

The seauenth is the heresie of Sabellius, which he sayth was reuiued by Servetus. So it was indeede, that Seruetus reuiued, in our time, the damnable heresie of Sabellius, long since condemned in the first ages of the Church. But what is that to vs? How little approbation hee found amongst vs, the just and honourable proceeding against him at Geneva, will witnesse to all posterity.

The eighth is the heresie of the Manichees, which taught, that euills which are found in the World, were from an euill beginning, so making two originall causes, the one good, of things good; the other euill, of things euill. It is true that this was the damnable opinion of the Manichees. But will the shamelesse companion charge vs with this impiety? I thinke hee dareth not: for hee knoweth that wee teach, that all the euils that are in the World had their beginning, and did proceede from the freedome of mans will, which while hee vsed ill, hee ouerthrewe, and lost both himselfe and it, that while hee turned from the greater to the lesser good, and preferred the creature before the Creatour, hee plunged himselfe into innumerable defects, miseries, perplexities, and discomforts, and justly deserued, that GOD, from whome thus wickedly hee departed, should make all those things which formerly hee appointed to doe him seruice, to become feeble, weake, vnfit, and vnwilling to performe the same.

But, saith he, Luther affirmeth, that all things fall out by a kinde of absolute necessitie, whence the heresie of the Manichees may bee inferred. The aunswere to this objection is easie; for Luther taketh necessitie for infallibilitie of event, thereby meaning that all things fall out infallibly, so as God before disposed and determined: but doth not imagine a necessitie of coaction enforcing, nor a naturall and inevitable necessitie, taking away all freedome of choyce, as our adversaries injuriously impute vnto him.

If this of Luther faile, as in deede it doeth, Bellarmine hath another proofe and demonstration that wee are Manichees, for that Calvine denyeth man to haue freedome of choyce in any thing whatsoeuer. This is a most false and injurious imputation. For, though Calvine deny that man can doe any thing in such sort, as therein to bee free from the direction and ordering of Almighty GOD; yet hee confesseth that Adams will in the day of his creation was free, not onely from sinne and miserie, but also from limitation of desire and naturall necessitie, and left to her owne choyce in the highest matter, and of most consequence of all the rest; and that man, by making an euill choyce, did runne into those euills, which he is now subject vnto. Calvin then is not worse than the Manichees, as making God the Authour of those euills, which the Manichees attribute to an euill beginning, as Bellarmine is pleased to pronounce of him: but is farther from that hellish conceit, than Bellarmine is from hell it selfe, if he repent him not of these his wicked and hellish slanders.

But, sayth hee, the Manichees blamed and reprehended the Fathers of the Olde Testament, and so also doeth Calvine, therefore Calvin is a Manichee. This is as if a man should thus reason with Bellarmine Porphyry blamed Paul, as an arrogant man, for reprehending Peter, that was his auncient, and before him in the faith of Christ, and Bellarmine dili •… eth him for persecuting the Church of GOD in the time of his infidility, therefore Bellarmine is as bad or worse than Porphyry. For the Manichees thought that the Old Testament was from an euill beginning and therefore exaggerated all the faults and sinnes of the Fathers that then li •… ed, for confirmation and strengthening of this their blasphemie. But Calvin hateth this impiety more than the Romanists, who imagine a greater difference betwixt the state of the Iewes and the Christians, that hee doeth. Ad illud de Iacob. Licet aliqui conentur multum saluare cum, & aliquos patres veteris Testamenti non fuisse mentitos, cum tamen in alijs concedant eos habuisse legem imperfectam, & gratiam modicam respectu nostri, qui & legem habemus perfectam, & gratiam superabundantem, & de multis non negatur aliquando mentiri, vel fuisse mentitos, non videtur multum rationabile negare illos fuisse mentitos vel potuisse mentiri: quia si ita est, & si laudemus bona facta eorum, & illa sumamus in exemplum, mala tamen nec recipimus in exemplum, nec pertinaciter excusamus. Et Iudeth ipsa se ornauit ea intentione, vt Holofernes caperetur in aspectu suo, & hoc volendo eum velle peccare secum mortaliter, & velle alium velle peccare mortaliter est peccatum mortale: vnde non videtur omnino certum, quod excusata sit ab omni peccato mortali: & licèt factum eius natretur in Scriptura, & recitetur in Ecclesiâ tanquam laudabile, quantum ad aliqua quae erant ibi religiositatis, aliqua tamen ibi annexa, nec laudantur, nec licent. Scotus lib. 3. distinct. 58. quaest. vnicâ. It is therefore an ill consequence, Caluine doth not hide, nor excuse, but condemne the murder, and adultery of Dauid, the drunkennesse of Noe, and the incest of Lot, therefore hee is like the Manichees that thought the old Testament was from an euill beginning. Surely there is neither good beginning, nor ending to be found in the writings of this slaunderous Iesuite.

CHAP. 28

Of the heresies of the Donatists.

THe next heresie imputed vnto vs, is that of the Donatists, who denied those societies of Christians to be the Churches of God, wherein wicked men are tolerated, and the rules of discipline are not obserued: and thought, that the Church whose communion we must hold, doth consist onely of the good and elect people of God.

Touching the first part of this imputation, wee disclaime it as most vniust & iniurious. For, as I haue shewed in the first part, wee confesse, that wicked and godles men are oftentimes tolerated in the true Church of God, either through the negligence of the guides thereof, or vpon due consideration of the scandals and euils, that would follow if they should bee eiected and cast out, by reason of their greatnesse, power, or number.

Touching the second part, in what sense onely the good and elect people of God are of the Church, and how and in what degree hypocrites, wicked men, and reprobates, while they hould the profession of the trueth, may be said to be of the Church, I haue likewise cleared in the first part.

But, sayth Bellarmine, the Donatists thought the Church to bee only in Africa, & the Protestants think it to be onely in the Northerne parts of the world, and therefore they are not farre from Donatisme. Surely, as farre as hee is from any honest and sincere meaning. For, none of the Protestants haue any such conceit as to thinke the Church of God so straightned, as that it should be no where found, but in the Northerne parts of the world, where themselues do liue. But the Romanists may muchmore iustly be charged with Donatisme, who denie all the societies of Christians in the world, wherein the Popes feete are not kissed, and his words holden for infallible Oracles, to pertaine to the true Church of God: who acknowledge no true Churches of Christ, but their owne conuenticles, soe casting into hell all the Christians of Aethiopia, Syria, Armenia, Graecia, and Russia, for that they stand diuided from the communion of the Church of Rome. Which vnchristian censure wee are farre from, thinking that all those societies of Christians, notwithstanding their manifold defects and imperfections, bee, and continue parts and limmes of the true and Catholike Church of God.

Lastly he sayth, the Donatists committed many outrages against true Catholike Bishops, spoyled the Churches of God, & prophaned the holy things they found in them. But what can hee conclude from hence against vs? With which of these impieties can he charge vs? Our blood hath bin spilt by them like water in the streets, our bodies tormented and consumed with fire, and sword; and all this by the procurement of the Antichristian Bishops, sworne enemies of Christ, and vassals of Antichrist. Yet haue wee hurt none of them, but in patience possessed our soules, knowing that our judgement is with God, and that when he maketh inquirie for blood, hee will finde out all their barbarous actes of cruelty, which they haue done against vs. Wee haue prophaned nothing that is holy, wee haue remooued and abolished nothing, but the monuments of grosse idolatry, and therefore we are not to be compared to the Donatists. If in any place in popular tumults, or confusions of warre, whereof euer the Romanists haue beene the causes, there haue beene any thing done in furie, that was not fit, we cannot excuse it, nor could not remedie it.

CHAP. 29.

Of the heresies of Arrius, and Aērius.

THe tenth imputation is of Arrianisme, which heresie wee accurse to the pit of hell, with all the vile calumniations of damned slaunderers, that charge vs with it. Neither did euer any of our men incline vnto it, or giue any occasion of so execrable an heresie. Hae voces, quae extra Scripturam sunt, nullo casu a nobis suscip •… ntur. Maximinus apud Aug. contra Ma •… . lib. 1. in initio. vnde Aug l •… 3. c. 14. contra eundem sic habet. Pater & filius vnius sunt eiusdemque substantiae: hoc est illud homousion, quod in Concilio Niceno aduersus haereti •… os Arr •… os à Catholicis patribus ve •… s auc •… tate & au •… ritatis veritate firmatum est, quod posteà in Concilio Ariminensi propter novitatem in verbis minus quam oportuit intellectum. quam tamen fides antiqua pepererat, multis paucotum fraude deceptis, haeretica impietas sub haer •… tico Imp •… tore Constantio labefactare tentauit: sed post non longum tempus libertate Catholicae fidei praeualente, po •… aquam vis verbi, sicut debuit intellecta est, homousion illud Catholicae fidei sanitate longè latèque defensum e •… quid est enim homousion, nisi vnius eiusdemque substantiae? quid est homousion, nisi ego & pater vnum sumus? Sed nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam praeiudicaturus, proferre Concilium, nec ego huius auctorit •… , nec tu illius de •… neris: •… turarum aucto ritatious, non quorumcunque proprijs, sed; triusque communibus test •… us, •… es cum •… e, •… ausa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concerter. Touching traditions, which, Bella •… mine sayth the Arrians did refuse, they were not blamed, for denying vnwritten verities. For, I hope the Romanists will not disaduantage the Catholike cause so much, as to confesse that the Godhead of Christ, which was the thing the Arrians denyed, cannot be proued by Scripture, & that the Fathers were forced to flie to vnwritten traditions for proofe of it. But they were blamed, for that, when the thing had proofe enough by Scripture, they refused the word Consubstantiall (most happily deuised to expresse the trueth against the turnings and sleights of hereticks) onely because they found it not in Scripture: as if no wordes nor formes of speach might be allowed, but those only that are there expressely found.

The eleuenth is the heresie of Aērius. Aērius condemned the custome of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar, and offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is, of thanksgiuing for them. He disliked set fasts, and would not admit any difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter. For this his rash and inconsiderate boldnesse and presumption in condemning the vniuersall Church of Christ, he was iustly condemned. For, the practise of the Church, at that time, was not euill in any of these things, neither doe we concurre with Aerius in the reprehension of that Primitiue and auncient Church. For howsoeuer we dislike the Popish maner of praying for the dead, which is to deliuer them out of their fained Purgatory, yet doe we not reprehend the Primitiue Church, nor the Pastors and guides of it, for naming them in their publike prayers, thereby to nourish their hope of the resurrection, and to expresse their longing desires of the consummation of their owne, & their happinesse, that are gone before them in the faith of Christ. If any of the Fathers did doubtfully extend the prayers then vsed, further than they were originally or generally intended or meant, it was not to be imputed to the whole Church.

Of our allowance of set fastes, I haue spoken before: and of the difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter, I shall haue a fit occasion to speake in examining the note of succession, and the exceptions of the Romanists against vs touching the same. If it be sayd, that sundry of our Diuines seeme to acquite Aerius in these poynts, they are to bee conceived, as vnderstanding his reprehension to haue touched the errors and superstitions, which even then perhaps began in some places, and among some men, to grow into practises & doctrines of the Church, which were not euill nor erroneous. For otherwise his reprehension, if it be vnderstood to extend to the generall practise and judgement of the Church, is not, nor may not be justified.

CHAP. 30.

Of the heresies of Iovinian.

THe twelfth heresie imputed to vs, is the heresie of Iovinian, concerning whom we must obserue, that Augustine ascribeth vnto him two opinions, which Hierome mentioneth not, who yet was not likely to spare him, if he might truely haue beene charged with them.

Aug. lib. de haeresibus c. 82 The first, that Mary ceased to be a virgine, when shee had borne CHRIST; the second, that all sinnes are equall. If these were the opinions of Iovinian, as it may very well be doubted, wee condemne them, and his errour therein, as much as the Romanists doe. For, we thinke, that Mary continued a Virgine, in, and after the birth of CHRIST. But they will say, many of the Protestant Divines doe teach, that the doores of Maries wombe were opened when CHRIST was borne, and from thence it will follow, that shee ceased to bee a Virgine. This consequence we deny: for otherwise Tertul. de carne Christi. Tertullian, Lib 2. c. 7. in Lucae 2. Ambrose, Lib. 2. contra Pelagianos. Tertul. dicit Mariam patefacti corporis lege peperisse, & Tertul. divus Ambrosius quoque subscribit. Rhena. in arg. in lib. Tertul. de carne Christi. Hierome, and sundry other of the Fathers shall bee proued to haue denied the virginity of Mary after the birth of CHRIST, which yet they all most constantly beleeued. But they know well that no such thing can be concluded from thence. For, as Lib de carne Christi. Tertullian aptly noteth, there is virgo â viro; and virgo à partu; that is, a virgin may be so named, because shee hath not beene a mother, nor the doores of her wombe opened by bearing a childe; or because she hath knowne no man, though shee haue borne a childe. In this sort a virgine may remaine a virgine, and yet be a mother and beare a childe, with the opening of the doores of her wombe, if this childe thus conceiued in her, and borne of her, were not begotten by man, nor the doores of her wombe opened by the knowledge of a man. So that though it be granted, that CHRIST, when he was borne, opened the wombe of Mary his mother, yet she remained a Virgine still, because that which was conceiued in her, was of the Holy Ghost. Neither should our adversaries in reason presse this argument so much, Durand. l. 4 d. 44. q. 6. Verissimum est beatam virginem Mariam permansisse virginem in partu, & post partum, sicut ante: fuit enim virgo non solum ex carentia experientiae delectationis venereae per quam propriè amittitur virginitas, sed etiammembri corporalis integritate: nec tamen propter hoc suerunt duo corpora simul, quia fieri potuit dilatatio membrorū & meat •… um naturalium sine interruptione vel aliquâ fractione: sicut, secundum Aug. 14. de civit. Dei, fuisset in omnibus mulieribus, in statu innocentiae. Nolim equidem dicere, quod viros nonnullos doctos certè atque Catholicos sine cuiuspiam reprehensione nostrâ aetate dixisse, video, Christum modo quodam matris uterum aperuisse. Maldonatus in Lucae 2, 23. seeing their owne Schoolmen confesse there may be an opening of the wombe, in such as still remaine virgins. Thus then we say with the Fathers, that CHRIST being Maries first-borne, may be said more properly to haue opened the wombe of Mary his mother, then any other first-borne doe: because he found it shut when he came to the birth, which they doe not. But, that from hence a denyall of Maries virginity will follow, we deny. And therefore we are wronged in this challenge, as in the rest.

Touching the opinion of the parity of sinnes, which is in the second place imputed to Iovinian, we hold it to be a Stoicall Paradoxe. Their argument to proue that we thinke all sinnes to be equall, because as they suppose, wee deny the difference of Veniall and Mortall sinnes, and thinke all sinnes to be mortall, is very weake; first, because we doe not deny the difference betweene veniall and mortall sinnes, as shall appeare in that which followeth; and secondly, because if we did make all sinnes to bee mortall, yet of mortall sinnes one may be, and is greater, and more grievous then another.

The opinions, that Hier. l. 1. & 2. contra Iovinianum. Hierome imputeth to Iovinian, are foure: the first, that there is an equality of ioyes and rewards in heauen. This opinion wee do not hold, neither can it bee deduced by necessary consequence from the words of Luther, where he saith, that all Christians are as holy and iust as the mother of God. For hee speaketh of imputed righteousnesse, which is equall in all men, from which no imparity of ioy can flowe; but he neuer denieth inherent righteousnesse to be more in one than in another, and more in Mary the mother of Christ, then in any other. Now from this imparity of inherent righteousnesse it is, that there are so different degrees of ioy and glory found among the Saints of God that are in heauen.

The second opinion which Hierom condemneth in Iovinian, is, that there is no difference betweene abstinence from meates, and the sober and due taking of them with thanksgiuing. This we iudge not to be so truly deliuered by him, as was to be wished. For, eating with thanksgiuing is a matter of ordinary sobriety and temperance, but abstinence is an extraordinary acte of Christian mortification, and humiliation, and beeing rightly vsed hath those effects the other hath not; though neither meat, nor abstinence from meate, do simply commend vs vnto God, fasting being a thing not absolutely, and for it selfe, but only respectiuely to certaine endes, to bee iudged good.

The third assertion of Iouinian was, that they which are baptized with water and the holy Ghost, are not subiect to temptation, nor sinne. This is not only an error, but a damnable heresie, if it were so deliuered by him as it is reported by Hierome. That which Caluin saith, that true faith which is found in them that are called according to purpose (as Augustine speaketh, following blessed Paule) cannot be wholly extinguished, nor finally lost, is most true, but hath no agreement with that of Iouinian, that the regenerate is neither subiect to temptation, nor sin. For Caluin denieth not, but that the elect and chosen seruāts of God may & do oftentimes fall very daungerously, but that such is the loue of God towards them whome he hath called according to purpose, that he is alwaies with them, to raise them vp againe, if they fall: and that this is the difference betweene them, and such as God hath not ordained vnto life, that they fall into the hands of God, who suffers them not to bee broken, or vtterly to perish; whereas the hand of God, euen his heauy hand falleth vppon the other, to crush and breake them to peeces, as De sacramentis fidei. lib. 2. p. 13. in tractatu, an charitas semel habita amitti possit. Hugo de Sancto Victore hath most excellently obserued. This therefore is but a calumniation like the rest, when Bellarmine doth charge Caluine with the heresie of Iouinian in this respect.

The fourth and last assertion of Iouinian is, that married persons, virgins, and widowes, if they differ not in other workes of vertue, and therein excell one another, are of equall merite. This assertion, howsoeuer it pleaseth Hierome to taxe, I am well assured the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoolemen do approue. For, virginity in that it addeth, ouer and aboue the ordinary chastity and purity, which ought to bee found in married folkes, though it be a kind of splendor & beauty of vertue, yet it is no vertue, nor degree of vertue, as Gers. p 3. de consilijs Euangelicis & statu perfectionis so, 67. Occam. li. 3. q. 11. in sentent •… ostend •… t, quomodo connexae sunt omnes virtutes, non obstante apparenti repugnantia, & quomodo matrimonio iuncti virtutem virginitatis habere dici possunt: ad virginitatem, inquit, requiritur abstincatia carnis co modo quo Deus vult talem ab stinentiam es se, & similiter actus carnis co modo quo Deus vult esse. Gerson proueth. For that then married folkes could not haue all vertues: nay, because all vertues are connexed, not hauing this of virginity they could haue none. Besides that, no vertue is lost but by sinne, whereas virginity may be lost by that which is no sinne, as by the act of Matrimonie. All vertues in their times and places are commanded, and not left free and counselled onely: but virginity is neuer imposed by precept, and therefore it is noe vertue. Lastly, there is no vertue, but being lost, by repentance may bee recouered againe: but virginity being lost cannot be recouered againe, therefore it is no vertue. These reasons are laid down by Gerson, whereby in his iudgment it is most clearely proued, that virginitie in that it addeth, ouer and aboue ordinary chastity and purity, is no vertue; and consequently that the bare and sole hauing of it, maketh not them that haue it more acceptable vnto God, then others that haue it not, vnlesse they excell them in vertue. It is then a state of life wherein if all things bee answereable in the parties that imbrace it, there are fewer occasions of distractions from God, and more opportunities of attaining to the height of excellent vertue, then in the opposite estate of marriage; yet so, as that it is possible for some married men so to vse that estate, that they may be noe way inferiour to any that are single. This doth Gregorie Nazianzene most confidently and peremptorily defende, in his oration made in the prayse of Gorgonia his sister. Our whole life, sayth hee, is diuided into two sorts or kinds, to witte, marriage and single life; whereof the one, that is single life, as it is more excellent and diuine, so it is of more labour and perill. The other as it is more meane, and of lesse esteeme, so it is subiect to lesse perill. Gorgonia auoiding the inconueniences of both estates, whatsoeuer shee found in either of them behoofefull, beneficiall and commodious shee tooke, & made the height of the excellent perfection of the one estate, and the safety and security of the other, to concurre and meete together. Shee was chast and vndefiled, without scornefull disdaine, mixing the commodities of single life, with marriage, and shewing by euident proofe, that neither of those estates is in it own nature such, as that it should wholly ioyne us to God, or the world, or wholly diuide, & seperate vs from these, so that the one of these should be a thing altogether to be avoided, & the other to be desired; but that it is the minde which doth rightly vse both marriage & single life, & that either of these is as fitte a matter for a skillfull workeman to worke vpon, and to bring forth the excellent worke of vertue. And in his In laudem Basilij. pa. 496. Oration in the prayse of Basill, hee sayth There haue beene some found that liuing in the state of Marriage haue so carried themselues, as that they made it euident, that marriage is no impediment or hinderance, but that therein man may attaine to as great glory of vertue, as in virginity or single life. By which it may appeare, that marriage and virginity are rather diuerse sorts and kinds of life, then differences and degrees of liuing better or worse.

These sentences of Nazianzene are very different, from the inconsiderate speeches of Hierome, that hee is wont to vse in comparing these two states of life together. For, who knoweth not, that hee was so farre in loue with the one, and carried away with the admiration of it, in such sort, that hee spake too basely of the other, and indeede otherwise then truth and reason would permitte. If this bee not so, let them that thinke otherwise tell mee what they thinke of these sayings of his. Contra Iouinianum, his books against Iouinian were excepted against by those of the Church of Rome. whereupon he writeth an apology. Certè cōstat Hiero. hac de causa Romae malè audisse. Rhen. in arg. in lib. Tertul. de exhortatione ad castitatem. Melius est nubere quam vri: si per se nuptiae sint bonae noli illas incendio comparare, sed dic simpliciter, Bonum est nubere. Suspecta est mihi omnis bonitas eius rei, quam magnitudo alterius mali, malum esse cogit inferius. Ego autem non leuius malum, sed simplex per se bonum volo. Si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum est ergo tangere; nihil enim bono contrarium est, nisi malum. &c. Soe then as wee do not approue any priuate opinion of Iouinian, contrary to the iudgment of Gods Church: Soe on the contrary side, wee dare not approoue these and the like rash and inconsiderate speeches of Hierome, beeing contrary to the trueth of scripture, and the iudgment of the rest of the Fathers, who are wont soe to compare marriage and virginity, that the difference betweene them should bee bonum & melius, both good, but the one better then the other; not bonum & malum, the one good and the other evill. For soe to thinke is to fall into the heresie of Marcion, and Tatianus.

CHAP. 31.

Of the Heresies of Vigilantius.

THe next heresie that we are supposed to fall into, is that of Vigilantius. The opinions imputed to him by Hierome, and disliked, are these. The first, that the Saints departed pray not for the liuing. The second, that they abide in some certaine place, and are not euery-where. The third, that the vigils of the Saints are not to be kept, nor their bodies, and the reliques, and the ashes that remaine of them to be honoured, but despitefully trampled vnder feete. The fourth, that Bishops are bound to marry, and a Nulli áutem animae omnino inferos patere satis dominus in argumento illo paupe ris requiescentis & divitis ingemiscentis ex persona Abrahae sanxit non posse inde religari renunciatorem dispositionis infernae &c. Tertul. de anima. Luc. 16. may not be admitted vnlesse they doe first marry. The fift, that it is better to giue almes of our goods, according to that ability we haue, and to retaine a sufficiencie to our selues, then to sell away all, and giue whatsoeuer wee haue, at once to the poore. Two other assertions there are where with Bellarmine chargeth Vigilantius, to wit, the impugning of the invocation of Saints, and the condemning of the adoration of Saints, and their reliques. Thereby intending to make his Reader beleeue, that there was a controversie betweene Hierome & Vigilantius about these things; That Hierome did defend invocation of Saints, whereof yet he speaketh not one word, and that he justified the adoration of Saints, and their Reliques, which yet in expresse words he disclaimeth and condemneth, saying, that the Church honoureth them, but adoreth them not.

For the opinions wherewith Hierome chargeth him, this wee briefly aunswere. First, if he absolutely denyed that the Saints departed doe pray for vs, as it seemeth he did by Hieromes reprehension, we thinke he erred. For we hold they doe pray in genere. Touching the second, whether the Saints doe abide in some one place appointed for their rest, or bee present euery-where, how peremptory soeuer Hierome be, wee wish the Reader to consider how doubtfully Augustine hath written of this matter in his booke de curâ agenda pro mortuis: And that Tertullian, Athanasius aut quisquis auctor est quaestion: ad Antiochum quaest. 11. 13. Isid. l. 3. Ety molog. c. 9. The •… philact. in 8, Mather prorsus negant animas mortuor •… viventibus vn quam apparere, & cur fieri non conueniat multas rationes a •… erunt. Maldonatus in Lucae 16, & 27. 28. Athanasius, and sundry other haue resolutely deliuered, that the soules of men departed doe neuer returne nor intermeddle with the liuing, any more. Vide supra c. 9 Touching the third, which is the keeping of the vigils of the Saints, wee know they were long since by the decree of a Councell condemned and forbidden, and that the Church of Rome doeth not continue nor retaine any such vse or custome at this day. But whereas he is said to haue denyed any honour to be giuen to the bodies of Gods Saints, and despitefully to haue vsed them, if so he did, wee cannot but as much condemne his impiety therein, as Hierome did. Neither doe we suffer any with vs to despise the blessed Saints of God, to trample their bodies vnder feete, or cast them into the fire, as Bellarmine most falsely & vnjustly accuseth vs. But this indeede we confesse we haue done, remembring In Romanis •… el totius occidentis partibus intolerabile est et sacrilegium si sanctorum corpora tangere qu squam fortas •… s voluerit. et ib •… d: quis praesumat in •… ere? l. 3. in. d •… ctione. 12. 〈◊〉 . 30. the saying of Gregory and other of the Fathers, affirming that neither the bodies of the Saints, nor any parts of them ought to be brought into open view, or handled with the handes of men; and that the burying of them, and hiding them from the sight of men is a duty wee owe vnto them: wee haue caused Reliques which were wont superstitiously to bee adored, and offered to be seene and handled of men, to bee honourably buryed. If any thing haue beene disorderly done in the confusions of warre, and popular tumults, they know our aunswere, wee cannot excuse it, nor could not remedie it. Touching the fourth wee say, that Bishoppes neither are bound to marry, nor abstaine from marriage. Touching the last, wee say, that Christian perfection standeth in this, that wee set not our hearts vpon riches, that wee bee not proude of them, nor trust in them, that we be ready if it be for Gods glory or our own soules good, to leaue all: But, for giuing away all at once, or retaining to our selues a sufficiency, neither the one nor the other is absolutely a matter of more perfection. For, sometimes and for some men it is better to keepe and retaine a sufficiencie, and to giue according to the proportion of their abilitie, then to giue away all at once: and sometimes, for some men, vpon some occasion, and in some state of things, it argueth more perfection, to giue away, relinquish, and forsake all at once. Perfection therefore essentially consisteth not in riches or pouerty, nor in the refusing to haue any property in any thing, as thereby expressing the state of things in the time of mans innocency: but in the affection of the minde, alwayes ready to forsake all for the glory of God, the profession of the faith of Christ, and the attaining of eternall saluation. See to this purpose Gerson in his booke de consilijs evangelicis, wherein hee excellently handleth, and cleareth this matter of Christian perfection.

CHAP. 32.

Of the heresies of Pelagius touching originall sinne, and the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes.

THe fourteenth heresie wee are charged with, is Pelagianisme, which Bellarmine endeuoureth to fasten vpon vs three wayes. First, because Zuinglius did sometimes seeme to deny originall sinne, as did the Pelagians. Secondly, because Calvine and others teach, that the children of the faithfull are holy, by the right of their birth. Thirdly, because wee say that all sinnes are by nature mortall.

To the first of these obiections wee say, there is no more reason to charge vs with the priuate opinion of Zuinglius which himselfe afterwards corrected, and none of his followers euer in the Heluetian Church defended, then for vs to charge them with the errour of Bell. l. 5. c. 16. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati, proponit & damnat errorem Pighij et Catharini Pighius and Catharinus, who taught more peremptorily the same errour that Zuinglius did, if not a worse & more dangerous. For whereas he acknowledged most greeuous euils to be found in the nature of man since Adams fall, which no way could haue beene in the integrity of nature, though hee will not call them by the name of sinne; They hold, that originall sinne is not subiectiuely & inherent in euery of vs, but that Adams sinne is imputed to vs, and wee punished for his offence, that all the euils the sonnes of Adam are subiect to, are the conditions of nature, & consequently not newly brought in by Adams sinne, with sundry other erroneous conceits of the like nature.

Touching the second obiection, that Bucer, and Calvine deny originall sinne, though not generally, as did Zuinglius, yet at least in the children of the faithfull: If hee had said that these men, affirme the earth doth moue, and the heauens stand still, he might haue as soone iustified it against them, as this he now saith.

For they most constantly defend, the contrary of that he imputeth to them. But, sayth hee, they teach that the children of the faithfull are borne holy, or are holy by the right of their birth. O inconsiderate Iesuite! is this the ground of that vile and vniust imputation? 1. Corinth. 7. 14. Doth not Paul say so in expresse words, and wilt thou make him a Pelagian like wise? But, sayth hee, Calvin and Bucer teach that the children of Christians by the right of their birth are comprehended in the couenants of grace, and so vnderstand the holinesse attributed to them; whence it will follow that they are borne without originall sinne. To this wee answere, that the children of beleeuing parents may bee vnderstood to bee comprehended in the couenants of mercy and grace, by the right of their birth, either as beeing already in the couenants by actuall admission, in that they are borne of such parents, or for that in the couenant betweene God and their parents, their parents offering them vnto God, and his admission of them, and taking them to bee his children vpon such offer made, are couenanted and agreed vpon. If Caluin and Bucer did teach, that the children of beleeuing parents are already in the couenant by actuall admission, in that they are borne of such parents, it would follow that they were the children of grace by nature, and not of wrath, and consequently not borne in sinne. But they teach no such thing, but vnderstand the comprehension in the couenants in the other sense, namely that the offering of them vnto God by their parents, and his acceptation of them vpon such offer made, are couenanted and agreed vpon in the couenants betweene God and their parents. Now then as beleeuing parents haue good assurance that God will receiue their children as his owne children by adoption, and forgiue them the sinne they are borne in, if they present and offer them to Baptisme, as they are bound by couenant to doe, as much as in them lyeth; So if by ineuitable impossibility they be hindred and cannot, they hope of Gods goodnes in this behalfe, & are moued so to hope, by sundry Rules of equity, whereof Gers. 3. part: serm: de natiuitate Virginis Mariae cons. Caietanus in 3 Thomae quaest. 9. alias 68 art. 2. Gerson and diuerse others do speake, whom I hope Bellarmine will not pronounce to bee Pelagian heretickes.

The second thing, wherin Bellarmine supposeth wee agree with the Pelagians, is the deniall of the difference or distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes. That the Pelagians did expressely and directly deny this distinction of sinnes, there is no auncient writer that reporteth. Bellarmine therefore prooueth it to bee consequent vpon that which they taught concerning the perfection of righteousnes, supposed by them to be so full & absolute, as not to admit any imperfectiō, or any the lightest sins to be where it remaineth. How good this consequence is, & how well he proueth that he intendeth, I referre to the iudgmēt of the Reader, & will not now examine. But whether the Pelagians were in an error touching the difference of sins, or no, I will make it cleare & euident that wee are not. For wee do not deny the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes: but do thinke, that some sinnes are rightly said to bee mortall and some veniall; not for that some are worthy of eternall punishment, & therefore named mortall, others of temporall only, and therefore iudged veniall, as the Papists imagine: Caietanus in primam secundae quaest. 87. art. 5. but for that some exclude grace out of that man in which they are found, and so leaue him in a state wherein hee hath nothing in himselfe that can or wil procure him pardon: and other, which though in themselues considered, and neuer remitted, they bee worthy of eternall punishment, yet do not so farre preuaile, as to banish grace, the fountaine of remission of all misdoings.

All sinnes then in themselues considered are mortall, a as Gerson doth excellently demonstrate. First, because euery offence against God may iustly bee punished c De vita spirituali animae lect. 1. by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgments with eternall death, yea with annihilation; which appeareth to be most true, for that there is no punishment so euill, and so much to be avoided, as the least sin that may be imagined: so that a man should rather choose eternall death, yea vtter annihilation, than committe the least offence in the world. Secondly, the least offence that can be imagined, remaining eternally in respect of the staine and guilt of it, though not in act, as do all sinnes vnremitted, must bee punished eternally: for else there might some sinnefull disorder and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 remaine not ordered by diuine iustice. But wheresoeuer is eternity of punishment, men are repelled from eternall life and happinesse: and consequently euery offence that eternally remaineth not remitted, excludeth from eternall glorie and happinesse, and is rightly iudged a mortall and deadly sinne. All sinnes then are mortall in them that are strangers from the life of God, because they haue dominion and full command in them, or are ioyned withsuch as haue; and so leaue no place for grace which might cry vnto God for the remission of them. But the elect and chosen seruants of God, called according to purpose, doe carefully indevour, that no sinnes may haue dominion ouer them, & therefore notwithstanding any degree of sinne they runne into, they retaine that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences.

Thus all sinnes in themselues considered, and neuer repented of, forsaken, nor remitted, are mortall. All sinnes (that against the Holy Ghost excepted) are veniall, ex eventu, that is, such as may bee, and oftentimes are forgiuen through the mercifull goodnes of God, though there be nothing in the parties offending while they are in such state of sinne, that either can or doth cry for remission. The sinnes of the just not done with full consent (and therefore not excluding grace, the property whereof is to procure the remission of sinnes) are said to be veniall, because they are such, and of such nature, as leaue place in that soule wherein they are, for grace that may and will procure pardon.

By that which hath beene said, I hope it doth appeare, that we teach nothing touching the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes, that Bellarmine himselfe can except against, and that wee differ very much from the Pelagians, who thought that no sinfull defect can stand with grace, or a state of acceptation and fauour with God. For we reject this their conceit, as impious and hereticall, & doe confesse that all sinnes not done with full consent, may stand with grace, and so be rightly named veniall.

CHAP. 33.

Of the heresie of Nestorius, falsely imputed to Beza and others.

THe next heresie, it pleaseth this heretical Romanist to charge vs with, is that of the Nestorians. Let vs see how he indeauoureth to fasten this impiety vpon vs. First, saith he, the Nestorians contemned the Fathers, and so doe the Protestants, therefore they are Nestorians. The consequence of this argument we will not now examine. But the Minor proposition is most false. For we reverence and honour the Fathers much more then the Romanists doe, who pervert, corrupt, and adulterate their writings, but dare not abide the tryall of their doctrines, by the indubitate writings of antiquity.

Secondly, (saith he) the Nestorians affirmed, that there were two persons in Christ, and so divided the vnity of his Person. But the Protestants thinke so likewise. Therefore they are Nestorians. The assumption we deny, and he doth not so much as indeavour to proue it, but proceedeth particularly to proue Beza a Nestorian heretique: in which hee hath as ill successe as he had in the rest of his slanderous imputations.

Beza (saith he) teacheth, that there are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ; Ergo two hypostases or persons: which was the heresie of Nestorius. The consequence of this argument is too weak to inforce the intended conclusion. For when Beza saith, There are two hypostaticall vnions in Christ, the one of the body and soule, the other of the nature of God and man, hee doth not conceiue that the vnion of the body and soule doe in Christ make a distinct humane person or subsistence, different from that of the Sonne of God: (for hee euery-where confesseth, that the humane nature of Christ, hath no subsistence, but that of the Sonne of God, communicated to it) Deus dupliciter habet esse in creaturis. 1 per illapsum in omni naturâ & creaturâ. 2 per circuminsessionem in naturâ assumpts, & licet per illapsum Deus sit intimus omni creatura, & interior quam ipsa sibi aut forma materiae, tamen per circuminsessio nem fit intimior naturae assumptae, quia necesse est naturam assumptam amittere proprium esse subsistentiae, si quod ante assumptionem in eâ fuit: velsi nunquam ipsum habuit, subintrare esse subsistentiae naturae ad quam assumitur, vt sit idem suppositum subsistens in duplici naturâ. Picus Apolog. q. 4. but hee therefore calleth it an hypostaticall vnion, because naturally it doth cause a finite & distinct humane person or subsistence, and so would haue done here, if the nature flowing out of this vnion, had not beene assumed by the sonne of God, and so prevented and stayed from subsisting in it selfe, and personally sustained in the person of the sonne of God. This doctrine is so farre from heresie, that he may justly be suspected of more then ordinarie malice, that will traduce it as hereticall. Yet hath Beza, to stop the mouthes of such clamorous aduersaries, long since corrected and altered this forme of speech, which hee had sometimes vsed.

CHAP. 34.

Of the heresies of certaine touching the Sacrament, and how our men denie that to bee the body of Christ that is carried about to bee gazed on.

THe sixteenth heresie, imputed to vs, is the heresie of certaine, who, what they were, the Iesuite knoweth not, nor what their heresie was, as it should seeme by his doubtfull and vncertaine manner of speaking of it. This vnknowen heresie, defended by he knoweth not whom, he sayth Caluine, Bucer, Melancthon, and other worthy and renowned Diuines (with whom he is no way matchable either in pietie or learning, though hee weare a Cardinals hatte) doe teach. But what monster of heresie is it, that these men haue broached? Hugo de sancto victore de sacram. fidei. li. 2. p. 9. c. 13. Bonauent. l. 4. dist. 13. art. 2. q. 1. 2. Surely, that Christs body is not in the Sacrament, or sacramentall elements, but in reference to the vse appointed by Almighty God; nor longer than the Sacrament may serue for our instruction, and the working of our spirituall vnion with Christ; and that therefore it is not the body of Christ, that dogs, swine, and mice doe eate, as the Romanists are wont to blaspheme: and that it is not fit to dispute, as their impious Sophisters doe, of the passage of it into the stomacke, belly, and draught, of vomiting it vp againe, and resuming it when it is vomited, with infinite other like fooleries, which euery modest man loatheth and shameth to heare mentioned. Secondly, that it is not the body of Christ, which the Popish Idolaters carrie about in their pompous, solemne, and pontificall Processions to be gazed on and adored, to driue away diuels, to still tempests; to stay the ouerflowing of waters, to quench and extinguish consuming and wasting fires: But that the body of Christ is present in and, with the sanctified elements, onely in reference to the vse appointed, that is, that men should be made partakers of it.

This participation, according to the auncient vse, was first and principally in the publike assembly; secondly, in the primitiue Church the maner of many was, to receiue the Sacrament, and not to be partakers of it presently, but to carrie it home with them, and to receiue it priuately when they were disposed, De corona milit •… s. l. 2. ad vxotem. Hieron, aduersus louin. quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias, &c. Rhenanus annotat. in lib. de corona militis. as Tertullian and others doe report. Iustinus martyr apolo. 2. prope finem. Thirdly, the maner was to send it by the Deacons, to them, that by sickenesse, or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent; Euseb. l. 5. c. 23. and to strangers. Yea, for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day, reserue some part of the sanctified elements, to be sent to the sicke, and such as were in danger of death.

Non tamdiu leruabatur, vt ru •… c: nam sequitur in can. de septimo in septimum diem semper mutetur, & alia eodem die consecrata in: locum 〈◊〉 subto •… etur, at vetustissimus can. Clementis apud But char dum vetat Eucharistiam asseruari: hodie muc •… das particulas comedere coguntur sacerdotes quas olim vetustas igne consumpsit Rhena. in annot, in Tertul. de corona militis. pag. •… 38. This reseruation was not generally obserued, as may appeare by the Canon of Clemens, prescribing, that so much onely should be prouided for the outward matter of the Sacraments, as might suffice the Communicants; and that if any thing remained, it should presently be receiued by the Clergie. Neither could there be any place for, or vse of, reseruation, where there was a daily Communion, as in many places there was: nor in any place for such reseruation as is vsed in the Church of Rome, for weekes, and moneths, seeing there was generally in auncient times in all places, twise a weeke, or at least once euery weeke, a Communion, from whence they might bee supplied that were absent.

The Romanists consecrate euery day, but make their reseruations from some solemne time of communicating, as Easter, or the like; and this not only, or principally, for the purpose of communicating any in the mysteries of the Lords body and blood, but for circumgestation, ostentation, and adoration, to which end the Fathers neuer vsed it. Neither is that, which is thus vnto this purpose reserued, the body of Christ, as our Diuines doe most truely pronounce. The maner of the primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth, if any parts of the consecrated elements remained so long as to be musty and vnfit for vse, to consume them with fire, which I thinke they would not haue done to the body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body no longer, than they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull, by partaking in them. But the Romanists at this day, as the same Rhenanus fitly obserueth, would thinke it a great and horrible impietie, to doe that which the Fathers then prescribed and practised.

So then Caluine doth thinke that the Romish reseruation doth not carry about with it the body of Christ, as the Papists foolishly fancie, and yet I hope is in no heresie at all. Neither doeth hee any where say, that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time, in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them, are not the body of Christ; but saith onely, that there were long since great abuses in reseruation, and greater in that euery one was permitted to take the Sacrament at the hand of the publike Minister in the Church, and carry it home with him: which I thinke this Cardinall will not denie, if hee aduisedly bethinke himselfe.

CHAP. 35.

Of the heresie of Eutiches, falsely imputed to the Diuines of Germany.

THe next heresie, imputed vnto vs, is Eutichianisme; which is directly opposite and contrary to the former errour of Nestorius. This hee chargeth first vpon Zuinck feldius, whom wee reiect as a franticke & seduced miscreant, and do in no wise acknowledge him to be a member of our Churches. Secondly, vpon Brentius, Iacobus Smidelinus, and other learned Diuines of the German Churches.

The heresie of Eutiches was, that as before, so after the incarnation there was but one only nature in Christ, for that the nature of God was turned into man, that there was a confusion of these natures. Doe any of the Germane Diuines teach this blasphemous doctrine? No, sayth Bellarmine, not directly and in precise tearmes, but indirectly, and by consequent they doe. If wee demaund of him what that is which they teach, whence this impiety may by necessary consequence be inferred, hee answereth, the vbiquitary presence of the body and humane nature of Christ. For, sayth he, vbiquity being an incommunicable property of God, it cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ, without confusion of the diuine and humane natures. But he should remember that they, whom he thus odiously traduceth, are not so ignorant, as to thinke, that the body of Christ, which is a finite and limited nature, is euery where, by actuall position or locall extension, but personally only in respect of the coniunction and vnion it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God, who is euery where.

This is it then, which they teach, That the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite, limited, and bounded, and is locally in one place; but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery-where: in which sense they thinke it may truely bee said to be euery-where. For the better clearing of this point, we must remember that it is agreed vpon by all Catholike Divines, that the humane nature of Christ hath two kindes of being, the one naturall, the other personall. The first, limited and finite; the second, infinite and incomprehensible. For, seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence, it cannot be but finite: Vniti Hypostatice Deum & hominem, nihil est aliud quam naturam l •… manam non habere propriam subsistentiam, sed assumptam esse à verbo aeterno, ad ipsam verbi subsistentiam. Bellarm. de incarn. l. 3. c. 8. and seeing it hath no personall subsistence of it owne, but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it, which is infinite, and without limitation, it cannot be denied to haue an infinite subsistence, and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort, and consequently euery-where. Thus then the body of Christ secundum esse naturale, is contained in one place; but secundum esse personale, may rightly bee said to be euery-where.

It were easie to reconcile all those assertions of our Divines touching this part of Christian faith, in shew so opposite one to another, and to stop the mouthes of our prattling adversaries, who so greedily seeke out our verball & seeming differences (whereas their whole doctrine is nothing else but an heap of vncertainties and contrarieties) if this were a fit place. But let this briefly suffice for the repelling of Bellarmines calumniation, and let vs proceed to examine the rest of his objections.

CHAP. 36.

Of the supposed heresie of Zenaias Persa, impugning the adoration of Images.

THe next heresie, hee imputeth vnto vs, is the impugning of the adoration and worshipping of Images: the first authour of which impiety, as this impious Idolater is pleased to name it, was Zenaias Persa, as Nicephorus reports. But whatsoeuer the Iesuite thinke, Nicephorus credite is not so good, that vpon his bare word wee should beleeue so shamelesse a lye. For Augustine, which was before this Persian, (in his booke De moribus Ecclesiae, libro primo, capite tricesimo quarto) hath the same heresie, as it pleaseth these heretikes to call it. Nolite, inquit, consectari turbas imperitorum, qui in ipsà verâ religione superstitiosi sunt. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores, quos mores Ecclesia condemnat, & quotidiè corrigere studet. And Greg. Sereno Massiliensi lib. 9. c. 9. frangi non debuit quod non ad adorandum in Ecclesiis, sed ad instruendum solummodò mentes fuit nescientium collocatum. Gregory, after the time of this supposed Persian, doth condemne the adoration of Images. And Auctores antiqui omnes conueniunt in hoc quod in Concilio Francofordiensi sit reprobata Synodus 7, quae decreuerat imagine •… adoranda •… ita Hincmarus, Aimoinus Regino, Ado, et alii. Bellarmin. lib. 2. de sanctorum imaginibus cap 14. the Councell of Frankford likewise after his time, as appeareth by Hincmarus, and others.

Besides, if Nicephorus follow the judgement of the Fathers of the second Nicene Councell, hee meaneth nothing else, by that adoration of Images, which hee approoueth, but the embracing, kissing, and reverent vsing of them, like to the honour wee doe the Bookes of holy Scripture, not that Religious worshippe which consisteth in spirit and trueth, which the Papists yeelde to their Idoles. And so there is as great difference of judgement betweene him and Bellarmine, as betweene him and vs.

Quis adorat vel orat intuens simulacrum, qui non sic afficitur ut ab eo se exaudiri putet? itsque homines talibus superstitionibus obligati plerumque ad ipsum solem dorsum ponentes preces fundunt statuae, quam solem vocant: & cum sonitu maris a tergo feriantur, Neptuni statuam quam pro ipso mari colunt, quasi sentientem gemitibus feriunt: hoc enim facit, & quodammodo extorquet illa figur a membrorum. &c. Hoc venerantur quod ipsi ex auro & argento fecerunt: sed dicent, & nos habere instrumenta & vasa ex huiusmodi materia in vsu celebrandorum sacramentorum, &c. & sunt profecto ista instrumenta, seu vasa, quid aliud quam opera manuum hominum? caeterum num quid os habent, & non loquuntur, &c. numquid ijs supplicamus quia per ea supplicamus Deo? illa causa maxima impietatis insanae, quod plus valet in affectibus miserorum forma similis viuenti, quae sibi efficit supplicari, quam quod manifestum est, non esse viuentem, vt debeat a viuente contemni. Aug. in Psal. 113. vide Walafridum Strabonem de rebus eccles. de imaginibus &c. That which Bellarmine addeth against Caluine and others, touching the time that Images were first brought into the Church, if this place did require the examination of it, wee should finde him as notable a trifler therein, as in all the rest.

CHAP. 37

Of the errour of the Lampetians, touching vowes.

THe errour of the Lampetians was, as Alphonsus à Castro supposeth, that it is not lawfull for men to vowe, and by vowing to lay a necessity vpon themselues of doing those things, which freely and without any such tye, might much better bee performed.

If they disliked simply all vowing, wee doe not approue their opinion, as may appeare by that which Kemnisius, Zanchius, and others haue written to this purpose, and therefore wee are vniustly said to fauour their errour. That which Bellarmine addeth, for the strengthening of this his vniust imputation, is a meere calumniation. For Luther doth not say, that a man should vow to do a thing as long as hee shall bee pleased, and then to be free againe, when hee shall dislike that which before hee resolued on: but that all vowes should be made with limitation, The Ronanists admitte dispensations wholly discharging from Vowes and Commutations: whereby men are taught, it sufficeth to performe some other thing insteade of that they vowed. to bee so farre performed, as humane frailty will permitte, & that it is better after a vow made to breake it, & to discend to the doing of that which is lawfull & good, though not carrying so great show of perfection as that which by vowe was promised, than, under the pretence of keeping it, to liue in all dissolute wickednesse as the manner of the Popish votaries is: Si autem perseuerare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est vt nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant. Cypr: lib. 1 Epist. 11 Epiphanius heresi 61 ostendit melius esse post votum iungi matrimonio & acta poenitentia recipi in Ecclesiam, quam quotidiè telis occultis vulnerari. August de bono viduitatis, Though be doe mislike them that vowe, and performe not, yet he reprooueth them also, that thinke marriages after vowes to be voide, and to be dissolued. whereupon the Fathers are cleare, that marriage, after a vow made of single life, is lawfull, and that it is better to marry than continuing single to liue lewdly and wantonly.

CHAP. 38.

Of the heresie of certaine, touching the verity of the body and blood of Christ, communicated to vs in the Sacrament.

THe last heresie might well haue beene omitted. For those heretikes condemned by Impatibilis Dialog. 3. mirum est, Bellarm. hanc haerisin tam antiquam putare, cum Alphonsus à Castro haeresi 4. de Eucharistia, dicat, omnes qui huius perversi dogmatis mentionem fecerunt asserere fuisse Beringarij inuentionem. Theodoret, Ignatius and others, denied the verity of Christs humane nature, and thereupon condemned the Sacrament of his body and blood. So that it was not the impugning of Popish Transubstantiation, as Bellarmine idlely fancieth, that was reprooued in them, but the denying of the trueth of that body and blood, which all true Christians doe know to bee mystically communicated to them in the Sacrament, to their vnspeakeable comfort. How then can we be charged with the heresie of these men, seeing wee neither deny the verity of Christs humane nature, nor make the Sacrament to be a naked figure or similitude only, but acknowledge that it consisteth of two things, the one earthly, and the other heauenly; and that the body of Christ is truely present in the Sacrament, and communicated to vs, though neither Capernaitically to be torne with the teeth, nor popishly to bee swallowed, and carried downe into the stomacke and belly.

Thus then wee see, how fondly this Cardinall heretike hath indeuoured to prooue vs heretikes, and to hold the old condemned heresies of those cursed Arch-heretikes, whose frensies wee condemne much more than he, and his fellowes doe. So that he is so farre from demonstrating either our consent with condemned heretikes that were of old, or their consent with the auncient Fathers, and consequently the antiquity of their profession, that contrarily all that are not blinded with partiality, may easily see, that the whole course of Popish doctrine is nothing but a confused mixture of errours; and all that they write against vs, nothing but meere calumniation & slander.

CHAP. 39.

Of Succession, and the exceptions of the aduersaries against vs, in respect of the supposed want of it.

THus then, hauing taken a view of whatsoeuer they can or do alleage, for proofe of the antiquity of their doctrine, which is the first note of the Church assigned by them; Bellar. 4. de notis ecclesiae, c. 8. not. 5. let vs come vnto the second, which is Succession, and see if they haue any better successe in it, than in the former. In what sense Succession may bee granted to bee a note of the true Church, I haue shewed already: let vs therefore see how, and what our aduersaries conclude from thence against vs, or for themselues.

By this note, say they, it is easie to prooue, that the reformed Churches are not the true Churches of God. Contra Luciferianos. Ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotem, saith Hierome against the Luciferians. It can be no Church, that hath no Ministery. And Cyprian to the same purpose pronounceth, that the Church is nothing els, but, Plebs episcopo adunata. Thus therefore from these authorities 1 Lib. 4. Ep. 10. they reason; Where there is no ministery, there is no Church. But, amongst the Protestants there is no Ministerie: therefore, no Church. The Minor proposition or assumption of this argument wee deny; which they endeuour to prooue in this sorte; There is no lawfull calling to the worke of the Ministery, amongst the Protestants; therefore no Ministery. The defects they suppose to bee in the calling of our Bishops and Ministers, are two fold: first, for that they that ordained them, in the beginning of this alteration of things in the state of the Church, had no power so to doe. Secondly, for that no man may be ordained, but into a voide place, either wherein there neuer was any Pastour or Bishop before, as in Churches in their first foundation: or, wherein there hauing beene, their place is now voide, by the death, depriuation, or voluntary relinquishment of them that possest it before, that so they who are newly elected and ordained, may succeede into the void roomes of such as went before them, and not intrude vpon their charge, wherevnto they are still iustly intituled: Our Bishops and Pastours were ordayned and placed in the beginning of the reformation of religion, where there were Bishops already in actuall possession. These being the defects, which they suppose to be in the calling of our Bishops & Ministers, let vs see how they prooue that they say.

That they, who ordained our Ministers in the beginning of the alteration of Religion, had no power so to doe, thus they prooue. No Bishop may be esteemed and taken as lawfully ordained, vnlesse he be ordained of three Bishops at the least; and they, such as haue beene ordained in like sort, and so ascending till we come to the first, whom the Apostles did constitute by their Apostolike authority, receiued immediatly from Christ the Sonne of God, whom the Father sent into the world. But the Pastors and Bishops of the reformed Churches had no such ordination; therefore they wanted that calling which should make them lawfull Bishops and Pastours.

It is true, that the auncient Canons regularly admit no ordination, as lawfull, wherein three Bishops at the least doe not concurre. Bellarm. l. 4. de notis Ecclesiae c. 8. nota 5 But Bellarmine and his fellowes doe not thinke this number of Bishops imposing hands, to bee absolutely and essentially necessary. For they confesse, that by dispensation, growing out of due and just consideration of the present occasions and state of things, one Bishop alone may ordain, assisted with Abbots, which are but Presbyters and no Bishops; nay which by the course of their profession, and originall of their order, are lesse interessed in the government of the Church, than the meanest Presbyter hauing care of soules. Hier. contra Vigilantium non procul á fine: er ad Heliodorum. Alia monachorum est causa, alia clericorum: clerici pascunt oves, ego pascor illi de altari viv •… mihi quasi infructuosae arbo •… i securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad altare non defero. Lindan. Panop. l. 4. c. 75. Monachi olim omnes erant laici, et omnes templi choro excludebantur. Hugo erudit. theol. de Sacram. fid. lib. 2. part. 3. c. 4. ut intrinsecus quietius vivant ordines ministerii divini, per indulgentiam Monachis conceduntur, non ad exercendam praelationem in populo Dei, sed ad celebrandam intrinsecus communionem Sacramenti Dei, quod tamen in principio non ita fuisse dicunt: Monachi quippe et Eremum habitantes olim Presbyteros habuisse dicuntur. Monachus plangentis non docentis officium habet. A Monke is a mourner, hee is no teacher in the Church of GOD. The Romanists thinking therefore, that in some cases, the ordination which is made by one Bishoppe alone, assisted with Presbyters, is lawfull and good, cannot generally except against the ordination of the Bishops and Pastours of all reformed Churches. For in England, Denmarke, and some other places, they which had beene Bishoppes in the former corrupt state of the Church, did ordaine Bishops and Ministers, though perhaps precisely three did not alwayes concurre, in euery particular ordination.

But they will say, whatsoeuer may bee thought of these places, wherein Bishoppes did ordaine, yet in many other, none but Presbyters did impose handes; all which ordinations are clearely voyde: and so, by consequent, many of the pretended reformed Churches, as namely those of France, and others, haue no ministerie at all. The next thing therefore to be examined, is, whether the power of ordination bee so essentially annexed to the order of Bishops, that none but Bishops may in any case ordaine. For the clearing whereof we must obserue, that the whole Ecclesiasticall power is aptly divided into the power of order, and jurisdiction. Ordo est rerum parium dispariumque vnicuique sua loca tribuens congrua dispositio: that is, Order is an apt disposing of things, whereof some are greater, and some lesser, some better, and some meaner, sorting them accordingly into their seuerall ranckes and places. First therefore, order doth signifie that mutuall reference or relation, that things sorted into their seuerall ranckes and places, haue betweene themselues. Secondly, that standing, which each thing obtaineth, in that it is better or worse, greater or lesser then another, and so accordingly sorted and placed, aboue or below other, in the orderly disposition of things. The power of holy or Ecclesiasticall order, is nothing else, but that power which is specially giuen to men sanctified and set apart from others, to performe certaine sacred, supernaturall, and eminent actions, which others of another rancke may not at all, or not ordinarily meddle with: As to preach the word, administer the Sacraments, and the like.

The next kind of Ecclesiasticall power, is that of Iurisdiction. For the more distinct and full vnderstanding whereof wee must note, that three things are implyed in the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers. First, an election, choyce, or designement of persons fitte for so high and excellent imployment. Secondly, the consecrating of them, and giuing them power and authority to intermeddle with things pertaining to the seruice of God, to performe eminent actes of gracious efficacie, and admirable force, tending to the procuring of the eternall good of the sonnes of men, and to yeeld vnto them, whome Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood, all the comfortable meanes, assurances, and helpes, that may set forward their eternall saluation. Thirdly, the assigning and diuiding out to each man, thus sanctified to so excellent a worke, that portion of Gods people which hee is to take care of, who must be directed by him in things that pertaine to the hope of eternall saluation. This particular assignation giueth, to them that had only the power of order before, the power of Iurisdiction also, ouer the persons of men.

Thus then it is necessary, that the people of God bee sorted into seuerall portions, and the sheepe of Christ diuided into seuerall flockes, for the more orderly guiding of them, & yeelding to them the meanes, assurances, and helpes that may set them forward in the way of eternall life; and that seuerall men bee seuerally and specially assigned, to take the care and ouersight of seuerall flocks and portions of Gods people. The Apostles of Christ and their successours, 〈◊◊◊〉 Presbyt •… s •… y by •… y, a •… d 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 allo •… . 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . •… stus, vt Damas •… air, titulos in vib •… Rot •… . Presbyt •… s d •… it. 〈◊〉 in •… ta 〈◊〉 . when they planted the Churches, so diuided the people of God conuerted by their minsterie, into particular Churches, that each Citty and the places neere adioyning, did make but one Church. Now because the vnity and peace of each particular Chuch of God, and flock of his sheepe, dependeth on the vnity of the Pastour, and yet the necessities of the many duties that are to bee performed in Churches of so large extent, require more Ecclesiasticall Ministers then one; therefore though there bee many Presbyters, that is, many fatherly guides of one Church, yet there is one amongst the rest, that is specially Pastor of the place, who, for distinction sake, is named a Bishop; 〈◊〉 . contra •… anos. to whom an eminent and peerelesse power is giuen, for the avoiding of Schismes and factions: and the r •… st are but his assistants and coadiutours, and named by the generali name of Presbyters. So that in the performance of the acts of Ecclesiasticall Ministry, when he is present and will do them himselfe, they must giue place: As Christ doth nothing wit •… ut 〈◊〉 Father, so do 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 . whe •… be Pres •… , Deacon or 〈◊〉 man. 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊◊〉 ha •… . ad 〈◊〉 . 〈◊◊◊◊〉 to 〈◊◊◊◊〉 Pres •… rs & D •… . 〈◊〉 , 〈◊◊〉 B. 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 the 〈◊◊〉 •… he Ch •… ch. Cen •… . 〈◊〉 . 1. can •… . Presbyteri. sine conscienti •… Episcopi nihil faciunt. and in his absence, or when being present hee needeth assistance, they may doe nothing without his consent and liking. Yea so farre for orders sake is he preferred before the rest, that some things are specially reserued to him onely, as the ordaining of such as should assist him in the worke of his ministerie, the reconciling of Penitents, Epiphanius haeresi. 75. Concilium Anciranum can. 13. •… ero. •… pist. 〈◊〉 •… um: quid facit Episcopus, except •… ordinatione, quod non facit Presbyter. confirmation of such as were baptised, by imposition of hands; dedication of Churches, and such like.

These being the diuerse sorts and kinds of Ecclesiasticall power, it will easily appeare to all them that enter into the due consideration thereof, that the power of Ecclesiasticall or sacred order, that is, the power and authority to int •… ddle with things pertaining to the seruice of God, and to performe emi •… t actes of gracious efficacie, tending to the procuring of the eternall good of th •… sonn •… s of men is equall and the same in all those whom we call Presbyters, that is fatherly guides of Gods Church and people: & that, only for orders sake, and the preseruation of peace, there is a limitation of the vse and exercise of the same. Heerevnto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists themselues, freely confessing that that, wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter, is •… t a distinct & higher order, or power of order, but a kind of dignity & office 〈◊〉 imployment onely. Which they proue, because a Presbyter, ordained persaltum, k Concil. Carth. 〈◊〉 can. 4. •… arth. 3. •… an. 31. 32. 158. l Hiero. contra Luciferianos: ob honorem sacerdotij fit, vt soli Episcopi manus im •… nt. 〈◊〉 Thom •… 〈◊〉 •… addit. quaest. 40. art. 5. Bonauen. l 4. dist. 24. ar. 2 q. 3. Dominicus á Soto l. 10. de iustitia & 〈◊〉 q. 〈◊〉 . a •… 2. & in 4. dist. 24. q. 2. art. 3. Armacanus l. 〈◊〉 . ostendit nullum praelatum plus habere de potestate sacramen •… siu •… or •… nis, quàm sim •… ces sacerdotes. Cameracensis in 4. quaest. 4. Contarenus de Sacramentis. lib. 4. that neuer was consecrated or ordained Deacon, may notwithstanding doe all those actes that pertaine to the Deacons order, (because the higher order doth alwaies imply in it the lower and inferiour, in an eminent and excellent sort:) But a Bishoppe ordained per saltum, that neuer had the ordination of a Presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lords body, nor ordaine a Presbyter, himselfe being none, nor doe any acte peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters. Whereby it is most euident, that that wherein a Bishoppe excelleth a Presbyter, is not a distinct power of order, but an eminencie and dignity onely, specially yeelded to one aboue all the rest of the same ranke, for order sake, and to preserue the vnitie and peace of the Church. Hence it followeth, that many things which in some cases Presbyters may lawfully doe, are peculiarly reserued vnto Bishops, as Hierome noteth; Contra Luciferianos. Potius ad honorem Sacerdotij, quam ad legis necessitatem; Rather for the honour of their Ministery, then the necessity of any lawe. And Peruenit ad nos quosdam scandalizatos fuisse quod Presbyteros Chrismate tangere in fronte eos qui baptizati sunt prohibuimus &c. Greg Ianuario episcopo l. 3. in dict. 12. Epist. 26. therefore wee reade, that Presbyters in some places, and at some times, did impose hands, and confirme such as were baptized: which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly haue forbidden, there was soe great exception taken to him for it, that he left it free againe. And who knoweth not, that Carth. 3. can: 32. all Presbyters in cases of necessity may absolue & reconcile Penitents; a thing in ordinary course appropriated vnto Bishops? and why not by the same reason ordaine Presbyters & Deacons in cases of like necessity? For, seing the cause, why they are forbidden to do these acts, is, because to Bishops ordinarily the care of all churches is committed, and to them in all reason the ordination of such as must serue in the Church pertaineth, that haue the chiefe care of the Church, and haue Churches wherein to imploy them; which only Bishops haue as long as they retaine their standing: and not Presbyters, being but assistants to bishops in their Churches; If they become enmies to God and true religion, in case of such necessity, as the care and gouerment of the Church is deuolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholique & being of a better spirit: so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeede them in the work of the Ministrie pertaines to them likewise. For if the power of order, and authority to intermedle in things pertaining to Gods seruice, bee the same in all Presbyters and that they be limited in the execution of it, onely for order sake, so that in case of necessity, euery of thē may baptise & confirme them whom they haue baptized, absolue & reconcile Penitents, & doe all those other acts, which regularly are appropriated vnto the Bishop alone; there is no reason to be giuen, but that in case of necessity, wherein all Bishops were extinguished by death, or being fallen into heresie, should refuse to ordaine any to serue God in his true worship; but that Presbyters as they may do all other acts, whatsoeuer speciall challenge Bishoppes in ordinary course make vnto them, might do this also. Who then dare condemn all those worthy Ministers of God, that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry Churches of the world, at such times as Bishops in those parts, where they liued, opposed themselues against the truth of God, and persecuted such as professed it? Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome, in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to bee void. For not onely Videtur quod si omnes Episcopi essent defuncti, sacerdotes minores possent episcopos ordinare. Armachanus l. 11. in q. Armenorum cap. 7. Alex, de Hales. part. 4. q. 9. memb. 5. art. 1. dicunt quidam quod ex demandatione Papae ordinatus potest conferre ordinem quem habet. Armachanus, a very learned and worthy Bishop, but, as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many learned men, in his time and before, were of opinion, that in some cases, and at some times, Presbyters may giue orders, and that their ordinations are of force, though to do so, not being vrged by extreame necessity; cannot be excused from ouer great boldnesse and presumption. Neither should it seeme so strange to our aduersaries, that the power of ordination should at some times be yeelded vnto Presbyters, seeing their Chorepiscopi, Suffragans, or Titular Bishops that liue in the Diocesse and Churches of other Bishops, and are no Bishops according to the old course of discipline, do dayly in the Romish Church, both confirme Children and giue orders.

All that may be alledged out of the Fathers, for proofe of the contrary, may be reduced to two heads. For first, whereas they make all such ordinations voide, as are made by Presbyters, it is to bee vnderstood according to the strictnesse of the Canons in vse in their time, and not absolutely in the nature of the thing; which appeares in that they likewise make all ordinations sine 〈◊〉 Synodus Chalced. can. 6 titulo to be voide: Episcopus praeter iudicium metropolitani & finitimorum episcoporum non ordinandus. Concil, Laodicen: can. 12. si episcopus ab omnibus episcopis qui sunt in prouinciâ aliquâ vrgente necessitate non ordinatur, certè tres episcopi debent in vnum esse congregati, ita vt etiam caeterorum qui absente •… sunt consensum literis teneant, Concil. Nic. can. 4. All ordinations of Bishops ordained by fewer then three Bishops with the Metropolitane: Concil. Antiochenum can. 13. all ordinations of Presbyters by Bishoppes out of their owne Churches without speciall leaue: whereas I am well assured, the Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be voide, though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault. Secondly, their sayings are to bee vnderstood regularly, not without exception of some speciall cases that may fall out.

Thus then we see, that obiection, which our adnersaries tooke to bee vnanswerable, is abundantly answered out of the grounds of their owne Schoole-men, the opinion of many singularly learned amongst them, and their owne daily practise, in that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans, as they call them, Concil. Ancitanum can. 13. decrerum Iohannis 3. cp. ad Germaniae episcopos. Antiochenum can. 10. being not Bishops, but onely Presbyters, whatsoeuer they pretend, and forbidden by all old Canons to meddle in ordination, yet doe daily with good allowance of the Romane Church, ordaine Presbyters, and Deacons, confirme (with imposition of hands) those that are baptized, and doe all other Episcopall acts, whiles their great Bishops Lord it like princes, in all temporall ease, and worldly bravery.

The next thing they object against vs, is, that our first Ministers, what authority soeuer they had that ordained them, yet had no lawfull ordination, because they were not ordained & placed in voide places, but intruded into Churches, that had lawfull Bishops at the time of those pretended ordinations; and consequently, did not succeede, but encroach vpon other mens right. To this wee answere, that the Church is left voyde, either by the death, resignation, depriuation, or the peoples desertion and forsaking of him that did precede. In some places, our first Bishoppes and Pastours found the Churches voydby death, in some by voluntarie relinquishment, in some by depriuation, and in some by desertion, in that the people, or at least that part of the people that adhered to the Catholique verity, who haue power to choose their Pastour, to admitte the worthy, and refuse the vnworthy, did forsake the former that were wolues and not Pastours, and submitted themselues to those of a better spirit. Of the three first kindes of voidance, there can bee no question; of this fourth, there may: and therefore I will proue it by sufficient authoritie, and strength of reason.

Cyprian, Cecilius, Polycarpus, and other Bishoppes, writing to the Cleargie, 1 Li. 1. Ep. 4: and people of the Churches in Spaine, whereof Basilides and Martialis were Bishoppes, who fell in time of persecution, denyed the fayth, & defiled themselues with Idolatry, perswade them to separate themselues from those Bishoppes, assuring them that the people beeing holy, religious, fearing God, and obeying his lawes, may and ought to separate themselues, from impious and wicked Bishoppes, and not to communicate with them in the matters of Gods service, Lib. 1: Ep. 4. quando ipsa plebs maximè habeat potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi; that is, seeing the people hath authority to choose the worthy, and to refuse the vnworthy. And Occam to the same purpose sayth on this sorte: 1 Part. l. 5. 28 Si Papa & maximè celebres episcopi incidant in haeresin, ad Catholicos deuoluta est potestas omnis iudicandi. If the Pope & the principall Bishoppes of the Christian world doe fall into heresie, the power of all Ecclesiasticall iudgement is deuolued to the inferiour Cleargie and people remaining Catholique. This opinion of Cyprian and the rest, if our aduersaries shall dislike or except against, may easily be confirmed by demonstration of reason. For if it do fall out, that the Bishoppes and a great part of the people fall into errour, heresie, and superstition, I thinke our aduersaries will not deny, but that the rest are bound to maintaine and vphold the auncient veritie; who being not so many, nor so mighty, as to bee able to eiect those wicked ones by a formall course of iudiciall proceeding, what other thing is there left vnto them, but either to consent to their impieties, which they may not doe, or to seperate themselues, which is the thing our aduersaries except against, in the people of our time. Now hauing separated themselues from their former supposed and pretended Pastours; what remaineth, but that they make choise of new to bee ordained and set ouer them; if not by the concurrence of such and so many, as the strictnesse of the Canon doth ordinarily require to concurre in ordinations, yet by such, as in cases of necessity, by all rules of equity are warranted to performe the same.

CHAP. 40.

Of Succession, and the proofe of the trueth of their doctrine by it.

THus hauing examined the allegation of the Papists, endeuouring to prooue against vs, that wee haue not the true Church amongst vs, because, as they falsely suppose, wee lacke the visible Succession of Pastours and Bishops, let vs see what they can conclude from this note of Succession, for themselues. In this part Denotis Ecclesiae, cap. 8. Bellarmine sheweth himselfe to be a notable trifler. For first hee sayth, that if there bee no Church where there is no succession, then where there is succession continued, the true Church doth remaine still. Secondly, being pressed with the example of the Graecians, amongst whom a continuall succession of Bishops hath euer beene found, hee answereth, that succession doth not proue affirmatiuely, that to bee the true Church where it is found, but negatiuely, that not to bee the true Church, where it is wanting: contrary to himselfe, who requireth in the notes of the Church (amongst which he reckoneth succession to be one of the prinpall,) that they be not only inseparable, without which the true Church cannot bee, but proper also, and such as cannot be found in any other society, but that which is the true Church of God. Thirdly, againe forgetting himselfe, hee maketh succession proper to the true Church, and such a note as may proue c Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. illis Presbyteris obediendum esse dicit, qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma acceperunt veritatis. Tertul. de praescrip. praeter ter ordinem Episcoporum ab initio decurrentem requirit consanguinitatem doctrinae. Aug. Epist. 165. enumeratis episcopis Romanis: in hoc (inquit) ordine nullus inuenitur Donatista. all those societies of Christians true Churches which haue it: & disliketh Calvin, for saying that more is required to finde out the true Church than personall succession; and that the Fathers did not demonstrate the Church barely by personall succession, but by shewing, that they that succeeded, held the faith of those that went before them. Thus he sheweth plainely that he knoweth not what he writeth.

This matter of succession Staplet. contro. de ecclesia in se quaestione 4. art. 2. expositione articuli notabili, 5. Stapleton hath much more aptly delivered than Bellarmine, confessing, that not bare and personall succession, but lawfull succession is a note of the true Church: And defineth that to be lawfull succession, when not only the latter succeede into the voide roomes of those that went before them, being lawfully called therevnto, but also hold the faith, their predecessours did. In this sort the Fathers were wont to reason from succession, in the controuersies of Religion. First, they reckoned vp the successions of Bishops, from the Apostles times; & then shewed, that none of them taught any such thing, as was then called in question, but the contrary; and consequently, that the Apostles deliuered no such thing, but the contrary.

To Bellarmines disiunction, that either the Fathers made it appeare to Catholickes or to Heretickes, that the succeeding Bishops held the same faith, the former did; we answere, They made it appeare to both. For so doth Irenaeus, l. 3. cap 3. Irenaeus proue the tradition of the Apostles to be for him, and against the Heretickes he refuteth, because he can number all the Bishops in the principall Churches from the Apostles times downeward, none of which euer taught any such thing, as those heretiques dreamed, but the contrary. That which Bellarmine addeth, that if it had appeared to heretiques, that the true faith had beene kept by succeeding Bishops they would haue yeelded to it, is as little to the purpose as the rest. For, we do not say, it did apeare vnto them, they held the truth, but that they held the same faith their predecessours held. Now, though the Fathers made this appeare vnto them; yet they feared not to oppose themselues, as the same Lib. 3. cap. 2. Irenaeus witnesseth, affirming, that when it was prooued against the heretiques of those times, that in the succession of Bishoppes those that succeeded, held the same faith the former did, without any alteration, and consequently, the Apostles doctrine was still continued in their Churches; they thought themselues wiser then the Apostles thēselues, affirming that they mingled the Law and the Gospell together, taking exceptions of ignorance and imperfection against them and their doctrine.

Thus then wee see, the Fathers did not reason barely from personall sucession, but by shewing affirmatiuely, the faith they defended to haue beene receiued by all those Bishops, whose succession they vrged against their aduersaries; and negatiuely, by proouing that none of them euer beleeued any such things, as their adversaries dreamed. If the Romanists wil dispute against vs in this sort, and demonstrate that the Fathers successiuely held those opinions they do, and that none of them were of that iudgment in matter of faith that wee are of, wee will most willingly listen vnto them. But this they doe not, and therefore their talking of the Fathers reasoning from succession, when they dare not reason as the fathers did, is most vaine, and idle.

CHAP. 41.

Of Vnity, the kindes of it, and that Communion with the Romane Bishoppe is not alwayes a note of true and Catholike profession.

THe Bellar. de notis Ecclesiae, li. 4 cap. 10. nota 7. next note of the Church assigned by them, is Vnity. The Vnity of the Church consisteth principally in three things. First, in obseruing and holding the Rule of faith once deliuered to the Saints. Secondly, in the subiection of the people to their Pastours: and thirdly, in the due connexion of many Pastours, and the flockes depending on them, among themselues. All these kinds and sorts of vnity wee thinke necessarily required, in some degree, in all those societies of Christians, that will demonstrate themselues to bee the true Churches of God; and deny not, but that vnity, in this sort expressed and conceiued, is a most apt note of the true Church.

The papists suppose, that besides these kinds and sorts of vnity before expressed, there is also required another kind of vnity to the being of the Church, namely subiection to, and vnion with that visible head, which, as they thinke, Christ hath left in his steade to gouerne the whole body of the Church, and to rule both Pastors and people. This head, as they suppose, is the Bishoppe of Rome, from whose communion sith wee are fallen, they inferre, that wee are diuided from the vnity of the true Church.

Dicunt quidam articulum esse fidei quod Benedictus ex •… ph gr •… tia sit Papa. quod absque co non stet salus, cum tamen salus Ecclesiae in solum Deum ordinetur absolutè & essentialiter, in hominem Christum de ordinatalege, sed accidentaliter in papam mortalem: alio quin cum vacat sedes per mortem naturalem vel ciuilem Papae, vtpote si sit haereticus depositus, quis hominum saluus esse possit? Gers. part. 1. consid. 1. de pace, idem p •… tte 4. ser. de Angelis papam agnoscere de necessitate salutis esse ambigunt nonnulli, sufficere dicentes vt verum Ecclesiae caput Christus agnoscatur. This last kinde of vnity, deuised by the Papists, wee deny to bee necessarily required to the beeing of the true Church. First, therefore, let vs see what may bee said for, or against the necessity of this kinde of vnitie; and in the next place consider, what our aduersaries can conclude for themselues, or against vs, from that kind of vnity, which wee acknowledge to be necessarily required to the being of the true Church.

If the vnion of all Christians with this supposed visible head, which is the Bishop of Rome, were necessarily required as a perpetuall dutie, then was there no true Church in the time of the Anti-Popes, Gers. de modo habendi se tempore schismatis. when the wisest knew not, who were the true Popes, and who were vsurpers. If they shall reply, that it is necessary to hold Communion with the true, if hee may bee knowne; this hath no more warrant of reason than the former, seeing the best learned amongst thēselues thinke, that not only the Pope, but also the whole cleargy & people of Rome may erre, and fall into damnable heresies: in which case it is the part of euery true Christian, to disclaime all communion with them, and to oppose himselfe against them, and all their hereticall impieties. See cap. 7. That it is possible for the Pope to erre, and become an heretique, so many great Divines in the Church of Rome haue at all times most constantly defended, that the greatest patrons of the infallibility of the Popes judgement at this day, are forced to confesse, it is not necessary to beleeue, that the Pope cannot erre, but that it is onely a matter of probable dispute.

Thus then it is evident to all, that will not wilfully oppose themselues against the truth, that consent with the Romane Bishoppe cannot bee made a perpetuall and sure note of the true Church. Nay, the Grecians most constantly affirme, that the Popes taking all to himselfe, and challenging to bee head of the vniversall Church, hath beene the cause of the Churches division. But because Bellarmine is so excellent a Sophister, that he is able to proue any thing to bee true, though neuer so false and absurde. Let vs see how hee proueth, that consent with the Bishop of Rome is a note of the true Church, in such sorte, that whosoeuer holdeth Communion with him, is a Catholike, and contrarily whosoeuer forsaketh his Communion, is an Heretique or Schismatique.

This hee endeavoureth to make good by the testimonies of sundry of the auncient Fathers, wrested against their knowne meanings, and vndoubted resolutions, in other parts of their workes and writings. His first allegation is out of Irenaeus, in his third booke and third Chapter, against heresies. But if wee consider the circumstances of the place, and the occasion of the wordes ci •… d by Bellarmine, wee shall easily see, they proue no such thing as hee laboureth to enforce. For Irenaeus in that place sheweth, how all heresies may bee refuted, by opposing against them the tradition of the Apostles; which hee saith, wee may easily finde out and discerne, how contrary it is to the franticke conceites of heretiques, by taking a view of them, which were ordained Bishoppes by the Apostles in the Churches of Christ, and their successours to this present time, which neuer taught nor knew any such thing as these men dreame. Now because it would bee tedious to reckon all the successions of Bishoppes succeeding one another in euery Church, therefore he produceth the succession of the Bishops in the Romane Church, in steede of all; because, that being the most famous and renowned Church of the world, constituted and founded by the two most principall and glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, whatsoeuer was successiuely taught and receiued in that Church, and consequently deliuered vnto it by those blessed Apostles, must needes be the doctrine and tradition of the rest of the Apostles, deliuered to all other Churches of the World. For what was there hidden from these Apostles, that was revealed vnto any of the rest? and what would they hide from this principall Church, that was any way necessary to bee knowne? Therefore, saith Irenaeus, the producing of the Romane succession, is in stead of all. For it must needes bee, that what this most principall Church receiued from these great Apostles, that, & nothing else, the other did receiue from their Apostles, & first preachers: which he expresseth in these words: Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorē principalitatē, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiā, hoc est, cos, qui sunt vndique fideles. Bellarmines sense of these words, that all Churches must frame themselues to beleeue what the Church of Rome beleeueth, and prescribeth to others to bee beleeued, no way standeth with the drift of Irenaeus in this place, as may appeare by that which hath beene sayd: and therefore this allegation might haue beene spared.

His next authorities are out of Cyprians Epistles: Lib. 1. Ep. 3. in the first of which Epistles we shall finde, that there were certaine Schismatikes, that fled from their owne lawfull Bishop and superiours, with complaints to other Bishops and Churches, and amongst the rest to the Church and Bishop of Rome; not knowing, (sayth Cyprian) or at least, not considering, that the Romanes are such as will not giue entertainement to such perfidious companions, nor listen to lying and false reports. For that is the meaning of those words, Ad quos perfidia non possit habere accessum. But Bellarmine wresteth the words to another sense, to wit, that infidelitie and errour in faith can neuer finde place among the Romanes, as being secured from all possibility and danger of erring. So that, that which Saint Cyprian speaketh of perfidious dealing, that hee interpreteth of infidelity and errour of faith. So good construction the Iesuite is wont to make of the wordes of the Fathers. But be will say, Cyprian calleth the Rom Church the principall Church, whence sace •… dotall vnity hath her spring: herevnto we answere, that the R •… m. Church not in power of ouerrusing all, but in order is the first and principall: & that therefore while she continueth to hold the trueth, and incrocheth not vpon the right of other Churches, shee is to haue the priority: but that in either of these cases she may be forsaken, without breach of that vnity, which is essentially required in the parts of the Church. But let this suffice for the clearing of the first place alleaged out of Cyprian, and let vs proceede to the Cyprian, l. 4. Epist. 8. second; the circumstances whereof are as followeth. Cornelius was elected and ordayned Bishop of Rome: A Schisme grew in that Church about this his election: Cyprian, though he approoued the election of Cornelius, yet did forbeare to write vnto him as Bishop, till others also might be satisfied touching the validity of the same; at which Cornelius seemed to bee grieued: Cyprian sheweth him the reasons that mooued him to doe as he did, and withall how carefully, to auoide all scandals, hee wished all that went to Rome, to hold the roote of the true Catholike Church, which was on Cornelius part, and not to be carried away with the faction of Schismatikes, who opposed themselues against their lawfull Bishop, and brake the vnitie of the Church. How this will proue, that all Christian men and Churches must perpetually hold communion with the Roman Church, and that this is a note of the true Church, I see not. There was a diuision in the Romane Church about the election of Cornelius: Cornelius in Cyprians judgement, was rightly chosen •… and so the root and ground of the true Church was with him and his partakers and not with his aduersaries, that factiously and Schismatically opposed themselues against him: Cyprian wisheth all men to adhere vnto their lawfull Bishop, and not to the faction of Schismatikes, rent from the roote of the true Churches vnitie. Therefore, say our aduersaries, all Churches must for euer hold communion, vpon perill of damnation, with the Church of Rome. How vveake this consequence is, hee is very vveake in vnderstanding that doeth not see. But howsoeuer, surely Cyprian is very vnaduisedly alledged to this purpose, vvho peremptorily standeth vpon it, that every Bishop ought to haue his liberty of judgement, (as being accomptable onely vnto God) and that no Bishop should make himselfe a judge of another: Lib. 2. Ep. 1. Who dissenteth from Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and feareth not to challenge him for pertinacy; yea, so hot vvas the contention betweene Cyprian and Stephen, that Cyprians Fi •… milianus Cypriano, Ep. 75. consorts feared not to charge him vvith heresie, and fauouring of heretikes. So farre vvere the Bishops of those times, from prostrating themselues at the Popes feete, and thinking it their duety to submit themselues vpon paine of damnation to all his determinations, as his vassals are euery vvhere novv taught to doe.

The next allegation is out of Ambrose; vvho in his funerall oration, hee made vpon the death of Satyrus his brother, reporteth of him, that being desirous to be partaker of the holy mysteries, yet before he vvould proceede in an action of that consequence, hee called to him the Bishop of the place, and asked of him, if hee held communion with the Catholike Bishops; and because he should not mistake him, whether he held communion with the Bishop of Rome, who at that time both in the trueth of the thing, and in the opinion of Satyrus was Catholike, and best knowen both to him, and the Bishop, of whose faith he inquired. This was done in the time of the Schisme of the Luciferians, as appeareth by the place of Ambrose. Now what consequence is this? Satyrus asked of the Bishop, of whom hee was to receiue the holy mysteries, whether hee held communion with the Catholike Church; and to avoide all ambiguity, expressed what hee meant, by asking him, whether he agreed with the Romane Church, which at that time, in his opinion, held the true profession; therefore the Romane Church can neuer erre. As if I being in France, or Germany, meeting with some Christians, of whose faith I doubt, should demaund of them, whether they hold the true Catholike religion; and adde, for explication of the meaning of my question, whether they hold the profession of the reformed Churches in England and Scotland, which at this time I think to bee the true Churches of God: doth it follow, that I thinke these Churches can neuer erre, or fall from the sincerity of the Christian profession? or that for euer it must be a note of the sincere professors of the Christian faith, to hold communion with these Churches, howsoeuer they degenerate? The same answere serueth for the places alleaged out of Hierome, Optatus, & Augustine; and particularly touching In Catalogo scriptorum Ecclesiast. Hierome, who knoweth not that he affirmeth directly, that Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, fell into heresie? and Hiero. Euagrio. disliketh the customes of the Romane Church? and will not haue that See, and the Bishops of it, to giue lawes to all Christendome; saying, Orbis maior est vrbe? and that though he say Epist. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostasis. here, that Peters chaire is the rocke the Church is builded vpon, yet against Lib. 1. contra Iouinianum. Iovinian he professeth, that super omnes ex aequo ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur, The Church is equally founded vpon all the Apostles. And in Hiero Euagrio. another place, A Bishop, whether of Rome, or of Eugubium, is eiusdem meriti, eiusdem sacerdotij; equall in merit and office, howsoeuer riches and the honour of places seeme to make some difference. Hierome was a man of a violent spirit, and wrote many things, that must haue a fauourable construction, to make them accord with that, which else-where hee hath deliuered. Touching Epist. 89. ad Episcopos Viennensis prouinciae. Leo, who sayth, that, that which Christ meant, should pertaine to the office of all the Apostles, was principally yeelded to Peter, and from him, as from an head, deriued to the rest, must be vnderstood onely of a principality of order, and that he first in time receiued the promise of that which was meant to all, to expresse the vnity that must be in all. For otherwise it neither standeth with the trueth, nor the iudgement of the Fathers, that the Apostles receiued their office and authoritie by deriuation from Peter, or held it in a subordination vnder him; seeing they were all called and constituted immediately by Christ himselfe, without any dependance on Peter, or receiuing any thing from him, as is easie to demonstrate out of Cyprian, and the consent of the most auncient Fathers. But because these authorities are too weake to prooue the thing intended, therefore from these Bellarmine fleeth to experience, from whence he thinketh he may fetch a better proofe.

All Churches of the world, sayth he, that euer diuided themselues from the fellowship of the Romane Church, like boughes broken from a tree, and depriued of the nourishment they formerly receiued from the roote, did presently wither away and decay. The falshood of this saying of Bellarmine, is too apparant. For the Churches of Greece, Armenia, Aethiopia, and Syria, continued a long time after they had forsaken the communion of the Romane Church. Yea, many of them continue to this day, holding a more sound and sincere profession of Christian verity, than the Romanists doe. It is true indeede, that many of the famous Churches of the world haue beene swallowed vp of Mahometisme, and Barbarisme: but to attribute that their fall to their separation from the Church of Rome, is vpon as good ground, as to attribute the cause of Goodwin-sands to Tenterton-steeple. That which he addeth, that none of the Churches divided from Rome, had euer any learned men after their separation, sheweth plainely, that his impudencie is greater than his learning. For what will he say of Oecumenius, Theophylactus, Damascenus, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Elias Cretensis, Nilus Carbasilas, and innumerable more, liuing in the Greeke Churches, after their separation from the Church of Rome? Surely these were more than matchable with the greatest Rabbines of the Romish Synagogue. But, saith hee, they could neuer hold any Councell since their separation. If hee meane generall, it is not to bee marvailed at, seing they are but a part of the Christian Church: If Nationall or Provinciall, it is most childish, and by sundry instances to be reprooued.

CHAP. 42.

That nothing can bee concluded for them, or against vs, from the note of Vnitie, or division opposite vnto it.

THus hauing cleared that which Bellarmine objecteth, to prooue, that subjection to, and vnion with the Bishop of Rome, is implyed in that vnity which is required to the being of the Church. Let vs come to the other part, and see, whether any thing may bee concluded from that vnity, which wee confesse to bee required to the being of the true Church, either against vs, or for them. First therefore, the Iesuite reasoneth against vs in this sort; All they, that are of the true Church, must hold the vnity of the faith once deliuered to the Saints: but there are sundry Heretikes, erring damnably in matters of faith, as Zuincheldians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and the like, gone out of the reformed Churches: therefore they are not the true Churches of God.

If this kinde of reasoning were good, hee might proue, that those Churches, wherein the Apostles liued, were not the Churches of God; because out of them proceeded sundry heretikes, as 〈◊〉 Tim c. 17. Hymenaeus, Philetus, Revel 2. 6. Nicolaus, Actes •… . 18. Simon Magus, and the like. But, sayth he, there be two differences betweene the Apostolike Churches, and the reformed Churches in this respect: the first, that the doctrine of the reformed Churches it selfe, and of it owne nature, breedeth dissention: the second, that when there is difference growne, they haue no rule by direction whereof to make an end of controversies. But the divisions that grow from the Catholike Church, proceede meerely from the malice of Sathan, and haue no foundation in the doctrine of it; and if any difference doe arise, it hath a m •… anes to end all controversies by, which is, the determination of a Councell or the chiefe Pastour. Both these differences we deny: for, neither doth our doctrine of it selfe breed dissention and diversitie of opinions: neither are wee without meanes of composing controversies, if they arise. If Bellarmine will proue, that our doctrine of it selfe breedeth division, hee must shew that the grounds and principles of it are vncertaine, and such as may occasion errour, contrariety, and vncertaintie of judgment; which he neither doth, nor can doe. For the ground of all our doctrine is the written word of God, interpreted according to the rule of faith, the practise of the Saints from the beginning, the conference of places, and all light of direction, that either the knowledge of •… gues, or any part of good learning may yeeld. This surely is the rule to end all controversies by, and not the authoritie of a Councell, or the chiefe Pastour, as Bellarmine fondly imagineth. Ne •… mouere quenquam debet quod con •… dem professionem patrum praeposus decreto generalo. Consilii, quam fide de toto 〈◊〉 existentes conuenitent e •… copi: quin •… mo in tractatibu •… 〈◊〉 •… uic •… ost •… ptaras 〈◊〉 Conciliorum 〈◊◊◊〉 that 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 . 〈◊◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . art. 〈◊〉 1 •… . For, they both must follow the direction of this rule in all their determinations. 〈…〉 Whereupon, the Booke of God, and 〈◊◊〉 de 〈◊◊◊◊〉 . monuments of Antiquity, were alwayes wont to be brought into the Councels, whereby the Fathers might examine all matters controversed, or any way doubted of. Now as wee want not a most certaine rule, whereby to iudge of all matters of controversie and difference, so in examining things by the direction of this rule, wee require that Christian moderation in all men, that euer was found in the seruants of God; that no man presume of his owne wisdome, iudgment, and vnderstanding, nor hastily pronounce, before conference with others: For the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets; and God is the 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14 32, 33. God of order, and not of confusion. It is therefore a vile calumniation of Bellarmine, when hee sayth, that with vs euery one preferreth himselfe before others, and euery one taketh on him peremptory iudgment of another. For, contrariwise, wee teach all men to submit their priuate opinions to the examination of others, the meaner to respect those of greater place, and quality, the fewer the more; and those men which pertinaciously contradict the doctrine agreed vpon by consent of all that are in authority, or the greater part, wee reiect from the communion of our Churches, and so, with vs, an end is made of all controversies.

The rule then with vs, is most certaine and infallible, knowen to all; to wit, the scripture or the written word of God, expounded according to the rule of faith, practice of the Saints, and the due comparing of one part of it with another, in the publike confessions of faith, published by the Churches of our communion. In all which there is a full consent, whatsoeuer our malicious adversaries clamourously pretend to the contrary: and all those, that stubbornely resist against this rule, or any thing therein contained, and refuse to bee ordered by it, wee reiect as factious and seditious schimatickes. Thus doe wee disclaime all Anabaptists, Familists, Zuinchfeldians, Trinitarians, and all other Sectaries whatsoeuer. But, sayth Bellarmine, how is it then, that there are soe many diuisions, not only from your Churches, but also in your Churches, and amongst them that you take for your brethren, and men of your owne communion, as Lutherans, Caluinists, Flaccians, Melancthonists, Hosiandrines, and the like? To this wee answere, that this diuersity is to be imputed wholly to our aduersaries. For, when there was a reformation to be made of abuses and disorders in matters of practice, and manifold corruptions in very many parts of Christian doctrine; & in a Councell by generall consent it could not be hoped for, (as P. 3. dialog. apolog. iudicium de Concilio Constanciensi. Gerson long before out of his owne experience saw and professed) by reason of the preuailing faction of the Popes flatterers, but this was necessarily to be assayd seuerally, in the particular kingdomes of the world; it was not possible but that some diversity should grow, while one knew not, nor expected to know what another did. Yet it so fell out by the happy prouidence of God, and force of that maine trueth they all sought to aduance, that there was no materiall or essentiall difference amongst them, but such as, vpon equall scanning, will bee found rather to consist in the diuerse maner of expressing one thing, and to bee but verball vpon mistaking, through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men, than any thing else. Yea I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, See Chap. 35. there shall be no difference foūd touching the matter of the Sacrament, the vbiquitary presence, or the like, between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany, and other places, and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries: that none of the differences betweene That which Illyricus said touching originall sinne, which hee affirmed to be an essential corruption, was not soe meant, as if sinne were a positiue thing, or an essence and substance, as many did conceiue: for he acknowledged, that sinne is formally nothing, but a want of r •… ctitude, and an aberration: but as wee call that action sinne, wherein defect and want of rectitude is found, so likewise hee feared not to call the essentiall powers of the soule, auerse from God, and disordered in their motions and inclinations, by the name of originall sinne, because they are originally sinnefull, Smidelinus cleareth Hosiander, shewing that his opinion was that by the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ, performed in his humane nature, as by causes meritorious, wee finde fauour with God and haue communion with him, and are made partakers of his essentiall righteousnesse: not transfusing it into us or confounding it withus as many mistocke him, but by such a kind of participation as that, is wherein all creatures partake of Gods diuine perfections, and that so partaking of his righteousnesse we may do •… hat is right in his sight. Melancthon and Illyricus except about certaine ceremonies, were reall: that Hosiander held no private opinion of Iustification, howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking, gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue. And this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all.

But, sayth Bellarmine, your Churches are so torne and rent with dangerous diuisions, that not onely one of you dissenteth from another, but the same man often times from himselfe: and herein giueth instance in Luther, whose judgement varied in divers things of great consequence. Touching Luther, we answere, that he was a most worthy Diuine, as the world had any in those times, wherein he liued, or in many ages before; & that for the clearing of sundry poynts of greatest moment in our Christian profession, much obscured & intangled before, with the intricate disputes of the Schoolemen, and Romish Sophisters, (as of the power of nature, of free will, grace, iustification; the difference of the Law and the Gospell, faith and workes, Christian libertie, and the like) all succeeding ages shall euer be bound to honour his happie memory. In all these things hee was euer constant: yea, all these things he perfectly apprehended, and to the great joy of many mens hearts deliuered both by word and writing, before he departed from the Romish Synagogue; and out of these, and more diligent search of the Scripture and Fathers, then was vsuall in those times by degrees saw and descried those Popish errours, which at first hee discerned not.

That herein he proceeded by degrees, and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approoue, is not so strange a thing, as our aduersaries would make it seeme to be. Did not Augustine, the greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times) write a whole booke of Retractations? Doe we not carefully obserue, what things he wrote, when he was but a Presbyter, and what, when hee was made a Bishop, what, before he entred into conflict with the Pelagians, and what afterwards? Did hee not formerly attribute the election of those that were chosen to eternall life, to the foresight of faith, which afterward he disclaimed, as a meere Pelagian conceit? So that his aduersaries, as appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hillarius, did not only charge him to be contrary to the Fathers, but to himselfe also. Did De t •… ibuna. lib. atque administrationis insulis ad sacerdotium raptus, do •… ere vos copi, quod ipse non did •… ci, itaque factum est, vt prius docere inciperem, quàm discerem: •… endum ergo milu simul & docendum est, quoniam non vacauit ante discere; & quā tum libet quisque profecerit, nemo est, qui doceri non egeat, dum vivit, Ambr. officiorum li. 〈◊〉 . 1. •… uther in his preface 〈◊◊〉 wo •… kes. 〈◊〉 . Bellar. l. 4. c. 10 de notis ecclesiae ait, Lutherum sic dicere in libro de •… ous Monasti cis. not Ambrose in his time complaine, that he was forced to teach before he had learned, and so to deliuer many things, that should neede and require a second review? Doth not their Angelicall Doctor, in his Summe of Theologie, correct, and alter many things that he had written before? Let not our aduersaries therefore insult vpon Luther, for that he saw not all the abominations of Popery at the first, but let them rather consider of, and yeeld to the reasonablenesse of the request, which in the preface of his workes hee maketh to all Christian and well minded readers, to wit, that they would reade his bookes and writings with iudgment, and with much commisseration, and remember that he was sometimes a Frier. nourished in the errors of the Romish Church, so that it was more painefull to him to forget those things hee had formerly ill learned, than to learne anew that which is good.

But, say they, Luther himselfe witnesseth, that contrariety and cotradiction is a note of falshood; and therefore his writings being contradictory, the later to the former, his whole doctrine must needes be false, euen in his owne iudgement. Let them, that thus reason against Luther, know, that his meaning is not, that whosoeuer retracteth and correcteth that he formerly taught, is thereby conuinced of falshood, and his whole doctrine prooued to bee erroneous; but that those assertions, that doe implie contradicton, and contrarietie, that stand wholly vpon doubtfull, vncertaine & perplexed disputes, and so ouerthrow themselues, doe thereby appeare to be false. Of which nature are all the principall parts of the Romish doctrine. For example; Transubstantiation is one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion, and all Papists at this day do firmely hold and beleeue it: yet it is demonstratiuely prooued by their owne best Diuines, that such a totall conuersion, or transubstantiation of the Sacramentall elements into the body & bloud of Christ, is impossible, & implieth in it sundry contradictions, & consequences of horrible impieties.

The conversion or turning of one thing into another, is then, whe vpon the ceasing of the former, the later beginneth to be in such sort as the conuersion is: if it be substantiall, the former ceasing to be that substance it was, the later begins to be that substance it was not before. Wherefore if bread be substantially turned into Christs body, the ceasing of the substance of bread is the beginning of the substance of his body: this is called by Scotus, transubstantiatio productiva: and is confessed to be impossible in respect of the substance of bread, and the body of Christ. Wherefore they say that one substance may be sayd to be turned into the other, when vpon the ceasing of the former, the later begins to haue the same qualities, apparell, place and imployment the former had: and s •… suppose the body of Christ filling the same place that the bread did, but now ceaseth to doe, (returning into that nothing out of which it was taken) that the bread may bee sayd to be turned into Christs body: and this is called by them transubstantiatio adductiua. Bielin Canonem missae lect. 40. hath a more foolish conceit than the former: See Scotus in quartum distinct. 11. 〈◊〉 Scotus in 4. distinct. 10. q. 1. For is it not implyed in the nature of the transubstantiation, or totall conuersion of one substance into another, that the one must succeed the other in being? and that the former must cease to be, & the later therevpon begin to be? whence it will followe, that the later of the two substances, into which the conuersion is made, was not, nor had no being before. Now vvhat greater blasphemie can there be, than to thinke Christs body had no beeing, till the Massing Priests had wrought this miraculous Transubstantiation? It is true, that one substance may be changed into another, as was Lots wife into a pillar of salt: but that one substance should passe, and be totally transubstantiated into another, hauing the same beeing, without all difference before the supposed Transubstantiation, that after it hath, and nothing beeing new in it, in respect of substance, or beeing, implieth a contradiction; and therefore the sacramentall elements cannot be transubstantiated into Christs body & bloud.

That which Bellarmine hath out of Scotus, of Transubstantiatio productiua and adductiua, is the most childish folly that euer was. For this is that he saith; The substance of the sacramentall elements is annihilated, and they returne into that nothing out of vvhich they vvere formerly taken, and then Christs body commeth into the place, where they vvere before; Therefore the one substance may be sayd to be changed into the other. If this reason be good, when one man remooueth out of his place, into which another vpon his remooue doth enter, the former may be sayd to be transubstantiated into the later. For, as the former of the two supposed men, goeth out of his place into some other, vvhereupon the other succeedeth him, not in being, but in place: so the sacramentall elements goe out of their place, and returne to that nothing, out of vvhich they vvere created, and the body of Christ succeedeth them, not in being, vvhich it had the very same vvhile they vvere, but in place.

Neither can this supposed conuersion of the elements into the body of Christ, be the cause of Christs being in the Sacrament, but rather of their own ascension and going vp into heauen. For, though vvhen one substance is turned into another not being before the conuersion, but by the conuersion beginning to bee, that, into vvhich the conuersion is made, occupieth and possesseth the place the other held: as vvhen Lots wife was conuerted into a pillar of salt, the pillar stood in that place, where she vvas vvhen shee vvas conuerted: yet if one substance should bee changed into another preexistent, the conuerted should get the place of that into vvhich it vvere conuerted; so that the bread and vvine on the mysticall table, being conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen at the right hand of God, should goe vp into heauen, and not bring him to the table. And yet this vvas the principall reason, that moued the authours of Transubstantiation, to like better of that, than of any other construction of Christs vvords. For that they supposed thereby, the body of Christ might be made present in the Sacrament, without any change of place or locall motion, in respect of it selfe. Which yet Scot. in 4. dist. 10. quest. 1. Scotus In 4 quaest. 6. Occam, and the latter Schoolemen doe vtterly reiect. So sweetely do these men agree, that talke so much of vnity. Verily I am perswaded, there are more materiall, and reall differences amongst them, touching this one sacrament, then there are appearing differences or controuersies amongst those of our religion, touching all points of Religion.

Cameracensis •… ut. 〈◊〉 . in •… q 6. For is it not so, that there are foure opinions touching the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and three of them different from Transubstantiation? So that notwithstāding the decree of the Laterane Councell, many of the wisest and best learned were of opinion, that Transubstantiation cannot be deduced from the scripture, or the Churches determination Did. not Thomas in quo •… libetalibus q •… onibus quodlibeto 3 q. 1. art. 2 Dutandu •… lib. 4. distinct. 11. qu •… st. 1. Thomas Aquinas, and the rest of that time deny that one body may be locally in more places than one, at one time, and reiect it as a thing impossible, and implying contradiction? and doe not the Papistes at this day iudge vs haereticks for being of the same opinion? Did Cons •… Berengar •… est, panem & vinum post consecrationem esse verum corpus & sanguinem Christi; & sensualiter non solum in sacramento, sed etiam in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, & frangi, & fidelium •… entibus atter •… . they not in Berengarius time thinke, that the very body of Christ is torne with teeth, and yet without hurt, by a strange miracle? And was not Berengarius in his recantation forced to say so much? yet at this day, this conceipt is holden most absurd and foolish. Do not some of them say, that the body of Christ goeth downe into the stomacke and belly, and is eaten of mice, and dogges? and do not others detest this blasphemous impiety? Do not some of them say, there are accidents in the Sacraments without substance? and do not others affirme, that those accidents are inherent in the aire? Do not some of them say, that when the Priest breaketh that which he holdeth in his hands after consecration, it is no true breaking, but a deceiuing of the sense? Others, that hee truely breaketh, and yet nothing is broken? Others, that Christs body is broken? and others, that the accidents are broken? Such a broken religion haue these men deuised, that neither the Fathers, nor any, before Barbarisme had possessed all, euer thought of. Corpus Christi est totum in tota ho •… ia & totum in qualibet parte: hinc dubitatur an retineat distantiam partitium? distinguit Scotus ordinem partium in toto, & in loco: primum retinere dicit, non secundum. Occam probat secundum non posse esse sine primo, nec pri mum sine secundo; vnde probat corpus Christi, in Eucharistia, non habete distantiam •… el ordinem partium in toto 〈◊〉 , et per consequens nullam figuram, nec esse organieum, & proinde nec animatum. Occam li. 4. q. 4 Cameracensis. in 4. quaest 5. Do not some of them say, that Christ in the Sacrament retaineth his owne proportion of parts, figure and fashion? and do not others say and demonstratiuely proue, that if he be in the Sacrament, hee hath no distance of parts, no figure, no fashion, nor organicall disposition of body, and consequently no life? The rest of the infinite mazes, that these men turning out of the direct way, haue lost themselues in, I haue no pleasure to treade out. But those fewe examples may suffice to shewe that their whole doctrine is full of vncertainty, contrariety, and contradiction, and doth testifie against it selfe, that it is not of God.

It were easie to shewe, that all Popish doctrine is nothing else but a masse of vncertainties and contradictions, shewing that they are out of the way, that pro •… esse it, and know not how to finde either it, or themselues. If any Papist dare deny this, it shall bee proued against him in particulars. But they will say, notwithstanding all these differences, yet they submitte their iudgements to the censure of the Pope and Councell, and therefore their diuisions are not daungerous nor hereticall.

How false and shamelesse this answere is, the Quod 〈◊〉 errate in •… udicando possit, asseverantissimè à plerisque pronunciatur. Picus Theoremate 4. 〈◊〉 etiam concilia errare cosse ostendit. infinite number of them that haue euer iudged, that the Pope may erre and become an Hereticke, doth apparantly demonstrate.

If they shall say, that though they dare not relye vpon the infallibility of the popes iudgement, yet they rest in the determination of generall Councelles; it will bee found that they are as doubtfull touching the authority of Councelles, as they are concerning the Pope, Pighius hierarch. lib. 6. cap. 1. 2. 4. putavit vniuersalium conciliorum Constantinum •… ntorem fuisse: quem diuinorum mysteriorum atque adeo Romani pontificis auctoritatis 〈◊〉 fuisse pronunciat: hunc reprehendit Andradius de generalium conciliorum auctoritate lib 1. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . •… dem Andradius ait, si vniuersi patres in Synodo aliquid definitent vnanimiter, cui definitioni sola pe •… ona Papae contradiceter, Synodo standum es •… e, & non iudicio papae: & idem sen •… sse ait Turrecremat: & tamen 〈◊◊〉 damnabant, vt patet ibidem. Gallia Synodum Florentinam pro Oecumenicâ nunquam habuit, 〈◊◊〉 , nec perfectam admisit. Andrad. des •… rip. & tradit. auctoritate lib. 2 fol. 251. Constantiensem Synodum 〈◊◊〉 Cai •… anus, affirmat Andradius in eodem lib. fol. 2 •… . some saying, they are meere humane inuentions; others, that they are nothing, if the Pope confirme them not; others that they are, though hee refuse to confirme them; and others, that both may erre: some reiecting one Councell, and some another, as appeareth by the contrarie iudgment of Papists, of the Councelles of Constance, Basill, Pisa, and Florence.

But they will say, they all hold that, which the Catholike Romane Church doth hold, and in other things, not yet agreed vppon, thinke euery man at his pleasure. This is as much, as if they should haue sayd, that wherein soeuer they all agree, they all agree, and wherein soeuer they differ, each faction doth differ from another, and carefully prouideth, that nothing shall passe against it by publike consent, as appeareth in the matter of Maries conception, & sundry other things, which no Councell durst euer determine, for feare of offendinge the contrarie factions dissenting about these things. Thus then, I hope, it appeareth out of that which hath beene spoken, that by the note of vnity and diuision, the Romanistes are found to bee in errour, and not wee. What degree of vnity is necessarily required in the true Churches of God; and what divisions may be found among the societies of Christians, and yet not cause them to cease to be the true Churches of God, I haue sufficiently cleared in that part, wherein I shewed, what is the nature of schisme and heresie.

CHAP. 43

Of Vniuersalitie.

THe next note of the Church, is vniuersality: concerning which many things haue beene spoken in the former part, touching the notes of the Church in generall. Wherefore passing by those things, let vs in this place obserue only these fewe things following. First therefore to the Vniuersality of the Church it is required, that it extend to all times, places, and sorts of men. Secondly, this Vniversality is not found in any one Church, limited either in respect of time or place. Thirdly, from hence it followeth, that it is no where found, but in that blessed number of Christians, that haue beene, are and shall bee. Fourthly, it cannot bee a note of the true Church, that is the multitude of men now liuing in the world, as being found in it; For that multitude is not vniuersall, but limited in respect of time, being onely the number of them, that liue at one time, Bellar. lib. 4. c. 7. de notis Ecclesiae nota. 4. and may be limited also in respect of place: for it is not necessary, that the Church be in all places at one time, but it sufficeth if it bee successiuely. Fiftly, vniuersality may be a note of the true Church, in respect of particular societies of Christians, limited in time, and place, though not by hauing it, yet by demonstrating themselues, to pertaine to the vnity of that Church that hath it. This no particular Church can do, but by prouing, that it holdeth the common faith once deliuered to the Saints, without hereticall innouation, or schismaticall violation, of the vnity and peace of the Christian world.

This being the way for particular Churches to demonstrate themselues to be Catholike, by prouing they hold the Catholike faith, it is easie from hence to conclude, that the reformed Churches are the Catholike Churches of God. First, for that, that being Catholike, as Contra profanas haereticorum nouitates. Vincentius Lirinensis defineth it, which is and hath beene holden at all times, and in all places, by all Christians, that haue not beene noted for noueltie, singularity, and diuision; whatsoeuer hath beene so receiued, wee receiue as the vndoubted truth of God: neither is there any of the things which wee impugne, and the Papists defend, that is Catholike, but they all carry the markes of nouelty and vncertainty. Secondly, touching the communion the people of God should haue among themselues, our aduersaries shall neuer proue, that wee haue at any time giuen occasion of those breaches that now appeare; But wee will proue against them that they haue, and so the note of Vniuersality maketh nothing for them, or against vs.

Touching the name of Catholike, devised to expresse those both men, and societies of men, which hold the common faith without faction or division, I haue spoken sufficiently in the former part, touching the notes of the Church, and so need not here to insist vpon it. Thus haue we runne through the examination of the principall notes of the Church, assigned by our adversaries: but, because they adde vnto these certaine other, I will briefly examine their proofs taken from thence, for themselues, or against vs.

CHAP. 44.

Of the Sanctity of Doctrine; and the supposed absurdities of our profession.

THese notes are, Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine, our own confession, miracles, and predictions, the felicity and infelicity of such as defend or impugne the trueth; and lastly, the holy and religious conversation of the Professours of the truth. Let vs take a view of these in such sort and order, as they are proposed by them. They place in the front the Sanctity and efficacie of doctrine.

A lyer (they say) should haue a good memory; but surely our adversaries, of all the lyers that euer were, haue the worst memories: by reason whereof euery second page of their writings, if not euery second line, is a refutation of the first. Bellarmine divideth his tract of the notes of the Church, into two parts. In the first he sheweth, what things are required in the notes of the Church, and there he saith, trueth and Sanctity of doctrine is no note of the Church. In the latter, he doth particularly assigne the notes, whereby he supposeth the Church may be knowne, and reckoneth truth, sanctitie, and efficacie of doctrine, amongst the rest. But let vs pardon him this ouersight, and see how he proueth by this note, that we are not, and that their faction is, the true Church of God.

Our doctrine is false, absurd, and vnreasonable; and theirs, full of truth, reason, and equitie: Therefore our Churches are not the true Churches of God, and theirs are. Both parts of the Antecedent of this argument we deny. For, he shall neuer bee able to proue the absurdities he imputeth vnto vs; but we are able to demonstrate against him, that the whole course of Popish doctrine is most absurd, false and impious.

But least hee should seeme to say nothing, hee produceth foure instances, wherein he supposeth there is apparant and very grosse absurditie. The first he proposeth in this sort: The Protestants teach, that a man is justified by speciall faith, whereby he perswadeth himselfe that he is just. Now then he reasoneth thus; When men beginne to beleeue, either they are just, and then their faith justifieth not, being in nature after their justification, and finding them already just, when it beginneth; or else they are not just, and then speciall faith making a man beleeue he is just, is false, and so a man is justified by a lye. To this horned argument wee answere, that speciall faith hath sundry actes, but to this purpose specially two: the one, by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour; the other, in the nature of comfortable assurance, consisting in a perswasion that that is graunted, which was desired. Faith, by her first act, obtaineth and worketh our justification, and doeth not finde vs just when wee beginne to beleeue: by her second act, shee doeth not actiuely justifie, but finding the thing done, certifieth and assureth vs of it, and so is no lying perswasion, as this lying companion is pleased to pronounce it to bee. So then, speciall faith in her first act, which is a kinde of petition, is before justification, and procureth or obtaineth it, but then shee hath not the perswasion of it; in her second act, shee presupposeth the thing done, and already obtayned, and so truely perswadeth the beleeuer of it, but procureth not the doing of it.

The second palpable and grosse absurdity of the Protestants doctrine is, that it is not lawfull to say the Lords prayer. This the Cardinall proueth, because no man of the Protestants Religion can, without dissimulation, aske forgiuenesse of sinnes, which is one of the principall petitions of that prayer. This petition they cannot make, because they hold, that all right beleeuing and iustified men are without sinne, and know themselues so to be; and therefore cannot be excusable from vile dissimulation, and mocking of God, in asking the remission of their sinnes. The impudencie of this imputation is such, as I thinke all moderate Papists are ashamed of it. For, doth any of vs thinke, that the iustified man is voyd of all sinne? Or is it consequent, if a man know himselfe to be iustified, that then he may not aske remission of his sins? Doe not many right learned and wise amongst themselues teach, that a man may a Alex. of Ales, Ioh. Bacon, Vega, Ambrosius Catharinus, & d •… uers other, of whom see cap. 7. be sure he is in state of grace, and iustification, by the ordinary working of Gods spirit? and doe not all Papists thinke, that by speciall reuelation men may be sure they are in state of grace, as Paul and sundry others were? Doe all these teach, that men thus assured of their iustification, know themselues to haue no sin, & consequently, nothing whereof they should aske forgiuenesse? Surely, herein I thinke both they & we agree, that in the iustified, the dominion of sinne ceaseth, sin hath no longer dominion ouer them, & that proportionably the guilt of condemnation is taken away; but that there are still remainders of sin in them, not perfectly extinguished; & that, though while they remaine in the state of iustification, they •… n not with full consent, to the excluding of grace, and subiecting of themselues to the guilt of condemnation, yet there are many sinfull euils they runne into, which subiect them to Gods displeasure, & for which hee will not faile to iudge them, if they iudge not themselues. For the weakening & abolishing of these sinfull euils, and the averting of that displeasure, wherewith God is displeased with men for them, the iustified doe pray vnto God, which is, to aske forgiuenesse of sins, as in the Lords prayer is meant. Est poenitentia bonorum & humilium fidelium pene quotidiana, in quâ pectora tundimus, dicentes, dimitte nobis debita nostra, illa vtique quae humanae fragilitati parua, tamen crebra, subrepunt. Aug. Seleucianae Epist. 109. oratio quotidiana, quam docuit Dominus, delet quidem quotidiana peccata, cum quotidie dicitur, dimitte nobis debita nostra. De ciuitate Dei, l 21 cap. 27. For, the petition is vnderstood of the sinnes of the seruants of God, and such as are in state of grace, as Augustine teacheth. Thus then the iustified man knoweth, that the dominion of his sins is taken away, and that the guilt of condemnation, wherevnto they subiect such as are vnder the dominion of them, is already remoued, and therefore he doth not desire, nor aske forgiuenesse of sinnes in this sort: but the inherence of sin he acknowledgeth in himselfe, notwithstanding his iustification, which still subiecteth him to Gods displeasure, & punishments, accompanying the same. These things hee desireth to be remoued, and in this sense asketh forgiuenesse of sins.

If it be replyed, that the remission of the sins of the iustified is full and perfect, and that therefore they that know themselues to be iustified, cannot aske remission, which they know they haue perfectly already; Wee answere, that the remission of the sins of the iustified, is full and perfect, not for that they are already freed actually from the inherence of sinne, and the displeasure of God disliking it, but because they haue full title vnto, & right in that mercy of God; which, as it hath already deliuered them from the dominion & condemnation of sin, so it will in the end wholly free them, from the inherence of it, and the displeasure of God disliking it.

His next allegation is more friuolous than the former. The Anabaptists, saith he, do most certainly & assuredly perswade themselues, that they are accepted of God, & therefore they haue true faith, according to the doctrine of the Protestants, who define faith to be the assurance of the mercifull goodnes of God; yet do the Protestants deny thē to be iustified, vnlesse they forsake their errors, and so by consequēt do say, they haue true faith, & yet are not iustified; which is to affirme that they are iust, & not iust. To this we answere, that there is as great difference betweene true confidence and assurance, (which only is to be named faith) and that which is found in heretickes, as betweene the ioy and gladnesse that is fantasticall, and is found in men dreaming, and that which is true and in men waking.

That quietnesse of minde either proceedeth from senselesse stupidity in men hauing cauterized consciences, though there be iust cause of fearefull apprehensions; or frō the not finding or hauing any matter of condemning remorse: euen as some men are touched with no greefe, nor afflicted with any smart or paine, though no part be sound or well in them, because they are in a dead & senseles stupidity: and others feele not paine, because they are perfectly well. It is not therefore every assured confidence that is faith, but true confidence. Neither is it to be doubted, but that heretickes doe oftentimes confidently perswade themselues they please God, and thinke they embrace true piety, as men dreaming doe perswade themseles they inioy and possesse all things, though they possesse nothing. But as men waking knowe the things they apprehend, are soe indeede as they apprehend them, and not in fancie only, as men sleeping are deluded: so Iohan: Baconus lib. 3. dist. 30. q. 1. art. 2. ait, habentem charitatem posse certitudinaliter scirese esse in charitate. true Christians know the perswasion they haue of Gods goodnesse towards them, groweth from due & iust consideration, & not from deceivable fancie and imagination only, as in heritickes it doth. This point is excellently cleared by Part. 3. quaest. 61. membr. 7. art. 3. Alexander of Hales, the first, and greatest of all the Schoole-men, whose reasons and proofes, that true Christians may be assured, they are in state of grace and acceptation with God, Bellarmine cannot answere.

Thus wee haue seene the supposed absurd positions, wherewith the Iesuite chargeth all Protestants in generall. In the next place, hee produceth such as are proper to the Lutherans; and in the last place, such as are peculiar to the Caluinistes. For thus it pleaseth him to tearme vs, by these names of faction and diuision; whereas it is Antichrists pride that hath made all the breaches in the Christian world, and would haue layd all wast if God had not preserued a remnant.

The errour wherewith he chargeth the Lutherans, is, that children, when they are baptised, haue faith, hope, and loue. Is this an errour? are they iustified, sanctified, and made the temple of the holy Ghost, when they are baptized; and haue they neither faith, hope, nor loue? doth not iustification imply all these in it? But they haue not the act of faith; noe more they haue of reason: haue they not therefore the faculty of reason? This then is that which these men •… each, whom it pleaseth these Antichristian sectaries odiously to name Luthe •… ans, namely, that children, when they are adopted, and made the sonnes of God, when they are iustified and sanctified, are filled with the habites or po •… ntiall habilities of these vertues, and that they haue the beginning, roote, and seede of faith, hope, and loue. For the farther clearing of this obiection, reade Kemnisius in his Examen of the Tridentine Councell.

The errour of the Caluinists, touching absolute necessity, and that God is the author of sinne, is but the imagination of the Romanists, as I haue already sufficiently shewed. For Caluin and wee all detest both these absurdities.

CHAP. 45.

Of the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities of Romish Religion.

THus then the Paradoxes and grosse absurdities, which this Cardinall aduersarie of Gods true religion imputeth vnto vs, are but the fancies of his owne idle braine. But, if wee should enter into the examination of the seuerall parts of their profession, it were not harde really to convince them, of the most senselesse follies, that euer the world was acquainted with. But because it would be tedious and vnseasonable, in this generall controversie of the Church, to enter into the particular handling of things more fitly reserved to their owne proper places; I will onely touch some few things, that may seeme to concerne the whole frame and fabricke of their Religion,

They all hold at this day, that the infallibility of the Popes judgement, is the rocke on which the Church is builded; and that this is the difference betweene a Catholicke and an heretique, that, though both beleeue many divine and supernaturall truths, yet they build not themselues vpon the same grounds of perswasion. For the Catholicke builds himselfe vpon the sure ground of the infallibility of the Churches chiefe Pastours judgement: but the Hereticke vpon other things, yeelding him satisfaction concerning the trueth of that hee beleeueth, whatsoeuer the judgement of the Pope bee. Papam in decreto fidei errare non posse, veritas certa & recepta est. etsi non de fide, propter multos Catholicos qui contrarium tenuerunt: ut Gers: Occam, Almaynus, omnes ferè Parisienses, & omnes qui concilium supra Papam esse credunt. Alph. Acastro Adrian: 6. & Durand. Stapleton contro: 3. q,4. And yet the same men which thus teach, doe say, it is no matter of faith, to acknowledge, or not to acknowledge, the infallibility of the Popes judgement, and that a man may bee a true Catholicke, that thinketh the Pope may erre.

These two assertions are directly contradictorie. The first they embrace, because they find the authoritie Papall to be the surest stay of all their false faith, and Antichristian profession: and the second they are forced vnto, because they dare not condemne so many famous, renowned, and great Divines as haue beene of that opinion, as Durandus, Gerson, Cameracensis, Almaine, Waldensis, and innumerable moe. By this their contradicting of themselues, not yet knowing whereon to ground their faith, it is evident they haue no faith at all.

Secondly, if wee should graunt them to haue any faith, yet will it bee found to be Sophisticall, or meerely humane. For the reason, ground, and cause of their perswasion, touching things Divine, is the testimony of the Church, infallibly led into all truth; and that there is a Church thus ledde into all trueth, whose testimony is vndoubtedly certaine and true, they beleeue, because the Church telleth them so: as, if a man should beleeue the reports of such a man, because he is wise, faithfull, and honest, and beleeue him to be so, onely because he saith so.

To avoide this Sophisticall circulation, sundry of the Schoolemen doe freely confesse, that the ground of their faith is nothing else, but the multitude and consent of men, nations, and people agreeing in the profession of it; and consequently, that it is meerely an humane perswasion, and that they haue no faith at all; which alwayes stayeth it selfe vpon the certainty of the first trueth,

Thirdly they teach, that mortall men are neuer bound to giue GOD thankes, for the greatest benefite that is bestowed on them in this world. Nay, that to giue him thankes for it, were grievous sinne. This is most evident; for the greatest benefite of all other is justification: but for this no man may giue God thankes, because no man knoweth whether hee hath receiued it or not, nor can assure himselfe of it without intollerable and inexcusable presumption. Nay, some of these seducers are not ashamed to write, that euery man is bound to doubt of it, with so fearefull doubting, as may cause trembling; applying that place of the Apostle to that purpose; Worke out your saluation with feare and trembling. Now I thinke, hee which should come to God, and giue him thankes for that, which, whether hee hath receiued or not, hee is so doubtfull, that he trembleth for feare, should but mocke God, and mistake his owne meaning.

Fourthly, they hold that Paul, and so many more, as knew certainely they were in state of justification, did sinne damnably in saying the Lords Prayer, and that they did as foolishly, as if a man should come to God, and aske of him the creation of the world, which was made long agoe.

CHAP. 46.

Of the efficacie of the Churches doctrine.

THus were it most easie for vs, to shew in many other particulars, that the course of their doctrine is full of palpable absurdities. But let these few instances suffice, and let vs passe from the sanctity of the Churches doctrine, to that the Iesuite addeth touching the efficacy of it: where he affirmeth two things: the first, that heretickes neuer conuert any, from infidelity to the faith: the second, that the Church of Rome hath conuerted. This which the Iesuite so confidently deliuereth, is partly false, and partly to no purpose at all. For whereas hee sayth, heretickes neuer convert any from infidelity to Christianity, the conuersion of the Moscouites, by the Greeke Church, at that time, when it was in his iudgment hereticall and schismaticall, abundantly refuteth him, besides some other examples, that might be alleadged.

Touching the other part of his speech, that the Church of Rome hath conuerted many nations to the faith, it maketh nothing to the purpose. For wee haue already shewed, that wee doubt not, but the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome with more than Lucifer-like pride exalted himselfe, was notwithstanding the true Church of God; that it held a sauing profession of the trueth in Christ, and by force thereof did conuert many from errour to the way of trueth; yet was not the state of that Church such, but that a damnable faction of wicked ones was found in the midst of it, who, being the vassals of that cursed Antichrist, adulterated the trueth of God, and brought his people into a miserable estate, holding men in worse then Babylonical captiuity. These men the Romanists succeed at this day. For the clearing of this matter, see that which I haue noted before to this purpose.

CHAP. 47

Of the Protestants pretended confession, that the Romane Church is the true Church of God.

THe Bellar. cap. 16 nota. 15. next note, whereby Bellarmine endeuoureth to proue the Romish Synagogue to be the true Church of God, is our owne confession. Surely if he can proue, that we confesse it to be the true Church, he needeth not vse any other arguments. Let vs see therefore, how hee proueth, that we confesse the Romane Church to be the true Church of God. In lib. contra Anabaptista •… . Luther, sayth he, clearely yeeldeth it; & Caluin, and others in effect acknowledge the same. This wee deny: for, neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor any of vs doe acknowledge, that the Popish religion, is true religion; or the Romish faction, the Orthodoxe Church of God. It is true indeede, that Luther writing against the Anabaptists doth affirme, that the life of true Christianity was preserued in the middest of those Churches, wherein the Pope did formerly tyrannize; which thing we haue more fully cleared before: But, that any part of that doctrine, the reformed Churches haue reiected, was to be accounted the doctrine of the Church, or that those wicked ones, (in whose steppes the Romanists at this day doe insist, peruerting the strait wayes of God, and adulterating his heauenly trueth) were liuely members of the Church, Luther did neuer so much as dreame.

That which is alleadged out of Caluinus, inquit. Bellar. eodem cap. vocat Bernardum pium scriptorem: at certè papista suit Bernardus: & nemo est pius sine verâ fide, Idem probat ex Luthero & Philippo ib. Caluin, touching Bernard, and other holy men, liuing & dying in the Romane Church, is to no purpose. For we neuer doubted, but that the Churches, wherein those holy men did liue and die, were the true Churches of God, and held the sauing profession of heavenly trueth, though there were innumerable in the middest of them, that adulterated the same to their endlesse perdition; whose successours the Romanists are at this day. There is therefore a great difference to be made, betweene the Church wherein our Fathers formerly liued, and that faction of the Popes adherents, which at this day resist against the necessary reformation of the Churches of God, and make that their faith and religion, which, in former times, was but the priuate and vnresolued opinion of some certaine onely. In former times, a man might hold the generall doctrine of those Churches, wherein our Fathers liued, and be saued, though the assertions of some men were damnable; Now it is cleane contrary touching the present state of the Romish Church; For, the generall & maine doctrine, agreed vpon in the Councel of Trent, in sort as it is most commonly conceiued, is damnable: but there are (no doubt) some of a better spirit, and haue in themselues particularly a better conceit of things, than generally is holden. Formerly, the Church of Rome was the true Church, but had in it an hereticall faction: now the Church it selfe is hereticall, & some certaine onely are found in it, in such degree of Orthodoxie, as that we may well hope of their saluation. Thus then, this great obiection taken, from our owne confession, is easily answered.

CHAP. 48.

Of Miracles, confirming the Romane faith,

THe Cap. 14. not. 11. next note of the Church, is, Gods owne testimony, which hee giueth of the trueth, & sanctity, of the faith and profession it holdeth. This doubtlesse is the most absolute & excellent note of all other. For that must needes bee the true Church, which holdeth the true faith and profession; and that the true profession, which God, that neither himselfe can be deceiued, nor deceiue others, doeth witnesse & testifie to be so. For who dare make any doubt, whether that bee the true religion, or that the true Church, which the God of trueth witnesseth to be so? Let vs see, therefore, how God doth testifie concerning the trueth of religion, and the happy condition of them that professe it.

Surely, this testification is of two sorts: the one by the inward operation of his inlightening spirit, satisfying our vnderstandings in those things, which by natures light we could not discerne, and filling our hearts with ioy and gladnesse, such and so great, as nothing within natures compasse can yeeld. For by this so great, happie, and heauenly an alteration, which wee finde in our selues vpon, and together with this receiuing of this doctrine; which the spirit of trueth doth teach vs, hee doth most clearely witnesse vnto vs, that it is heauenly indeede; and such as we could not haue attained vnto, but by diuine reuelation. The other kind of testification, is, when being desired by them, that teach and learne this doctrine, to giue some outward testimonie, that it is true, he doth some such thing for the good of them that receiue it, or hurt of such as refuse it, as none but God can doe. But because, partly by reason of the manifold illusions, wherewith Sathan can, and often doth abuse men, making it seem vnto them that those things are done which are not; and partly, because we doe not exactly know, what may be done by the force of naturall causes; Ante approbationem Ecclesiae non est evidens, aut certum certitu dine fidei, de ullo miraculo, quod sit verum miraculum. Bellar. in eodem cap. we cannot infallibly know, concerning any outward thing performed before our eyes, that it is in deede immediately and miraculously wrought by Gods owne most sacred hands. This kinde of testification is not matchable with the other: Nay, wee cannot be infallibly assured of any thing done, that it is Gods owne worke, and in deede a miracle, vnlesse this assurance grow out of the former testification. For we may justly feare some fraud, till finding, by the inward testimony of Gods spirit, the trueth of that for proofe whereof this strange thing is done, we are assured it is the immediate and peculiar worke of God. Aug. de utilitate credendi cap. 16. m •… aculum, inquit, voco, quod arduum, aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet: qu •… dam solum faciunt admitationem: quaed •… m magnam gratiam benevolentiamque conciliant qualia suerunt Christi miracula. Hunc locum producit Scotus prolog sentent. quaest. de •… tauo. This assurance the quality of the things done, and the difference betweene the workes of Sathan which onely cause admiration and wonder, and the miraculous workes of God, that are full of gracious goodnes, winning the hearts of such as see them, will greatly strengthen.

To what purpose then (will some man say) serued all the miracles that were done by Christ and his blessed Apostles? This doubt is easily cleared: for whereas the things then taught, were new, strange, and incredible to naturall men, they would not at all haue listned vnto them, made inquiry after them, or search into them, had not the strange workes that followed the publishers of them, made them thinke the things credible, that were accompanied with so strange attendants. Now while they gaue heed to the things that were spoken, the Word was mighty in operation, and entred into them in such sort, that they discerned it was Gods owne word, and that the way of saluation, which by it they were directed vnto.

Thus then we see, that miracles are no sure notes of the trueth of Religion, nor certaine marke to know the Church by, vnlesse they bee strengthened by some other meanes: not for that a miracle knowne to bee so, is insufficient to testifie of the trueth of God; but because it is not possible infallibly to know, that the things which seeme vnto vs to be miracles, be so in deede; vnlesse being assured of the trueth of that, for confirmation whereof they are wrought, wee thereby bee perswaded they are of God. All that hath beene hitherto said, is confessed to be true, by the best learned Divines of the Romane Church. Tom. 2. opuscul. tractat. 1. de conceptione virgin. 〈◊〉 c. 1. Yea, Cardinall Caietan proceedeth so farre, that he pronounceth, it cannot bee certainely knowne, that those miracles are true miracles, which the Church admitteth and approueth, in the canonizing of Saints, seeing the trueth of them dependeth on mens report, that may deceiue, and be deceiued.

Thus hauing declared what the vse of miracles is, and how farre they giue testimony of the trueth, let vs see what our adversaries conclude from hence, for themselues, or against vs. They haue miracles for confirmation of their faith and Religion, and we haue none: therefore they hold the true faith, and we are in errour. For answere hereunto; first, we say, that the trueth of Religion cannot infallibly and certainely be found out by miracles, especially in these last times; because, as Gerson noteth in his booke De distinctione verarum & falsarum visionum, in this old age of the world, in this last houre, and time so neere Antichrist his revelation, it is not to bee marvailed at, if the world like a doating olde man, bee abused by many illusions, and fantasies most like to dreames.

Secondly wee say, that howsoeuer it may bee, some miracles were done, by such good men as liued in the corrupt state of the Church, in the dayes of our Fathers; yet that is no proofe of those errours which the Romanists maintaine against vs. For wee peremptorily deny, that euer any miracle was done, by any in times past, or in our times, to confirme any of the things controuersed, betweene them and vs. Fit aliquando in ecclesiàmaxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à sacerdotibus vel ijs adhaerentibus propter lucrum temporale: talia extirpanda sunt, sicut ista extirpata sunt à Daniele. Lyra in 14 Danielis. What credit is to be giuen to the reportes of their miracles, they may easily conceiue, in that in all the differences they haue had amongst themselues, either in matters of opinion, or of faction, they haue had contrary visions, reuelations, and miracles, to confirme the perswasion of either side: as appeared in the differences touching Maries conception, and in the times of the Anti-Popes. Wherevpon Caietane, writing to Pope Leo, about the controuersie of Maries conception, wisheth him not to suffer his iudgement to be swayed, by shew of miracles, and giueth many good reasons of the vncertainety, of finding out the trueth by that meanes.

Thirdly, whereas they say, wee haue no miracles, and therefore not the true faith and Religion; wee deny both the antecedent and the consequent. For first, the restoring of the purity of religion in our age, hath not beene, without wonderfull demonstration of the power of God, to confirme the trueth of our doctrine, and the equity of our cause, as may appeare by that which is reported, f Tom. 2. opuscul. tractat 1. de conceptione virginis cap. 5. beata Brigitta sibi revelatum dixit, virginem praeservatam fuisse ab originali peccato: Catharina de senis. dixit sibi reuelatum oppositum. by In Catalogo testium veritatis. Illyricus, the English Martyrologue, and other histories of better credite, than those out of which they report their miracles. And besides we say, though we had no miracles, wee are not thereby conuinced of errour. For the vse of miracles was specially, if not onely, in respect of infidels, as Caietane sheweth in the place aboue mentioned, out of 1 Corinthians 11. and the authority of Gregorie, in his tenth Homily, and serued to make the mysteries of God seeme credible, to such as were wholly auerse from them. So that now the faith being already generally planted & receiued in the world, and confirmed by the miracles done by Christ and his Apostles, and nothing being taught by vs, but the same which was deliuered by them in the beginning, nothing contrary to the confirmed and receiued doctrine of the Church of God then in the world, when those differences betweene vs and our aduersaries began, there is no reason they should vrge vs, to confirme our doctrine by miracles. If they require vs to confirme our calling and Ministery, as being extraordinary, wee say, it is not extraordinary, as hath beene sufficiently cleared in the note of succession. That which Bellarmine addeth, that Luther and Calvine attempted to doe miracles, but could doe none, is but the lying reporte of his owne companions, their sworne enemies, whose testimony in this case is not to be regarded.

CHAP. 49.

Of Propheticall Prediction.

THe Bellar. cap. 15. nota 12, in eodem lib. next note of the Church, vrged by them, is Propheticall prediction. The certaine foreknowledge of future contingent things, is proper vnto God, and therefore none can foretell such things before they come to passe, but they to whom God reuealeth them: but that this kind of reuelation is made only to them that are of the true Church, I thinke Bellarmine will not say. For then what shall wee thinke of Balaam, and the Sybils? so that prediction of future things is no certaine, nor proper note of the true Church. But if it were, it would not helpe them, not hurt vs. For, those men they speake of, that liued in the dayes of our fathers, & prophesied of things to come, were of the true Church, As Grosted, Gers. Sauanarola, and many other before mentioned. and many of them did most certainely foresee, & foretell, the ruine of the Pope his estate, and the alteration, & reformation of the Church in our time, & gaue most cleare testimony vnto that, which we haue done. Neither is there any better proofe of the goodnesse of our cause, than that that, which we haue done in the reformation of the Church, was before wished for, expected, & foretold, by the best men that liued in former times, in the corrupt state of the Church.

That which Bellarmine scornefully reporteth of Luthers false & lying prophesie, that if he continued but two yeares in preaching the Gospell, the kingdome of the Pope should be ouerthrowen; shall (wee doubt not) bee found true, to the confusion of the enemies of Gods trueth & Religion, notwithstanding all the indeuours of the Iesuites to make vp the breaches of Babylon, which must be throwen downe, till not a stone be left vpou a stone. In Iabel demonstr. certitudinis sacrarum literarum & Christianae religionis. But that Luther foretold many things before they came to passe, wherein his predictions were found most true, wee haue the testimony of Melancthon, Illyricus, & diuers others.

CHAP. 50.

Of the felicity of them that professe the trueth.

THe next note of the true Church, assigned by Bellarmine, is the temporall felicity of them that are of it. It was but his priuate fantasie, that mooued him to assigne this note of the Church. For his fellowes, the Diuines of Rhemes, in their annotations vpon the fift of Matthew, doe vtterly disclaime it, saying in expresse & precise wordes, Wee see then that the temporall prosperity of persons and countreys, is no signe of better men, or truer Religion.

But, let vs suppose these pettie Diuines are deceiued in this their iudgement, (though if they bee, wee must condemne all the Primitiue Christians, that were in the times of the ten bloody persecutions) and let vs grant, that the Cardinall sayth truely, that temporall felicity and prosperity is a note of the true Church and Religion, what doeth hee gaine by it? surely nothing at all: for he is most blind, that seeth not the prosperity of all those Countries of Germany, Denmarke, England, Scotland, and the like, where the reformed Religion is maintained; and the long life, & happy Reigne of those Princes, that haue most favoured and sought to advance the same, as of great ELIZABETH of famous memory, late Empresse of England, &c. who as she was the great & glorieus protectour of the Reformed Churches, so was she the wonder of the world, in respect of the happy successe shee had in all things she tooke in hand, and the perpetuall course of felicity, and prosperity, that euer attended her, notwithstanding the daungerous attempts of bloody miscreants, the hired slaues of the sonne of perdition. How the professours of this Religion, though fewer in number, forsaken & destitute of all worldly assurances, and being, by the falshood & treachery of their bloody enemies, oftentimes brought as it were to nothing, in France & other places, haue yet strangely, and indeed miraculously lifted vp their heads againe, to the terrour and confusion of their proudest enimies; hee that seeth not, is a stranger in the world. Wherefore I I will leaue the consideration of this note to the indifferent Reader, not fearing any great preiudice, that can grow from thence against our cause.

CHAP. 51.

Of the miserable endes of the enemies of the trueth,

THe next is the miserable end of such as are enemies of Gods true Religion. It is true, that God hath oftentimes shewed his iudgements most clearely, against the wicked enemies of his trueth and glory; so that in the end, the impiety of their former courses was made to appeare, as wee see in Herode, Arrius, Nestorius, and others: but that any such thing fell out to Luther, Caluine, or any of those worthy men Bellarmine is pleased in this place to slander, we vtterly deny. And to the lewd and lying reports of Coclaeus, & Bolsecus, we oppose the testimony of Iunius, Melancthon, and others. And surely it was the worlds wonder, that Luther opposing himself against the bloody Romanists, against whom no King nor Emperour in later times resisted, but he wrought his owne ouerthrow, should notwithstanding liue so long, die so peaceably, and be buried so honourably, as few of his ranke haue euer beene.

Touching Caluine, there were many witnesses of the manner of his sicknesse; but of his death, none but the worthy Iunius animadvers. in Bellarm. controv. 2 lib. 4 c. 8. Scofferius, whose true report, wee oppose against the wicked and vile slaunders of that base and branded runnagate Bolsecus. That Zuinglius died in the field, with his Countrey-men in defence of their liues, liberties, and Religion, is no certaine note (as I take it) that his Religion was false: but rather an excellent proofe, and demonstration, of the Christian magnanimitie, and resolution, that rested in him.

Charles the fift, that famous Emperour, formerly so fortunate in all his attempts, after he beganne to oppresse the Duke of Saxonie, the Lantgraue, and others of the reformed Religion, prospered not, and was put to the w •… rse by one poore Duke, Maurice. Francis Spira, denying the trueth of our Religion, which he had formerly prosessed, died in horrible despaire: the wofull end of Saunders, that Antichristian Arch traitour, is well knowne to all men: the overthrowe of the Invincible Navie in 88, and the miserable ends of so many Traitours in the dayes of ELIZABETH, beside t •… e late Sulphurian and hellish miscreants, perishing in their sinnes, hauing blowne vp all good opinion any man might haue had of such companions. How infortunate they haue beene in their attempts, how vnhappy in their endes, that haue most opposed themselues against the trueth of that Religion, which wee professe, we are able to produce many examples.

CHAP. 52.

Of the Sanctity of the liues of them that are of the true Church.

THe last note of the Church, assigned by them, is the sanctitie, holinesse, and good conversation, of such as are of it. In assigning of this note, as in some of the former, they shew how sweetly they conspire and agree together, For Cardinall Allen, in his preface, before his booke of Purgatory, confesseth, that by the guile and craftie conveyance of our common enemie the diuell, falsehood is often so cloaked in shadow and shape of truth, and the masters thereof make such shew of vertue and godly life, that you would thinke it had no affinitie with vice, nor origine of mans misbehauiour at all. So did hee couer the wicked heresies of Manicheus, Marcion, Tatianus, and the like, with a fained flourish of continency and chastitie. So did hee ouer-cast the enemie of Gods grace Pelagius Aug. Ep. 120. with the apparance of all grauitie, constancie, and humility. And so hath he alwayes, where craft was requisite to his intent, made shew of a simple sheepe, in the cruell carcasse of a wily wolfe, transfiguring himselfe into an Angell of light, And that his schollers play the like parts, our Maister Christ, of his singular loue, gaue his flock this watch-word, for a speciall provizo; Math. 7. 15 Take heede of false Prophets, that come in sheepes vesture, but within are ravening Wolues. So that in all cloaked heresies, men must haue an eye to the fruit of the doctrines preached, and not onely, or principally, to the liues of such as teach them, by the outward appearance whereof, it is not alwayes safe to judge.

This the Rhemists doe more fully expresse, in their annotations vpon this place, saying, the fruits that heretiques are knowne by, are division from the whole Church, division amongst themselues, inconstancie in doctrine, and such like: and that these are lightly common to all heretiques, but that there are some other, more peculiar to certaine, as wickednesse of life, and doctrine, directly tending to corruption of good life, in all states of men.

Thus then wee see, that appearing sanctity, grauity and godlynesse, are no sure, certaine, infallible, and perpetuall notes, to knowe the true professors by, from such as erre and are deceiued. But passing by this their ouersight, in that they make such things to be notes of the Church, as are not proper vnto it, nor doe not clearely distinguish it from heretickes; let vs see what they indeauour to proue against vs, or for themselues, by the force and euidence of this note.

Thus therefore they reason; The chiefe guides of the reformed Churches, and professours of the reformed religion, are apparently wicked, and godlesse men, of vile and scandalous conuersation, and the people wicked, yea much worse then they were in the Papacy; but their Pristes, Prelates, Monkes, Friers and people, are holy and religious; therefore the truth of religion is theirs. This imputation of wickednesse, Bellarmine fastneth vpon Wickliffe and Luther. and from them descendeth to the people.

Touching Wickliffe, it is a most impudent and shamelesse challenge: Lib. 1. doctrinae pra •… ssiua 8. tom. 1. for Waldensis sheweth, that his conuersation was such, and his manner of life soe shadowed with shewes of vertue, that he thereby preuailed much: & thereupon sheweth at large, that it is not safe to discerne the truth of religion, by the appearance of sanctity, and good conuersation of them that professe it; and that heretickes haue and often do cloth themselues, with the robes and garments of seeming vertue and piety. But hath he no proofe, that Wickliffe was a wicked and godlesse man? Doubtlesse hee hath, and that very pregnant. Lib. 2 doctrinallfidei. c. 6. For Waldensis reporteth vpon an vncertaine rumour, that a Bishoppe of Salisburie, in a very great and solemne assembly of the Clergie of the Prouence of Canterbury, affirmed, that Wickliffe affected the Bishopricke of Worcester; which when he obtained not, hee grewe discontented, and so became an enimy to the Catholike Church, impugned the different degrees of Ministerie, and the dignity of Bishops. If this kind of proofe bee good, innocencie it selfe will not be able to abide the triall.

Wherefore passing from Wickliffe, against whom it seemeth our aduersaries, are able to say little; let vs see what are those greeuous crimes, wherewith they charge Luther. First, they say, he beganne to impugne the sale and marchandise of indulgences, not led by any iust reason, mouing him to dislike them, but because the publishing of them was not committed to the Friers of his order but to the Friers predicant. This vile slaunder hath no better ground then the former against Wickliffe. For who will regard the malitious report of Coclaeus, his sworne enimie, against the whole course of things that passed in those times, and the cleare euidence of the trueth it selfe. Histor. lib. 13. Guicciardine reporteth, that the abuses in the marchandise of those pardons were so intolerable, that the pardon sellers set the price of redemption, and deliuerance of soules out of Purgatorie, as a stake at dice, to be played for, in euery Inne and Ta •… erne where they came: that all good men disliked much this impious and irreligious abusing the people of God, and that thereupon Luther began his opposition against them, not without the great applause of the Christian world.

But to make it most cleare to all not wilfully blinded, that noe such sinister respect mooued Luther to impugne the Kingdome of the Roman Antichrist; It is certaine, hee had, before this occasion was offered vnto him, cleared the doctrine of Originall sinne, of Nature and Grace, of the difference betweene the spirit and the letter, the Law and grace, of freewill and the like, which are the maine grounds of all that doctrine, wherein hee dissenteth from the Romish Synagogue.

But (saith Bellarmine,) Coclaeus reporteth, that Luther in the disputatiō at Lipsia between him & Eckius said, his opposition against the Pope & Poperie, was never begun out of any desire of Gods glory, nor would euer haue any good end. This is is a diuellish slaunder: for Luther said no such thing, but that this disputation was not begunne on his aduersaries part, out of any desire of the glory of God, or the good of his Church, and that therefore it would neuer haue any good end.

That which hee writeth to them of Strawesborough, that hee would willingly be of their opinion, and denie the reall presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament, if the euidence of truth did not conuince him, and force him to bee otherwise minded, for that hee might thereby disaduantage his aduersaries of the Romish faction, no way proueth that, which Bellarmine intendeth. For this is all hee sayth: Let no man thinke, that it is wilfullnesse, and a preiudicate opinion, that maketh mee dissent from Zuinglius, and the rest; for in my affection and desire, I should rather Wish to consent with them in this point, then with the Romanists, (whose manifolde damnable errours I detest,) if it were affection, and not reason, and the cleare euidence of truth, that must preuaile in things of this kind. An cum Apostoli vngebant infirmos & cu •… abant, illa vnctio fuerit sacramentalis, duae sunt opiniones: 1, negatiua: 2. affirmatiua: posterior interpretatio, inquit Bellar. eo nomine mihi gratior est, quòd videam Lutherum, Caluinum & Chemnicium, esse in priore opinione. Bellar. 2. tom. 5. contr. l. 1. c. 2. Indeede the Romanists are wont to temper their opinions, and sway their iudgments, accordingly as they finde, they may most aduantage their owne cause, and disaduantage their aduersaries. As appeareth by Bellar. l. 1. de sacramento ordinis. cap. 5. Bellarmine, who in the question, whether the eminent degree of Bishoppes aboue Presbyters, bee a distinct order of Ministrie, doth incline to the opinion of them that thinke it is, contrary to the iudgment of the best learned of the Schoolemen; for that thereby hee may the more easily impugne the opinion of them that thinke, Bishoppes and Presbyters to bee all one, iure diuino.

That which followeth, is as little to the purpose as the rest. It is true, that in the assurance of the truth hee professed, and the certaine victorie of the same ouer all the enimies of it, of what kinde, degree, or sort soeuer, hee esteemed all the greatenesse of the malicious aduersaries therof, as vile as the dirt vnderneath his feete, though otherwise out of this comparison with the truth, and opposition to it, hee respected them as the greatnesse of their place did require. That hee saith, hee regardeth not a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Augustines, if they should bee produced, proueth not, that hee thinketh them to be against him in the cause of religion, or that hee contemneth them, but that no authority of men or Angells, shall euer remoue him from that hee knoweth to be the truth of God, as the Apostle requireth the Galathians, If an Angell come from heauen, and preach otherwise to them, then they had beene taught, to hold him accursed: not as if the holy Angels in heauen, now confirmed in grace, Galat. 1. 3. could either erre themselues from the truth of the Gospell, or peruert others, or that they should bee vilely esteemed of, in the messages they bring vnto vs; but that, if it were possible for them to erre, and misleade others, wee should not listen vnto them, but hold them accursed.

That out of his booke of corner masses, is as diuellish a slander as the rest. For, Luther doth not say, hee learned of the diuell, that the Masse is impious and wicked, but that hauing learned that in the schoole of Christ, the diuell therevpon tempted him to dispaire, for that he had so often sayd such Masses, and thereby dishonoured God, and misled his people: what this can proue against him, I see not.

That hee was of a violent spirit, wee deny not: nay himselfe gloried in it: that hee had an heroicall spirit, made to contemne the fury and folly of the Romanists; neither had hee beene fitte to oppose against enimies of this kinde, if hee had beene of another spirit. That he was carried too much with the violent streame of his passions, wee impute it to the infirmity of flesh and blood, and the perversenesse of the manyfold adversaries hee found in those times. Neither was this the peculiar or proper fault of Luther: for who knoweth not, that Hierome, and Chrysostome, and diuerse other lights of the World were not without their blemishes in this kinde.

That the Tigurines, Gesnerus, and others, disliked the distempered passions of Luther, is not to bee maruailed at; or that there were some differences amongst them; seeing the like were in former times, betweene How many vnkindnesses passed betweene Chrysostome & Epiphanius, who knoweth not? Did not the one refuse to pray with the other? did not the one challenge the other for manifold breaches of the Canons? did not the one, inv •… ighing against the other, professe that he hoped be sh •… uld neuer d •… e a bishop? and the other that he sh •… uld neuer c •… me aliue into his country? Socrat. l. 6. c. 13 Epiphanius, and Chrysostome; The invectiu •… s of Hier. and Ruffinus one a gainst another, are extant, and Aug. Epist. wherein hee sorroweth for their bitter dissentions Hierome, Ruffinus, The Epistles of Aug. and Hier. which the one wrote vnto the other, shew what differences were betweene them. Augustine, and others.

From Luther, the Iesuite commeth to the people of our profession, pronouncing that there are many wicked amongst his consorts, but that there are none good, amongst those that are of the Reformed Religion. Thus, with the breath of his mouth, he thinketh to blow vp all that standeth before him. But how proueth he that he saith? Our owne confession, saith he, is proofe enough. But against this pretended and imagined confession, we protest, and professe before God, men and Angels, that wee neuer thought, much lesse spake or wrote any such thing. If Luther in his sermons complaine, that the world is euery day worse than other, who was there euer found that vsed not wordes of the like complaint? If hee say, that the men of the world abuse the grace of God vnto want onnesse, and the more and better meanes they haue, bee the worse, what strange thing, saith hee? Did not S. Paul finde, that, when hee magnified the riches of the grace of God, and shewed, that where sinne hath abounded, grace more abounded, many tooke occasion to say; It is good to continue in sinne, that grace may abound. Doth he not charge the Corinthians, that there 1 Cor. 5. 1. was fornication amongst them, and such as was not once named among the Gentiles? that they went to law one with another, and that vnder Infidels, to the slaunder of the Gospell of Christ? that there was not a wise man amongst them to interpose himselfe, and stay these their proceedings one against another?

That which is alleaged out of Smidelinus, tendeth to the same purpose, and requireth no other, nor farther answere. Touching the judgement of Erasmus, it was so variable and vncertaine, in things of this kind, that neither they, nor we, can take any advantage by it. But for the extraordinary sanctity of the Romish Priests, Friars, Monkes, and other irreligious amongst them, whereof they insolently boast, and bragge, if we should stirre the De Silvest 〈◊〉 2. legitur, quod diabolo fecit homagium. qu •… m etiam in papatu existens c •… nsuluit. Occam 〈◊〉 part 1. cap. 2 sicut legitur in chronicis Iohan. 3. erat venator & totus lubricus, adeo quod foeminas publicè tenebat: propter quod quidam Cardinalium & Romanorum scripserunt occultè, & cito imperatori Saxonum, ut Scandalo compatiens Ecclesiae Rom, sine mo •… properaret. Hoc papa percipiens, Iohan, diacono Cardinali tanquam huius facti conciliatio. nasum, & alteri Iohan: subdiacono, qui literas scripsit, manum amputari fecit. Occam 1. part. l. 5. c. 5. Stephanus corpus formosiè sepulchro in concilium protractum, & papali veste exutum, & laicali indutum, & abscissis duobus digitis dextrae manus eius, in Tyberim praecipitari fecit. Sigeb in Chron. fol. 113. Anno 902. Alii idem narrant de Sergio, erat quidem pontifex qui nullum Deum credens, vniuersum infidelitatis culmen excessit: alius professus est se non credere immortalitatem animae: qui mortuus, eidem, cui hoc aperuerat, apparuit, manifestans se, quam mortalem crediderat, tum maximo cum damno et perpetuis cum ignibus immortalem experiri. Picus Theor. de fide et ordine credendi. dunghils of their own histories, wherein the liues of these Saints are described vnto vs, the stench of them would infect the aire: if we should make report of that we reade in Authors not partiall, men would stop their eares, and pronounce against vs, that such things ought not once to be named amongst men. This is so euident, that Bellarmine in his preface before his bookes of the Pope, is not ashamed to make the wickednesse, and prodigious villanies of the Popes, a proofe and demonstration of the Sanctity of that Chaire in which they sit, and of Gods provident care of it. Which argument, though it seeme strange at the first sight, yet it is in 1 Rom. 3. 8. his judgement very forcible, and vnanswerable; For that such, and so great hath beene the wickednesse of the Roman Bishops, that, if God had not strangely n 1 Cor. 6. 1. 5. vpholden it, the Sea and Chaire, in which they sit, had long since sunk down into hell. Thus I hope, it appeareth to all, not wilfully blinded, that this note of the sanctitie of the liues of the Professours of Religion, maketh very little for them, or against vs. And thus haue wee run through, and examined all the notes of the Church, by which they desire to be tryed.

AN APPENDIX, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARELY PROVED, THAT THE LATINE, OR WEST CHVRCH IN WHICH THE POPE TYRANNIZED, VV AS, AND CONTINVED A TRVEORTHODOXE AND PROTESTANT CHVRCH; AND THAT THE DEVISERS AND MAINTAINERS OF ROMISH ERROVRS and superstitious abuses, were onely a faction in the same, at the time when Luther, not without the applause of all good men, published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papall indulgences.

To the Reader.

THis Appendix, when first published by the Author, contained only some briefe quotations, vpon seuerall points of difference, betweene us and the Papistes; showing that the nowe Romish faith, was neuer generally receiued in the VVesterne or Latine Church, in the dayes of our Fathers; no not then, when the darke mist of Poperie seemed to haue ouershadowed all things. The Author not long before he died, intended an inlargment of it, in the seuerall particulars; but being preuented by death, liued not to finish what hee had begun. So much as was finished of it comming to my hands, I thought my selfe bound in duty not to depriue the world of. I haue therefore so farre aduentured to hazard the credit of the Author, as to make it publique, though something imperfect, and wanting that lustre, and beauty, which it might haue receiued from the last hand of the Author, if God had lent him longer life. As it is, it may serue, if for no other vse, yet for this, as a platforme to shew, what might be done in this kind and what the Author intended. I make no question but a fauourable Reader will looke on it, as wee vse to looke on the foundations of stately buildings, the finishing whereof hath beene hindred by some fatall accident; the very ruines whereof breede in us astonishment and amazement, while we consider, not what they are, but what they might haue beene. The twelue first chapters of this Appendix are enlarged, the rest remaine as they were formerly set forth. The quotations contained in that part which hath beene added, I haue compared and amended if any where they differed, from the Originalls whence they were taken: and the truth of them I am able to iustifie. If the world shall reape any benifit by the worke, or if I may be thought by my paines bestowed on it, to haue performed that duty, wich I owe vnto the memorie of a deare father, I haue my desire, and so I rest.

Yours in all due respect. NATHANIEL FIELD.
AN ANSWER TO Mr Brerelyes obiection concerning the Masse, publiquelie vsed in all Churches at LVTHERS appearing.

WHereas to silence our adversaries, who neuer cease challenging vs for departing from the faith of our Fathers, and the doctrine of the Church, wherein they liued and died; I affirmed in my 3 Booke, that none of those erroneous positions, which at this day they of the Romish faction doe defend, and wee impugne, were euer constantly receiued in the dayes of our Fathers, as the doctrine of that Church wherein they liued and died: but onely doubtfully disputed of, as things not clearely resolued, or broached onely as the priuate fancies and conceipts of particular men: and for proofe heereof heeretofore added an Appendix, wherein I produced the testimonies of sundry worthy Pastours and guides of the Church in euery age; teaching as we doe, touching the points now controversed; It hath pleased some of the adverse faction, to take exceptions to the same my assertion. I will first therefore set downe such objections, as they haue made, and answere the same, and then enlarge my former proofes, that all that will not be wilfully blinde, may see the trueth of that which I affirmed.

The principall man that shewed himselfe in this kinde is M Brerelie, the Author of the booke entitled the Protestant Apologie. And after him the author of the answer to Mr D Whites way to the Church. M Brerelie in the first tract pag. 139, hath these words. It is beyond beleefe and very wonderment, that D Field, a man otherwise graue, and learned, should not be abashed by his publique writing, so confidently to averre, of our so many Christian Catholique Churches, dispersed thorough the world at Luthers first appearing; that they were all of them the true Protestant Churches of God. And that they which then beleeued those damnable errours which the Romanists now defend, were a particular faction onely, contrary to the confession of so many learned Protestants. And in his 2 tract, cap. 2. sect. 2, pag. 329. hee hath these words. In this vndue sort doth Illyricus place in his catalogue of Protestant witnesses, Gerson, Aquinas, and sundry of our Schoolemen, all of them vndoubtedly knowne Catholiques; and we could giue like farther example of S. Bernard, Erasmus, Mirandula, and sundry other knowne Catholique Writers, whom our adversaries in like manner doe vnjustly claime to bee of their Church. D Field a prime adversarie (and for such, was together with the Bishops and Deanes, summoned to the conference before his Majestie in Ianuarie 1603, as appeareth by the said conference) forbeareth not in these straits to inforce the like vndue and intollerable bold claime to the many Catholiques (a particular faction of them onely excepted) dispersed thorough the world, at, and next before Luthers first appearing. And in his third Booke of the Church, cap. 12. pag. 85, saith, nothing is done in the Protestant reformation, which Camaracensis, Picus, Savanarola, Gerson, and innumerable other worthy guides of Gods Church, long before thought 〈◊〉 fit to bee done. And pag. 330, Mr Brerelie addeth these wordes. D. Feild of the Church l. 3. c. 6. sayth, it is most fond & friuolous that some demaund, where our Church was before Luther began. For we say it was where now it is, and that it was the knowne & apparant Church in the world, where all our Fathers liued & died. And most exceeding boldly hee there farther sayth, none of the poynts of false doctrine & errour, which the Romanists now maintaine, & we condemne, were the doctrines of that Church, constantly deliuered, or generally receiued, but doubtfully broached, and factiously defended by some certaine only. And booke the third, cap. 8. pag. 76, he proceedeth yet farther with like incredible boldnesse, saying, we must farther beleeue, that all the Churches in the world, wherein our Fathers liued & died, were the true Churches of God, & that they that taught the errours the Romanists now defend against vs, were a faction only, as they that denied the resurrection, vrged circumcision, & despised the Apostles of Christ, were in the Churches of Corinth & Galatia. Who can without amazement and wonder, behold this incredible boldnesse? For was not the Masse, wherein are comprehended so many cheife points of our Religion, the publique liturgie solemnly celebrated in all Churches, at Luthers first appearing? Was then the externall face of religion, any other then our now professed Catholique faith? Was Protestancie then so much as in beeing? No marvaile then, if our aduersaries doubt not to make vndue and pretended claime to the auncient Fathers, seeing they blush not to affirme the same, exceeding boldly & vntruly, of the time in which Luther first began, which is yet within the memory of this present age. Others affirme the Church to haue beene then invisible, directly against that, which M. D. Feild next before so boldly affirmed; into which bold assertion hee ventured, onely thereby to avoyd the other absurd paradoxe of the supposed Churches beeing invisible, which so many learned Protestants haue also disclaymed heretofore; as on the other part, they who so affirmed their Churches then beeing invisible, affirmed the same, as enforced therevnto, in regard of the knowne pregnant vntrueth, of M. D. Feilds other assertion, in affirming the Church to haue beene then knowne & visible. Vpon such dangerous rocks are our aduersaries driuen in their thus sayling betweene Scylla & Charibdis

Heere we see is much adoe, as if some thing had beene written by me, that were beyond all beliefe, and a very wonderment. But what strange thing is it, that is thus wondered at? Surely it is nothing else, but that I haue affirmed; that all those Christian Catholique Churches, in the West part of the world, where the Pope formerly tyranized, and where our Fathers liued and dyed, were the true Protestant Churches of God; and that the maintayners of those errours, superstitious abuses, & Papall tyranny, which wee dislike, were in that they maintayned, the same, and so farre forth as they maintayned any of them, but a faction only in those Churches. If this be all, I doubt not but so to make good what I haue written, that Mr Brerelie shall in the end wonder at himselfe, why hee contradicted it. For if by a Protestant Church, we meane a Church beleeuing & teaching in all poynts as Protestants doe, and beleeuing & teaching nothing but that they doe, it shall bee proued & demonstrated, that the Latine or West Church, wherein the Pope tyrannized before Luthers time, was & continued a true Protestant Church. For the Church that then was, beleeued & taught all that wee doe, and nothing else; it condemned those prophane & superstitious abuses which wee haue removed; and groaned vnder that tyranny, the yoake whereof we haue now cast off; howsoever there were many in the midst of her, that taught otherwise, that brought in & maintayned, intollerable, & superstitious abuses, & sought to advance the Popes ouerruling greatnes and supremacy. But if by a Protestant Church they vnderstand, a Church that not only complayneth of Papall tyranny, and vsurpation, & sheweth her dislike of the same, but that hath cast off the yoake, and that not onely disliketh abuses, but removeth them, & that not only teacheth all necessary & sauing trueth, but suffereth none within the compasse of her jurisdiction to teach otherwise: wee confesse that no part of the Westerne Church, was in this sort a Protestant Church, till a reformation was begun of evills formerly disliked. But M Brerelie sayth, Protestancie was not in being before Luthers time, & that therefore the Christian Catholique Churches, wherein our Fathers liued & dyed, could not in any sort truely bee sayd to bee Protestant Churches. Wherevnto our answere is, that ifby Protestancie bee meant, the beleeuing of all that, and that onely, which they that are now named Protestants doe beleeue, & the professing of a dislike of such abuses, & Papall vsurpations, as they haue now cast off: it was in beeing many ages, and long before Luther was borne; and all those Christian Catholique Churches, wherein our Fathers liued & died were Protestant Churches. But this Master Brerelie thinketh vnaunswerablie to confute, because the Masse, where so many poynts of the Romish Religion are contayned, was the publique liturgie solemnly celebrated in all Churches, at & before Luthers appearing, and the externall face of religion was no other, then the now professed Roman faith. For aunswere wherevnto, I will first shew that the vsing of the Masse as the publique liturgie, is no good proofe of that Master Brerely vndertaketh to proue. Secondly I will make it to appeare, that the externall face of Religion before Luthers time, was not as Master Brerelie would make vs to beleeue, the Roman faith now professed.

Touching the Masse foure things are to be obserued. The name, The canon it selfe, The sinister consecrations & manifold abuses in practise besides and contrary to the words of the canon, & the intendment of them that first composed the same; and lastly sundry apocryphall vaine superstitious & idle things crept into the publique seruice of the Church.

Touching the first it is knowen, that the celebration of the holy mysterie, & sacrament of the Lords body & blood, had the name of Masse, from the dismissing of all non-communicants before the consecration began. So that none stayed, but such as were to communicate. The auncient custome was, sayth Cassander in his consultation, that none might bee present at the consecration, but such as were to communicate. For, as Chrysostome sheweth, as they Art. 24. p. 213 that were not baptized might not stay, no more might they that were impure & guilty of any grievous sinne, so that they were not fitte to communicate. Rhen. annot. in Tertull. de corona militis. And to this purpose was that most auncient obseruation of all Churches, that by the voyce of the deacon, missa seu missio denunciabatur, catechumenis & non communicantibus ante consecrationem, that is, that the Catechumens & all noncommunicants were dismissed before the consecration; the deacon crying out with a loud voyce, si quis non communicet exeat; si quis non communicet det locum, if any communicate not, let him depart. So that hence it came, that the name of Masse was giuen to sundry parts of the liturgie; for whereas all might be present at some part of the diuine seruice; that part was called missa catechumenorum, for that the catechumens might bee present at it; and it was ended before their dismissing. But the other part, which consisteth in the consecration, oblation, & participation, is called missa fidelium; for that the faithfull onely who were fitte to communicate, might be present at it, all non-communicants being first dismissed & sent away. This maketh against the present abuse of the Romane Church wherein all stay, and yet none communicate but the priest alone; & many are made beleeue, it is sufficient to be present, though they doe not prepare themselues, so as to bee fitte, to communicate; nay oftentimes such as would communicate are repelled. This was the fault of some, in the Church wherein our Fathers liued, but not without the dislike of the better sorte. And therefore, as Cassander telleth vs, Henricus de Gorrichem in tractatu de effectu missae propos. 23, reprehendeth certaine pastours of his age, who could hardly endure, that some of their Parishioners, desired euery Sunday to receiue the Sacrament, though they liued laudably. And hee addeth, that seeing the same devotion that was in the Primitiue Church, when men communicated euery day, is still to be found in some, the Pastour should not dislike it, if any amongst the common people be so devout, as to desire to communicate euery Sunday, and some other dayes also. So that there wanted not of the people in former times, that desired to communicate aswell as to be present, nor of the guides that encouraged them so to doe; and therefore hitherto nothing can be proued against my assertion. Wherefore let vs come to the Masse it selfe;

Amongst all the Sacraments of the Church, that is the principall, saith Rational div •… . l 4. 〈◊〉 . 1. Durandus, that is celebrated vpon the table of the most holy Altar, representing that Feast, & banquet of the Church, wherein the father vpon the returne of his lost sonne, caused the fatlings to be slaine, & setteth out the bread of life, & the wine which wisedome hath mixed for her friends & louers. These mysteries, & this holy Sacrament, Christ then instituted, when he made his new and last testament, disposing to his heires a kingdome, as his father had disposed to him, that vpon his Table they might eat & drinke in his kingdome, that which the Church hath consecrated, for as they were at supper, Iesus tooke bread, and when he had giuen thanks, blessed it, brake it, & gaue it to his Disciples, saying, take, & eat, this is my body which shalbe giuen for you, doe this in the remembrance of me. The Apostles following this institution, began to celebrate these mysteries for the same end that Christ had expressed, keeping the same forme in words, and vsing the same matter of bread & wine that he did, as the Apostle witnesseth to the Corinthians, where he saith, what I haue receiued of the Lord, I haue deliuered vnto you, who the same night that hee was betrayed, tooke bread, &c. and added to the forme of wordes vsed by Christ, the Lords prayer. And S. Peter is said in this sort to haue celebrated first of all in the East parts. Wherefore in the beginnings of the Church, these mysteries were celebrated in another sort then since they haue bin. Afterwards, the reading of some parts of sacred scripture, & particularly of the Epist. & Gospell was added. Pope Celestinus instituted the introitus, & other things were added at other times, & by others. Howsoeuer this is certain, there were, & are at this day, diuers formes of celebrating this mystery. For the formes of the East Churches are different from those of the West, & it appeareth that aunciently in France, Spain, & sundry parts of Italy, they had other formes then now are vsed, more like to those d Durand. rational 〈◊◊〉 . of the East, which being in some things enlarged and perfitted by S. Ambrose, were called the Ambrosian forms of divine seruice. These cōtinued till the time of Charles the great. For thogh Gregory, as Io. Diaconus tels vs, taking the forms of celebrating masse which Gelasius had cōposed, adding somethings, detracting others, & changing others, brought in a new forme which the Church of Rome followed, yet the other churches of the west retained the old forms, which they had receiued frō their ancesters. And to this purpose it is, that Berno Augiensis testifieth, that amongst the monuments of his Abbey, there was found an olde •… all much different from those of Rome. But Charles the great, sought to bring the Provinces subiect to his Empire, to receiue the Romane forme by threats & punishment. We read, saith Durandus, in the life of blessed Eugenius, that while 〈◊◊〉 . 〈◊◊〉 the forme of divine seruice which was named the Ambrosian forme, was more followed & obserued by the Church, then that of Gregory, Adrian the Pope called a councell, in which it was ordered, that the Gregorian forme should euerywhere be obserued. To the obseruation whereof Charles the Emperour by threats and punishments, forced the Cleargie in sundry Provinces, burning the olde Ambrosian bookes. And further hee addeth, that Saint Eugenius comming to a certaine councell called about this businesse, finding that the Bishoppes were gone, and the councell ended three dayes before his comming, induced the Pop •… to call the Bishoppes backe againe, which hee did, and the councell being againe renued, it was agreed on by common consent, that both the missals, both that of Saint Ambrose and the other of Saint Gregorie, should be layed on the altar of Saint Peter the Apostle, that the doores of the Church should be fast locked, and sealed with the seale of sundry Bishops, and that then they should spend the whole night in prayer, beseeching God that he would shew by some signe, which of these hee would haue to be obserued in his Church; and in the morning entering, they found that of Gregory torne in peeces, and scattered all ouer the Church, the other opened, but yet still lying entire and whole on the altar; of which accident they made this construction, that that of Gregorie was to be vsed euery where thorough the world, the other only at Millain in S. Ambroses owne Church, and so saith Durand, it is vsed vnto this day. For by the helpe of Charles the great, that of Ambrose was disused in many Churches, & that other brought in place.

Onely the Christians of Spaine admitted not this alteration, notwithstanding all these endeauours, till the time of Gregorie the seauenth, what time they were constrained by Alphonsus the sixt to giue way, which they did most vnwillingly, and not without teares. Archiep. Tolet. lib. 6. c. 25. & 26. Rodericus reporteth, that when this alteration was vrged by the Popes legate, and the king, there being an assembly of all the states; the Clergie, Nobilitie, and people resisted mainely against it; whereupon in the end it was resolued, that that matter should be tried by cumbate, and one being chosen for the newe, and another for defense of the old, he that vndertooke the defense of the old preuailed, which caused a great reioycing among the people. But the king not regarding this triall, nor thinking it to bee any sufficient clearing of the matter questioned, it was agreed that both the bookes should be cast into the fire, that that which should bee preserued in the fire might bee allowed as best, which accordingly being done, the booke of the old forme came forth vntouched, and the other was consumed: yet would not the king be perswaded to desist, but threatning death, and vtter confusion to all gainesayers, made this innouation in his Church and kingdome, all his subiects weeping and sorrowing, and then began the prouerbe Quo volunt reges vadunt leges. So that wee see, howsoeuer our aduersaries would make the simple beleeue, that things were euer as now they are, yet there haue beene great alterations in the forme of diuine seruice, and it is not to be doubted, but that the auncient formes as different from the latter, were more pure and sincere then they that are now vsed.

They that haue diligently looked into the monuments of antiquity, sayth Rhenanus, vpon Tertullians booke de corona militis, do thinke, that aunciently the masse began when the priest did say, The lord be with you, & immediately after, Lift vp your harts, and Let vs giue thankes to our Lord God, and againe, It is very meete, right, and our bounden duty, that wee should at all times and in all places, giue thankes vnto thee holy Father almighty and euerlasting God, through our Lord Iesus Christ. And that thē immediately followed these words. Who the night before hee suffered tooke bread &c. For they thinke, that howsoeuer the latter part of the Roman canon now vsed, ipsissimam prae se serat antiquitatem, & admirabilem spiret sanctitatem, that is, appeares to be auncient and breathing forth nothing but admirable sanctitie, yet the former parts of it do not so; and that they were composed by Scholasticus, not long before the time of Gregory the first, as himselfe telleth vs. What is to be thought of this Scholasticus, whether hee were a man so named, or whether Gregorie more to expresse vnto us the quality of him that composed the canon, that hee was but a man though a professor of learning, and that therefore he might adde All that followeth after the Lords prayer, and that immediatly it is named Embolismus, as added afterwards. the Lords prayer vnto that forme, that had but a man for the composer of it, I leaue uncertaine, because some thinke it was composed by Gelasius, and that hee was stiled Scholasticus before he was Bishop. But this is certaine, that some things haue beene added to the canon, since the time of Gregory, and that in the celebration of the holy mysteries, so many tautologismes and barbarismes are found, that ingenuous men abhorre from the celebration thereof, as Platina testifieth, and so many & so grosse corruptions are crept into the service of the Church, that all good men long since and yet still complaine of it. 〈◊◊〉 . 〈◊◊◊〉 . 〈◊◊〉 Claudius Elpen •… us affirmeth, that the publique services are full of old fables, and allea •… geth Petrus abbas Cluniacensis, l. 5. cap. 29. saying, that the songs & himnes of the Church had very many toyes, as namely a himne in the prayse of Saint 〈◊〉 ; in the which though reading it ouer somewhat hastily, and not staying to search all, yet he found at the least foure & twenty lies. He alleadgeth likewise Petrus Pictaviensis, epist. 31. reprouing a false & fond himne in the pra •… se of Maure running vpon the waters; and Cardinall Cameracensis de re •… •… lesie, consideration the third, advising the councell of Constance to take oder, that vnsound writings might be no longer read in the Church, and the oration of Picus Mirandula to the same purpose; and Volateran complayning, that in the daily prayers there are read manifest lies; to whom hee addeth Adrian the sixth afterwards Pope, misliking superstitious forgeries in holy matters, and concludeth, that the Catholickes may lament on the behalfe of the Church, as Hieremie lamented on the behalfe of the Synagogue. Thy Prophets haue seene false & foolish things for thee, & addeth, that the greife which hee doth feele and expresse, for these toyes & dotages, is common to him with all good men for the most part. Bishop De optimo •… nere inter •… . 3. 〈◊◊〉 2. 〈◊◊◊〉 Lindan to the same purpose hath these wordes; Quod si nostra conspiceret Agobertus episcopus Lugdu •… rsis antiphonaria; Deum immortalem! quomodo ea pingeret? vbi non Apochrypha modo exevangelio Nicodemi & alijs nugis sunt inserta, sed ipsae adeo secretae pr •… es su •… mendis turpissimis conspurcatae. That is, If Agobertus sometimes Bishop of 〈◊〉 that could not endure the corruptions of his time, were now aliue, and should see our antiphonaries; good God! how would he paint them out? in which not onely apochryphall things out of the gospell of Nicodemus, and such other toyes are •… ed, but even the very prayers themselues named secretae, are defiled with •… st •… rosse and vile absurdities and faults. Many things, sayth Picus Mirandula, which in the decrees are accounted apocryphall, and are so censured by Hierome, are in the service of the Church; and many things also that by many are n •… t thought to be true. I meane not, sayth 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . Melchior Canus, to defend all the histories which are every where read in the Church, I see there are so many of the vulgar sort & condition, not onely amongst those of the laitie but of the clea •… gie also, that most willingly embrace those fables, which the Church long since exploded. In this kinde it behooueth the Bishops to doe something; but they must be wise, aswell as diligent, least while they goe about to cure the loosenesse of the skinne about the fingers, they hurt the head. These happilie goe about, to put graue histories into the place of such as are apochryphall, but they change the diuine seruice of the Church so much, that scarce any shew of the old religion seemeth to bee left in the daily prayers: wherefore this must •… nd firme, that the histories of the Saints which are wont to bee read in the Church, must not bee despised; though some of them be vncertaine, apochryphall, light, and false; for they are credible, and true for the most part, & some of them certaine.

Ferdinand caused it to be proposed to the councell of Trent, amongst other articles of reformation, that the breviaries and missals might be purged, that all things that are found in them not taken out of the Scripture, might be taken away, that the prolixity of prayers & Psalmes might be abridged, good choise being made of such as should be vsed. apud Goldast. imper. const. tom. 2. pag. 3 •… . These it seemeth are those mysteries of Romish religion, found in the liturgy of the Church, at & before Luthers time, whereof M Brerely speaketh, but they had no generall approbation, but the dislike of all good men, as it appeareth by that which hath bin said. For otherwise the very forme & words of the liturgie, condemne the abuses of privat masses, & halfe cōmunions, & make nothing of that propitiatory sacrifice, whereof the Papists fable, which are those greatest mysteries of Romish religiō, that they insist vpon in their Masse.

Touching the first of these parts of Romish religion, which is that of their priuate masses, wherein the Priest receiueth alone without any communicants; making the people beleeue that that which he doth is a propitiatorie sacrifice, and that he can apply the benefite of it to whom he will, and that it is enough for them to be present, or to giue something for the procuring of it; their errour is clearely refuted, by the forme of prayers that are vsed in the masse, which show, that they onely haue the benefit that is here sought, that communicate. For immediatly after the consecration the Priest and people pray in this sort. Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens deus, iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae, ut quicunque ex hac altaris participatione sacrosancti filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti & gratiâ repleamur, per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum, Amen. That is, Wee as humble suppliants, beseech thee, O God Almighty, to commaund that these our sacrifices and oblations, may bee carried by the hands of thy holy Angell, to thy Altar on high, and to the sight of thy divine Maiestic, that so many of vs as shall receiue the sacred body and bloud of thy Sonne, by partaking of this Altar, may be filled with all benediction and grace, thorough the same Christ our Lord, Amen. And after the communion they pray againe in this sort graunt Lord that we may receiue with a pure minde, what we haue receiued with the mouth. And againe; Let this communion, O Lord, purge vs from sinne, and make vs partakers of the heauenly remedie. Whereupon Micrologus inferreth, that they must not neglect to communicate, that thinke to haue any benefit by these prayers. These prayers remaine as witnesses of the olde obseruation. Rational. l. 4. 53. Durandus saith, that in the Primitiue Church, all that were present at the celebration of the Masse, were wont to communicate euery day, and that to this purpose they did offer a great loafe, that might suffice for the communicating of them all: which custome, saith he, the Grecians are said to keepe still. Afterwards when the multitude of beleeuers encreased, and devotion decreased, it was ordained, that at least euery Sunday they should communicate. In processe of time, when this could not be kept, there was a Lombardus l. 4. d. 12. saltem ter in anno homines communicent. third constitution, that at least thrice euery yeare, each Christian man should communicate, if not oftener. In the end it was ordered, that at the least at Easter euery one should come to the Sacrament; and insteed of the daylie communicating, the Priest gaue daylie the kisse of peace to the minister, saying in some places, take you the bond of peace, and loue, that you may be fit for these sacred mysteries, which were words that were wont to be vsed, when they vsed to salute one another before the cōmunion, & did import an ensuing cōmunion. 56. The antheme which is named post cōmunio, is so named, because it is sung after the cōmunicating, or in signe that the cōmunion is past. For in the Primitiue Church, all the Faithfull did daylie communicate, and presently after their cōmunicating, this song was sung; that it might appeare the people did giue thanks to God for the body & blood of Christ which they had receiued. In canonem. Odo Cameracensis saith, that in old times there was no masse celebrated, without some assembly of such, as might offer together with him that celebrateth, & partake with him of the sacrament. l. 4. c. 1. Generally we may say, saith Durandus, that that is a lawfull masse, at which are present, the Priest, such as answere vnto him, & such as offer & communicat. And De rebus Eccles. cap. 22. Walafridus Strabo agreeth with him; saying, that the very forme of the prayers vsed in the masse shew so much, where there is mention expresly made of such as offer & communicate. And the booke of Ecclesiasticall obseruations, intituled Micrologus, written 500 yeares since, saith, it is to bee knowne, that according to the auncient Fathers, onely the communicants were wont to bee present, at the celebration of the sacred mysteries, and that the catechumens & penitents were all sent out, as not being fit to cōmunicate. Which the very forme of celebrating importeth, in which the priest prayeth not, for his own oblation, & cōmuniō alone, but that of others also; & especially in the praier after the cōmunion, he seemeth to pray only for the cōmunicants. Neither can it properly be said to be a communion, vnlesse diuerse doe partake of the same sacrifice. Homil. 3. Chrysostome writing vpon the Ephesians, sayth, that hee that standeth by, and communicateth not, is impudent and shamelesse. And that not only they that sit downe at table, but they that are present at this feast, without their wedding garment, are subiect to a fearefull iudgment. For the master of the feast will not aske, friend how durst thou sit downe, but how durst thou come in not hauing thy wedding garment? thou abidest, thou singest the himme with the rest, thou professest thy selfe worthy, in that thou goest not out with the vnworthy; how darest thou abide and not communicate? They that are in the state of penitencie, are commanded out: if thou bee in thy sinnes, how continuest thou? if thou be vnworthy of the sacramentall participation, thou art so also of the communion in the praiers. For the spirit descendeth, and commeth by them aswell as by the mysteries there proposed. And surely how any can be present, that are not fit at least in desire and in as much as in them is, to communicate, I know not. In old time they communicated every day, or so often that they might seeme to communicate every day, and the holy canons debarre all such as did not communicate from hearing of the masse, as it apeareth De consecr. dist. 2. can. peract. Caietan in 3am Aquinat: q: 80. art. 12. Yet so did deuotion decay, and abuses grow, that in many places the whole people stayed and were present, yet none but the Clergie alone communicated; and afterwards, none but the Deacon and subdeacon. Whence it came, that whereas the mysticall breade, was wont to be broken into 3 parts, whereof the first was for him that celebrated, the 2 for the Clergy, and the 3 for the people; Durand. rational. li. 4. 54. in time it was so ordered, that a diuisiō being made into 3 parts he took the one to himselfe, & gaue the other two to the deacon and subdeacon, and in some places did eate all himselfe. Whatsoeuer the neglect or abuses were, Cassa. consult pag 238. ar. 24. it is evident by the composition of the canon, that the mysticall action in which the canon is vsed was publique, & that there were alwaies some present, that offered the sacrifice of praise together with the priest, & participated of the sacrament, as these words do clearely shew. Quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus & sanguinem filii tui sumpserimus. Item, prosint nobis domini sacramenta 〈◊〉 Citat à Cassan. Ibidem pag. 220. quae sumpsimus. And therefore Iohn Hofmeister, a learned man, expounding the prayers of the masse hath these words. Res ipsa inquit clamat, tam in Graecâ quàm in Latinâ Ecclesia, non solum sacerdotē sacrificantem, sed & reliquos presbyteros, diaconos, nec non & reliquam plebem, aut saltem plebis aliquam partem, communicasse: quod quomodo cessauerit mirandum est, & vt bonus ille vsus in Ecclesiam revocetur, laborandum. that is, The thing it selfe proclaimeth it, that aswell in the Greeke, as Latin Church, not only the priest which sacrificeth, but the other priests, and deacons, also, yea and the people or at least some part of them did communicate: which good custome how it grew out of vse I know not, but surely we should labour to bring it in againe. That it was not lawfull for the priest to celebrate without the Deacon, who was to receiue the sacrament at his hand Epist. ad cle •… um l •… ratos que Bohem. 〈◊〉 Cap 25. Cusanus sheweth by that which is in the missal. Sumpsimus domini sacramēta, we haue receiued the Sacraments of the Lord &c. In the Interim published by the Emperor Charles the fift, in the assembly at Augusta in the 15 of May 1548, we find these words. Atque hic expedierit, cum verissimum illud & singulare sacrificium offertur, veterem Ecclesiae morem reuocare; quo non solum sacrificans ipse, sed & diaconi, & reliqui Ecclesiae ministri, qui diebus solennioribus velut testes tāti sacrificii, & necessar •… rū ministeriorum coadiutores adhibentur, vt perceptionis corporis & sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christi participes se preberent, seria canonum sanctione iubebautur; sed & fideles omnes pro recolendà mortis domini & nostrae redemptionis memorià, ad hoc mediatoris nostri sacrificium confluentes, sedulis exhortationibus monendi & excitandi sunt, vt prius explorati, confessi, & absoluti, sacrosanctae communionis gratiam sumant, & diuinissimae Eucharistiae participationem vnà cum sacerdote sedulo & deuotè frequentent. that is, And here truely it were expedient, that, when that most true and singular sacrifice is offered, wee should renewe the old custome of the Church; by which not only he that celebrateth, but the Deacons also, and the other ministers of the Church, which on the more solemne daies are vsed as witnesses of so solemne an act, & as coadiutors in respect of sundry necessary ministeries, were commaunded by a serious sanction of the canons, to be partakers of the sacrament of the Lords body & blood: but all such faithfull & beleeuing men, as resort to this sacrifice of our mediator, to renew the memory of the death of our Lord, and our redemption by the same, should be admonished and stirred vp, by effectuall and often exhortations, hauing examined themselues, confessed their sinnes, and obtained absolution to receiue the grace of the holy communion, and carefully and deuoutly to frequent the participation of the diuine Eucharist together with the priest.

By this which hath been said it appeareth that the priests receiuing alone, & neglecting or excluding the cōmunicating of others as not much necessarie, (his act being availeable to apply the benefits of Christs passion without receiuing the sacrament) is indeed a point of Romish religiō, but not cōtained in the masse; for it is contrary to the name of the masse, the words of the canon, & intendmēt of thē that cōposed it; contrary to the old canons & the practice of the Church; it proceeded frō the indeuotion of the people, or rather the negligence or error of the guides of the Church, that either failed to stirre thē vp to the performāce of such a duty, or made them belieue their act was sufficient, to communicate the benefits of Christs passion to them, not without the dislike of the better sort. So that hitherto no proofe is made, that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, was no Protestant Church, but rather the contrary, for this Church did euer protest against this abuse, professed her dislike of the same, & acknowledged that this custome was much different from the auncient.

Honorius in gemma animae, saith, it is reported that anciently the priests were x Cap. 58. wont to receiue meale of euery house or familie, which custome the Greeks are said to cōtinue still, & that out of this they made the Lords bread which they did offer for the people, & hauing cōsecrated it, distributed it to thē. For euery of thē that offered this meale, were present at the masse, & respectiuely to thē it was said in the canon; & omniū circūstantiū, qui tibi hoc sacrificiū laudis offerūt, that is, cōsider the deuotiō of all that stand roūd about, who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise. But after that the Church encreased in number, but decayed in deuotion, it was decreed in respect of carnall men, that they that could, should cōmunicate euery Sunday, or on the chief feast daies, or thrice in the yeare. And now because the people ceasing to cōmunicate, so great a quantity of bread was no longer necessary, it was decreed that it should be formed in fashion of a pennie, & instead of offering meale, they offered euery one a penny, by which they acknowledged Christs being sould for a certain number of pence. These pence were conuerted either to the benefit of the poore, or for prouiding of somthing pertaining to the sacrifice: & in stead of the consecrated bread they were wont to receiue, there was giuen them holy bread as they called it. Whatsoeuer men think of this which Honorius hath of offering meale, Durand. lib. 4. 53. it is certaine that in the Primitiue Church, they did offer those things that were to be consecrated in the sacrament; and that the breade that was there consecrated, was vsuall and loafie bread, and in forme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 round, as it appeareth by Pag. 492. Epiphanius in Ancoratu, & Lib. 4. c. 55. Gregory in his dialogues, who calleth the bread of consecration coronas round •… aues; all which things shew a Protestant Church.

Wherefore let vs come to the next point of Romish religion, supposed to be contained in the masse, which is the depriuing of the people of the one part of the Sacrament, and the giuing them the same onely in one kind. In the Primitiue Church, saith Lyra, the Sacrament was ministred in both kinds. b In Prov. c. 9. Dionysius Carthusianus agreeth with him, affirming the same; which thing may c •… n 1. Cor. cap. 11. be prooued by innumerable testimonies of antiquity. Ad Philadelph. Ignatius saith, there is one bread broken to all, & one cup distributed to all. After the offering is made, let euery one saith Clement, in order take the Lords body and his precious blood, with all reuerent shamefastnes & feare. The bread, saith Dionysius, which e Const •… . l. b. 2. c. 61. was one, is broken in parts, & the cup that is but one, is divided amongst al. Iustin 〈◊〉 Hieratch. cc •… . cap 3 p. 3. Martyr in his 2 Apologie saith, that after he that is the president hath finished his thanksgiuing, & the people by a joyfull acclamation haue approoued & consented to the same, the deacons & ministers divide vnto euery one of thē that are present, that each one may partake of that bread, wine, & water, ouer which the blessing & thanksgiuing hath bin powred out, and they doe beare the same to them that are absent. Of whose hand, saith Ad vvo •… em l. 〈◊〉 c. •… 6. Tertullian (speaking of a faithfull woman married to an Infidell) shall shee receiue, & of whose cup shall she partake? Epist. •… 4. Cyprian in his Epist. to Cornelius, How doe we teach or prouoke them, in & for the confession of Christs name to shed their bloud, if wee deny vnto thē when they are to enter into this warfare, the blood of Christ? or how shall we make them fit for the cup of martyrdome, if wee shall not first admit them to drinke the cup of the Lord, iure communicationis, by the right of communicating? & in another place, Therfore they daylie drinke the cup of Christs blood, that they may shed their bloud for Christ. And in a S •… m. de laps. 3 place, speaking of a certain child, that had bin polluted in the idols temple, he saith, When as the solemnities were fulfilled, the deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, & when other had receiued, her course came, but the little girle by the instinct of God, turned away her face, & began to close her mouth with her lips, & to refuse the cup; but the deacon desisted not, but though she resisted, powred into her mouth out of the chalice. And disputing against them that were named Aquarii, he saith, In ministring the cup to the people, contrary to that which Christ did & taught, they giue water insteed of wine; Let them tell vs, saith in Numer. homil. 16. Origon, what people that is, that vse to drinke bloud. Ambrose: If so often as the bloud of Christ is powred out, it be powred out for the remission of sins, it behoueth 〈◊〉 Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c 6 me alwayes to receiue it, that my sins may be forgiuen me. Amb •… os. l. 1. off •… . c. 41. Laurence the deacon saith, Sixtus the B. cōmitted vnto him the dispensation of the Lords bloud, & made him his consort in consummating the Sacraments. Cap. 3. Hierom vpō Sophonie; the Priests which doe serue about the Eucharist, and distribute the bloud of the Lord vnto his people, do wickedly against the Law of Christ when they think that the words, not the life of him that prayeth, make the Eucharist. Aug. in sent. Pr •… . & de consecred. 2. c. cum frangitur. Augustine, Cùm frangitur hostia, dum sanguis de calice in or a fidelium funditur, quid aliud quam dominici corporis in cruce immolatio, eius que sanguinis de latere effusio designatur? That is, When the hoast is broken, & the bloud powred out of the chalice into the mouthes of the faithfull, what other thing is represented thereby, but the offering of Christs body on the crosse, & the powring of the blood out of his side? Nazianzen, Reverere mysticam mensam ad quam accessisti, panem quem participasti, poculum cui communicasti, passionibus Christi initiatus. Reverence •… rat. 40. in sanct baptisma. the Lords Table to which thou hast accesse, the bread whereof thou hast beene partaker, the cup in which thou hast communicated, being initiated in the passions of Christ. Cyrill of Hierusalem, Concavâ manu suseipe corpus Christi dicens, Amen. tum verò post communionem corporis Christi accede, & 〈◊〉 Ca •… hes. mystag •… . ad calicem illius &c. dicens, Amen. That is, Receiue the body of Christ with a hollow hand, saying, Amen. and after the partaking of the body of Christ, come also to the cup of the Lord, &c, saying, Amen. And Hom •… . 1 8. in 2 Co •… . Chrysostome most fully to this purpose, It is not now as in the time of the Old testament, where the Priest did eate same things, and the people some other; and where it was not lawfull for the people to partake of those things whereof the Priest did partake; but one body is proposed to all, and one cup. Gregory, His body is there receiued, his flesh is there divided for the saluation of the people, his blood is not now shed vpon the hands 〈◊〉 l. 〈◊〉 . c. of Infidels, but into the mouthes of beleeuers. Ordo Romanus put forth by Cassander; 〈◊◊〉 . 23. The Archdeacon taking the challice, confirmeth all thē with the Lords blood, whom the Pope had ceased to communicate in the body of the Lord. And againe; As the Archdeacon doth confirme those that the Pope communicateth in the body of the Lord, so do the other deacons confirme them that the other Bishops or priests communicate. Citat. à Cassand. liturg. c. 31. Liber sacramentorū put out by Gregory, prescribeth thus; When the priest giueth the Lords body, let him say, the body of our Lord Iesus Christ keepe thee vnto eternall life, amen. And let him that receiueth say, I will receiue the celestiall bread, & will call on the name of the Lord. Also whē the priest giueth the cup, let him say; the blood of our Lord Iesus Christ keep thee vnto eternall life, & let him that receiueth it say, I will receiue the cup of saluation. Inter homilias hiemales de sanctis tom. 7. p. •… 20. Beda; The body of Christ is not killed nor his blood shed by the hands of Infidels to their own destruction, but it is receiued by the mouth of beleeuers to saluation. The 11t councel of Toledo provideth, that such as through weakenes cannot receiue the whole sacrament, but onely drinke of the mysticall cuppe, shall not for this be separated from the body of Christ. De imag. l. 4. c. 14 Charles the great: The mysterie of the Lords body & blood is daily x Apud Binium. receiued of the faithfull in the sacrament. Rabanus Moguntinus: God would haue the sacraments of his body, and blood, receiued into the mouths of the faithfull, that by the visible worke, the invisible effect might be shewed. Paschasius: z De institut. cler. l. 1. c 3. It is he only that breaketh this bread, & by the hands of his ministers distributes it to the beleeuers, saying, take yee & drinke yee all of this, aswell a De corpore & sanguine Dom. c. 15. ministers as other beleeuers: for this is the cup of my blood of the new & eternall testament. Haimo vpon the 1. Cor. 10. The cup is called a communication, as it were a participation: because all doe communicate of it, & doe take part of the blood of the Lord which it containeth in it. De diuinis officijs, l. 2. c 9. Rupertus Abbas; The priest distributeth the bread & wine, putting them into the mouthes of the faithfull. 1 Cor. 10. Anselm; All we which receiue of one bread & one cup of the Lord, are made one body. De eucharist. Lanfrancus hath the same words that afore we cited out of Augustine. De sacramento. l. 2. c. 3. Algerus; Because we liue so by bread & drinke, that we cannot want either of them, Christ would haue them both in his sacrament, least if either were wanting, the signification of life beeing imperfit, hee might bee thought to be imperfit life. Petrus Cluniacensis abbas; The flesh of Christ was given to man to be eaten vnder the forme of bread, & the blood of Christ to be drunke vnder the forme of wine, that as men doe principally vse bread & wine, for the maintaining of this present life: so for the life that is eternall, they might be sed with the body & blood of Christ, here spiritually, & hereafter both spiritually & corporally. In the primitiue Church, saith Caietan, f In tertiam Aquin. 80. q. art 12. the people did communicate in both kinds, as appeareth in the 1 Cor. 11. This custome continued, not only in the time of persecution, & in the time of the martyrs, whom Cyprian would haue to bee comforted & strengthened with drinking the cup of the Lord, before they came to drinke of the cup of Martyrdome, but euen in the time of peace also. And therefore we reade not onely of the making & providing of dishes, but of ministeriall chalices, much different from those, wherein they now consecrate, & out of which the priest receiueth; which were therefore named ministeriall chalices, because they served not to offer, but to minister the bloud of Christ to the people. In the Citat à Cassandro liturg. cap. 31. pontificall of Damasus in the life of Syluester, we reade, that Constantine builded a Church in the citty of Naples, where hee offered two plates or dishes, and 10 ministeriall chalices weighing euery one of them two pounds. Of this sort was that of blessed Remigius as we find in Hincmarus, in which these verses were,

Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro, &c. That is, let the people draw life out of this sacred blood. Our Fathers, sayth Aphorism. de eucharist. l. 6. p. 231. Ioachimus Vadianus, did see, in the greater Church of Sangalli, a chalice guilded with gold, that weighed threescore and tenne markes of siluer, provided no doubt for the publique communion of the people, formerly vsed. In Tertul. de coronâ mil. Beatus Rhenanus saith, that Conradus Pellicanus, a man of wonderfull sanctity and learning, did finde in the first constitution of the Carthusians, that they are forbidden to possesse any vessels of price, besides a siluer chalice, and a pipe, with which the lay people might sucke out the bloud of our Lord. Besides, the booke written more then foure hundred yeares since, concerning the treasures of the Church of Mentz, amongst chalices of gold of a greate weight, hauing handles and golden Crosses &c: reckoneth also syluer pipes, six in number, if I be not deceiued, deputed to this vse of sucking out the bloud of our Lord; which I suppose, sayth hee, the Archbishop was wont to vse. Ordo Romanus sheweth, that when the Bishop of Rome doth celebrate, the Archdeacon giueth him to drinke of the holy chalice, and afterwards powreth a little out of the same into a greater chalice or cuppe, which the acoluth doth hold, that the people may be confirmed or receiue the sacrament of the Lords bloud, out of the sacred vessell. For the wine that was not consecrated, being mingled with the blood of Christ is altogether sanctified. The Bishops therefore come in order to receiue of the hande of the Pope, and aftar them all the Priestes come vp, that they may communicate at the alter; and while the Archdeacon communicateth, the chiefe Bishop that is present holdeth the challice: for as Bishops attend the Pope in the Church of Rome, so priestes should attend and assist Bishops in other Churches. The Archdeacon after hee hath communicated, receiueth the chalice back againe from the Bishop, and confirmeth all those with the Lords blood, to whom the Pope hath giuen the communion of the body of our Lord. This seruice being performed by the altar, hauing receiued by the Subdeacon the pipe with which the people are to be confirmed; the Archdeacon deliuereth the chalice to be carried to the acoluth, to be layed vp by him in the vestery. Then doth the pope goe downe, to giue the communion to the Princes of the people, and their wiues; and as the Archdeacon doth confirme those to whom the Pope giueth the Communion of the Lords body: so do the other Deacons confirme them, to whom (after the Pope hath ministred to those of the better sort) the other Bishops and Priestes do giue the Communion: and as soone as the pope beginneth to minister the Communion to the Clergie, and people, the schoole of singers beginneth to sing the antheme appointed for the Communion; and after that, when the Pope thinketh fit, Glory be to the Father &c.

Here wee see a cloud of witnesses testifying for the Communion in both kinds: wherevpon, Cassander feareth not to pronounce, that hee verily thinketh, 〈◊〉 De communione sub vtraque specie. it cannot be shewed, that the sacrament of the Eucharist was any otherwise ministred, in any part of the Catholike Church to the faithfull people in the holy assembly from the Lords table, for a thousand yeares and more, but vnder both the sacramentall signes of bread and wine. Neither can this saying of Cassander be refuted, by that in the second of the Acts where the faithfull are sayd to haue continued in the breaking of bread and prayer. Nor by that wee reade in antiquity of the Lay communion, which Caietan childishly vrgeth. For sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church, haue sufficiently shewed the weakenesse of these sillie allegations.

Let vs see therefore how the Communion in one kind came into the Church. It appeareth by Serm. de quad •… ag. 〈◊〉 . Leo the first, that the Manichees, as they denied Christ to haue beene borne in the truth of our flesh, so they denied him to haue truely dyed and risen againe, and therefore they vsed to fast vppon that day, that is to vs the day of saluation and ioy. And whereas to hide their infidelity and heresie, they came sometimes to the Churches of Catholikes, and were present at the celebration of the sacred mysteries, they did so temper the matter, that with vnworthy mouthes they receiued the Lords body, but declined to drinke the blood of our redemption. Leo carefully endeauoured to make this thing knowne to all, that by these signes they might bee discried, that their sacrilegious dissembling might bee found out, and that being discouered, they might by sacerdotall auctoritie be cast out of the society of the Saints. By this of Leo it appeareth, that the Manichees out of an hereticall conceipt, began to communicate in one kinde, and that all were wont to communicate in both kindes: that hereby the Manichees might be discouered, and knowne from other right beleeuers, in that they would communicate but in one kinde alone. Which thing also Andradius doth rightly note.

In the Cano. Comperimus de consec, dist. 2. time of Gelasius there were certain found, that out of some superstitious conceipt would not communicate in both kindes. Wee haue found, saith Gelasius, that certaine hauing receiued a portion of the sacred Body onely, abstaine from the cup of the most holy bloud. Which men because they are saide to be holden with I know not what superstition, either let them receiue the whole Sacrament, or let them be put and kept frrom the whole, seeing there can be no division of one and the same mysterie, without grievous sacriledge.

Thirdly, whereas in case of necessity, as when children, or such as were sicke and weake were to receiue the communion, the auncient did sometimes dippe the mysticall bread into the consecrated wine, and so gaue it vnto them, as it appeareth by the history of Serapion, by that which Serm. de laps. Cyprian, and De promiss. Dei dimid. temporis. c. 6 Prosper report: and by that which the Apud Ivonem decret. part. 2. cap, 19. Councell of Turon prescribeth, that the Eucharist which is reserued for the voyage provision of such as are ready to depart hence, shall be dipped into the blood of the Lord, that so the Priest may truely say. The body and blood of our Lord be beneficiall vnto thee vnto eternall life. Ex institutis Cluniacensium l. 2. c. 35. de sacerdote hebdomadario apud Cassand. liturgic. c. 31. Some beganne to bring in this manner of dipping into the ordinary communion, vnder pretence of carefull avoyding the danger of shedding the blood of Christ, and greater reuerence towards the same. For certaine Monkes brought the same custome into their Monasteries, ingenuously confessing that herein they did contrary to the custome of other Churches. But that they were forced so to doe, by the rudenesse of their novices, who they feared would runne into some grosse neglect, if they should receiue the blood of Christ apart; Neither did this custome stay here, but it made an entrance into other Churches abroad also; for Apud Cassand, ibid. Ivo Carnotensis about the yeare 1100, hath these wordes. Let them not communicate in the bread dipped: but (according to the decree of the Councell of Toledo,) let them communicate in the bodie apart, and in the blood apart, those onely excepted, to whom it is not prescribed, but permitted to communicate in the bread dipped, out of due consideration of the feare of spilling and shedding the blood of Christ. But this attempt was disliked and resisted: for the authour of the booke intituled Cap. 19. Micrologus saith, It is not authenticall that certaine doe dippe the body of the Lord, and hauing so dipped it, giue it to the people, thinking thereby to make vp vnto them the whole communion. But the Roman order is against this, and doth prescribe, that vpon Good friday when they consecrate not, but vse the bread consecrated the day before, they shall take wine that is not consecrated, and consecrate it with the Lords player, and dipping of the Lords body into it, that so the people may receiue the whole Sacrament; which prescription were superfluous, if it were enough to dippe the body of Christ the day before, & so to keep it, & to giue it so dipped to the people to cōmunicate in. Pope Iulius in order of Popes the 36th, writing to the Bishops of Egypt, doth altogether forbid any such dipping, & commandeth the bread & cup to be receiued apart. What the credit of this Epistle is, which the authour of this book citeth as the Epistle of Pope Iulius, I know not, neither do I thinke that any such custome of giuing the Sacrament to the people in the Church in such sort, was so ancient as to be reprehended by Pope Iulius. But it appeareth that such dipping when it began to be vsed in the Church, found great opposition; & therfore this supposed constitution of Iulius is renewed, & cōfirmed in the 3d councel of Can. 1. Bracar. & Micrologus addes, that blessed Gelasius in order of Popes the 51th writing to certaine Bishoppes, commandeth them to excommunicate all those, that receiuing the Lords body, abstained from the participation of the cuppe: pronouncing in the same decree, that such diuision of the Sacrament cannot bee without horrible sacriledge. By this of Micrologus it is evident, that they thought in those times, that not onely the communicating in one kind alone, out of such erroneous conceipts as those of the Manichees and other like; but all communicating in one kind alone is sacrilegious. And that they could not endure the dipping of the sacramentall bread, whereby yet the people did in a sort partake of both kindes. Neither doth Micrologus alone shew the dislike that then was of such dipping, but the like wee may finde in the writings of sundry worthy men. Epist. 64. Hildebertus Cenomanensis. Hoec ideo tibi, frater, exaravi, vt excitatus evigiles, vt videas quoniam traditioni sacramentorum altaris quae in vestro celebris est monasterio, nec Evangelica traditio consonat, nec decreta concordant. In eo enim consuetudinis est eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dare, quod nec ex dominica institutione, nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum; si Mathaeum, si Marcum, si Lucam consulas, seorsim panem traditum invenies, seorsim vinum, &c: nam intinctum panem aliis praebuisse Christum non legimus, excepto tantummodo illo discipulo, quem intincta buccella proditorem ostenderit; non quod huius sacramenti institutionem fignaret, & sic Papa Iulius ait, &c. That is, Brother I haue therefore written these things vnto thee that being stirred by me, thou mightest bee awakened, to see that the manner of deliuering of the sacrament of the altar which is growne into vse in your monasterie, is neither consonant to the evangelicall tradition, nor agreeing with the decrees. For in your monasterie it is become a custome, to giue the mysticall bread to none but dipped; which will never be found to haue taken beginning from the Lords institution or authenticall constitutions. For if thou consult Mathew, or Marke, or Luke, thou shalt finde that the bread was deliuered apart, and the wine apart, &c. for wee reade not that Christ gaue dipped bread to any other but onely to that disciple, whom by the dipped soppe he meant to shew to be the traitour, and not that he would haue the sacrament so ministred, and so, Pope Iulius sayth, &c.

From the custome of dipping the mysticall bread into the blood, & giving it so dipped vnto the people, for feare of shedding the blood of Christ, if it should haue beene ministred apart, some proceeded farther, and began to teach the people, that seeing the body & blood of Christ cannot be separated, in that they partake of the one, they partake of the other also, and that therefore it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde alone. But herein they gaue no satisfaction, either to themselues, or others. For though it be true, sayth Rational. div. l 4. c. 42. Durandus, that they are not separated, and that he that receiueth the one receiueth the other also; yet neither part of the sacrament is superfluous, but both are to bee receiued. For whereas wine breedeth blood, wherein the soule & life is seated, according to that in Leviticus, The soule of all flesh is in the blood of it, and whereas in the offerings that were of old, the flesh of those beasts that were sacrificed, was offered for the body, and the blood of them for the soule; if wee should receiue Christs body, and together with it the blood vnder the forme of bread signifying and exhibiting the flesh of Christ, and not vnder the forme of wine signifying & exhibiting vnto vs the blood of Christ, wee might bee thought to neglect the saluation and good of our soules. And els-where hee saith, that hee that receiueth onely the consecrated bread, receiueth not the whole & entire Sacrament. For howsoeuer it be true, that the blood of Christ is in the host or consecrated bread: yet is it not there sacramentally, seeing bread doth not signifie the blood but the body of Christ, neither the wine the body but the blood of Christ. And in the former place hee addeth out of Innocentius tertius, that though the blood of Christ be receiued with the body, vnder the forme of bread, and the body with the blood vnder the forme of wine; yet neither can wee drinke the blood of Christ, vnder the forme of bread which wee eat, nor eat the body of Christ, vnder the forme of wine which wee drinke. And sundry of the Schoolemen agree with him in this poynt, resoluing, that though Christ bee whole, and entire in either part of the sacrament, yet both parts are necessary. First because the exhibiting of the body & blood of Christ distinctly, representeth his passion, in which his blood was separated from his body. And secondly, because in this sorte Christs body is more fitly, and significantly exhibited vnto vs in the nature of food, and his blood of drinke. If this sacrament bee worthily receiued vnder both kinds, sayth Quartâ parte lum. q. 32. memb. 1. ar. 2. Alexander of Hales, there is a greater efficacy and working of grace, causing an vnity betweene the mysticall body & Christ the head; then when it is receiued in one kinde onely. And therefore, he sayth, q. 53. though the receiuing vnder one kinde bee sufficient, yet that which is vnder both, is of more merit, in that it augmenteth devotion, enlargeth the apprehension of faith, and is a more compleat, & full receiuing. And againe, q. 31. The receiuing vnder both kindes, which manner of receiuing the Lord deliuered, is of more efficacy and complement. And hee that receiueth the sacrament vnder the forme of bread onely, doth not perfectly receiue the same in respect of sacramentall receiuing. With him agree In 4 sent. d. 8. ar. 13. Albertus magnus. In 4. d. 11. ar. 1. Petrus de Palude. In 4. sent. d. 8. part. 2. art. 2. q. 2. Bonaventura, and sundry other. By all which it is evident, that though they gaue way to the custome that grew in, and began to prevaile in their time, yet they signified, and sufficiently expressed that in their opinion, the communicating in both kindes, as Christ at first did institute, and the Church for a long time observed, is fitte, convenient, compleat, perfect, of more efficacie, and more cleere representation than the other vnder one kind alone.

And therefore many still retained the auncient manner of communicating, after other had admitted & receiued the new. tertia part. q. 80. ar. 12. Aquinas sayth of his time, that the communicating vnder one kinde alone was receiued in many Churches, not in all. P. 4. q. 31. memb. 1. Alexander of Hales sayth, that lay men almost euery where communicated in one kinde. Lib 4. d. 11. q. 1. Petrus de Palude sayth, it was the custome in some Churches, to giue the communion to the people in both kinds. Durandus reporteth, that it was the custome of some Churches in his time, that the priest should consecrate such a quantity of wine, that after hee had drunke of the same, there might still some of the sacrament of Christs blood remaine in the chalice, into which more wine not consecrated might be powred, that the other communicants might partake of the blood of Christ. And then they began to dispute the question, whether the wine that was put into the cup, by contact of Christs blood, became consecrated & sacramentall or not. But whether it did or not they resolued, that all by this meanes did partake, and drinke of the blood of Christ, which was mingled with euery part of the wine, newly powred into it. After this some proceeded farther, & left none of the sacramentall, or consecrated wine, in the cuppe, or chalice: but powred meere wine into it, that the communicants might wash their mouthes with it, after they had receiued the body of Christ; teaching them that they had beene sufficiently partakers of the blood of Christ, in that they had receiued his body, from which his blood cannot bee separated. But Citat. à Cassand. Liturg. c. 31. Willielmus de Lauduno sayth, that he that receiueth the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread, receiueth the whole verity,. but not the whole sacrament, and that therefore in many places, they communicated in both kindes. And wee shall finde, that where they admitted the communion vnder one kinde, yet they put a difference betweene the communicants, and permitted some to communicate in both kindes. De summa trinitate & fide Catholica. Linwood sayth, that in the lesser Churches, onely they that consecrate receiue the blood of Christ, vnder the forme of consecrated wine, insinuating thereby, that in the greater it was otherwise: and that within the compasse of the same nation and people, the greater and more honourable Churches, had the communion in both kindes; when the meaner had it but in one. Yea wee shall finde that in the same particular Church, some communicated in both kindes, when other communicated but in one. For Citat. à Cassan. in li. de communione sub utraque. Richardus de mediâ villâ, and Petrus de Tarantasia, afterwards named Innocentius the 4t report, that in their time, not onely the Ministers of the Altar, but the more principall of the people communicated in both kindes. Lib. de sacr. tom. 2. c. 88. Thomas Waldensis provinciall of the Carmelites here in England, saith of his time. We permit the Pastours of the Churches to giue the Sacrament in both kindes, to svch persons as are strong in faith, and discreet: as the Bishop of Rome doth vse to giue the communion to the deacon, and other Ministers of the Altar, and other excelling in faith, or of high place and dignity; as Doctours and Kings. Or as the Churches of religious men, and of great places, doe still continue to giue the Sacrament to their brethren, and such persons as are worthie of so great a thing. And in Cap. 94. another place he hath these words: Neither doe we deny vnto all Lay men generally, to drinke of the blood of Christ vnder the forme of wine; neither doe wee generally, and without distinction, or difference, graunt and yeeld it vnto all, for wee know that by the custome of the Church, it is left to the discretion of the greater Prelates, to admit certaine of the Ministers of the Altar, or certaine other illustrious persons amongst the people, that are faithfull, reverent, and devout, to the solemne communicating in both kindes. Thus did he write, more then a thousand and foure hundred yeares after Christ, in the time of Pope Martin, who was elected in the Councell of Constance, and who as B. Lindan telleth vs, went home from the Councell of Constance, and ministred the communion to sundry, both of the Clergie, and Laity, vnder both kindes. So that the communion vnder both kindes continued after the Councell of Constance: which, as the same Lindan saith, did not simply forbid the ministring of the Sacrament in both kindes, but the teaching of the people, that of necessitie it must be so ministred. To this purpose see the 13th session of the Councell. The Councell of Basil permitted the Bohemians to continue the vse of the communion in both kinds, & Cassander telleth vs, that good & credible authors do testifie, that in n De comm. sub utraque fol. 33. France the whole cōmunion was ministred, though not euery-where, in ordinary Churches, yet in Chappels, euen a little before the memory of our fathers, as also it is ministred to the French Kings to this day. in •… . q. 80. art. 〈◊〉 . Caietan saith of his time, that the Church of Rome, & almost all the Churches of the west, had the cōmunion in one kind. He saith not all, but almost all; for as it appeareth by the same Caietan, the Cistercian monks in some places did cōmunicate vnder both kinds, euen in his time: their order as it may be thought, being instituted while the communion vnder both kindes continued in generall observation. For otherwise it is not to be thought, that any Monasterie would haue presumed, to renew an abolished custome. So that we see, that the Churches of this part of the world, were neuer wholly depriued of the necessarie, and comfortable vse of the Sacrament vnder both kindes. And for those that were, wee see by what degrees, and in what sort, not without complaining of the wrong done vnto them, they were forced to giue way to the innovation, by a prevailing faction. Yet did they not cease to bee members of the true and orthodoxe Church, that were thus wronged. The Armenian in the Dialogues of Armachanus, objecting the saying of Christ, except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, hee can haue no life: to prooue the necessitie of the Communion in both kindes; Armachanus answereth, that if the wordes of Christ bee vnderstood of the Sacramentall drinking, they must bee vnderstood with some qualification, to wit, that it is necessarie to saluation, and the attaining of eternall life, for each man to receiue both at some time, or to bee willing and ready, asmuch as is in his power to receiue both. Which was no doubt the condition of many thousands, vnder the papacie, that much desired to haue enioyed this comfort, so that in this point wee see, the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, was a true Protestant Church, as euer before, so at the appearing of Luther.

Which is yet more confirmed, in that after Luthers prcaching, many of the greatest Princes of these parts of the world, that neuer ioyned wholly with him, nor euer brake with the B. of Rome, vrged this point of communicating in both kinds most earnestly; as Ferdinand, Maximilian, the French king, the Duke of Bauaria, and sundry other. Apud Goldast. imperial. constitut. tom. 2. 377. There is extanta writing, exibited by the Embassadours of the Emperour Ferdinand, to the councell of Trent in the yeare 1562 Iune 27. Wherein first it is shewed, that the custome of communicating in both kinds, which was in vse in Bohemia, when the councell of Constance was called, hath beene retained there euer since, and that the Bohemians could neuer yet be brought by any perswasions, and entreaties, or by any force, and warre, to relinquish this custome, and to suffer the cuppe to bee denied vnto them. From which cuppe or chalice, that part of the people that maintained this libertie, were called Calixtini, and subutraque; which sort of men spread it selfe exceedingly in that kingdome, and there are of that number many prime men, and certaine great officers and magistrates. To these the Church permitted the free vse of the cup vpon due considerations. But Pius the second vppon some dislike, reuoked the former concession; whose proceedings in that kind hauing no good successe, but rather causing a greater alienation, Paulus the third, and Iulius the third sent their legats, to reconcile them to the Church, and to permit them to vse their former custome. Neither is it to be marvailed at, that these Bohemians, cānot be brought from this perswasion, of the necessity of communicating in both kinds, seeing we find that there are many most learned, pious, & Catholike men that do thinke, that they that communicate vnder both kinds, obtaine more grace, thē they that communicate vnder one only. Besides these Bohemians, there are in sundry other famous and noble kingdomes & prouinces, certaine pious & Catholique men, as in Hungarie, Austria, Morauia, Silesia, Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, Bauaria, Sueuia, and many Prouinces of Germany, that with great earnestnesse desire the vse of the cuppe to be left free vnto them. Hitherto wee haue heard the words of the Emperour; shewing the desires, of many states and prouinces: and after the vrging of the daungers that may follow, if their desires be not satisfied, the Embassadours earnestly desired the Bishops assembled, to consider of this motion. The same desire of the Emperour Ferdinand is excellently Apud Coldast. vbi supra pag. 399. expressed, in an oration made by Andraeas Dudithius the Emperours Embassadour in the councell of Trent. Ibid. pag. 381. Maximilian in his rescript to Pius the fourth touching the marriage of priests, sheweth that in his opinion it is fitte, not only to gratifie the people by the concession of the cuppe, as he saith Pius had already yeelded to doe, but the Clergie also by granting them the liberty of marriage. Trident. concil. quaedam membra avu •… a edit ab Arnoldo Birkmanno Coloniae anno 1565. There is extant also an oration made by the Embassador of the Duke of Banaria in the councell of Trent in the yeare 1562: wherein we finde these words. Not a few are offended & fall away, & ioyne themselues to the sectaries, by reason of the prohibition of the communion vnder both kinds. For they think there is an expresse word of God, for the communion vnder both kinds, and no word for the other vnder one. To which they adde, that the vse of the cōmunion in both kinds was not only in the time of the Primitiue Church, but is now also in the Easterne Churches of the world: and that the Roman Church aunciently did not abhorre from the same, as it appeareth by many hystories. Neither doth it moue men a little especially in Bauaria, that Paul the third by his bull granted the communion vnder both kindes to certaine Bishops in Germanie. Apud Gold. vbi sup. 399. The same Duke in an Epistle written to Pius the fourth in the yeare 1564 concerning the same matter, hath these words. Wee haue conferred touching this thing, which the most reuerend and illustrious Arch-chauncelours and electours spirituall of the Roman Empire, and they agree with mee to beseech your holinesse helpe, for the confirming of them that stand, and the raising vp of them that are fallen, as being the supreame Monarch in respect of things pertayning to Christianity; so that you neede not to make any doubt of the willingnesse of the electours, if your holines shall bee pleased to yeeld any thing in this kind, to embrace the same, and to put it in execution. Wherefore together with the Emperours majestic, I humbly & most earnestly beseech your holines, to graunt the free vse of the cup, at the least to them who being perswaded as they are, will harken to no better aduise at this time. lib. •… 6. anno. 15 •… 5. Thuanus reporteth, that Maximilian in the very beginning of his raigne, when he saw that men were exceedingly discontented, especially in Bohemia, & Austria, that they had no satisfaction given them by the councell of Trent, as they expected, touching the concession of the cup, and the freedome of priests marriages, that he might bring them to be better content, and that they might bee willing to doe what he expected of them, for the good of the common-wealth, hee was earnest with the Pope, that the promises which he might well remember hee had made to Ferdinand, & to himselfe, by Cardinall Moronus, a litle before the councell ended, might now be made good, in a time wherein it was so needfull: seeing the councell determining nothing, had left power to him, to take order in this kinde. The Pope denyed not to performe what the Emperour desired, being perswaded so to doe by Moronus, and not beeing much averse from it of himselfe before. But Philip King of Spaine, by the instigation of Cardinall Pacecus, fearing this example in the Low-countries, sent Peter Avila to Rome, at the same time that he vnderstood, the Emperour would send his embassadours, to disswade the Pope, from listening to any such motion, as beeing very hurtfull to the Christian Church, &c. The Pope at the instance of the Cardinalls, deferring & putting off the matter till a longer time, for the present eluded the Emperours petition. Thus did this good Emperour insist in the steppes of Ferdinand his worthy father, who when he was moved by the Pope, to cause the 〈◊〉 . l. 3 •… . 〈◊〉 . councell of Trent to bee promulgated in Germany shewed himselfe willing to doe any thing that was fitte, but earnestly vrged the Pope to permit & leaue free the vse of the cup to the lay people, being moved so to doe by Charles the Archduke his sonne, & the Duke of Bavaria his son in law, and the due consideration of the necessity of his subiects. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . & 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . There are extant certaine articles concerning reformation of manners & Church discipline, proposed in the councell of Trent, by the embassadours of Charles the ninth the French King; amongst which the 18 article is, that the auncient decree, of Leo and Gelasius, touching the communion vnder both kindes, might be reviued, & brought to be in vse againe. But when the French perceiued, that there were scarce any footesteps, of the libertie of auncient councells to be discerned, in the councell of Trent; that all things were swayed, and disposed by the absolute commaund of Pius the fourth then Pope; the embassadours were commaunded to make a protestation, in the name of the King their master, the words of which protestation are these. Wee refuse to bee subject to the commaund, & disposition of Pius the fourth. Wee reiect, wee refuse, & contemne all the judgments, censures, & decrees of the same Pius. And although most holy Fathers, your religion, life, and learning, was ever, and euer shall bee of great esteeme with vs, yet seeing indeed you doe nothing, but all things are done at Rome, rather then at Trent, and the things that are here published, are rather the deerees of Pius the fourth, then of the councell of Trent, wee denounce, & protest here before you all, that whatsoeuer things are decreed, & published in this assembly, by the meere will & pleasure of Pius, neither the most Christian King will euer approue, nor the French Church euer acknowledge, to be the decrees of a generall councell. Besides this, the King our master commaundeth all his Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Abbots, to leaue this assembly, and presently to depart hence; then to returne againe, when there shall be hope of better, & more orderly proceedings.

Wherefore from this point of Romish Religion touching the communion in one kinde, which findeth no helpe in the publique liturgie vsed in the dayes of our Fathers, by which it is evident that the people were wont to cōmunicate in both kindes, when that forme of divine seruice was first composed, nor no liking or approbation of the best and worthiest guides of Gods Church then liuing: let vs come to the next, which is the propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and the dead. This indeede is a grand point of Romish Religion, and if M Brerelie can prooue that it is contained in the publique Liturgie, that was vsed in the Church, at, and immediatly before Luthers appearing, and consequently, that all that vsed that Liturgie had such an opinion of a sacrifice, hee hath said much to proue, that the Church vnder the Papacie, was no Protestant Church; but this neither hee, nor all the most learned Papists in the world will euer be able to proue. First therefore, I will make it appeare, that the Canon of the Masse, importeth no such sacrifice. And secondly, I will shew at large, that neither before nor after Luthers appearing, the Church beleeued, or knew any such, new, reall sacrificing of Christ, as is now imagined.

Touching the canon of the Masse, it is true that therein there is often mention of sacrifice and oblation: but Luther professeth, that the words may be vnderstood in such a sense, as is not to be disliked, and hee saith, hee could so expound it, and that somewhere hee hath so expounded it; but seeing it is obseure, and may beare diuers senses, and a better, and more cleare forme of divine celebration may be brought in, he will not honour it so much, as to giue it that sense which it may well carry, and in which the first composers of it, and others after did vse it, but that wherein they of Rome will now needes haue it to be vnderstood. That the forme of words vsed in the canon, are obscure in sundry parts of it, and hard to bee vnderstood, euen by the learned, Consult. pag. 242. Cassander confesseth, and therefore thinketh it fit it were explained & illustrated by some briefe scholies put in the margent, or inserted into the text by way of parenthesis. The obscuritie that is in it, groweth, as he rightly obserueth, partly out of the disuse, & discontinuing of certaine old obseruations, to which the words of the canon composed long since haue a reference, and partly from the vsing of the word sacrifice, in diuers and different senses, though all connexed: & the sudden passing from the vsing of it in one sense, to the vsing of it in another. It is not vnknowne to them that are learned, that in the Primitiue Church the people were wont to offer bread & wine, and that out of that which they offered, a part was consecrated to become vnto them the Sacrament of the Lords body & bloud, & other parts converted to other good & holy vses. Respectiuely to this ancient custome are those prayers conceiued, that are named secretae; & the first part of the canon, wherein wee desire that God will accept those gifts, presents, offerings, and sacrifices which we bring vnto him, and that hee will make them to become vnto vs, the body & bloud of his Son Christ, which onely are that sacrifice, that procureth the remission of our sins, and our reconciliation and acceptation with God. So that to take away this obscurity, & that the words may haue a true sense, the ancient custome must bee brought backe againe; or at least it must be conceiued that the elements of bread & wine that are set vpon the mysticall table, & are to be consecrated, are brought thither, and offered in the name of the people, and that as being their presents, they are symboles of that inward sacrifice whereby they dedicate and giue themselues and all that they haue vnto God. Touching the second cause of the obscurity of the wordes of the Canon, which is the vsing of the word sacrifice and •… ffering, in so manifold and different senses, and the sudden passing from the one of them to the other; wee must obserue; that by the name of sacrifice, gift, or present, first the oblation of the people is meant, that consisteth in bread, and wine, brought and set vpon the Lords table. In which againe 2 things are to be considered: the outward action; and that which is signified thereby, to wit the peoples dedicating of themselues, and all that they haue, to God by faith, and deuotion, & offering to him the sacrifice of praise. In this sense is the word sacrifice vsed, in the former part of the canon, as I haue already shewed. In respect of this is that prayer powred out to God, that he will be mindfull of his seruants that doe offer vnto him this sacrifice of praise, that is, these outward things in acknowledgement, that all is of him, that they had perished if he had not sent his sonne to redeeme them, that vnlesse they eate the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, they haue no life; that he hath instituted holy Sacraments of his body and blood, under the formes of bread and wine, in which he will not onely represent, but exhibit the same vnto all such as hunger and thirst after righteousnesse; and therefore they desire him so to accept and sanctifie these their oblations, of breade and wine, which in this sort they offer vnto him, that they may become vnto them the body, and blood of Christ, that soe partaking in them, they may bee made partakers of Christ, and all the benefits of redemption, and saluation, that hee hath wrought. Secondly, by the name of sacrifice is vnderstood, the sacrifice of Christs body; wherein wee must first consider the thing offered, and secondly the manner of offering. The thing that is offered is the body of Christ, which is an eternall, and perpetuall, propitiatory sacrifice, in that it was once offered by death vpon the crosse, and hath an euerlasting, and neuer failing force, and efficacie. Touching the manner of offering Christs body and blood, wee must consider, that there is a double offering of a thing to God. First soe as men are wont to doe, that giue something to God out of that they possesse, professing that they will no longer be owners of it, but that it shall be his and serue for such vses, and imployments as hee shall conuert it too. Secondly, a man may bee sayd to offer a thing vnto GOD, in that he bringeth it to his presence, setteth it before his eyes, and offereth it to his view, to incline him to doe something, by the sight of it and respect had to it. In this sort Christ offereth himselfe and his body once crucified, dayly in heauen, and soe intercedeth for vs; not as giuing it in the nature of a gift, or present, for hee gaue himselfe to God once, to be holy vnto him for euer; nor in the nature of a sacrifice, for hee dyed once for sinne, and rose againe neuer to die any more: but in that hee setteth it before the eyes of GOD his Father, representing it vnto him, and soe offering it to his view, to obtaine grace, and mercie for vs. And in this sort wee also offer him dayly on the altar, in that commemorating his death, and liuely representing his bitter passions, endured in his body vpon the crosse, wee offer him that was once crucified, and sacrificed for vs on the crosse, and all his sufferings, to the view and gracious consideration of the Almighty, earnestly desiring, and assuredly hoping, that hee will encline to pitty vs, and shew mercie vnto vs, for this his dearest sonnes sake, who in our nature for vs, to satisfie his displeasure, and to procure vs acceptation, endured such and soe grieuous things. This kind of offering, or sacrificing Christ, commemoratiuely, is twofold, inward, and outward. Outward, as the taking, breaking, and distributing the mysticall bread, and powering out the cuppe of blessing, which is the Communion of the blood of Christ. The inward consisteth, in the faith, and deuotion of the Church, & people of God, so commemorating the death and passion of Christ, their crucified Sauiour, and representing and setting it before the eyes of the Almighty, that they flye vnto it as their only stay and refuge, and beseech him to be mercifull vnto them for his sake, that endured all these things, to satisfie his wrath, & worke their peace & good. And in this sense, and answerable herevnto that is, which wee finde in the canon, where the Church desireth Almighty God, to accept those oblations of bread and wine, which shee presenteth vnto him, & to make them to become vnto the faithfull communicants, the body & bloud of Christ, who the night before he was betraied tooke bread into his sacred hands, lifted vp his eyes to heauen, gaue thankes, blessed it, & gaue it to his disciples; saying, take and eate yee all of this, for this is my body. And in like manner after hee had supped, tooke the cuppe and gaue thankes, blessed it and gaue it to his disciples: saying, drinke yee all of this, for this is the new Testament in my bloud: doe this as oft as you shall drinke it, in remembrance of mee. And then proceedeth and speaketh vnto Almighty GOD in this sort. Wherefore o Lord wee thy seruants, and thy holy people, mindfull of that most blessed passion of the same CHRIST thy sonne our Lord, as also of his resurrection from the dead, and his glorious ascension into heauen, doe offer to thy diuine maiestie, out of thine owne gifts consecrated, and by mysticall blessing made vnto vs, the body and bloud of thy sonne Christ, a pure sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, and an vndefiled sacrifice: the holie bread of eternall life, and the cuppe of euerlasting saluation, that is, wee offer to thy view, and sette before thine eyes, the crucified body of Christ thy sonne, which is here present in mystery, and sacrament, and the blood which hee once shedde for our sakes, which wee know to be that pure, holy, vndefiled, and eternall sacrifice, wherewith onely thou art pleased, desiring thee to bee mercifull vnto vs, for the merit and worthinesse thereof, and soe to looke vpon the same sacrifice, which representatiuely wee offer to thy viewe, as to accept it for a full discharge of vs from our sinnes, and a perfect propitiation: that soe thou mayest behold vs, with a pleased, cheerefull, and gratious countinance. This is the meaning of that prayer in the canon: supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere digneris &c. as the best interpreters of the canon doe tell vs. Odo Camaracen •… : 〈◊〉 can. exposit. in bibliotheca pat. tom. 6. p. 468. Stephan. Eduensis Epis. de sacram. altaris ibid. pag. 491. And when in the same prayer, wee desire that this sacrifice may be accepted for vs, as the sacrifices of Abell, Abraham, and Melchisedec were, they obserue that this comparison, must not be vnderstood in quantitie, but in similitude onely. For the thing it selfe, is infinitely better then the figure; and the sacrifice that CHRIST offered, and wee here commemorate, is incomparablie more excellent, then those of Abell, Abraham, and Melchisedec. And that therefore the meaning of those words is. That as God accepted those sacrifices which his seruants offered vnto him, before the comming of CHRIST his sonne, as prefigurations of that sacrifice which he was afterwards to offer, and as a profession of their hope, of remission of sinnes by the same; soe it will please him, to accept the sacrifice which CHRIST once offered, and wee now commemorate, for vs; and vs for it: That soe our sinnes may be remitted, and wee receiued to fauour. After this there followeth another prayer in the canon, wherein as humble suppliants, they that come to celebrate, and to communicate, beseech Almighty God to commaund the oblations which they offer to be carried by the hands of his holy Angell, vnto his altar that is on high, and into the view, and sight of his diuine Maiestie; that soe many as shall by partaking of the altar receiue the sacred body and bloud of his sonne, may bee filled vvith all heauenly benediction and grace thorough the same Lord IESVS CHRIST. This forme of prayer wee finde to haue beene verie auncient, but what the meaning of it is, it is not soe easie to finde out. For how may wee bee vnderstood to desire, that the body of CHRIST which we represent vnto GOD, in this commemoratiue sacrifice, should bee carried into heauen, seeing it is alwaies there? Wherefore let vs heare what the holy Fathers haue sayd to this purpose. Quis fidelium haberet dubium, sayth Saint Gregorie, in ipsâ immolationis hora, ad vocem sacerdotis coelos aperiri, in illo Iesu Cristi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse, summis in a sociari, terrena coelestibus iungi, vnum quid ex visibilibus, & invisibilibus fieri? That is, What faithfull man or beleeuer will euer make any doubt, but that in the houre of the oblation, the Heauens are opened; that so soone as the voyce of the Priest is heard, Quires of Angels are present, the lowest and highest things enter into a societie, earthly things are joyned with those that are celestiall, and things visible, and invisible become one. And in another place: At one and the same time and moment that which is presented on the altar, is caught vp into Heauen, by the ministerie of Angels, to bee ioyned in a neere sort vnto the body of Christ, and is at the same time before the eyes of the Priest vpon the altar. So then the oblations which we present vnto God on the Altar, are then carried by the hands of Angels, into Heauen, when those sacramentall elements which we bring thither, though they be still visible on the altar, as Gregory saith, yet being changed, and become vnto vs in mysterie, and exhibitiue signification, the body and bloud of Christ, once sacrificed and shed for vs: and now in heauen continually represented vnto God to intercede for vs; may rightly be said to bee carried vp into heauen. But seeing by the precedent wordes of mysticall blessing and prayer, the sacramentall Elements are so chaunged before the pronouncing of this prayer, that they are already become in sort before expressed, the body and bloud of Christ, which is in heauen, wee doe not in these wordes desire any such thing to bee done, but this is that wee say, Lord wee heere commemorate the death and sacrifice of thy Sonne Christ, that once died for vs, and now continually representeth the same his death vnto thee, to procure vs good, humbly beseeching thee, that for his sake thus dying for vs, & now continually in heauen representing himselfe vnto thee, & setting the same his passions and sufferings before the eyes of thy Diuine Maiesty, as if euen now he did hang on the Crosse, all euill may bee farre remoued from vs, & all good brought vpon vs. And that all we that by communicating in these holy mysteries, receiue the body & bloud of the same thy Son Christ, may be filled with all heauenly benediction and grace. So that to commaund the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud once offered, & here by vs commemorated, to be carried into heauen, and to bee represented vnto God, is no more but to make it appeare, that that body of Christ which hee once offered by the passion of death, and which we now commemorate, is in Heauen, there so represented vnto God, that it procureth for vs all that wee desire.

There is nothing therefore found in the Canon of the Masse rightly vnderstood, that maketh any thing, for the new reall offering of Christ to God his Father, as a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes, neither did the Church of God, at, & before Luthers time, know or beleeue any such thing, though there were some in the midst of her, that so conceiued of this mystery, as the Romanists now do. Wherfore for the clearing of this point I will first set down what the conceipt of the Romanists now is, & then make it appeare, that all the best learned, at, and before Luthers time, thought otherwise touching this matter then these now doe.

These that now are, expresse their conceipt touching this point in this sort. First they shew what an oblation is. Secondly, what the nature of a sacrifice is. And thirdly how and in what sort they imagine, Christ is now newly, & really, not offered onely, but sacrificed also to take away our sinnes. An oblation they rightly define to bee, the bringing of some thing that we haue into the place where the name of God is called on, and where his honour dwelleth; a representing of it there vnto God, a professing that wee will owne it no longer, but that God shall bee the owner of it, that it shall bee holy vnto him, to bee imployed about his seruice, if it bee an irrationall thing; or to serue him in some speciall sort, if it bee rationall, as when parents presented and offered their children to God, to bee holy vnto him as were the Nazarits, who were to serue him in some peculiar and speciall sort: and in this sort Christ presented, and gaue himselfe to God his father, from his first entrance into this world, and was holy vnto him, and an oblation. But in this sort it is not for vs to offer Christ to God his father, whatsoeuer any Papist may imagine. For it were a wofull thing for vs so to giue vp Christ to his father, as to professe that wee will owne him no longer, nor haue any interest in him, nor claime to him, any more. And besides, if it were fit for vs so to doe, yet who are wee that wee should present Christ vnto God his father, to bee holy vnto him? that so presented and gaue himselfe vnto him, from his first entrance into the world, that hee bringeth vs also to God, to bee holy vnto him. A sacrifice implyeth more than an oblation. For if wee will sacrifice a thing vnto God, wee must not onely present it vnto him, professing that it shall bee his, and that wee will owne it no more, nor make any claime vnto it; but wee must destroy, and consume it also. As wee see in the old law, when liuing things were sacrificed, they were slaine and consumed in fire; when other that had no life were sacrificed, they were consumed in fire. And answerably herevnto, Christ was sacrificed on the crosse, when hee was crucified, and cruelly put to death by the Iewes. But how he should now bee really sacrificed, sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing sacrificed, it is very hard to conceiue. First therefore they say, that Christ may truely bee said to bee really sacrificed; because when the words of consecration, are pronounced ouer the bread, they so cause the body of Christ to bee, where the bread was, that they cause not the presence of the blood; and in like sort the words, pronounced ouer the wine, cause the presence of Christs blood, and not of his body, so that vpon the pronouncing of the words of consecration; there would bee in the sacrament the body of Christ without the blood, and the blood without the bodie, and so a slaine, and a crucified Christ, if that naturall concomitance, by reason whereof the one of them will not bee absent, where the other becommeth present, did not hinder their being asunder. Thus then they say, there is a true reall sacrificing of Christ, in that, as much as is on the part of the words pronounced, and him that pronounceth them, Christs bloud is againe powred out, and hee consequently slaine. This is the conceipt of Gregorius de Valentia: and in this sorte hee imagineth Christ is daily, newly sacrificed on the altar: But (besides that it is an impious thing, for the priest to endeauour as much as in him lies to slay Christ, and to powre out his bloud againe) this proueth not a reall sacrificing of Christ, but onely an indevour so to doe. For his bloud is not powred out, neither is hee slaine indeede. So that as in the time of the old law, if the priest reaching forth his hand, to slay the beast that was brought to bee sacrificed, had beene so hindred by something interposing it selfe, that hee could not slay the same, hee had offered no sacrifice, but endeavoured onely so to doe; so is it here. Bellarmine therefore reiecteth this conceipt, and hath another of his owne. For hee sayth, that Christ hath a two fold beeing: the one naturall, the other sacramentall. The Iewes had him present amongst them visibly, in his naturall being; this beeing they destroyed, and so killed, and sacrificed him. The Romish Priests haue him not so present, neither can they destroy his naturall beeing, and so kill him; but they haue him present in a sacramentall presence, and in a sacramentall being, this beeing they destroy. For consuming the accidents of bread and wine, which are there left without substance, and with which hee is present, they make his presence there to cease, and so cause him to loose that beeing, which formerly hee there had. Thus doe they suppose that they newly sacrifice Christ, and destroy him in that being, wherein hee is present with them, And the Priests eating, is not for refection, but for consumption, that hee may destroy Christ in that beeing, wherein hee is present; as the fire on the altar, was wont to consume, and destroy the bodies of those beasts, that were put into it. But first it is impious to thinke of destroying CHRIST in any sort. For though it bee true, that in sacrificing of Christ on the altar of the crosse, the destroying and killing of him was implyed, and this his death was the life of the world; yet all that concurred to the killing of him: as the Iewes, the Roman souldiers, Pilate and Iudas, sinned damnably, and soe had done, though they had shed his bloud, with an intention, and desire, that by it the world might be redeemed. Soe in like sort, let the Romish priestes haue what intention they will, it is hellish and damnable, once to thinke of the destroying of Christ in any sort. And besides, if it were lawfull for them so to doe, yet all that they doe, or can doe, is not sufficient to make good a reall sacrificing of CHRIST. Because all they doe, or can doe, is noe destroying of his beeing, but onely of his being somewhere, that is, in the Sacrament. For as if the things which were brought to be sacrificed in the time of the Law, had beene only remoued out of some place, into which they were brought, or onely caused to cease to bee, where they were, and not what they were; they could not truly haue beene sayd to haue beene sacrificed: no more can it be truly said, that Christ is really sacrificed, in that the priests consuming the accidents of bread and wine, vnder which they supposed him to be, make him cease to be there any longer.

Hauing thus in their erring imaginations framed to themselues a reall sacrificing of Christ, they beginne to dispute of the force and efficacie of it affirming that this reall offering, and sacrificing of CHRIST by the a Bellar de mi •… . l. 2. c. 4. priest, is propitiatorie in that it pacifieth God, and procureth and obtaineth grace, and the gift of repentance, that the sinner may come to the sacrament, and so be iustified: satisfactorie, in that it applyeth the satisfaction of Christ, and procureth remission of temporall punishments, to them that by faith and repentance are alreadie free, from the guilt of eternall condemnation; meritorious, because it obtaineth that grace, whereby wee may merit; and impetratory, in that it obtaineth for vs, and procureth to vs, all desired good. This force and efficacie they say it hath, ex opere operato, that is, the verie offering and sacrificing of Christ in sort before expressed, of it selfe hath force and power, to obtaine and procure grace, remission of sinnes, and the like, for all them for whom such offering is made; if there bee no hinderance or impediment in themselues. And that God hath tyed himselfe by promise, to conferre such gifts, and worke such effects, soe often as the body and bloud of his sonne shall bee thus offered. And farther they adde, that it conferreth good and remoueth euill, not infinitely, but in a stinted and limited sort. Nor in that limited sort equally in respect of all, but in proportionable sort, as the intendment of the Church is to apply this sacrifice more or lesse, to the procuring of more or lesse. And that therefore the benefitte that this sacrifice procureth, is in one degree communicated to all faithfull ones liuing and dead; in another to such, as by the Churches appointment are specially named, as the Pope, King, and Bishoppe or the like; in another to them that procure the offering of this sacrifice: in another to them that are present and stand by: in another to them that minister and attend; in another to the priest that sacrificeth: and in another to whomsoeuer it pleaseth the priest, to impart and communicate the benefitte and effect of this sacrifice. For as Gregorius de Valentia alleadgeth out of Scotus, it is to be thought, that the priest that is the minister of this sacrifice, may apply to whom hee will, not only that which by worth b Quodli. 2 •… . of his personall merit, in the religious performing of this seruice hee may deserue, but some part also of that effect which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato: and that God hath committed vnto him the effect which it hath in this kinde, in some degree and sort, to bee dispensed by him to whom hee thinketh good, in recompence of his seruice. And further they resolue, that those effects which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato, and are by the intendment of the Church, communicated in different sort, and degree, to those diuers sorts of men before specified, are equally communicated to each of those sorts, according to their seuerall differences, whether the sacrifice be offered for more or fewer. As they that procure Masse to be said for them, whether they bee more or fewer, shall haue like effects wrought in them. But that portion of this efficacie, force, and power of working gratious effects, that is committed to the disposition, and distribution of the Priest, is so limited, that accordingly as he intendeth good, to more, or fewer, he procureth more, or lesse vnto them. Heere wee see a goodly frame of building raised, but it hath an ill foundation, for it is most absurd to say, that the very offering of Christs body and bloud, ex opere operato, and of it selfe, should haue force to obtaine any thing at Gods hand, or to procu •… e any good vnto vs. For there is no offering that can haue any acceptation vnlesse it bee offered by an accepted offerer, according to that in the 4 of Gen •… sis, God had respect to Abel and to his offering; first to Abel, and then to his offering; and that in the 21th of Luke, where Christ saith; this poore widdow hath cast in more into the treasurie then any of the rest; because shee cast it in, out of a larger, more free, better, and more accepted will. And heereupon Saint Gregory, in his Homilie on that of Mathew 4. Iesus walking, &c. saith, non pensat Deus quantum in eius sacrificio deferatur, sed ex quanto: that is, God doth not so much weigh and consider how much, or how good that is which is presented to him in sacrifice, as out of how great and good affection it is presented. And therefore if a Iew had offered Christ vnto his father, willing so to bee offered, or not willing, this oblation had not beene so acceptable, as when hee offered himselfe: nay it had not beene accepted at all, according to that in Cap. 34. Ecclesiasticus, Hee that offereth sacrifice out of the substance of the poore, is as hee that slayeth, and sacrificeth the sonne in the sight of his father. And Bellarmine saith well to the same purpose, that though d De Miss. l. 2. c. 4 the thing offered bee acceptable of it selfe, yet the oblation is not acceptable, vnlesse the offerer be accepted, which is especially true in respect of God, whose all things are, and who needeth nothing. So that in this supposed sacrifice, the worthinesse and acceptation of the offerer, is principally to bee considered, for it is not so much the worth of the thing offered, as the esteeme the offerer hath of it, and his good affection in offering it, that God respecteth. Who therefore is the offerer of this their supposed sacrifice? They will say, Christ is the supreme, and the Priest the inferiour, and subordinate: and that therefore whatsoeuer the condition of the Priest bee, the sacrifice is accepted for the principall offerers sake. But this is nothing, for though Christ bee offered on the Altar, as they imagine, yet hee doth not offer himselfe immediately. For then this offering would bee equivalent to that former on the Crosse, which yet they will not acknowledge. And besides, that of the Apostle should be found false and vntrue, Heb. 9. that hee doth not often offer himselfe. Neither can it be saide, that Christ offereth himselfe mediatly by the Priest, and so giueth price and worth to the offering. For if it be said that Christ offereth himselfe mediatly by the Priest, either it is because hee appointeth, authoriseth, and encourageth the Priest to make this offering, and this will giue no more value and worth to the offering then the immediate offerer hath, as wee see it was in the offerings of the Priest vnder the Law: or else in that the Priest doth this in his name, as a Legate presents a thing to a forraine Prince, in the name of the King; and this cannot bee; for whatsoeuer a legat may doe, in the name & person of his king, the king may doe in his owne person, if it please him; but Christ can no more offer himselfe in his owne person, therefore this is not to be admitted. Wherefore passing by this idle phancie, wee shall finde, that the of •… erer is the priest, and so many as doe procure, or desire the doing of the same; and that therefore the whole Church in a sort, may be said to offer this sacrifice. For though it be offered ministerio sacerdotis, by the ministery of the Priest, yet it is offered voto ecclesiae, out of the devotion & desire of the Church, in which there are ever some found, that are acceptable vnto God; and therefore the offerer of this sacrifice is euer acceptable: and according to the merit, & worthinesse of this offerer, the sacrifice here offered findeth acceptation. So then these men imagine, that there is a reall, externall sacrifice in the Church, which they daily offer vnto God; that it worketh great effects of grace; that Christ is offered in it; but that the acceptation of it, is not wholy, nor principally from the dignity of the thing offered, but from the merit of the offerer.

This is the present doctrine of the Roman Church: but this was not the doctrine of the Church at the time of Luthers appearing: for the best & principall men that then liued, taught peremptorily, that Christ is not newly offered any otherwise, then in that hee is offered to the view of God; nor any otherwise sacrificed, then in that his sacrifice on the crosse, is commemorated & represented. The things that are offered in the sacrament are two (sayth the authour of the Enchiridion of Christian religion, published in the provinciall councell of Colen:) the true body of Christ with all his merits, & his mysticall body, with all the gifts which it hath receiued of God. In that therefore the Church doth offer, the true body & blood of Christ to God the father, it is meerely a representatiue sacrifice, & all that is done, is but the commemorating, & representing of that sacrifice, which was once offered on the crosse. But in that it dedicateth itselfe, which is the mysticall body of Christ vnto God, it is a true, but a spirituall sacrifice, that is, an eucharisticall sacrifice of praise, thanksgiuing, & of obedience due vnto God. Christ therefore is offered & sacrificed on the altar, but sacramentally & mystically: in that in the sacrament there is a commemoration & remembrance of that which was once done. Christ is not often slaine, which once to thinke were abominable; but that which was once done is represented, that wee might not forget the benefit bestowed on vs, but rather be so stirred vp & moued by this sacrament, as if wee saw the Lord Iesus hanging vpon the crosse. The passion of the Lord, sayth Epist. ad Cae •… ilianum. Cyprian, is the sacrifice that wee offer to God, that is, that wee offer to the view of God, and represent vnto him. pag. 68. Neither is it to be marvailed at, that we offer the true body of Christ, to reviue the memory of the former sacrifice, and to represent it vnto God: seeing the son of God was giuen vnto vs, that wee might oppose him to the wrath of God, as a reconciler, and that distrusting our owne strength, wee might represent to the father, this most potent sacrifice. In cant. serm. 22. Cum defecerit, sayth Bernard, virtus mea, non conturbor, non diffido, scio quid faciam: calicem salutaris accipiam. That is, When my strength shall faile, I will not bee troubled, neither will I despaire. I know what I will doe, I will take the cup of saluation. And in another place. Serm. 1. de Epi •… h. Totum quod dare possum miserum corpus istud est, id si minus est, addo & corpus ipsius. Nam illud de meo est, & meum est: parvulus enim natus est nobis, & filius datus est mihi, de te Domine suppleo, quod minus habeo in me. O dulcissima reconciliatio! O suavissima satisfactio! That is, All that I can giue is this miserable body, if that be too litle, I adde his body, for that is of mine, and it is mine: a litle child is borne vnto vs, a sonne is given vnto mee; from thee I take ô Lord to supply what I finde wanting in my selfe. O most sweete reconciliation! O most sweet satisfactoin! Who doth not see, that God doth by such a faith as that is, that is Paulo post. exercised in the celebration of this representatiue sacrifice, and in the eating of the body of Christ, the sufferings whereof are here represented, apply the benefit of Christ his dearest sonne to his faithfull ones. Neither doe wee attribute this application to the priest, but to God, nor to our worke, but to Gods benefit. Which yet wee receiue no otherwise but by faith, with the assent of our owne will. Hitherto wee haue heard the words of the authour of the Enchiridion, and the same authour pag. 66. els-where sayth, that the orthodoxe diuines, deny the externall action which wee call the sacramentall oblation, to conferre grace, or to haue any spirituall effect, ex opere operato. It is true, sayth hee, that a wicked man may pronounce the words of Christ, and so make the elements of bread & wine, to become the sacrament of the Lords body and bloud, and this sacrament ex opere operato, that is, out of the very nature of a sacrament, & of it selfe, how ill soeuer the minister bee, will conferre grace instrumentally, to all such as receiue it, without such indisposition, as might hinder the working of it. But if wee speake of the offering of Christ representatiuely, it hath no force farther then the faith of the offerer extendeth. If the priest therefore not onely outwardly, but inwardly also, by the acte of faith, present the sufferings of Christ in the body of his flesh to God, in desire by the merit thereof, to escape his wrath: hee bringeth much good vpon himselfe: & if hee devoutly beseech God for his Christs sake, whose sufferings hee representeth vnto him, to bee mercifull to the people committed to his charge, or to any other, there is no doubt but this his prayer, in the nature of a prayer, is most powerfull to obtaine in this kind. But if hee bee wicked, & faithles, his representatiue offering of Christ, of & meerely in respect of it selfe, worketh no good to himselfe, nor any other. For in the representatiue offering of Christs passion to God, must be included, a supplication made to God for that passion sake, and a desire of those good things that wee need. Now the prayer of such a sinner God heareth not, but the people spiritually representing vnto God by the acte of their faith, that which the priest doth sacramentally, obtaine all desired good, and the removing of all evill, not by force of that the priest doth, but by their owne faith, which is stirred vp by that outward acte done by him.

The most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen, agree with the authour of the Enchiridion: their words are these. pag. 88. & 89. Consecratione factâ in missâ, Christus Dominus qui seipsum aliquando in corpore suo mortali Deo patri coelesti cruentum sacrificium pro peccatis mundi obtulit, denuo totius ecclesiae nomine, modo incruento, spirituali representatione, & commemoratione sacratissimae suae passionis, offertur: quod ipsum fit, quando ecclesia Christum & eius verum corpus, verumque sanguinem, Deo Patri cum gratiarum actione, & oratione attentâ, pro suis & totius mundi peccatis proponit, seu repraesentat: quanquam enim sacrificium illud, in eâ formâ quâ in cruce offerebatur, semel tantum oblatum sit, & semel tantum sanguis effusus; vt ita repeti, iterumque offerri non possit; nihilominus tamen consistit, & manet tale sacrificium coram Deo, perpetuò in suâ virtute & efficaciâ acceptum; ita vt sacrificium illud in cruce oblatum, non minus hodierno die in conspectu patris sit efficax, & vigens, quam eo die quo de saucio latere sanguis exiuit & aqua. Quapropter cum vulnerati corporis nostri plagae pretio redemptionis semper opus habeant, ecclesia proponit Deo Patri pretium illud, in verâ fide & devotione iterum, sed figuratiuè, & spiritualitèr, ad consequendam remissionem peccatorum: non quod huic operi suo, quo videlicet commem or at & repraesentat sacrificium illius, meritum ascribat remissionis peceatorum, vt quam solus Christus cruentâ suâ oblatione in cruce nobis promeruit; verum tali suo commemoratiuo, & mystico fidei sacrificio, in quo repraesentat ecclesia, & sistit in conspectum patris verum corpus & sanguinem eius vnigeniti, applicat sibi & accommodat magnum illud donatiuum remissionis peccatorum, quod Christus impetravit, cum accipiat remissionem peccatorum per nomen eius, qui credit in eum, Act. 10. That is; So soone as the consecration is done in the Masse, Christ the Lord who sometime offered himselfe in his mortall body a bloudy sacrifice to God his heauenly father, for the sins of the whole world, is now offered again after an vnbloudy manner, by representation and commemoration of his most sacred passion; which thing is then done, when the Church doth propose and represent, Christ and his true body' and bloud to God the Father with thanksgiuing, and with earnest prayer for the remission of her sinnes, and the sinnes of the whole world: for although that sacrifice in such sort as it was offered on the Crosse, was offered onely once, and his bloud only once powred forth, so that he can no more be so offered: yet notwithstanding that sacrifice remaineth and abideth before God perpetually, in its vertue and efficacie; and is so acceptable vnto him, that being but once offered on the Crosse, it is no lesse effectuall, and of force in the sight of God to day, then it was that day, when water and bloud streamed out of his wounded side. Wherefore seeing the soares and hurts of our wounded bodies, haue alwayes need of the price of redemption, the Church proposeth to God in faith and devotion that price againe, but figuratiuely and spiritually, to obtaine remission of sin, not as if shee did ascribe to this her worke, whereby she commemorateth, and representeth that his sacrifice, the meriting of remission of sinnes, which Christ onely merited for vs, by his bloudy sacrifice on the Crosse; but by such her commemoratiue and mysticall sacrifice of faith, in which shee representeth and setteth before the eyes of God the Father, the true body and bloud of his onely begotten Sonne, shee applyeth to her selfe that great donatiue of remission of sinnes, which Christ obtained, it being so that euery one that beleeueth in him, receiueth remission of sinnes by his Name, as it is in the 10th of the Acts.

〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 Caesare proposit. ad rationem concordiae incundam in controversiis religionis artic. 1 9. apud Goldast. imperialium constitutionum tom. 2. pag. 1 •… 7. In the booke proposed by Charles the 5th, written by certaine learned and godly men, much commended to him by men worthie to bee credited, as opening a way for the composing of the controversies in Religion, we shall finde the same explication of this point, touching the sacrifice, that I haue already deliuered out of the former authors; the words are these. Omnis ecclesia missam, in qu •… verum corpus & verus sanguis Christi conficitur, sacrificium esse consentit; sed incruentum & spirituale; in eâ enim (modò religiosé, & piè agatur,) Deo quatuor spiritualiter offeruntur. Initio enim Christus, qui seipsum patri in mortali corpore, cruentam, sufficientem, & beneplacentem, pro totius mundi peccatis hostiam, cruci affixus obtulit, idem ille in missâ, totius ecclesiae nomine, repraesentativo sacrificio, eidem deo patri immolatur; quod certè fit, cùm ecclesia illum, eiusque verum corpus & sanguinem, Deo patri pro totius mundi peccatis piâ prece sistit: nam etsi oblatio illa in cruce semel facta, transiit non reiterabilis; victima tamen ipsa immolata perpetuá virtute consistit, vt non minus hodiè in conspectu patris oblatio illa, in iis qui eum Deo religiosa fide repraesentant, sit efficax, quàm eo die quo de sacro latere, sanguis & aqua exivit. In quam sententiam patres corpus & sanguinem Christi in altari praesentia, nunc pretium pro peccatis totius mundi, nunc pretium redemptionis nostrae, nunc victimam salutarem appellare consueverunt. Et Chrysostomus testatur nos eandem hostiam, quae semel oblata est, in sancta sanctorum semper offerre, at que unum esse utrobique sacrificium, unum Christum, & hic plenum existentem, & illic plenum; sic tamen ut quod nos agimus sacrificium exemplar sit illius, in commemorationem eius, quod factum est semel. Nec ab re, Deus enim in hoc donavit nobis Christum Iesum Filium suum, ut de nostris viribus diffisi •… deque nostris peccatis nobis probè conscii, illum tanquam unicam & potissimam victimam pro nostris peccatis satisfactoriam Deo patri repraesentemus: ipse enim natus est, ipse datus est nobis, ut quicunque in eum credimus, non pereamus, sed pacem cum Deo reconciliati per sanguinem eius habeamus. Secundò, Ecclesia in hoc missae sacrificio seipsam quoque, quatenus Christi corpus mysticum est, per Christum Deo offerre, non dubitat. Tertiò, In missâ sacrificium laudis offertur. Postremo Ecclesia & dona quaedam, tam panis quàm vini, ex quibus partim corpus & san •… uis Christi conficiebantur, offerebat, partim & eleemosynae fiebant: & iustum est quod populus in hoc sacrificio se non tantum verbis deo consecret, sed & symbolo aliquo externo testetur, quod se totum dedicet Deo. Nam is mos in Ecclesiis penè abolitus est; cum olim omnibus diebus dominicis, panis & vinum, & res aliae, ab omnibus tum viris tum mulieribus, ad altare offerebantur, quemadmodum decreta quae Fabiano tribuuntur testantnr, that is, The whole Church doth consent, that the masse in which the bread and wine are consecrated, to become the true body and bloud of Christ, is a sacrifice, but vnbloudy and spirituall, for in it (if it be Godly and religiously celebrated,) foure things are spiritually offered vnto God. For first Christ himselfe, who being fastened to the crosse offered himselfe to his Father in his mortall body, a bloudy, sufficient, and well pleasing sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world, is in the masse offered to the same God his Father, in the name of the whole Church, by a representatiue oblation: which thing truly is then done, when the Church piously, to intreate mercie for the sins of the whole world, presenteth him and his true body and bloud to God the Father: for although that oblation that was once made on the crosse be past and cannot be reiterated, yet the thing that was then sacrificed and offered abideth, hauing a neuer failing vertue and efficacie: so that that oblation, in them that by a religious faith do represent it vnto God, is no lesse effectuall and preuailing, to procure them fauour in the sight of God, then it was that day, that water and blood streamed out of his sacred side. And in this sense the fathers are wont sometimes to call the body and blood of Christ present on the altar, the price for the sinnes of the whole world, somtimes the price of our redemption, sometimes the sacrifice that bringeth saluation. And Chrysostome witnesseth, that we continually and dayly offer the same sacrifice, that was once offered and presented into the holiest of all; and that both there and here ther is one sacrifice, one Christ, perfect here, and perfect there; yet so, that that which wee doe is but a representation, and done in remembrance of that which was once there done: and this not vnfitly; for therefore did God giue vs Christ Iesus his sonne, that distrusting our owne strength and being guilty to our selues of many sinnes, we might represent and set him in the sight of God the Father, as the onely and most excellent satisfactorie sacrifice for our sins. For he was borne, and he was giuen vnto vs, that whosoeuer of vs beleeue in him, might not perish, but might haue peace with God, being reconciled by his bloud. Secondly the Church in this sacrifice of the masse, doubteth not to offer it selfe as the mysticall body of Christ, vnto God by Christ. Thirdly, in it is offered the sacrifice of praise. Lastly, the Church was wont to offer certaine gifts, of bread and wine, out of which some part was consecrated, to become the body and bloud of Christ to the faithfull people, and the rest was giuen in almes to the poore. And truly it is very iust and right, that the people in this sacrifice, should not consecrate themselues to God in words onely, but so as to testifie by some outward symbole, that they wholly dedicate themselues to God; and therefore it is not well, that this custome is almost vtterly abolished; whereas aunciently euery Lords day, bread and wine and other things were offered on the altar, both by men and women, as the decrees attributed to Pope Fabian doe testifie. After this follow these words in the same place. I am si canon ille missae in hunc quem diximus sensum intelligatur, nihil habet incommodi, superstitiosa tantum absit opinio quia quidam de naturâ & energiâ huius sanctissimi sacrificii male edocti, virtutem eius ex solo externo opere quod facit Sacerdos, in se deriuari putabant, tametsi illi nullam viuam fidem adferrent, nullam pietatem adhiberent, nulla communione vel precum seu orationis, sacrificio assensum praeberent: quales erant qui nullâ suae nefandae impietatis & execrandorum flagitiorum habitâ ratione se huic sacratissimae & diuinissimae actioni damnabiliter miscuerunt, missam solius externi operis quod sacerdos facit virtute prodesse put antes, etsi ipsi nihil probae mentis adferrent. That is, If the canon of the Masse bee vnderstood in this sense which wee haue expressed, there is no euill in it; so that men haue no superstitious conceipt of things: for there were some, who being ill instructed touching the nature of this sacrament, supposed that vertue might be deriued vnto them, by the sole externe action of the priest, although they brought no liuely faith, no piety, nor gaue any consent to the sacrifice, by any communion so much as of prayer: of which sort they were, who hauing no consideration of their owne horrible impieties, & evills committed by them, persevering in the purpose of sinning damnably, presumed to be present at this most holy action, and put themselues in a sort into it, perswading themselues that the masse, by the vertue of the externe worke of the priest alone would doe them good, though they brought no motions, affections, or desires of a good mind with them.

Hosius Tom: 〈◊〉 . cap. 41. pag. •… 4. Hosius was of the same opinion with these before recited: When the priest (sayth hee) lifteth vp the eucharist, let men remember that sacrifice wherein Christ being lifted vp to the crosse, offered himselfe to God a sacrifice for vs. Let them thinke how bitter the torments were that hee sustained, & let them know that mens sins were the cause of such his sufferings; let them greiue as it is fitte they should for them, and let them shew by all meanes that they hate them. And because by his precious death hee hath so fully satisfied for all sinnes, that there are none that are not abolished; let them with good assurance & considence, goe vnto the throne of grace; and whereas wee haue no merit of our owne, let them plead that of Christ, let them present that his body that did hang on the crosse, and his bloud which was shed for the remission of our sinnes, to God the Father, and let them humbly beseech him to turne away his face from their sinnes, and to looke vpon the face of his son Christ, who bare our infirmities, to looke vpon his face, for his merit to remit their sinnes, and to graunt that they may deriue vnto themselues, all that fruite which that sacrifice of the crosse that is represented on the altar, brought to the world, Thus he sayth the people were taught by our forefathers, and this hee sayth is enough for them to know. Notwithstanding hee sheweth, that Michael Bishop of Merspurg •… nsis de mis •… ae sa 〈◊〉 sermon. 〈◊〉 . Christum •… n 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 •… dendo off •… mus Deo sed 〈◊〉 mysterio & spi •… ali ratione. Merspurge, a man learned, godly, and truely catholique published certaine sermons touching the sacrifice of the mass •… , which hee wisheth to bee in the hands of all men; in these sermons the same explication is made of the sacrament so often mentioned, that I haue already deliuered. And with him agreeth another learned Bishop Thomas Watson sometimes Bishop of Lincolne in his Sermon. 12. sermons vpon the seauen sacraments; his words are these.

Christ in heaven and wee his mysticall body on earth doe but one thing: for Christ being a Priest for euermore, after his passion and resurrection entred into heauen, and there appeareth now to the countenance of God for vs; offering himselfe for vs, to pacifie the anger of God against vs, and representing his passion and all that he suffered for vs, that we might be reconciled to God by him: euen so the Church our mother being carefull for vs her children that Greg. 〈◊〉 . •… 7. haue offended our father in heauen, vseth continually by her publique minister to pray & to offer vnto God the body & bloud of her husband Christ; representing & renewing his passion and death before God, that wee thereby might bee renewed in grace, and receiue life, perfection, and saluation: and after the same sort the holy Angels of God, in the time of this our sacrifice do 〈◊◊◊◊◊◊〉 . assist the priest and stand about the host, thinking that the meetest time to shew their charitie towards vs and therefore holding forth the body of Christ praye for mankind, as saying thus, Lord wee pray for them whom thou hast so loued that for their saluation thou hast suffered death, & spent thy life vpon the crosse; we make supplication for them, for whom thou hast shed this thy bloud, we pray for them for whom thou hast offered this same thy very body. In that houre when Christs death is renewed in mysterie & his most Chrys. in Act. hom. 3. fearefull and acceptable sacrifice is represented to the sight of God, then sitteth the King on his Mercie-seat, enclined to giue and forgiue whatsoeuer is demaunded and asked of him in humble manner. In the presence of this Cyprian. serm. de Coena. body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, the teares of a meeke and humble man neuer beg pardō in vain, nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart is neuer put back, but hath his lawfull desires granted & giuen. By resorting to this sacrifice of the masse, we evidently declare & protest before God & the whole world, that we put our singular & only trust of grace & saluation in Christ our Lord, for the merits of his death & his passion, & not for the worthinesse of any good worke that we haue done, or can doe, & that we make his passion our only refuge. For when wisedome faileth, which onely commeth by the doctrine of Bern. in Cant. serm. 22. Christ; when righteousnesse lacketh, which onely is gotten by the mercie of Christ; when vertue ceaseth, which onely is receiued from him who is the Lord of all vertue, then for supplying of these our lacks & needs, our refuge is to Christs passion, then we run, as the Prophet saith, to the cup of our Sauiour Psal. 115. and call vpon the Name of our Lord: that is to say, we take his passion, & offer to God the Father in mystery, the worke of our redemption, that by this Aug. in Psal. 75 memorie & commemoration of it, it would please his mercifull goodnes to innovate his grace in vs, & to replenish vs with the fruit of his Sonns passion. We are become debtors to Almighty God for our manifold sins & iniquities done against him, we can neuer pay this debt, no scarse one farthing of a 1000 pounds, what remedie then haue we but to run to the rich man our neighbour that hath enough to pay for vs all; I meane Christ our Lord, who hath payde his heart bloud, for no debt of his own, but for our debt: & there whiles wee celebrate the memory of his passion, we acknowledge & confesse our sinnes, which be without number, & grant, that we are not able to satisfie for the least of them, & therfore beseech our mercifull Father to accept in full payment & satisfaction of our debts, his passion, which after this sort as hee hath ordained to be done in the sacrifice of the masse, we renew & represent before him; & where our sinfull life hath altogether displeased him, wee offer vnto him his welbeloued Son with whom we are sure he is well pleased, most humbly making supplication to accept him for vs, in whom only we put all our trust, accounting him all our righteousnes, & the authour of our saluation. Thus doth the Church daylie renew in mysterie the passion of Christ, & doth represent it before God in the holy masse, for the attaining of all the graces & benefites purchased by the same passion before, after the measure of his goodnes: & as our faith & deuotion is knowne vnto him. And againe, The Church offereth Christ Gods Sonne, to God the Father, that is, representeth to the Father the body and bloud of Christ, which by his omnipotencie hee hath there made present, and thereby reneweth his passion not by suffering of death againe, but after an vnbloudy manner, not for this end that we should thereby deserue remission of sins, & deliuerance from the power of the deuill, which is the proper effect of Christs passion, but that we should by faith, devotion, & this representation of his passion, obtaine remission & grace already deserued by his passion to be now applyed to our profite and saluation &c. not that we can apply the merits of Christs death as we list, & to whō we list, but that we by the representation of his passion, most humbly make petition & prayer to Almighty God to apply vnto vs the remission & grace which was purchased & deserued by Christs passion before, after the measure of his goodnes, and as our faith and deuotion is knowne vnto him. The thing offered both in the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse, & in the sacrifice of the Church on the Altar is all one in substance being the naturall body of Christ our high Priest, and the price and ransome of our redemption, but the manner and effects of these two offerings are diuerse, the one is by the shedding of Christs bloud extending to the death of Christ the offerer for the redemption of all mankind; the other is without shedding of his bloud, onely representing his death whereby the faithfull and deuout people are made partakers of the merits of Christs passion.

Hitherto the Bishoppe of Lincolne, and to the same purpose the 〈1 line〉 Authour of the Enchiridion of Christian religion hath these words. Diligenter ergo haec omnia nobis intuentibus, nihil vel absurdi, vel scrupulosi in toto missae contextu occurret, sedomnia (praesertim quae canon complectitur) pietatis plenissima ac plané reuerenda (vt sunt) videbuntur. Aut enim Ecclesia respicit ad corpus & sanguinem Christi, pro se in cruce oblata, & vi omnipotentis verbi in altari praesentia, & non veretur haec appellare hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vitae aeternae, & calicem salutis perpetuae; aut ad oblationem repraesentatiuam, & commemoratiuam passionis seu corporis Christi veri, (quae fide misericordiam per Christum apprehendente & redemptionem quae est in Christo deo patri opponente peragitur:) & non dubitat hoc sacrificium laudis offerre, pro se suisque omnibus pro spe salutis & incolumitatis suae; nimirum spem salutis & incolumitatis, ac redemptionem animarum, debitalaude ac gratiarum actione deo accepta referens; petitque vt hanc oblationem seruitutis suae Deus placatus accipiat, diesque nostros in sua pace disponat, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum suorum grege iubeat numerari, non quidem ex meritis nostris, aut ex dignitate nostrae seruitutis, sed per Christum dominum nostrum. that is, If wee rightly looke into these things, nothing will occurre vnto vs, in the whole context of the masse, that may iustly seeme absurd, or cause any scruple, but all things there found, especially such as are contained in the canon, will appeare vnto vs, as they are indeede, full of piety, and much to be reuerenced; for either the Church hath respect, to the body and bloud of Christ offered for her on the crosse, and by force of his Almighty word, present on the altar, and so feareth not to call these a pure host, an holy host, an immaculate host, the holy bread of eternall life, and the cuppe of eternall saluation; or else shee hath an eye to the representatiue and commemoratiue oblation, of the passion or true body of Christ, which consisteth in faith, apprehending mercy by Christ, and opposing vnto God the redemption that is in Christ, and soe shee doubteth not to offer this sacrifice of praise, for her selfe and all her members, for the hope of her saluation and safety; that is, with all due praise and thankesgiuing shee acknowledgeth that shee hath receiued from GOD, the hope of saluation, safetie, and the redemption of the soules of her sonnes and daughters, and desireth that God will take in good part this oblation of her service and bounden dutie, that hee will dispose our dayes in peace, that hee will deliuer vs from eternall condemnation, and that hee will make vs to be numbred with his elect, not for our merits or the worthinesse of this seruice, but thorough Christ our Lord.

With these 〈1 line〉 . Georgius Wicelius, a man much honoured by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian, fully agreeth; defining the masse to bee a sacrifice rememoratiue, and of praise and thankesgiuing; and in another place he saith, the masse is a commemoration of the passion of Christ celebrated in the publike 〈1 line〉 . assembly of Christians, where many giue thinkes for the price of redemption. With these agreeth the Interim published by Charles the fift in the the assembly 〈1 line〉 . of the states of the Empire at Augusta March 15t 1548 and there accepted by the same states.

But some man happily will say, here are many authorities alleaged, to proue that sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church, in Luthers time, denyed the new reall offering, or sacrificing of Christ, and made the sacrifice of the altar to bee onely representatiue, and commemoratiue, but before his time there were none found soe to teach. Wherefore I will shew the consent of the Church to haue beene cleare for vs to uching this point, before his time, and against the Tridentine doctrine now prevailing.

Bonaventura in his exposition of the masse hath these words. The body of Christ is eleuated and lifted vp in the masse for diuers causes; but the first and principall is, that wee may obtaine and regaine the favour of God the Father which wee haue lost by our sinnes, for there is nothing that offendeth God and provoketh him to be dipleased but sinne only, as the Psalmist sayth, they prouoked and displeased God with their inuentions: the Priest therefore lifteth vp the body of Christ on the altar, as if hee should thus say. O heauenly Father, wee haue sinned and provoked thee to anger, but now looke on the face of Christ thy sonne, whom wee present vnto thee to moue thee to turne from thy wrath and displeasure, to mercie and grace; turne not away thy face therefore from this thy holy child Iesus, from this thy sonne, but remember that thou hast sayd of this same thy sonne; this is my welbeloued sonne in whom I am well pleased: correct therefore mercifully in vs, whatsoeuer thou findest in vs fit to be corrected, and turne vs vnto thee and turne thy wrath from vs.

The question is proposed, sayth Epistolâ 1. contra Petrobusianos. Petrus Cluniacensis, why this sacrifice is so often repeated, seeing Christ once offered on the crosse, is sufficient to take away the sinnes of the whole world, especially seeing here and there, not a diuers, but the same sacrifice, that is, the same Christ, is offered. For if that on the crosse sufficed, this seemeth to bee supefluous; but it is not superfluous &c. for after hee had sayd doe this, hee addeth in remembrance of mee. This then is the cause of this Sacrament, euen the commemoration of CHRIST. Our Sauiour knew what hee had done, and what hee would doe for man; hee knew how great and singular that worke was which hee had done, in putting on the nature of man; hee knewe how wonderfull that worke would bee that hee was to do, when hee should die for man; hee knew that by this worke hee should saue man; but that noe man could be saued without the loue of this worke; hee knew that this worke of his becomming man, and dying for man, as it was renowned aboue all his workes, soe it was especially to bee recommended vnto men, for whome it was done: it was specially to bee commended to them, seeing his flesh was tormented for them, his soule grieued and death seized on him, that they might liue; this was solemnly to be commended vnto them, that Christ might bee beloued, that being beloued, hee might be possessed, that being once had, hee might neuer bee lost. But this loue of him could not haue beene retained by men, if they should-haue forgotten him, neither could they haue retained the memorie of him, vnlesse they should haue beene put in minde of him, by some fitting outward signe. For this cause was this signe proposed and appointed by CHRIST, which yet is so a signe, that it is the same thing that it signifieth, and herein it differeth from the sacrifices of the old Law, which were not that they signified. Sed istud nostri sacrificij signum, non aliud sed ipsum est quod signat, ita vero est ci idem quod signat, vt quantum ad corpus, id est, ad veritatem carnis & sanguinis Christi pertinet, sit idem quod signat, non quoad mortem & passionem, neque enim ibi Christus vt olim dolorem & mortem patitur, cum tamen immolari dicatur, cum videlicet inviolabiter in altari frangitur, diuiditur, comeditur, cum ijs, & quibusdam alijs signis in quantum fieri potest mors domini maximè repraesentatur, vnde sicut dixi, quantum ad veritatem corporis & sanguinis Christi pertinet, est idem quod signat non quoad mortem & passionem, quam tamen maximè signat. that is, This signe of our sacrifice is noe other but the same thing that it signifieth, but wee must soe vnderstand it to bee the same thing that it signifieth, in respect of the trueth of the flesh and bloud of Christ which it signifieth, but not in respect of his passion & death, though it very liuely expresse & signifie that also, for Christ doth not there suffer griefe or death, as once he did, though hee be said there to be offered & immolated, when hee is inviolably broken vpon the altar, distributed & eaten, & when by these & the like signes, Christs death is represented asmuch as possibly it may be, so that as I said, if we speake of the trueth of the body and bloud of Christ, this signe is the thing it signifieth, but if we speake of the death and suffering of Christ it is not so, though it doe very clearely & expressely represent & signifie that his death and passion. Thus we see, he maketh the sacrifice to be merely representatiue.

De Sacram. l. 1. c. 16. Algerus excellently expresseth the same thing in these words. Notandum quia quotidianum nostrum sacrificium, idem ipsum dicit cum eo; quo Christus semel oblatus est in cruce, quantum ad eandem veram hic & ibi corporis substantiā; quod verò nostrum quotidianum illius semel oblati dicit esse exemplum, id est, figuram, vel formam, non dicit ut hic vel ibi alium Christum constituat, sed ut eundem in cruce semel, in altari quotidiè, alio modo immolari & offerri ostendat; ibi in veritate passionis quâ pro nobis occisus est; hic in figurâ & imitatione passionis ipsius, quâ Christus non iterum verè patitur, sed ipsius verè memoria passionis quotidiè nobis iteratur: quod & ipse Ambrosius notans subiicit. Quod nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est; hoc enim facite, inquit, in meam commemorationē, non aliud sacrificium sed ipsum semper offerimus, magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur. Non ergo est in ipsius Christi veritate diversitas, sed in ipsius immolationis actione, quae dum veram Christi passionem & mortem quâdam suâ similitudine figurando repraesentat, nos ad imitationē ipsius passionis invitat, & accendit, contra hostem nos roborat, & munit, & à vitiis purgans, & virtutibus condecorans, vitae aeternae idoneos & dignos exhibet. That is, It is to bee noted, that our daylie sacrifice is the same thing with that sacrifice whereby Christ was once offered vpon the crosse, in that the same true substance is offered here, that was offered there, whereas therefore he saith, that the sacrifice which we daylie offer, is a similitude, figure, or representation of that sacrifice which Christ once offered, he is not to be conceiued to imagine, that there is one Christ essentially here, & another there, but his meaning is to shew that the same Christ once offered on the crosse, is dayly offered in another sort on the altar, there in the truth of his passion being slaine for vs, here in figure and imitation of his passion: not suffering againe indeed, but hauing the memory of his passion which once he endured, daylie renewed: which thing Ambrose himself also obseruing, hath these words. That which we doe is done in remembrance of that which was then done, for he saith, doe this in remembrance of me. We do not therefore offer another sacrifice, but we alwayes offer the same, or rather that we doe, is a remembrance of that sacrifice, which was once offered. There is therefore no diuersitie in the trueth and being of that Christ that offered himselfe, and that wee offer, but in the action of offering. For while that which wee doe, representeth the true passion and death of CHRIST, and by a certaine similitude it hath of the same, setteth it liuely before our eyes, it inviteth and enflameth vs to the imitation of his passion, it strengtheneth & confirmeth vs, against the enemie, it purgeth vs from sin, beautifieth vs with vertues, and maketh vs meete & worthy to enter into eternall life. And afterwards hee hath these words. Semel passus in cruce, qui non manifestè sed invisibilitèr est in sacramento, quotidie non passus, sed quasi pa •… repraesentatus, hanc immolationem non vero sed imaginario actu passionis & mortis fieri, & tamen veram salutem operari testatur, Gregorius dialog. 4. c. 58. That is, Christ suffered once on the crosse, who not visibly but invisibly is in the sacrament; neither doth hee daily suffer, but his suffering is daily represented, this immolation or offering Gregorie saith consisteth not in the trueth of passion or death, but in a meere representation of the same, and that yet it worketh true salvation. And after hee addeth, Licet non verâ sed imaginariâ passione in seipsa immoletur; verâ tamen & non imaginariâ passione in membris suis immolatur, quando nos qui in memoriam passionis suae, sacramentum tantae pietatis suae agimus sacrificando ipsum, flendo, & cor nostrum verâ compunctione atterendo, mortem tam pij & dilecti Domini & patris annunciamus. That is, Though Christ bee not offered by any reall passion in himselfe, but in a meere representation of his passion, yet hee is offered by a true and more than imaginary passion in his members, while wee who in memory of his passion celebrate this sacrament, of his so great goodnesse & louing kindnes towards vs, & offer this sacrifice by weeping & breaking our heart with true compunction, shew forth the death of our so gracious and dearely beloued Lord and father.

Paschasius maketh the same construction of the sacrifice; and Lib. 4. dist. 12. Peter Lombard proposing the question, whether that the priest doth, may properly bee named a sacrifice, or immolation, answereth, that Christ was onely once truely & properly offered in sacrifice, and that hee is not properly immolated or sacrificed, but in sacrament & representation onely.

Bellarmines shift to avoyd this testimonie is very sillie, for hee sayth that Peter Lombard did not propose the question, whether and how Christ may bee sayd to bee sacrificed, but how hee may be sayd to bee so sacrificed, as to be slaine, and that in this sense he sayth truely, that Christ was onely once properly sacrificed, for that he cannot bee sayd any more to bee killed or slaine, but in mystery and signification or representation onely. Whereas it is most cleere and evident, that hee proposeth the question simply, and in generall, whether hee may be said to bee sacrificed or not; and seeing the sacrificing of a liuing thing, doth import the killing and destroying of it, and the sacrificing of Christ the killing of Christ, he Li 4. d. 12. pronounceth that as Christ can die no more, so hee can no more be properly sacrificed, and that therefore when he is said to bee sacrificed or offered in the eucharist, wee must vnderstand that hee is offered onely in representation, and not really. That this is his meaning, it appeareth by that which he hath, writing vpon the epistle to the Cap. 10. Hebrewes, where hee doth not propose the question whether Christ may be said to be so offered often, as to die often, but how it commeth to passe, that the Church daily offereth sacrifice, seeing, as the Apostle saith, where there is one sacrifice hauing force to take away sin once offered, there is no neede that any more sacrifices should bee offered; and answereth herevnto, that the thing now offered is the same that was offered on the crosse; that the offering of it now is commemoratiue, & that that which we do, is but recordatio sacrificij, the calling to minde of Christs sacrifice once offered, that it may be applied vnto vs, for the remission of our sinnes; so absolutely excluding all sacrifice for sinne properly so called, of what kind soeuer it be. And Hebrae. 10. Thomas Aquinas on the same place, proposing the obiection of the repetition, and daily reiteration of sacrifice in the Church, which seemeth to import, that that of Christ was not sufficient to take away sin, answereth, that we offer not any other, but the very same sacrifice that Christ did, that is, his body & bloud; & that it is no new or different oblation properly so named, but a cōmemoration only of that sacrifice wch Christ once offered.

In 4 sent. d. 12 Henricus Gorrichem writing vpon the sentences saith, that in the eucharist there is the offering of a sacrifice, not really or in the thing it selfe, but in similitude; for that which is there dayly done, is a signe bringing to our remembrance, and figuring or representing that oblation, that was once made. With whom In Hebrae. 10. Lyra agreeth, his words are. Si dicas sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in Ecclesia; dicendum quod non est ibi sacrificii iteratio, sed vnius sacrificii in cruce oblati quotidiana commemoratio. that is If thou say the sacrifice of the altar is dayly offered in the Church, it must be answered, that there is noe reiteration of the sacrifice, but a dayly commemoration of that sacrifice, that was once offered on the crosse. This hee saith in answere to that obiection, that seeing now as in the time of the law, there is often offering for sin, it seemeth no sufficient sacrifice hath beene offered, which obiection could not be cleared by his answere, vnlesse he denied the often offering of any kind of sacrifice for sin whether bloudy or vnbloudy.

Wherefore that which De missa l. 1. cap. 〈◊〉 . Bellarmine hath, that Aquinas & the other Schoolemē for the most part, do no otherwise say that the sacrifice of the masse is an immolatiō of Christ, but in that it is a represētatiō of Christs immolatiō on the crosse, or because it hath like effects with that true & reall sacrificing of Christ that implyed his death, is most true: his euasion is found too silly, & it is made cleare & euident, that the best & worthiest amongst the guides of Gods Church before Luthers time, taught as we do, that the sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice of praise & thankesgiuing, and a mere representation and commemoration of the sacrifice once offered on the crosse, and consequently are all put vnder the curse, and anathematized by the De missa canon. 3. Tridentine councell. Soe that the face of religion was not the same, before, and at Luthers appearing, that now it is, as M Brerely would haue vs to beleeue.

Wherefore to conclude this point, it appeareth by that which hath beene said, that neither the canon of the Masse rightly vnderstood, includeth in it any such points of Romish Religion, as some imagine, but in sundry, yea in all the capitall differences, betweene vs and them of the Romane faction, witnesseth for vs, and against them; & that the Prelates and guides of the Church formerly made no such construction of it, as now is made. That it may haue a good sense, our men confesse. I could, saith Luther, make such a construction of the canon of the Masse, as might stand with the rule of faith, and I haue somwhere so done, but seeing it is obscure, and the rule of the Lawyers is, that hee that will speake obscurely, shall haue his words construed against him, and not for him, I will not saith hee take so much paines, as to seeke out and declare the best meaning, that may be conceiued of it, but a better forme being found out will leaue this and embrace that. That it is obscure I shewed out of Cassander, and that if it be to be retained it must haue some scholies, or explications, either added in the margent, or inserted into the text, that it may be vnderstood and rightly vsed, which thing if it be done, it will seeme a new one, and if it haue such explications as hee would haue, it will differ little or nothing from our liturgie.

There is extant a ceraine Apud Gold. imperialium constitutionum. Tom. 2. pag. 332. c. 12. forme of reformation exhibited by Charles the fift to the ecclesiasticall states of the Empire, and accepted and receiued by them, wherein they professe, that the canon of the masse, which the Church of God hath vsed and retained soe many ages, containeth nothing in it that is not consonant to the courses of antiquity, so that it is not to be cōdemned or changed, by any priuate authority, so insinuating that by publike it may, but touching the other parts of the masse, though for the most part they bee nothing but praises of God, prayers of the Church, and holy lessons, and readings, and so farre forth not to be despised, yet if there be any new collects, sequences, or prefaces, either vnlearned or depending vpon Apocryphall histories, or not soe fitting to the sacrifice of the masse, which later ages haue brought in, they prescribe that they be remoued, and that things may bee brought backe to their auncient purity. Besides this wee haue extant certaine apud Gold. ibid. pag. 376. articles concerning the reformation of the Church proposed by the embassadors of Ferdinand the Emperour, in the councell of Trent, amongst which these are found. That the breuiaries and missalls should bee purged; that all those things which are not taken out of diuine scripture, should be remoued; that the prolixity of Psalmes and prayers should be contracted, good choise beeing made; that a new agend or forme of diuine seruice should bee composed, and that then all that would not vse it, should bee seuerely punished.

So that M Brerelies maine objection which he thought vnanswerable, falleth to the ground. For the Canon of the Masse rightly vnderstood, is found to containe nothing in it, contrary to the rule of faith, & the profession of the protestant Churches; the abuses of priuate Masses & halfe cōmunions, are found to haue bin beside, & against the words & meaning of them that composed the canon, and not without the dislike of many good men, before and since Luthers time; and the construction that they now make of the word sacrifice, so often vsed in it, appeareth to be a meere perverting of the meaning of the Canon; to a sinister sense, neuer intended by the authors of it, nor euer allowed by the best men in the Church. This Canon notwithstanding, is found to haue some passages, that in the judgement of men right learned, can not well haue any true meaning, vnlesse the old custome of offering bread and wine on the Lords Table, out of which the Sacrament may be consecrated, be restored; so that those parts, that custome being discontinued, may well be omitted. Some other parts are obscure, & need explicatiō, which being added, ot inserted, it will differ litle or nothing from those formes of consecratiō of those holy mysteries that now are in use in the reformed Churches of England, & some other places, therfore brought in, because in later ages many things were added to the canon anciently in vse, which the best & grauest in the Church thought fit to be taken away, & a new forme of diuine seruice to be composed. So that the Church that formerly was, hauing no different judgment touching matters dogmaticall, no liking of those abuses in practise which som had brought in; & wishing things to be brought to such a course as Protestants now haue brought them, it may well be said to haue bin a Protestant Church, in such sort as I haue formerly shewed.

Only two things may be objected against that which hath been said; the one touching prayer for the dead; the other touching the commemoration of the Saints, & prayer that God through their intercession, & for their merite, will giue vnto vs such things as we desire; both which seeme to make much against the Religion of Protestants, & to be points of Romane Religion, & contained in the very canon of the Masse, which the Church vsed in the dayes of our Fathers; so that that Church wherein they liued and died could bee no Protestant Church. But the answer hereunto is easie. For touching the first of these two, which is prayer for the dead, it is well knowne that Protestants doe not simply condemne all prayer in this kinde, For they pray for the resurrection, publique acquitall in the day of judgment, & the perfect consummation & blisse, of them that rest in the Lord, and the perfecting of whatsoeuer is yet wanting vnto them.

The Apologie of the confession of Augusta, saith expressely in the name of all those worthy Princes People & States that subscribed the Augustane confession, that they do not condemne nor forbid prayer for the dead. And Exam. part. 3. pag. 92. Chemnicius saith, it is a bestiall apathie for men not to be affected with the death of their friends, presently so soone as euer they are gone to put all remembrance of them out of their mindes, and not to wish good vnto them, nor to pray that it may be well with them; which desires and prayers yet must be moderated according to the word of God.

That it is lawfull to pray for the acquitall & publick remission of sins in the day of judgement, and the performing & perfecting of whatsoeuer is yet behind, there is no question that I know made by any; and I am well assured that in so doing, we exceeding christianly expresse our loue towards the departed, and giue testimony of our perswasion, that the soules of them that die doe liue; and that their bodies also shall bee raysed vp at the last day; which thing, as Cassander saith truely, all the Christian Churches throughout the world, as well those of the East, as of the West, doe & euer did; though they doe not so certainely resolue what their state is that are departed hence, what is yet wanting vnto them, or wherein or how far forth they may bee benefitted by our prayers; but the Romish conceipt of Purgatorie, and their praying to deliuer thence, none of the Easterne Churches admit, neither doe wee.

This is that which our Aduersaries must finde in the Canon of the Masse, if they will say any thing against vs, for the proofe of the Romish religion, out of the canon. Let vs heare therefore what the forme of the prayer for the dead is, which is found in the canon of the Masse. The words of it are; Remember Lord thy servants and thine handmaides; N. or N. which are gone before vs with the badge of faith, and doe sleepe in the sleepe of peace. O Lord wee pray thee to graunt to them and to all that are at rest in Christ, a place of refreshing, of light and peace. That this prayer hath no respect to Purgatorie, or to the deliuerance thence, it is evident. For how doe they sleepe in peace that are tormented in Purgatorie? and whose paines are no lesse than those of hell, though they bee not eternall? Or who is so voyde of sense as to thinke, that all that are at rest in Christ are tormented in Purgatorie, and that to all these God is entreated in this prayer to graunt a place of refreshing, of light & peace.

So that first it is euident, that a place of refreshing, light, and peace is wished, to such as are not in Purgatorie. For it is wished to all that are at rest in the Lord. But all that are at rest in the Lord, are not in Purgatorie; whence it will further follow, that the Church prayeth for them that shee doth not thinke to bee in Purgatorie, and consequently that prayer for the dead proueth not Purgatorie, as they would make the world beleeue that it doth. And secondly, that the Church at that time when this forme of prayer was first composed, did not beleeue or thinke that there is any Purgatory. For if shee had had any such perswasion, shee would not haue forgotten to recommend to God, the wofull estate of men so afflicted as they are supposed to bee that are there.

That this prayer can haue no reference to the state of men in Purgatorie paines, it is so cleere, that Ock. compend error. Papae Ioan. 22. c. 7. Iohn the 22 (who supposed, (as many of the auncient also did long before him, and the Easterne Christians still doe;) that the soules of the iust are so at rest in Christ, that yet they remaine vnder the altar, that is, vnder the protection and comfort of the humanity of Christ, in a state & place of happines foretasted, but not fully enioyed, and that they shall not bee lifted vp aboue, to the view of the deitie of Christ as it is in it selfe, & the vision of God the Father Sonne and holy Ghost till the judgement,) produceth this prayer for confirmation of his opinion, supposing that seeing a place of refreshing & peace is here wished to them that are at rest in Christ, (which cannot in any sense be vnderstood of such as are in purgatory,) therefore there is some state of men free from paine & punishment, wherein they are & expect the accomplishment of happines. To which though Ockam in dialog. p. 2. tract. 2. c. 3. Ockam so answere, that hee would haue this prayer to haue reference to the estate of distressed soules in Purgatory; yet in the end hee sayth, it may bee vnderstood of the soules of holy men that are in heaven, & the meaning of it is, that the soules of such men as sleepe in the sleepe of peace, hauing resumed their bodies may enter into that place of refreshing light & peace, that includeth the highest essentiall & accidentall degree of eternall peace, which they cannot haue till the resurrection. And Ribli •… thecae tom. 6. p. 228. Florus that liued in the time of Carolus Calvus, in his exposition of the Masse, saith, it is most cleare that the soules of perfect iust men, so soone as they are loosed from the body are receiued into heauen; but this is to bee vnderstood of the soules of Apostles, Martyrs, and confessours, and men of great perfection of life. For the soules of certaine just men are not presently admitted into the heavenly kingdome; but though they bee in blessed rest, yet are stayed in certaine mansions, by which their stay and not enjoying presently what they most desire, it appeareth they come short of perfect righteousnesse. Besides these, he thinketh there is a third sort, of such as are in Purgatorie. Bernard, as it appeareth in the place of Cap. 5. Ockams dialogues aboue cited, maketh three estates of the soule; the first in corpore corruptibili, the second in requie, the third in beatitudine consummatâ; the first in the body subject to death & corruption, the second in rest, the third in consummate happinesse. The second excludeth all punishment & affliction, the third all desire of having any higher perfection, or attayning any farther good. A man of great place & worth that hath written not long since, feareth not to deliuer his opinion, that the soules of the iust are so in rest & peace, and in heauenly mansions immediatly after their departure hence, that yet they come not into the highest heaven & place of greatest felicity till the resurrection. Which of these opinions the authour of this forme of prayer followed, it doth not certainely appeare. But sure it is hee thought those who are there commended to God, to bee in a state of rest, farre from paine & torment; and so desired the perfecting of whatsoeuer is yet wanting vnto them, without any reference to purgatory, or the deliuering of any thence.

From this of prayer for the dead, let vs come to the other objection touching the commemoration of the blessed Apostles, & other Saints & holy Martyrs, by & through whose intercession, & for whose merits, the priest & people desireth God to graunt that they may in all things be kept safe & strongly defended, by the help of diuine protection.

That the Saints doe pray for vs in genere, desiring God to bee mercifull to vs, and to doe vnto vs whatsoeuer in any kind he knoweth needfull for our good, there is no question made by vs; and therefore this prayer wherein the Church desireth God to bee gracious to her, & to graunt the things shee desireth, the rather for that the Saints in heauen also are suppliants for her, will not be found to containe any poynt of Romish doctrine disliked by vs.

But they will say, there is mention made in this prayer of the merits of those holy Apostles & Martyrs, and the Church desireth God to graunt her petitions for those merits, which is contrary to the doctrine of Protestants, that deny all merit properly so named, and therefore cannot but condemne the opinion of one mans meriting for another.

For answere herevnto wee must obserue, as Cassand. consult, articulo. 2 •… Cassander rightly noteth, that there is no merit properly so named, to bee attributed to mortall & miserable men; and that though the ecclesiasticall writers vse the word merit, and when they speake of holy mens workes call them merits, yet they thinke them not to bee properly so; but doe so name the good actions of holy men that proceed from faith, and the working of the holy Ghost, because Almighty God, though they bee his gifts, and joyned in them, by whom they are wrought, with defect & imperfection, yet is so pleased to accept of them out of his goodnesse, that he not onely rewardeth the doers of them with ample & great rewards in their owne persons, but so as to doe good to others for their sakes. So God sayd to Abraham, if there were but fifty righteous in the city, hee would spare the whole city for their sakes. Neither onely doth hee good for their sakes whose workes hee thus rewardeth, while they liue, but euen after they àre dead also. And therefore God promiseth that hee will protect Hierusalem for his owne sake, and for Dauid his seruant, which he must be vnderstood to doe, not onely in respect of the promise made vnto him, but with respect had to his vertue, according to the which we read 1 Reg. 15. 3. that God left a little light in Hierusalem, to Abiam the sonne of Roboam King of Iudah for Dauids sake; who did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. This Dauid, saith In Ps. 50. hom. 2. Chrysostome, did not only please God while he was in the body, but he is found to haue yeelded great comfort after his death, to such as he left behinde him aliue. The Prophet Esay commeth to Hezekiah and saith vnto him, I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for Dauid my seruants sake. David is dead, but his vertues that pleased God do still liue. O strange thing! O ineffable clemencie! a man long since dead, patronizeth him that liueth. In this sense then it is that the Church desireth God to be gratious vnto her, in graunting her petitions for the merit of those his holiest Ones, that she remembreth, no way derogating from the merites of Christ, but putting a great difference betweene them and those of the Saints, for Christs merite is the onely price of our redemption, by which onely we are redeemed from sinne & eternall death, and being reconciled to God, are adopted to bee sonnes and heires of eternall life: but the merites of the Saints here mentioned, are nothing but those imperfect good workes which they did while they liued here; which God was pleased so to accept, that hee promised not onely to reward them with great and ample rewards in their owne persons, but to doe good for their sakes that did them to others also.

Citat. a Cassandro Disp. Rati •… bonae an. 1546. Bucer speaking of the publique prayers of the Church, which wee call Collects, in which the intercession and merites of Saints are commemorated, hath these words. Seeing in these prayers, whatsoeuer is attributed to the intercession and merites of Saints, all that is asked, not of the Saints, but of our mercifull God through Iesus Christ, they that so pray, doe thereby professe and testifie, that they acknowledge, that those things which they aske of God, by the intercession, and for the merites of the Saints, are the free gifts of God, &c: And a little after: Wee willingly acknowledge, and publiquely professe, that GOD doth reward the workes of his Saints, not onely in their owne persons, but in those also that pertaine vnto them, and for whom they intercede, for hee hath promised to doe good to a thousand generations to them that loue him, and study to keepe his Commaundements; hence it was that hee would not heale those of the house of Abimelech, till Abraham interceded and intreated for them, and hence it was that God graunted and gaue the deliuerance and saluation of all the people to Moses, when he intreated for the same. These are the wordes of Bucer, which not being contradicted by any of our profession, it is evident that no part of Romish Religion disliked by vs, can bee prooued out of this part of the Canon of the Masse.

Thus hauing cleared that great objection of Mr Brerelie touching the publique Liturgie, vsed in the Church in the dayes of our Fathers, and made it appeare, that the vsing thereof, is no proofe that the Church that then was, was not a Protestant Church, and hauing made it cleare and evident that both the Liturgie it selfe, and the profession of such as vsed it, shew plainely that the Church that then was, neuer allowed any Romish errour, howsoeuer some did in the midst of her: it remaineth that I now proceed to shew in the particulars, that the outward face of Religion, at, and before Luthers appearing, was not, as M Brerelie telleth vs, the now professed Romane Religion, and that whatsoeuer wee haue done in the reformation of the Church, was long before wished for, and desired by the best men amongst the guides of the Church.

CHAP. 1.

Of the Canon of the Scriptures.

THat the Church did not admit the Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now doe, nor euer accounted those bookes Canonicall which we thinke to be Apocryphall, it will easily appeare, in that all the most famous Divines, from the beginning of the Christian World, euen till the time of Luther, did reject those bookes as Apocryphall that wee doe. The Church of the Iewes (to whom as S. Paul saith, the oracles of God were committed) admitted but onely 22 Bookes, as deliuered to them from Rom. 〈◊〉 . 1. 2. God, to be the Canon of their faith, as Lib. 1. contra Appion. Iosephus witnesseth. Neither did the Christian Church euer admit any more.

Euseb. lib. 4. c. 25. Melito Bishop of Sardis being desired by Onesimus to send him a catalogue of the bookes of the old and new Testament, writeth thus vnto him. Hauing diligently sought out the bookes of the old Testament, and put them in order, I haue sent them vnto you: the names whereof are these: the 5 bookes of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leuiticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie; then Iesus the sonne of Naue, Iudges, Ruth, the 4 bookes of Kings, two bookes of Chronicles, the Psalmes of Dauid, the Prouerbes, which is also called the Wisdome of Salomon; Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, Iob, the Prophets, Esay, Hieremie, one booke of the twelue Prophets, Daniel, Ezechiel, Esdras. Some soe translate the words of Melito, as if hee reckoned the wisdome of Salomon, as a seperate booke, and so meant the booke that is commonly called the Wisdome of Salomon, and is by vs accounted to be apocryphall: but Ruffinus translateth as wee doe; and that wee haue rightly expressed the meaning of this worthy Bishoppe, and that hee onely added this, as a glorious title to the booke of Salomons Prouerbs, which (as Lib. 4. 22. Eusebius saith) the auncients vsually called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the reader will soone be satisfied, if he peruse that, which D. Raynolds hath touching this point in his Praelect. 14. prelections. Lib. 3. c. 10. Eusebius she weth that Iosephus according to the auncient tradition of the Iewes, numbred only 22 Canonicall f Paulo ante annum mundi 4890. bookes of the old Testament, as we do, and in his Chronicle he sayth expressely, that the bookes of the Macchabees, are not in the canon.

Reade (saith Cyrill Cateche: 4. of Hierusalem in his Catechisme) the diuine Scriptures, that is, the 22 bookes of the old Testament: and a litle after, Reade therefore these 22 bookes, but with the apocrypha haue nothing to doe; meditate vpon the diuine Scriptures, which wee confidently reade in the Church: the holy Apostles, the guides of truth, who deliuered vnto vs these bookes, were more wise and religious then thou art. Seing therefore thou art but a sonne; transgresse not the precepts of the Fathers. Now these are the bookes which thou must reade, and then numbreth all the bookes of the old Testament, and omitteth all those that are controuersed; sauing that hee addeth that of Baruch, thinking it a part of Hieremies prophesies. Of the same opinion is De mensuris & ponderibus & contra Epicureos, haeresi octauá. Epiphanius, making no mention of any of the bookes reiected by vs as apocryphall, but onely the booke of Wisdome, and Iesus the sonne of Sirach; which hee saith are profitable, but not to be esteemed as the 22 bookes (or 27 as some count them) that were kept in the arke of the couenant, which are the bookes by vs acknowledged to bee canonicall.

Amphilochius ad Seleucum de rectâ •… ducatione inter opera Nazianzeni. Amphilochius Bishoppe of Iconium, writing to Seleucus hath these words I will reckon vnto thee all the bookes that proceeded from the holy Ghost; and that thou mayest cleerely conceiue that which concernes this matter, I wil first number vnto thee the bookes of the old Testament, & then he nameth the 5 bookes of Moses, Iosua, and the Iudges, Ruth, 4 bookes of the Kings, 2 of the Chronicles; 2 of Esdras, Iob, the Psalmes, 3 of Solomon, the proverbes, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, 12 Prophets, Hose, Amos, Micheas, Ioel, Abdias, Ionas, Naum, Abacuch, Sophonie, Ha •… ge, Zacharias, Malachias, the 4 Prophets Esai, Hieremie, Ezekiel, Daniel, and concludeth that to these some adde Hester. The reason why some doubted of Hester I haue elsewhere shewed, out of Sixtus Senensis, to haue been, the Apocryphall additions to the booke. I haue some where cited this booke as a part of Gregorie Nazianzens workes: because some thinke it so to be, and put it amongst his workes. But De. veris & genuinis scripturae libris pag. 952. Gregory hath deliuered his opinion clearely touching this matter, though that booke happily be not his. Bee conuersant (saith hee) day and night in the diuine oracles; but least such bookes as are not of this sort, deceiue thee, (for many erroneous bookes are inserted:) receiue the true and iust number of bookes that are diuine: and then nameth all the bookes that wee admitte: saue that hee omitteth the booke of Hester, vpon the same reason that I noted out of Sixtus Senensis: and when he hath named these, he addeth those of the new testament; and then pronounceth, that whatsoeuer is not within this number, is to bee accounted amongst bastard & counterfeit bookes.

Origen, expounding the first Psalme, putteth downe a catalogue of the holy Scriptures of the old Testament, writing thus in precise words, as 〈◊〉 l. 6. c 24. editione grae. Pa. 〈◊〉 : c. 25. Eusebius telleth vs; Wee must not be ignorant that the bookes of the old Testament, as the Hebrewes doe deliuer, are 22, which is the number of their letters: and then nameth all the bookes admitted by vs, and addeth, that the bookes of Macchabees are without this number. In Synop •… 〈◊〉 Scripturae Athanasius agreeth with Origen, writing in this sort: All our Scripture, that are Christians, was giuen by divine inspiration; neither hath this Scripture infinite bookes, but a definite number, and contayned in a certaine canon; and these are the bookes of the old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie, Iosuáh, Iudges, Ruth, the first and second of Kings accounted one booke: the third & fourth of Kings accounted one booke: Chronicles first & second accounted one booke; Esdras the first & second one booke; the Psalmes of David 151. Proverbs of Salomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Iob, 12 Prophets contayned in one volume, Osee, Amos, Micheas, Ioell, Abdias, Ionas, Naum, Ambacum, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias, 4 other Prophets Esai, Hieremie, Ezechiel, Daniel; the bookes therefore of the old Testament are 22 in number, answerable to the Hebrew letters; Beside these there are certaine other bookes of the old Testament, that are not in the canon, and these are read onely to the Catechumens or Novices: Amongst these hee numbreth the Wisedome of Solomon, the Wisedome of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Iudith, Tobit; but mentioneth not the bookes of Macchabees at all; to these he addeth the booke of Hester, accounting it Apocryphall, being misperswaded of the whole, by reason of those Apocryphall additions, as before I noted out of Sixtus Senensis. In the conclusion of his Synopsis he mentioneth together with the former, foure bookes of Macchabees, and the story of Susanna; but, sayth, they are in the number of them that are contradicted.

The councell of Laodicea decreeth in this sort: Let no bookes be read in the Church, but the bookes of the old & new Testament, and then addeth, Canone 59. these are the bookes of the old Testament that are to bee read. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie, Iosuah, Iudges, Ruth, foure bookes of Kings, 2 of Chronicles, Esdras, the booke of the Psalmes 150. the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Iob, Hester, 12 Prophets Osee, &c: Esay, Hieremie, Ezekiel, Daniel. The canons of this councell are confirmed by the sixt generall councell holden in Canone 2.. Trullo. To these we may adde Orthodoxae fidei •… l. 4 c. 18. Damascene, who hauing numbred all those bookes, and those onely, as canonicall, that wee doe; addeth, that the booke of Wisedome, and of Iesus the son of Sirach, are good bookes, and containe good lessons of vertue, but that they are not numbred in this account, neither were layd vp in the arke. De sectis scholae actione secunda in Bibliotheca 〈◊〉 . tom 4. Leontius advocatus Byzantinus sayth, there are onely 22 bookes of the old Testament, & reckoneth all those, and those onely, that wee doe. All these worthies that wee haue hitherto produced to testifie in this case, are of the Greeke Church, wherefore let vs passe to them of the Latine. In Prolog. in •… almos. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers saith, the law of the old testament is contained in 22 bookes, according to the number of the Hebrew letters; which are so disposed, and put in order, according to the tradition of the auncient, that there are fiue bookes of Moses, that Iosuah is the sixt; the Iudges, and Ruth, the seaventh: the first and second of Kings the eigth; the third and fourth the ninth; 2 of Chronicles the tenth: Esdras the eleventh; Psalmes 12; Solomons Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles 13, 14, 15; the 12 Prophets 16; Esay, Hieremie with the Lamentations and epistle, Daniell, Ezechiel, Iob, & Hester, doe make vp the number of 22 bookes; some haue thought good to adde Tobie, and Iudith, and so to make the bookes to bee 24 in number, according to the number of the Greeke letters.

Ruffinus in the explanation of the Creed, which is found amongst the works of Cyprian, and so attributed to him, setteth downe a Catalogue of those bookes, which according to the tradition of the ancient, are beleeued to haue beene inspired by the Holy Ghost, and deliuered to the Churches of Christ, containing all those bookes which we admit, secluding all those that are now in question: It must be knowne, saith he, that there are other bookes which are not called Canonicall, but Ecclesiasticall, by the ancient: as the Wisedome of Solomon, and that of the sonne of Sirach. And in the same ranke we must put the booke of Tobias, and Iudith, and the bookes of the Machabees: and in the New Testament the booke of Pastor, all which truly they would haue to be read in the Church, but not to be alleadged for proofe of any matter of faith that was questioned, or doubted of; and then concludeth, that hee held it very fit to put downe these things, which were deliuered by tradition from the Fathers, that they that are to learne the first elements and rudiments of Christian Religion, may know out of what fountaines to draw.

In Prologo galeato. Hierome in his prologue, which he prefixed before the bookes of the Old Testament, by him translated out of Hebrew into Latine, saith, There are 22 bookes of the Olde Testament; and that as there are but 22 Hebrew Letters, by which wee write whatsoeuer wee speake; so there are 22 bookes, by Praefat. in Esdram & Nehemiam ad Domnionem & Rogatianum. Quae non habentur apud Hebraeos, nec de viginti quatuor senioribus sunt procul abiicienda. which as by Letters and beginnings in the doctrine of God, the tender infancie of the just man, that yet is like a childe hanging on the breast, is informed and instructed: and then nameth all the bookes which we admit, and after addeth, Whatsoeuer is beside these, is to bee put amongst the Apocrypha; and that therefore the book of Wisdome, of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, of Iudith, Tobias, and Pastor, are not in the Canon. And the same Hierome in his Preface before the Bookes of Solomon, hauing made mention of the booke of Wisdome, and Ecclesiasticus, and deliuered his opinion, that it is vntruely called the Wisdome of Solomon, and attributed to him; then addeth, that, as the Church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, and the Macchabees, but doth not account them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures; so these 2 Bookes may bee read for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of any doubtfull point of doctrine. Lib. 8. haeres. 12. Sixtus Senensis confesseth that Philastrius rejecteth the Bookes of Macchabees. And the same In Bibl. pat. de haeres. catal. 3. cap. 9. Philastrius in the he heresie of the Prodianitae, taxeth them amongst other things, that they vsed the booke of Wisdome, which Iesus the sonne of Sirach wrote long after Solomons time.

Lib. 2. c. 32. Dan. 13. The Authour of the Booke De mirabilibus Scripturae, that goeth vnder the name of Augustine, hath these wordes, De lacu verò & Abacuck translato, in Belis Draconisque fabula, idcirco in hoc ordine non ponitur; quod in authoritate divinae Scripturae non habentur. It is true, that Augustine, and the African Bishoppes of his time, and some other in that age, finding these bookes which Hierome and the rest before cited, reject as Apocryphall, to bee joyned with the other, and together read with them in the Church, seeme to account them to bee Canonicall. Caietan and others answere, that those Fathers speake of the Canon of manners, not of faith: and of Bookes not simply, hut in a sort canonicall, so that they differ not from the other Fathers before alleadged, that deny them to bee Canonicall, as not being simply, and absolutely so. How fit and true this answer is, I will not stand to examine: but this is most certaine, that Augustine himselfe seemeth something to lessen the authority of this Booke: for whereas the example of Contra Ep. Gaudentii, l. 2. c. 23. Razias killing himselfe, is pressed against him, to prooue that it is lawfull for a man to kill himselfe: after other aunswers, he saith, the Iewes doe not esteeme this Scripture called the history of Mac •… bees, in such sort as the law, the Prophets, and the Psalmes, to which Christ giueth testimonie as to them that beare witnesse of him, saying, it behoued that all those things should bee fullfilled Luke 24. v. 44. that are written of mee, in the Lawe, the prophets, and the Psalmes; but it is receaued of the Church not vnprofitably, if it be soberly read, and heard: especially in respect of those Macchabees, that as true martyres, indured grieuous and horrible things of the persecutors, for the law of God: And the councell Canon: 2 4 of Carthage, whereat Augustine was present, prescribing that noe bookes should be reade in the Church as canonicall, but such as indeede are canonicall, leaueth out the bookes of Macchabees, as it appeareth by the Greeke edition; though they haue foysted them into the Latine.

But howsoeuer these did not soe exactly looke into these things, as they of the Greeke Church, and many of the Latine Church before named, but admitted those bookes as in a sort canonicall, that they found ioyned together with the other indubitate scriptures, which they had of the translation of the Septuagint: yet after Hierome had translated them out of the Hebrew, and prefixed his prologues and prefaces, before the bookes translated by him; almost all the Bishoppes and men of account in the Latine or West Church, so approued the same, that they admitted no other bookes as Canonicall, but those that hee did

Pope Moral: in Iob. l. 19. c. 17. Gregorie the first, citing a certaine testimonie out of the first booke of Macchabees hath these words: wee offend not if touching this thing we alleage and produce a testimonie out of books though not canonicall, yet published for the edification of the people. This was the opinion of Pope Gregory, Gregorie the first, Gregory the greate, our Apostle as they of the Romish faction tell vs, and therefore it will not be safe for vs to leaue the faith first deliuered vnto vs. To the Pope I will adde certaine Cardinalls.

Bonauentura in his preface before his exposition of the Psalter, vndertaketh to shew which are the bookes of Scripture: Scripture, sayth hee, consisteth of the old and new Testament, and the whole body of canonicall Scripture is contained in these 2; then passing by the bookes of the new Testament, hee reckoneth all those, and those only that Hierome doth: sorting them into their seuerall rankes and orders, as the Hebrewes do. And in another place he sayth, In Hexaemeron. serm. 19. p. 57. there are 4 sorts of writings in which a student must bee conuersant; the bookes of holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, such sayings as haue bin gathered out of them, and the writings of Philosophers. And because in the bookes of Philosophers, there is no knowledge to giue remission of sinnes: nor originally in the summes, because they haue bin extracted out of the originalls of the Fathers; nor in them, because they haue been taken out of the Scripture; therefore that is principally and in the first place to be studied, and there wee must seeke that knowledge as in the fountaine; and then, that all may know which and how many these bookes of Scripture are that hee will haue to bee thus studied, hee sayth, according to Hierome there are 22 in the old Testament, and in the new there are eight.

prologo in Iosuam. Hugo cardinalis repeateth certaine verses, expressing which bookes are Canonicall, and which Apocryphall, the verses are these:

Quinque libros Moisi, Iosue, Iudicum, Samuelem, Et Melachim, tres praecipuos, bis sexque Prophetas, Hebraeus reliquis censet praecellere libris. Quinque vocat legem, reliquos vult esse Prophetas. Post hagiographasunt, Daniel, Dauid, Hester, & Esdras, Iob, Paralipomenon, & tres libri Solomonis. Restant Apocrypha, Iesus, Sapientia, Pastor, Et Machabaeorum libri, Iudith, atque Tobias. Hi, quia sunt dubii, sub canone non numerantur: Sed quia vera canunt Ecclesia suscipit illos.

Here he numbreth the bookes Canonicall and Apocryphall as wee do. And the same Hugo in prologū galeatum, speaking of the bookes reiected by vs saith, that these bookes are not receiued by the Church for proofe of doctrine, but for information of manners. And in another Prologo in Tobiam. place he saith, they are not counted amongst the Canonicall. Cardinall In vlt. Hester. Item praefat. comment ad Clem. 7. Caietan sayth, those bookes only are to be accounted Canonicall which Hierome so accounted, and admitteth none of those that are now questioned: this he wrote at Rome as himselfe telleth vs in the yeare 1532.

From the Church of Rome, which was the principall amongst these of the West, let vs proceed to see what other Churches thought of this matter. Summ: part. 〈◊〉 q. 89. artic. 8. Thomas Aquinas, proposing the question whether the soules of them that are departed, doe know what things are done here: it being obiected, that the dead do often appeare vnto the liuing, as Samuel appeared vnto Saul: concerning Samuel he answereth that it may be sayd that he appeared by diuine reuelation, according to that in Eccle siasticus 46. or else, if the authority of that booke be not admitted, because it is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes, it may be sayd, that that apparition was procured by the diuel.

Part: 3. tit. 18. c. 6. paragr. 2. Antoninus Archbishop of Florence, affirmeth that the authority of the sixe bookes questioned, is not sufficient to proue any thing that is in controuersie, and that Thomas secunda secundae, and Lyranus in his prologue before the booke of Tobias, do say, that those bookes are not ofsoe greate authority, that any sufficient proofes may be drawne from them in matters of faith, as from the other bookes. And therefore pronounceth, he thinketh they haue such authority as the writings of the Fathers approued by the Church. And Ibid. paragr 3. he mentioneth a certaine worke intitled Catholicon, the authors name is not knowne: but the same author, as hee telleth vs, pronounceth, that none of these books were receiued for proofe of matters of faith, but only for information of manners. By this of Antoninus, who was present at the councell of Florence, it will easily appeare to be meerely supposititious, that we find in the abridgment of that councell by Caranza, that these bookes were pronounced to be canonicall: for had they bin so, neither would hee nor others haue reiected them after the holding of this councell: neither would such a decree haue bin omitted by all others that put out the councells, at large and abridged.

Praefat. lib. 14. Radulphus Flaviacensis, in his commentaries vpon Leuiticus, speaking of bookes pertaining to the sacred history, hath these words. The books of Tobias, Iudith, and of the Macchabees, though they be read for the edification of the Church yet haue no perfect authority. De 6 aetatibus mundi. Beda, after the history of Ezra, addeth; thus farre the diuine scripture containeth the course of times, what things afterwards wee found digested among the Iewes, they are taken out of the booke of Macchabees, Iosephus, & the writings of Africanus. It appeareth by the Epistle of Hilarie B. of Arles, that in Massilia & in some other places of France, there were that tooke exception to Augustine alleaging a place out of the booke n Inter opera Aug. tomo. 7. of Wisdome cap. 4. Raptus est ne malitia mutaret intellectam eius; and affirmed, that this testimonie, as not beeing canonicall, should haue beene omitted.

De scripturis & scriptoribus sacris c. 6. item cap. 12. Hugo de sancto victore, hauing reckoned the 22 bookes of the old Testament, sayth: there are besides certaine other bookes as the Wisdome of Solomon, the booke of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Iudith, Tobias, and the booke of Macchabees, which are read, but are not written in the canon: these hee matcheth p Exceptionum l: 2. c. 9. in authority with the writings of the Fathers. Richardus de sancto victore, deliuereth his opinion of the same bookes in the same sort; and maketh them to be q De authorit. vete: test am: Epistol. contra Petrobrusiano •… . of no greater authority then the writings of the Fathers.

Petrus Cluniacensis abbas, after an enumeration of all the bookes that are canonicall, sayth; there are yet besides these authenticall bookes, 6 other books not to be rejected, Iudith, Tobias, Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, and the two bookes of Macchabees; which though they attaine not to the high dignitie of the former, yet they are receiued of the Church as containing profitable and necessarie doctrine. Ockam, to the same purpose saith, that according to Hierome in his Prologue before the booke of Proverbes: and Gregory Dialog. part. 3. tract. 1. lib. 3. cap. 16. in his Moralls, the booke of Iudith, Tobias, and the Macchabees, Ecclesiasticus, and the booke of Wisdome, are not to be receiued for confirmation of any matter of faith. For Hierome saith, as Gregory also doth, that the Church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, and the Macchabees, but accounteth them not amongst the Canonicall Scriptures. So also it readeth those 2 volumes of Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdome for the edification of the people, but not for confirmation of points of faith and Religion.

in quaest. Armen l. 19. c 19. Richardus Radulphus Archbishop of Armach, and Primate of Ireland, saith, it is defined in generall Councels, that there are 22 authenticall bookes of the Olde Testament. Lib. z. doct. fid. art. 2. c. 22. Thomas Waldensis Provinciall of the Carmelites heere in England, an enemy to Wickliff, whose workes were greatly approued by Pope Martin and the Cardinals at that time, hath these wordes: The length, breadth, and depth of the city are equall; for as in breadth it can enlarge it selfe no farther, then to the loue of GOD and our neighbour: nor in heigth nor depth, then to GOD the rewarder of all; so in length, which is the Catholique Faith, it cannot growe beyond the 12 Articles contained in the Symbole, and found scattered in some of the 22 bookes; especially seeing the Holy Ghost sayth in the conclusion of all Canonicall Scripture, Let him that will, take of the water of life freely. I professe vnto euery one that heareth the words of this prophesie, if any man shall adde, GOD shall adde to his plague.

Praefat. exposit. in Tobiam. Lyra writeth thus: Now that I haue by Gods helpe written vpon the Canonicall bookes of holy Scripture, beginning at Genesis, and so going on to the end; trusting to the helpe of the same GOD, I intend to write vpon those other bookes that are not Canonicall; such as are the book of Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, Iudith, Tobias, and the bookes of Macchabees: and addeth, that it is to bee considered that these bookes which are not Canonicall, are receiued by the Church, and read in the same, for the information of manners, yet is their authority thought to bee too weake to proue things that are in controversie. And writing vpon the first of Esdras, 1. c. he saith, that though the bookes of Tobias, Iudith, and the Macchabees, bee historicall bookes, yet he intendeth to pasle them ouer: because they are not in the Canon, neither with the Iewes, nor with the Christians. Praef. in Mar. quaest. 2. Tostatus Bishop of Abulen, approueth the judgment of Lyra. Ximenius that was made a Cardinall in the time of Leo the 10, put forth the Bibles called Biblia Complutensia; and in the Preface before the same, treating of the bookes by vs thought to bee Apocryphall, hee sayth, they are not in the Canon; and that the Church readeth them rather for edification of the people, then to confirme any doubtfull points of doctrine: and that therefore they are not Canonicall.

Dionysius Carthusianus in his Prologues before the bookes of Ecclesiasticus, and Tobias, denyeth them to bee Canonicall: as also the booke of Iudith: and writing vpon the first Chapter of Macchabees, hee denieth it to bee Canonicall. De tradendis discip. l. 5. Ludovicus Vives, treating of History sacred and prophane; now come in, sayth hee, the bookes of Kings, and the Chronicles, the Apocryphall bookes of Hester, Tobias, and Iudith; Esdras, which being divided into foure bookes, the two first are accounted Canonicall by the Hebrewes, the two latter are Apocryphall. And in Comment. in Aug. de civ. dei. l. 18. c. 31. another place, speaking of the History of Susanna and Bell: he putteth them amongst the Apocrypha. With these accordeth De Eccles. dogm. l. 1. c. ult. Driedo.

To these may bee added the Glosses: The ordinary Glosse, was begun by Alcuinus, as Antoninus Florentinus, & Hist Franc. l. 4. c. 1. Gaguinus doe thinke; or by Strabus, Fuldensis, as Trithemius & Bibliothecae, lib. 4. Sixtus Senensis thinke: but it was afterwards inlarged by diuerse, which gathered sundry sentences, and sayings, out of the writings of the Fathers, and put them into it. This Glosse grew to bee in great request, and vsed in all Churches of the West. In the preface thereof are these words: There are some bookes canonicall, some not canonicall; betweene which there is as great difference, as there is betweene that which is certaine, and that which is doubtfull. For the canonicall bookes were composed by the immediate direction and suggestion of the holy spirit; they that are not canonicall, are very good and profitable, but their authoritie is not reputed sufficient to proue the things that are questionable. This the authour thinketh so cleere, that hee fastneth the note of ignorance vpon all such as thinke otherwise; and professeth, that therefore he held it necessarie to prefixe this preface, because there are many, who not giuing themselues much to the study of holy Scripture, suppose that all those bookes that are bound vp together in the Bible, are to bee in like sorte honoured and esteemed; not knowing how to put a difference betweene bookes canonicall, and not canonicall, which the Hebrewes separate from the canon, and the Greekes account apocryphall; and so oftentimes make themselues ridiculous to them that are learned. Hee citeth the authority of Origen, Hierome, and Ruffinus, rejecting the six bookes questioned; and though hee knew the opinion of Augustine, yet doth hee not follow it, onely hee sayth, that amongst the bookes not canonicall, they that are reiected by Augustine, as Baruch and the third and fourth of Esdras, are lesse to bee esteemed, then those that hee alloweth. And immediately after this preface, followeth Hieromes epistle to Paulinus, and afterwards, his prologus galeatus; and his prologue before the bookes of Solomon. And the glosse every where inculcateth, when it commeth to these six bookes, that they are not canonicall. Incipit liber Tobiae, &c. Heere beginnes the booke of Tobias which is not canonicall: &c. In the edition of the Bibles with the Glosses there is found an exposition of the prologues of Hierome; written and composed by Brito, more auncient then Lyra, for hee is cited by 2 prolog. in exposit. suas. him,: and honoured with the title of a famous and worthy man, who professeth that the bookes questioned are not canonicall.

Dist. 15 canone sancta Roman •… . Gratian in the decree maketh no mention of the opinion of Gelasius, touching the canonicall Scriptures, disliking, as it seemeth, his opinion, and yet not willing to oppose against it. But the Dist. 16. cano •… canones qui, glossa in verbum apocrypha. Glosse vpon the next distinction saith; there are certaine apocryphall bookes that is without authour, as the Wisedome of Solomon, the booke of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, called Ecclesiasticus, the booke of Iudith, the booke of Tobias, and the bookes of the Macchabees; these bookes are sayd to bee apocryphall, and yet they are read but happily not generally. De Eccles. dogma. l. 1. c. 4. Driedo citeth this place of the glosse, and reprehendeth the authour of it, as not giving the true reason why these bookes are called apocryphall, but yet thinketh as hee doth, that they are apocryphall.

Sanctes Pagninus, in his epitome of historicall bookes that are canonicall, prefixed before the Bible, translated by him into Latine, accounteth all those that Hierome doth, to be canonicall; the rest hagiographall. Bruciolus, in the preface of his commentaries vpon the Bible, translated by him into Italian, saith, he hath commented vpon all the bookes of the old testament, & yet hee hath not commented vpon the six bookes that are questioned. In the Bibles put out at Antwerpe, by Arias Montanus, with the interlineall translation, all those bookes are omitted. In the edition of the Bible printed at Antwerpe by Birkmannus, that very yeare that the councell of Trent was holden, to determine this point, touching the Canonicall and Apocryphall Scriptures and the like: the author, suppressing his name, prefixeth a preface before the same his edition: and in it reiecteth all the bookes now questioned, in more peremptory sort, then many of the former did.

Here wee see a cloud of witnesses, in all ages, and in all parts of the world, witnessing to the truth of that wee affirme, touching the canon of the Scripture, and reiecting those bookes as Apocryphall, or not Canonicall, which wee reiect, euen till and after the time of Luther: soe that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died is found as I sayd, to bee in this point a Protestant Church: wherefore let vs proceed to other particular points of controversie.

CHAP. 2.

Of the sufficiencie of the Scripture.

THat the Church formerly did not deny the sufficiencie of the Scripture for the direction of Christian men in matters of faith and religion, as the Romanists now doe; but acknowledged and taught, that it containeth all things necessary to salvation, accordingly as wee now professe, it appeareth by the testimonies of these diuines Lib. 1. d. 1. q. 1. artic. 2. Gregorius Ariminensis, sometimes Prior generall of the friars Heremites of the order of Saint Augustine, writing vpon the sentences, hath these words: That is properly a theologicall discourse, that consisteth of sayings or propositions contained in the holy scripture, or of such as are deduced thence, or at the least of such as are consequent, and to bee deduced from one of these: this sayth hee, is proued, ex communi omnium conceptione; nam omnes arbitrantur tunc solum theologicè aliquid probari, cum ex dictis probatur sacrae scripturae, out of the common conceipt and apprehension of all men: for all men doe thinke that then onely a thing is proued theologically, when it is proued out of the sayings of holy Scripture: and if wee distinguish theologicall conclusions, from principles theologicall, I affirme that all those verities that are not formally and in precise words contained in holy scripture, but are necessarily deduced from things soe contained in it, are conclusions theologicall, whether they bee determined by the Church or not: for the Church determineth that a proposition is to bee beleeued precisely, because it seeth, it is necessarily deduced from the words of holy Scripture: but no other that is not so deduced, is to be accounted a theologicall conclusion: which is proued out of the sayings of Saint Augustine in his fourteenth booke de Trinitate cap. 1. where hee sayth, hee doth not conceiue, that all that, that may bee knowne by man in humane things, pertaineth to this science, but those things onely whereby the most wholesome faith, that leadeth to true happinesse is begotten, nourished, defended, and strengthened: but it is euident, that euery such thing, is either expressely and in precise tearmes contained in holie scripture, or is deduced from things soe contained in it: for otherwise, the Scripture should not bee sufficient to our saluation, and the defense of our faith, which is contrary to Saint August: 2 de doctrinâ Christianâ where hee sayth, Quicquid homo extra didicerit, si noxium est ibi damnatur, si vtile, ibi inuenitur: that is, whatsoeuer a man shall learne without and beside the scripture, if it bee hurtfull, it is there condemned, if profitable it is there found. Here wee haue a pregnant testimonie, of a man of eminent place, and great worth, peremptorily resoluing for the sufficiencie of the Scripture, and assuring vs, that this was not his priuate conceipt, but the generall opinion of all men in his time, and be fore.

Prolog. 1. sent q. 2. Scotus agreeth with Ariminensis, his words are these, Whatsoeuer pertaineth to the heauenly and supernaturall knowledge, and is necessary to bee knowne of man in this life, is sufficiently deliuered in the sacred Scriptures; and in Prolog q 3. ad tertiam q. another place, Sicut theologia beatorum habet terminum, ita & nostra ex voluntate Dei revelantis: terminus autem praefixus â voluntate divinâ, quantum ad revelationem generalem, est eorum quae sunt in sacrâ scripturâ: quia sicut habetur Apocalyp. ultimo, Qui apposuerit ad haec, apponet ei Deus plagas quae apponuntur in libro isto; igitur theologia nostra de facto non est nisi de his quae continentur in scripturâ, & de his quae possunt elici ex ipsis; that is, As the Theologie of those blessed ones that are in heauen hath a certaine bound, without, and beyond which it extendeth not it selfe; so also that theologicall knowledge that wee haue, hath bounds set vnto it by the will of God, that revealeth divine and heauenly trueth vnto vs, and the bound prefixed by the will of God, who generally will reveale no more, is within the compasse of such things, as are found in the holy Scripture; because, as it is in the last of the Revelation, whosoeuer shall adde vnto these things, GOD shall adde vnto him the plagues that are added in this booke.

Prolog. l. 2. p. 1. c. 1 Ockam in his Dialogues saith; There is one opinion, that onely those verities are to bee esteemed Catholique, and such as are necessarily to bee beleeued for the attaining of saluation, which either expressely are deliuered in Scripture, or by necessary consequence may bee inferred from things so expressed; and that they that follow this opinion, alleadge sundry authorities for proofe of the same, as that of Augustine: Ego solis scripturarum libris e Epist. ad Hieron. didici hunc timorem, honoremque deferre, ut earum nullum authorem in aliquo errasse firmissimè credam, &c. alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate, quantave doctrinâ polleant, non ideo verum putem quia ita ipsi senserint, sed quia per alios authores canonicos, vel probabiles rationes, quod à vero non aberrent, mihi persuadere potuerunt. I haue learned to giue this honour and reverence onely to the bookes of Scripture, as that I should beleeue that none of the authors of them in ought haue erred, &c: But others I so reade, that how great soeuer their sanctitie and learning bee, I doe not therefore thinke that to bee true which they haue written, because it was their opinion, but because they are able to perswade mee, either by some other canonicall Authours, or by probable reasons, that they haue not erred from the trueth. And in another place; Quis nesciat sanctam scripturam f De unico baptism. canonicam tam veteris quàm noui testamenti certis terminis suis contineri, eamque posterioribus omnibus Episcoporum libris praeponi, ut de illâ omninò dubitari & disceptari non possit, vtrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in eâ scriptum esse constiterit: Episcoporum autem literas, quae post confirmatum canonem; vel scriptae sunt, vel scribuntur, & per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cuiuslibet in eà re peritioris, & per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem, doctioremque prudentiam, & per concilia reprehendi licere, si quid in iis forté à veritate est deviatum? Who knowes not that the holy Canonicall Scripture, as well of the Olde as the New Testament, is contained within it's certaine bounds: and that it is preferred before all the Bookes of Bishoppes that haue beene written since: so that there may bee no doubt made, nor dispute raised concerning it, whether whatsoeuer is certainely knowne to bee registred in it, bee true or right. But that the letters of Bishoppes, which either haue beene or are written since the confirmation of the Canon, may bee reprehended if in any thing they haue strayed from the trueth, both by the speech perchaunce wiser, of some one better skilled in that matter, and by the more graue authority & more learned wisedome of other Bishops, and by generall councells. And Hierom; Quod de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur: That which hath not authority and confirmation from the Scriptures is with like facility rejected as it is vrged. Others hee sheweth to bee of a contrary opinion; but being pressed to giue instance of things necessarily beleeued, and yet not contayned in the Scripture, they giue no other but certaine matters of fact; as that the Apostles composed the Symbol called the Apostles creed, that Peter was at Rome, & things of that nature.

Ockam in this place deliuereth not his owne opinion, but only reciteth the contrary opinions of other men: but in another place, inveighing against the Canonists, & going about to proue that it principally pertayneth to diuines, to define, & determine, what is catholicke, and what hereticall; after many convincing reasons, hee addeth this in the conclusion. Dialog. l. 〈◊〉 . p. 1. cap. 2. The defining of things in this kinde, pertayneth principally to the professors of that science, to which nothing may bee added, and from which nothing may bee detracted; but of this sorte is the profession of diuines; and therefore Moses sayth in the person of God Deuteronomie 4. Yee shall not adde vnto the word I speake vnto you, neither shall yee take from it: to which that of Solomon answereth, Proverb. 30. where speaking of the word of God, hee sayth: Adde nothing to his words, least thou be reproved, & found a liar: And hence it is that the holy Ghost doth terribly threaten by Iohn the Evangelist, in the last of the Revelation, all them that adde or take any thing from the holy Scripture; saying, If any man shall adde more then this, God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are in this booke, and if any man shall take any thing from the words of the Prophesie of this booke, God shall take his part out of the booke of life, and out of the holy city. By all which it is euidently collected, that nothing is to bee added to the holy Scripture, nor nothing to be taken from it.

Lib. 1. sent. q. 1. EE. Cardinall Cameracensis agreeth fully with Ariminensis before cited; for first hee distinguisheth principles, and conclusions theologicall; principles he maketh to be the verities of the sacred canon; conclusions to bee those verities which are not sound formally, and in expresse words, or precise tearmes, in Scripture, but may necessarily be deduced from things so contayned; whether they bee articles, or not; whether they bee determined by the Church, or not determined: and then pronounceth, that that onely is a theologicall discourse which consisteth of sayings and propositions contayned in the sacred Scriptures, or of such as may bee deduced from them, and that then onely wee say a thing is theologically proued, when it is concluded out of the words of holy Scripture.

To these wee may adde Doctrinal. fid. l. 2. art. 2. c. 19. Waldensis, his words are these, That Wickliffe affirmeth, that neither Friars nor Prelates may define any thing in matters of faith, vnlesse they haue the authoritie of sacred Scripture, or some speciall revelation, I dislike not, but I condemne his way wardnesse & craft, and thinke it necessary least we wrest the Scriptures & erre in the interpretation of them, to follow the tradition of the Church, expounding them vnto vs, and not to trust to our owne private & singular conceipts. Gerson acknowledgeth as k Sermon: in die circumcisionis domini consid. prim •… . much as the rest: his wordes are these: What evils, what daungers, what confusions haue followed the contempt ofsacred Scripture, which is sufficient for the government of the Church, or else, Christ was an imperfect lawgiuer, experience will teach vs. The authour of that most pious and worthy worke called Part. 6. c. 79. Destructorium vitiorum hath sundry things for confirmation of this poynt: As, sayth hee, corporall things here below may in some sorte bee known, without the benefit of corporall light: for one may know the length, breadth, and other dimensions of such a thing, and may in the darke discerne, whether it bee long or short, but whether it bee faire or foule, white or black, wee cannot certainely know: So it is in things that are to bee discerned intellectually, for though Philosophers excelling in mundane wisedome, & lacking the light of faith, had some kinde of knowledge of God, as that hee is the beginning & cause of all things, yet could they not know how faire, how good, how mercifull, and how glorious hee is: neither did euer any man knowe it; but either by diuine revelation, or by the information of the holy Scripture; so that the holy Scripture is that light, by which in this state of wayfaring men, wee may haue sufficient knowledge of all things necessary to saluation: whence it is, that the Psalmist sayth: Thy word is a lanthorne to my feete, & a light to my steppes. But as experience doth teach, that hee that will bee lighted by the light of a candle, must haue the candle before him, and must follow it: but that if hee shall cause it to bee brought after him in the darkenesse of the night, it will not giue him light to any purpose: so they that walke in the darkenes of this life, if they desire to be lighted by the candle of Gods word, and to direct their goings in the way of trueth without falling, they must haue the light of Gods word before their eyes, and must follow it by well doing. But even as, if a candle be carried out in the darkenesse of the night, where bruite beasts, as horses and the like, are, they will runne from it: whereas birds will come towards it: So bestiall men that are like horses & mules, flie from the light of the Scriptures, according to that of Iohn. 3. Every one that doth euill, hateth the light, neither doth hee come to the light, least his workes should bee reproued.

For confirmation of that hee sayth, hee alleadgeth a most excellent discourse of Bishop Super Evangel. Grosthead: who intreating of that history in the 1 Kings. 19. where the Angell of the Lord sayd to Elias, goe forth and stand in the mountaine before the Lord, and hee stood and saw, and behold a winde passed by him, overthrowing the mountaines, and tearing the rockes in sunder, but the Lord was not in the winde: and after the winde an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake fire, but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voyce, and there was the Lord: sheweth that God is not found in any other science, but in the holy Scripture only which is giuen by diuine inspiration: and for farther illustration hereof noteth, that there were three wels digged by Isaak, Genesis, 26. For he digged the first, and the Philistins stroue for it: likewise the second, and they claymed it also: wherefore hee left them both, and digged a third, which hee peaceably enjoyed, and called the name of it Robooth, that is, latitude, because the waters of it were inlarged: and to the first of these wells, hee compareth naturall sc •… ences, to wit, the seaven liberall arts, as logicke, in which there is much brawling & contending: to the second, such science as wee learne for gaine sake, and to get preferment, as is the knowledge of humane lawes, according to those verses. Dat Galenus opes & sanctio Iustiniana. Ex aliis paleas, existis collige grana. To the third hee compareth diuine knowledge, and sayth, that that well was rightly named Robooth, that is, latitude, because the waters of it were inlarged: So the heavenly doctrine was published to all parts of the world by the Apostles, and other faithfull preachers, according to that of the Psalmist, Their sound is gone forth into all the earth: and the Lord inviteth his elect to come and drinke the waters of this well, saying, all yee that are thirsty come to these waters; and the wordes of Christ moue all earnestly to thirst after these waters, when hee sayth, Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnes: but the vngodly having tasted of the wine of mundane joy, and temporall riches, hate, dislike, and put from them this water, and therefore the Lord sayth well of them by the Prophet Esay: 8. Because this people haue refused the waters of Siloe that runne softly and without noyse, and haue taken rather Rasin and the sonne of Romelia, I will bring upon them the mighty waters of of the floud. Siloe is interpreted sent, and it signifieth the doctrine of the diuine Law, sent vnto vs by Christ, the Apostles, and other faithfull ones, which doctrine the Pastors of the Church are bound vnder the paine of damnation to know and teach; whereupon Isidore saith, de summo bono lib. 3. c. 46. The Priests shall bee damned for the iniquity of the people, if either they neglect to teach them being ignorant, or to reproue them when they offend, the Lord hauing said by the Prophet, I haue set thee as a watch-man ouer the house of Israel, and if thou shalt not tell the wicked of his wickednes, that hee forsake his euill way, he shall dye in his iniquitie, but I will require his bloud at thy hand. Notwithstanding all this, many of the moderne Priests cast from them this learning, and say, we will none of it, because it is not de pane lucrando, that is, it serueth not to bring in gaine and profite; and giue themselues to the study of humane lawes, which are not so necessary for the sauing of soules as the law of God: because as Odo saith here vpon the Gospell, sermone 39. If Christ had knowne, that we might more easily attaine saluation by the Lawes of Iustinian, he would surely haue taught them vs with his own mouth, and haue let that alone which he taught vs, and deliuered vnto vs, et in quâ continetur implicitè, vel explicitè, omnis scientia ad salutem necessario requisita, and in which is contained expressely or implicitely all knowledge necessarily required to saluation, according to that of S. Augustine 2. de doctrinâ Christianâ in fine. Whatsoeuer a man learneth without and beside the holy Scripture, if it be hurtfull it is there condemned, if it bee profitable it may there be found. But many Church-men leaue this learning, and take vnto them Rasin, and the sonne of Romelia; Rasin signifieth a picture; and Romelia, high and mighty thunder, so that by Rasin, and the sonne of Romelia wee may vnderstand painted and glorious wordes, and that wordy thunder of humane lawes, which kindes of learning many Ecclesiastical persons assume, that they may be by such profession exalted in the courts of great Lords; and for this cause, as the Prophet addeth, the Lord shall bring vpon them the mighty and great waters of the floud, that is, infernall punishments, so saith Odo.

Hitherto hee hath alleadged the words of Grosthead and Odo. In Part. 4. c. 12. another place he saith concerning them that so contemne the word of God, that the Lord complaineth of such by the Prophet Ierem. 2. saying, My people hath done two euils, they haue forsaken me the fountaine of liuing water, and haue digged to themselues broken cisterns, to which, as Gulielmus Parisiensis saith, the decree or canon law may fitly be compared, which is a broken cisterne that cannot hold water, which though it haue water to day, shall haue none to morrow, because it shall bee abrogated: whereas touching the Law of God it is otherwise: and therefore the Psalmist saith: thy righteousnesse, O Lord, is an euerlasting righteousnesse, and thy law is trueth. Yet is the holy Scripture much contemned by the profession of the Canonists; so that the knowledge of holy Scripture, and profession of Divinity, may say to an ill Advocate, or Lawyer, as Sara said to Abraham, in the 16 of Genesis: Thou dealest ill with me: I gaue thee my handmaid into thy bosome, who seeing that she had conceiued, despised me: for, as Gulielmus Parisiensis saith, de vitiis part. 4. cap. 6. The profession of Canonists contemneth the profession of Divines, and science of holy Scripture, because they are not so gainefull, as it is. When Ismael and Isaack played together, Ismael mocked Isaack, so that Sar •… was forced to intreate Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her sonne. So happily it were behoofefull and profitable for the Church, that this Science in a great part should be cast out; because it not only contemneth the diuine Science, and Law of God, but blasphemeth it: and in so doing contemneth and blaspheameth God himselfe, who is the lawgiuer.

Here wee haue the opinion of three worthy men touching the sufficiencie of the Scripture, and the dangers, confusions, and horrible euils, that followed vppon the multiplying of humane inuentions. Many more might be alleadged to the same purpose; but these may suffice to let us know what the doctrine of the Church was in the dayes of our Fathers; for they deliuer not their priuate conceipts, but tel vs what all good and iudicious men conceiued of these things in their times.

But some men will say, wee find often mention of traditions in the writers of former ages, soe that it seemeth, they did not thinke the Scriptures to containe all things necessary to saluation. For the clearing of this doubt, wee must obserue that by the name of tradition, sometimes, all the doctrine of Christ and his blessed Apostles is meant, that was first deliuered by liuely voice, and afterwards written. Sometimes the deliuering of the diuine and canonicall bookes from hand to hand, as receiued from the Apostles, is named a tradition. Sometimes the summe of Christian religion contained in the Apostles creed, which the Church receiueth as a rule of her faith, is named a tradition; but euery one of those articles is found in the Scripture, as Waldensis rightly noteth, though not together nor in the same forme; so that this colection may rightly be named a tradition, as hauing beene deliuered from hand to hand in this forme, for the direction of the Churches children; and yet the Scriptures be sufficient. Sometimes by the name of traditions the Fathers vnderstand certaine rites and auncient obseruations; And that the Apostles delivered some things in this kind, by word, and liuely voyce, that they wrote not, wee easily grant; but which they were, it can hardly now be knowne, as Waldensis rightly noteth. But this proueth not the insufficiencie of the Scripture; for none of those Fathers speake of points of doctrine, that are to be belieued without and besides the Scripture, or that cannot be proued from thence; though sometimes in a generall sort, they name all those points of religion, traditions, that are not found expressely, and in precise tearmes, in Scripture, and yet may necessarily be deduced from things there expressed. Lastly by the name of tradition, is vnderstood the sense and meaning of the Scripture, receiued from the Apostles and deliuered from hand to hand together with the bookes.

There are, saith Defens: lib. de officio pij. viri prope principium. Cassander, 3 sorts of traditions; for some concerne the doctrine of faith, others rites and ceremonies; and a third sort, things done. They that concerne rites and ceremonies, are variable according to the different circumstances of times; they that are historicall, are for the most part vncertaine and are not necessarie to saluation: they that are dogmaticall are certaine and perpetuall: but De officio pij viri in principio. by dogmaticall traditions wee vnderstand, not any diuine verity not written, or any point of doctrine not contained in the Scripture, but such points of doctrine, as though they are not found in precise termes in holy scripture, yet are deduced from the same rightly vnderstood, and interpreted; as the Apostles did vnderstand, and expound them to their hearers, and they to such as came after them. So that this tradition is nothing else but the explication and interpretation of the Scripture: and therefore it may be sayd not vnfitly, Scripturam esse implicatam quandam & obsignatam traditionem, traditionem vero esse Scripturam explicatam & resignatam. that the Scripture is a kind of tradition inuolued and sealed vp: and that tradition is Scripture vnfolded, explained, and opened. This is that, which Contr. haeres. cap. 2. Vincentius Lyrinensis long since deliuered, to wit, that the Scripture is sufficient, and containeth all things necessary to be known of a Christian man, for the attaining of saluation: but that for the auoiding of the manifold turnings of heretickes, peruerting the same to their owne perdition, wee must carefully looke to the tradition of the Church, deliuering vnto vs the true sense and meaning of it. By this which hath beene sayd, it appeareth, that the Church wherein our Fathers 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 liued and died, was, in this poynt touching the sufficiencie of the Scripture, an orthodoxe and true Protestant Church, as it was in the former, touching the canon of the Scripture.

CHAP. 3.

Of the originall text of Scripture, of the certainety and trueth of the originalls, and of the authoritie of the vulgar translation, I haue discoursed at large in my fourth booke, and the 27. 28. chapters of the same; and made it appeare, that the principall and best learned divines, at, & since Luthers time, taught no otherwise touching these poynts then wee now doe, so that I need not insist vpon the proofe hereof.

CHAP. 4.

Of the translating of the Scripture into vulgar languages, and of the necessity of hauing the publique liturgie, and prayers of the Church, in a tongue vnderstood.

TOuching the translating of the Scriptures, it is evident, that both aunciently, and of late time, they haue beene translated into the severall languages, of almost all the countries and kingdomes of the whole world, where euer Christianity prevailed. Sixtus Senensis biblio sa •… ct: l 4. vbi de Chrysostomo loquitur. There is extant a translation of the old & new testament in the Armenian tongue, which the Armenians now vse, put forth, as they suppose, by Chrysostome: of this, George the patriarch of Alexandria maketh mention, in the life of Chrysostome; reporting, that when by the Emperours decree, hee was sent in banishment into Armenia, and stayed at Cucusum, hee brought the inhabitants of that region to the faith of Christ; and caused the Psalmes of David, together with the holy gospells, and other histories of the old Testament, to bee translated into the Armenian tongue; that so the people of that countrey, might the sooner and more easily attaine the knowledge of holy Scripture. And Lib. 5. de cu randis graecorum affectibus post medium. Theodoret testifieth that the holy Scriptures were translated into the Armenian tongue before his time, though hee name not the authour.

The Slavonians affirme, that they haue the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue, turned by Saint Hierome; and Hierome himselfe, in his epistle to Sophronius, seemeth to some learned men to intimate so much. But yet there is another translation also of the Scriptures into the Slavonian tongue, later then that of Hieromes, as Diat tib. de linguis Europae Scaliger hath obserued, written in the Servian character, & vsed in Rascia, Bosina, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Russia, Moscovia, and other nations, of the Slavonian language, that celebrate their liturgies after the Greeke ceremonie; of which later Methodius the companion of Cyrill is reported to haue beene the authour. The former imputed to Hierome, is written in the Dalmatian character, and is vsed amongst the Liburnians, and Dalmatians, Istrians, Moravians, Silesians, Bohemians, Polonians, &c.

Vulphilas the Goth, (of whom Sixtus Senensis bibl. l. 4. Socrates maketh mention in his ecclesiasticall historie) who liued in the yeare 370, first found out the Gothicke alphabet, and first of all deliuered to the Gothes all the diuine Scriptures, translated e 〈◊〉 . 4. c. 27. by him out of Greeke into the Gothicke tongue; and catholiquely expounded them, striving much against the Arrians; yet in the end, as Theodoret reporteth, he declined to the part of Valens the Arrian Emperour, moued so to doe by the threates and promises of Eudoxus the Arrian.

Neither were the Scriptures translated onely into these languages, but into the languages of many other nations, as 〈◊〉 , Indi, Per •… •… opes, & 〈◊◊◊◊〉 , &c. Chrysost. hom. 〈◊〉 •… an. Chrysostome and Hier. praefa: in Evangelia. Hierome affirme: and in particular into the Aegyptian, Persian, Indian, Scythian, and Sarmatian tongues; and into the languages of all other nations that receiued the Christian faith, as Lib. 5 de curandis Graecorum affect. post medium. Theodoret telleth vs. As likewise in the times following, we read of the like translations of the Scripture, into sundry languages of such Nations, as were afterwards converted to the Faith, or whose languages after altered. So Vasaeusin chro. Hisp. ad annum 717. Iohn Archbishop of Sivill about the yeare 717, translated it into the Arabique, which then was the vulgar speech of that part of Spaine. And Ioannes Trev. l. 5. c. 24. Beda about the same time some part of it, into the Saxon or English. Aventinus l. 4. annal. p. 434. Methodius about the yeare 860, into the Slavonique; Iacobus de Voragine, Archbishop of Genua, about the yeare 1290, translated the whole diuine Scripture into the Italian tongue, and so did Bruciolus in our age. Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. sanct. l. 4. in Iacobus Archicp. Genuensis. About 200 yeares since the whole Bible was translated into French, in the time of Charles the 5th; and as the Rhemists tell vs, in their preface before the New Testament by them translated into English, since Luthers time, diuerse learned Catholiques haue published the Bible, in the seuerall Languages of almost all the principall provinces of the Latine Church; so that the Papists themselues doe not simply condemne the translating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues. n Preface to the Rhemish Testament.

But there are some amongst them, as Controv. 5. q. 3. art. 4. explicatione articuli. Stapleton telleth vs, who out of zeale rather then knowledge, doe thinke the Lay people should bee wholly restrained from reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues: others more moderate and discreete then these (as they would bee thought) are of opinion that all are not to bee restrained, nor all permitted to reade them, but some certaine onely. And therefore the Preface to the New Testament. Rhemists tell vs, that order was taken by the Deputies of the Indice lib. pro •… b. regulâ 4 Councell of Trent in this behalfe, and confirmed by supreame authority, that the holy Scriptures, though truely and Catholiquely translated into vulgar tongues, yet may not be indifferently readde of all men, nor of any other then such as haue expresse licence thereunto by their lawfull ordinaries, with good testimony from their Curates or Confessours, that they are humble, discreet, and devout persons, and like to take much good, & no harme thereby. This was the decree of Pius 4: but Clement the 8th, in a later edition of the same Index, with new additions, Observat. in regulam. 4. saith, that this power of permitting Lay-men to haue the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, was taken away by the mandate, and practise of the Roman Church, and of the generall inquisition, so that they may not permit any to haue the whole Bible in the vulgar tongue, or any parts of the Olde or New Testament, or any summaries or epitomies, though historicall of the same Bibles; and this hee prescribeth to be inviolably kept. Thus doth he condemne the practise of all the Churches of God, which had the Scriptures translated into vulgar Languages; (for to what end should they be translated, if no man might vse them?) and together with them his Predecessour Pius the 4th, and all the learned Prelates that concurred with him; and falleth into the folly or indiscretion which Stapleton condemneth, as wee heard before. Thus variable and vncertaine are these Romane Bishoppes, who yet would bee taken not onely to bee built vpon the Rocke, but to be that Rocke vpon which the Church is builded, against which the gates of hell cannot prevaile.

But, as Stapleton telleth vs, in the place aboue cited, There were certaine Catholique and great men, (and in the margent hee nameth Sir In Dialog. Anglicanis. Thomas More) who thought it fit, as tending to the honour of God, and saluation of the people, to deliuer vnto them the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without any restraint, leauing it free to all to read them that will; for that so many good and godly Christians who would receiue great comfort, and be much edified thereby, are not to be depriued of that most excellent benefite, which they may haue by reading them, in respect of few or many vnlearned or vnstable men, who depraue the scripture to the perdition of themselues and others, as S. Peter saith in his 2 Epistle cap. 32. No more then it had beene fit that Christ the Lord, should haue forborne to come and saue others, in respect of such wicked ones, to whom his comming is a rock of offence, & a stone to stūble at: or that he that is the true light, that lighteneth euery man that cōmeth into the world should therefore haue kept him selfe away, or not appeared to the world, because men loued darkenes more then light; And surely if the vulgar free and ordinary reading of the scripture, were to be denied and restrained, in respect of the wicked who abuse it, the scripture must neuer haue bin in the Hebrew, Greeke, or Latine tongues; for all these tongues were vulgar to the Iewes, Grecians, and Romans; This opinion Stapleton confesseth to be probable and godly, and yet he disliketh it.

And yet it is confirmed by the authority of the Fathers, who earnestly exhort the people to the reading of the scripture, as a thing necessary to saluation. Soe doth Chrysostome, in sundry places, 2 Homily vpon Mathew. Semper hortor & hortari non desinam, vt non hic tantum attendadatis ijs quae dicuntur, verum etiam quum domi fue •… s, assidue diuinatum scripturarum lectioni 〈◊〉 . 3. 〈◊〉 Lectionem diuinarum scripturarum ad solos monachos putatis pertinere cum multo magis vobis quam illis sit necessaria. Homily vppon Lazarus. At nescio inquit quae scripto sunt in scripturis. Q •… ? Nam •… n 〈◊〉 , num Roman •… . num alia lingu •… dicta sunt? an non 〈◊〉 dicuntur? 3. Homily vpon the second to the Thessalonians. non solum c •… 〈◊〉 •… tis, sed & 〈◊〉 diuinos libros in manus sumite 28. Homilie vpon Genesis. 9. Homilie vpon the Epistle to the Colossians, where he sayth, the Apostle commandeth secular men that are married to reade the scripture; and whereas St Paul to the Colossians 3. hath these words, Let the word of Christ dwell plentifully in you in all wisdome, teaching and admonishing your selues in Psalmes, hymmes and spirituall songs, Chrysostome in his ninth Homily and Hierome in his commentaries vpon the same place, collect, and inferre, that the Scriptures are to be reade of Lay men, and that by the precept of the Apostle. It is therefore vntrue, that Stapleton vbi supra art. 4. 〈◊〉 fol. •… rgumenti. Stapleion hath, that Chrysostome doth not exhort the people to the reading of the scripture, as a thing necessary, but as fitte and profitable for them, that liued idlely in a rich citty, thus to occupy them selues; as if it had beene onely to keepe them from doing nothing, that they were to reade the booke of God. Neither is it any better, that he hath in answere hereunto, that Chrysostome spake not exactly, but as a preacher or oratour; as if in the pulpit a Preacher might exhort the people with all earnestnesse, to that which is not fitte to be done; or as if there were not many now adayes, that liue idlely in rich cities.

From the translating of the Scriptures into vulgar tongues, and the peoples priuate reading of the same, let vs come to speake of the publike liturgy of the Church, and the common praiers in the vulgar tongue. Here I will first shew what the practice of the Church hath beene; and secondly, what the opinion of Iudicious men is and hath beene touching this point: That in the Primitiue Church they had the seruice in the vulgar tongue, it is euident by the testimonies of the auncient. For first Lib. 〈◊〉 . p. 799. Origen writing against Celsus, and answering that calumniation of them that said, Christians vsed certaine barbarous words and names of God, in their prayers, supposing vertue to be in them, more then in Greeke or Latine words, or names; telleth them, there is no such thing: but that they that are true and right Christians, in their prayers vse not the names of God found in the Scripture written in Hebrew; but the Grecians vse greeke words; the Latines, latine: and all pray, and praise God, in their own tongue; & he that is the Lord of all tongues heareth thē, in what tongue soeuer they pray: and vnderstandeth them speaking in so different languages, no lesse then if they all vsed one language.

Bellarmine saith, in the time of the Apostles the whole people was wont to answere Amen in the celebration of diuine seruice, and not as now by one appointed in their steed: For Iustin Martyr testifieth expressely in his 2 apology that the whole people was wont to answere amen, when the Priest ended his prayer or thankesgiuing; and it is euident that the same vse was continued a long time after, both in the East and West, as it appeareth by the liturgy of Chrysostome, where the things that were to be sayd by the priest, deacon, and people, are distinctly set downe. And by Cyprian in his sermon vpon the Lords prayer: where he saith, the people doe answere, we lift them vp vnto the Lord, when the priest willeth them to lift vp their harts, and by Hierome praefat: lib. 2. in epist. ad Galatas, who writeth that in the Churches of the city of Rome the people are heard with so loud a voyce, sounding out amen, as if it were a thundring from heauen. Thus farre Bellarmine in his 2 booke de verbo Dei, chap. 16: which argueth that they had their seruice in a knowne tongue, for otherwise how could they thus haue answered to the seuerall parts of the diuine seruice as they were appointed to do: surely the long answeres of the people to the priest in their praiers, found in sundry Anaphora Syror. &c. liturgies are a demnostration that it was so.

cap. 9. August. de chatechizandis rudibus, hath these words. Let them know, that there is no other voyce that entreth into the eares of God, but the affection of the minde: and then they will not deride the prelates and ministers of the Church, if happily they discerne any of them to vse barbarismes, or solecismes, in the inuocation of God, or not to vnderstand the words they pronounce, nor aptly and distinctly to vtter them: not as if these faults were not to be amended, that so the people might answere amen, to that which plainely and distinctly they vnderstand: but that they should learne louingly to beare with these defects, hauing learned, vt sono in foro, sic voto in ecclesiâ benedici: and that forensis illa nonnunquam fortè bona dictio, nunquam tamen benedictio dici potest.

Aluar. histor. Aethiop. c. 159. The Aethiopians or Habassines anciently had, and still haue the common praiers, & whole liturgie, in their own vulgar tongue, into which language Supplement. •… ist. lib. 8. Sabellicus reporteth, that both the old and newe Testament were translated out of the Chalde. The Armenians haue their diuine seruice in the Armenian tongue, as Hist. oriental. cap. 78. Iacobus à vitriaco, descript. terrae sanctae. Brocardus, De Sarmatia li. 2 c. 1. Michouius, Peregrinat. c. de Armen. Breitenbachius, and many others, partly out of their own knowledge and partly from certaine relation haue recorded. The Guagnin. descrip. Moschouiae: cap. 〈◊〉 . 5 Posseuin. de rebus Moscoviticis. p. 4. 5 Sigismund: de rebus Moscouiticis. p. 34. Moscouites and Russians haue their seruice in their vulgar language, which is a kind of Slauonian, intermingling sometimes certaine greeke hymnes: the epistle, and gospell, that the people may the better heare and vnderstand, are read with a loud voyce without the quier, in the middle of the Church. Neither haue those Russians only their seruice in the vulgar, that are subiect to the great Duke of Mosco, but they also that are subiect to the King of Polonia. Vitriac. hist. Oriental. c. 76. 7 Osorius de rebus Emanuel. l. 3. The Nestorians haue their seruice in a degenerate Chalde, or Syriack, and so haue the Posseuin. apparat. sacr: in Diamperiense concilium. Indians from which their vulgar differeth very little. The Iacobites of Mesopotamia, Babylon, Palestine, Syria, and Cyprus, haue their liturgie in the Syriaque tongue, (and it is that which is called In biblioth. patrum rom. 6. p. 27. anaphora Basilii as it is thought) which though it be not well vnderstood by their common people (their vulgar, as now it is, differing something from it,) yet that it was commonly vnderstood, when that liturgie was first ordained, it appeareth by the long answers of the people to the priest, in their prayers which wee find in it. The Maronites likewise haue their seruice in the Syriaque, their vulgar being the Arabique. As also the Aegyptians haue their seruice in the same bastard Chaldee or Syriaque, their vulgar being the Arabique: but these first reade the Gospell in Chalde & afterwards in Arabique.

Apud Thom. â Iesu. li. 7. c. 11. Marianus Victorius Reatinus saith, that as the Chalde tongue dependeth of the Hebrew, and groweth out of it, so the Syriaque, Arabique and Aethiopian tongues haue dependance on the Chalde, and are growne out of it, so that they also haue the name of the Chalde: and these fiue tongues haue such agreement amongst themselues, and are soe like, that hee that perfectly vnderstandeth * Guido Fabritius in his preface before the newe Testament sayth, the Hebrew tongue is diuided into 3. dialects, the Babilonicall or Chaldaicall: the Syrian, or Hierosolymitan: the Arabique, or tongue of Ismaell as the Iewes call it. The first was the dialect of such Iewes as neuer returned after the captiuity of Babilon, where they had learned a kind of mixt language, the second of such as returned to Ierusalem and brought backe a mixt language, and after their returne by newe mixtures made it farther to degenerate from the originall surity. one, may in a great part vnderstand the other. And therefore it is not to bee maruailled, if all these Churches last mentioned haue their seruice in the Chaldee or Syriaque: for it is in a sort their mother tongue, and noe doubt was perfectly vnderstood by them, when their liturgies were first devised. The Georgians, Circassians, and Mengrellians, are sayd to haue their seruice in Greeke; and so are the Syrians, or Melchites, but if that Liturgie which Andraeas Masius translated out of the Syriaque, and which is found in the 6 Tome of Biblioth. Patrum, and is named Anaphora Basilii, bee theirs, then surely they celebrate not in Greeke.

But to leaue these Easterne Churches, and to come to those that are nearer to vs; wee may diuide all the Churches of this part of the world into three sorts; For some of them aunciently vnderstood and spake Latine, as they did in Augustine's time in those parts of Africa wherein he liued, and therefore it is not to be marvailed at if they had their Liturgie in the Latine tongue, for they vnderstood it better then the Punique: so that hee preached vnto them in Latine. That generally they vnderstood and spake Latine, it is evident by that which Confess. l: 〈◊〉 . c. 14. Augustine saith of himselfe: Latina didici sine ullo metu, atque cruciatu, inter etiam blandimenta nutricum, & ioca arridentium, & laetitias alludentium. That is, I learned Latine without any feare or vexation, whiles the nurses sought to please me, while men sported and played with mee. In another place, hee hath these wordes. Deverbis Apost. serm. 26. Proverbium notum est Punicum, quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam, quia Punica non omnes nostis: That is, The Punique Proverbe is knowne, which I will vtter vnto you in Latine, because you doe not all vnderstand the Punique tongue: whereby it appeareth, that the Latine tongue was better vnderstood in some parts of Africa, then the Punique. The Latine tongue was also vulgar in Italy, in France, and Spaine; for when they receiued the Romane Lawes, they learned the tongue also, and beganne to speake Latine, though their owne tongue were not presently extinct. So that it is not improbable but that they had their seruice in Latine; but whether they had, or not, it is evident they had it in a tongue they vnderstood.

For touching France, in vit. Mart. l. 1 Severus Sulpitius writeth, in the life of Martin, that when there was no little difference about his election, the Lector whose course it was to reade that day, inclosed in the multitudes, was kept out from the place, and could not performe that duety: whereupon the Ministers being troubled, while hee came not that was looked for; one of them that stood by, tooke the Psalter, and reade that verse, that hee first found; and the Psalme was this: Our of the mouthes of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise, that thou mayst destroy the enemy, & defensorem, and the defender; which, when the people heard, they made a great shout, and that part that was opposite to Martin, was confounded, for the principall man that opposed him was named Defensor, and the people thought that it was by Gods speciall direction, that this Psalme was reade, to put downe the faction that opposed against Martin. By this it appeareth, that the Scripture was reade in Latine, and yet in a tongue vnderstood by the people; for otherwise how could they haue beene thus affected?

And that it was so read in auncient times, as to bee vnderstood, it is cleare by the forme of blessing, vsed in the constituting of Lectors, which was this, as it appeareth by an olde manuscript cited by Ex vetusto manuscript. l. de ordin. lect. Apud Cassand. liturg. c. 26. Cassander: Benedicere dignare hos famulos tuos, in officium lectorum, ut assiduitate lectionis sint apti pronunciare verba vitae, & mentis ac vocis distinctione populo monstrare intelligibilia: That is, Vouchsafe to blesse these thy servaunts designed and appointed to the office of Lectors, that by the daylie and ordinary vse of reading, they may bee fitted to pronounce to the people the wordes of life, and with distinction both of vnderstanding and voice, to shew vnto the people the things they reade, so as that they may bee vnderstood of them that heare them. And in the Pontif. Rom. excus. Venet. 1561. in ordin. Lect. Pontificall wee finde these wordes directed to the Lectors, Studete verba Dei videlicet lectiones sacras, distinctè, & apertè, ad intelligentiam, & aedificationem fidelium, absque omni mendacio falsitatis, proferre. That is. Bee yee carefull to vtter, publish, and rehearse the words of God, to wit, the sacred lessons, distinctly, and clearely, to the vnderstanding, and edification of the faithfull without all lying, falsehood, and vntrueth.

How generally they vnderstood and spake Latine in Spaine heretofore, it may appeare by their present language, a barbarisme of Latine; as also by the lawes the Gothes gaue vnto them, called the Gothique Code, written in good Latine; And by Lucan, Seneca, and sundry other principall lights of the Latine tongue. So that Hist. Hispan. l. 5. c. 4. Marineus Siculus feareth not to say, that if the Gothes and Moores and other barbarous nations, had not come into Spaine, the Spaniards woud still haue spoken as good Latine, as the Romans did in the time of Tullie. So that it is not vnlikely but that the Spaniards aunciently had their service in Latine; but whether they had or not, it is evident they had it in a tongue vnderstood, by that wee reade in Isidor. Hispalensis de offic. eccles. l. 1. c. 10. Isidore. Oportet vt quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibus; cum lectio legitur, facta silentio aequè audiatur á cunctis. That is, It is fitte that when the singing beginneth, all should sing; when the lesson is read, there being a generall silence kept, all should equally, and in one and the same sorte hearken to that which is read; And againe; Ideo & diaconus clarâ voce silentium admonet, vt siue dum psallitur, siue dum lectio pronunciatur, ab omnibus vnitas conseruetur, vt quod omnibus praedicatur, aequaliter ab omnibus audiatur. That is, And therefore doth the deacon also with a cleare and lowd voyce call vpon all to keepe silence; that aswell when the singing is, as when the lesson is read, all may doe one and the same thing, that all may heare that which is pronounced equally to all.

Some other parts there were that had not such vse of the Latine tongue as these had; who having Alphabets, and characters of their owne; so that they could write & expresse things in their owne tongues, had the whole liturgie and diuine service, in their vulgar tongue; Of this sort were all those nations, kingdomes, and people, that speake the Slavonian tongue, Hos. de sacro vernacule legendo. which was the language of more then the third part of Europe: besides the Mengrellians, Circassians and Gazarites in Asia. The Brerewoods enquiries, c. 8. characters of this language are of two sorts, for there is the Servian character, and the Dalmatian. All the Christians of Rascia, Bosina, Servia, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Russia, Moscovia, and all other nations of the Slavonian language in the Easterne parts, that celebrate their liturgies after the Greeke ceremonie, and professe obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople, haue the Scriptures in their owne tongue translated as it is sayd by Methodius, the companion of Cyrill, in preaching the gospell to Gentile nations, and written in the Servian character, as also their liturgies are. Postel. de linguâ Dalmatica. The Dalmatian characters are in vse in Dalmatia, Liburnia, Istria, Moravia, Silesia, Bohemia, Polonia, &c.

It is a receiued opinion, that Hierome first devised the Dalmatian characters, and translated the Scriptures into the Dalmatian tongue; but it seemeth that in processe of time his translation was neglected, the Latine service brought in, and those characters out of vse; For Lib. 4. p. 434. Aventinus reporteth, that Methodius hauing found out Litteras Venedas. letters, and translated the Scripture into the Slavonian tongue, perswaded the Dalmatians to explode the Latine tongue, to hisse out the Roman rite or ceremonie, and make vse of their owne tongue in the holy service of God.

De missá latinè faciendâ, in locis communibus. Eckius confesseth that heretofore the diuine seruice was in the Dalmatian tongue throughout all Illyricum. The priests of Liburnia, sayth Vbi supra. Aventinus, which in this our age is subiect to the Archduke of Noricum, are yet still ignorant of the Roman tongue, and doe say their diuine service in their owne, that is, in the Slauonian tongue. And De ration: scribendi citatus à Cassandro liturgic: cap. 36. Iohannes Baptista Palatinus, sayth, the Slauonians and those of Illyricum haue their service and common prayers in their vulgar tongue, and all the people vnderstand it as wee doe our natiue language. Auentinus sayth, that Methodius went into the kingdome of Boiaria, and sought to perswade the inhabitants of Liburnia, Noricum, Pannonia, and Veneda, to abandon the 〈◊〉 Vbi supra. Latine, and to haue their seruice in the vulgar; but Richoualda the Bishop, and Adeluinus the Archbishoppe of Salsburge, and the priests of Salsburge hodie appellatur. 〈◊〉 which successiuely had gouerned the Churches in those parts, for the space of 85 yeares, according to the decree of Charles the great; resisted him, and forced him to flie into Morauia. But afterwards that which he attempted tooke effect as it appeareth by Auentinus in the words before cited; for they of Liburnia had their seruice in the vulgar in his time.

De sacro vernacule legendo. Hosius confesseth, that the seruice in the vulgar tongue was in Bohemia & Polonia, and that there were some liuing when hee wrote, that might remember, when in Clepardia in the temple of St Crosse the priests said seruice in the vulgar or Slauon tongue. De rebus Poloni. l. 3. p. 32. Cromerus sayth that the two Bishoppes Methodius, and Cyrillus, did good seruice in bringing the people of those parts to the knowledge of God in Christ, and that they caused the Slauonians to haue their seruice in their owne tongue, the Pope giuing assent and approuing that they did. And the same Lib. 15. pag. 249. Cromerus sayth, the seruice was in the Slauon tongue in Croconia.

That the Morauians had the seruice in their owne tongue wee haue proofe sufficient, for Iohn the eight tooke precise order, and commanded it should be soe. His Apud Baron. tom. 10. anno. 880. numero. 19. pag. 662. & inter epist. Ioannis. 8. apud Binnium. epist: 247. Epistle written to the Prince of Morauia is extant, in which epistle he hath these words. Whereas one Constantine a Philosopher found out letters and characters of the Slauon tongue, that so in it they might sound forth the praises that are due to God; wee exceedingly commend the same, and do commaund that the praises of Christ our God and his workes be vttered and set forth in the same; for wee are admonished to praise God not in three tongues only but in all, by the sacred authority that commanded saying, Praise the Lord all yee Gentiles, and praise him together all people, Psalme 117.. And the Apostles being filled with the holy Ghost spake in all tongues and vttered the great and wonderfull workes of God Act: 2. Hence also Paul, that heauenly trumpet, soundeth forth and exhorteth every tongue to confesse, that our Lord Iesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father: concerning which things he admonisheth vs sufficiently, and manifestly, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, requiring vs no otherwise to speake with tongues, but soe, that wee may edifie the Church. Neither is it contrarie to the right faith and sound doctrine, to sing masse in the same Slauon tongue, or to reade the holy Gospell, or the diuine lessons of the old or new Testament, rightly translated and interpreted, or to sing all other parts of diuine seruice, appointed for certaine houres and times; because that hee that made 3 principall tongues, to wit, the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, created also all other, for to set forth his praise and glory. Notwithstanding wee command, that in all the Churches of your country the Gospell be first reade, for the greater honour, in Latine; and afterwards the translation into the Slauonian tongue, in the hearing of the people that vnderstandeth not Latine; as it seemeth the custome is in some Churches; and if it seeme good to thee and thy iudges, and great men, to heare masse rather in Latine, wee command that the masse bee celebrated for thy selfe and them in Latine.

Hist. Bohem: cap. 13. Aenaeas Syluius, afterwards Pius the second, reporteth that Cyrill, hauing brought Suatocopius to become a Christiā, & to be baptized, won the Mora •… , and sundry other nations of the Slauonians, to Christianity: & afterwards being at Rome, besought the Pope, that with his good liking hee might say seruice in the Slavonian tongue, to the people of that Nation, whom he had baptized; concerning which thing when there was no little dispute in the sacred Senate, and many disliked this motion, there was suddainly heard a voice, as it had beene from Heauen, saying, Let euery spirit praise the Lord, and let euery tongue confesse vnto him, whereupon the Pope yeelded to his motion, & gaue consent that he should doe as he desired.

There is no doubt, but that there were many crossings in this kinde, and that sometimes they had the seruice in one tongue, and sometimes in another, not onely in diuerse countreyes, but euen in the same accordingly as the different factions prevailed. Vuratizlaus Duke of the Bohemians desired of Pope Hildebrand, that he would giue consent that they might say divine seruice in the Slavon tongue, and it seemeth by the Popes answere, it had bin so before, as in other places, so here; for he 7 Lib. ep. 11. sayth, neque ad excusationem iuvat, quod quidam religiosi viri, hoc quod simplicitèr populus quaerit, patienter tulerunt, seu incorrectum dimiserunt, cum Primitiva Ecclesia multa dissimulaverit, quae à sanctis Patribus postmodum firmatâ christianitate, & religione crescente, subtili examinatione correcta sunt. That is, neither doth it serue to excuse, and make good this petition, that some religious men patiently endured and suffered that to be done, that the people simply desired, or that they let it alone vncorrected, or altered it not, seeing the Primitiue Church was content to winke at diuerse things, which the holy Fathers afterwards, when Christianity was firmely settled, and Religion increased, vpon diligent and exact examination, thought good to correct and alter. Derebus Eccles. c. 7. Walafridus Strabo testifieth, that in his time the divine seruice was still celebrated in the vulgar Germane tongue, amongst certaine Scythian Nations, especially those that are called Tomitani, and that certaine Germans doe inhabite in those parts.

There was a third sort of people to whom the Gospell was preached, that were so Otfridus inter epistolas Hincmari Rhemensis in epistolâ ad Luitberium excus. Par. 161 •… . pag. 633. Theotisca lingua velut agrestis habetur, dum à propriis nec scripturâ, nec arte aliquâ ullis est temporibus expolita: quippe qui nec historias suorum antecessorum ut multae gentes caeterae commendant memoriae. Quod si raro contigit, aliarum gentium linguam, id est Latinorum, vel potius Graecorum explanant. rude and vnlettered at the time of their conversion, that they knew not how to write any thing in their owne tongue, hauing no characters or letters of their owne, nor any monuments of antiquity, or report of things past, but in the Latine tongue: these could haue no forme of divine seruice deliuered vnto them at the first in their owne tongue. So that happily to some in this case, the Booke of God was at first deliuered in Latin, to be expounded by such as vnderstood it, to them that vnderstood it not: not as thinking it best so to haue it in a tongue not vnderstood, but because they could not doe otherwise. And therefore Iohn the 8th, vnderstanding that they of Moravia had an alphabet & characters, so that they could expresse things in writing, commaundeth thē to haue their seruice in the Slauonian tongue. And so in those places where they could not haue the booke of God in the vulgar tongue at the first, yet so soone as they had meanes, they caused the same to be put into the vulgar.

And therefore Inter epistolas Hincmari praefatio in librum antiqu •… linguá Saxonicâ scriptum pag. 634. it is reported that Ludovicus the Emperour, hauing a great care of Religion, and seeking the saluation of his subjects soules, whereas till that time the people of Germany, that vnderstood nothing but the Theudiscall tongue, could not read the Scriptures, but the learned onely, hauing now met with one Otfridus, a learned and holy Monke, commaunded him to Poeticè transferre. translate the Old & new testament into the German tongue, quatenus non solum liteteratis, verumetiam illiteratis, sacra divinorum praeceptorum lectio panderetur, that so the sacred reading of the divine precepts might be made cōmon to the learned & vnlearned: which worke he took in hand, & perfected, at the Emperors commaund, very willingly, hauing bin moued & admonished from aboue so to doe, & it was approued by Luidbertus Archbishop of Mentz. If the Index of prohibited bookes had beene out, which Pius 4. first, & Clement the 8t since, published to the world, the Emperour, Archbish. Translator, & people vsing the translation, had incurred grievous censures, and had beene branded as Heretickes. But this poynt of the new religion of Rome, was not then knowen, and therefore as they could, in all parts of the world, they translated the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue.

Whether the Saxons at the comming of Augustine into England, could write any thing in their owne tongue, it is much doubted, and many thinke they could not: so that happily the Bible was not deliuered to them in the vulgar at the first; but afterwards when they knew how to write in that tongue, it was. For, as we reade, Io. Trevilan. vbi supra. Beda translated a part of it into the Saxon tongue. Hist. Anglor. l. 4. cap. 24. And the same Beda reporteth, that before his time there was a certaine brother, in the monasterie of the Abbesse Hilda, who hauing receiued excellent grace of God, was wont to make poems, fit to set forward religion & pietie; so that whatsoeuer he learned by interpreters out of the holy bookes, the same things presently after hee would expresse in verse, in his owne tongue, that is, in English, most sweetely, and so as that he would peirce the hearts of such as heard him; and therefore the abbesse commaunded, that hee should bee taught the whole series and course of the holy historie, that he might expresse the same in his owne tongue: and so he did, for whatsoeuer by hearing hee could possibly learne, he turned into most sweete poems, so that his teachers became his hearers; for he composed poems & songs, concerning the creation of the world. and the beginning of mankinde, the whole historie of Genesis, Israels going out of Aegypt, and entring into the land of promise, and sundry other histories of holy Scripture; of the incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into heaven, of the comming of the holy Ghost, the doctrine of the Apostles, the terrour of the future iudgement, the feare of hell punishment, and the happinesse of the kingdome of heauen: and sundry other benefits and iudgments of God. In all which hee sought, to draw men from delighting in things that are euill, to the loue and practise of that which is good. Which poems no doubt were written, if they knew how to write at that time. Thus were they willing in those dayes, to take all occasion to make the Scripture knowen to the people, as farre forth as possibly they might.

And therefore it is not to bee doubted, but that when they had the Scripture onely in Latine, yet it was interpreted to the people, that they might vnderstand it, according to that of Iohn Billet, In proemio citatus à Cassandro liturgie. c. 36. in summâ de diuinis officijs; In the primitiue Church no man was permitted to speake in a tongue not vnderstood, vnlesse there were one to interpret: for to what purpose were it for a man to speake & not to be vnderstood? truely to none at all. Hence grew that laudable custome in some parts of the Church, that so soone as the gospell should bee read in the Latine, it should presently be expounded to the people in the vulgar. And this which hee sayth is confirmed, by the authoritie and testimony of In fine lib: 3. contra haereses. Epiphanius; who describing all the severall orders in the Church, amongst others hee reckoneth them that were, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That is, Interpreters that expressed in one tongue, that which was vttered in another, aswell when the lessons were read, as when the preacher spake to the people.

By all that which hath beene said, it appeareth, that the desire of Gods Church was ever, to communicate the Scriptures and bookes of God, to all people in the tongue they vnderstood; That the most part of the Christian Churches, had the booke of God in their owne tongue; And that if any had not, it was either because they could not tell how to write any thing in their barbarous tongues: or because the tongue, wherein they first receiued them, altering, they were not vnderstood then, as formerly they had been of their ancestours, to whom they were first deliuered in the same. So in Italy, France, & Spaine, aunciently they generally vnderstood and spake Latine, and therefore had the Scriptures deliuered vnto them in that tongue; but in time the Latine which they spake was so corrupted, and so degenerated into barbarisme, that the people of those parts vnderstood very little, of that which was written in the purer Latine formerly vnderstood; and therefore in processe of time they were forced to haue the Scriptures newly translated, into this new dialect, or rather corruption of the Latine. So had they the Bible translated into Italian, French, and Spanish, as before I shewed.

Their prayers and liturgies indeede were not altered; yet was there never any iudicious man, that thought it fittest, to haue the service of God performed without vnderstanding; but all the best & most pious in every age, thought it necessary by all good and possible meanes to prouide, that the people might haue their seruice of God, in a tongue they vnderstood. Wee haue heard already Iohn Billet peremptorily affirming, that in the primitiue Church no man was permitted, to speake in a tongue not vnderstood, vnlesse there were one to interpret; and that it was the custome of some Churches, so soone as the gospell was read in the Latine, to expound the same in the vulgar tongue: but, saith he, Vbi supra. What shall wee say of our times, wherein scarce, or not at all, either he that readeth, or heareth, vnderstandeth what hee heareth or readeth? So that wee may say truely, as the Prophet sometime complayned, The priest shall bee as one of the people: Videtur ergo tacendum potius esse quam psallendum, it seemeth therefore it were better to keepe silence then to sing.

Haymo a worthy and learned Bishop, writing vpon the Cap. 14. 1 Epist. to the Cor. hath these wordes, If hee that vnderstandeth onely that tongue, wherein he was borne and bred, stand by thee, when thou solemnly celebratest the mysterie of the masse, or makest a sermon, or powrest forth the wordes of blessing, how shall hee answere amen to thy blessing, not knowing what thou sayest? that is, how shall he answere that confirmatory word, amen, when he Sedulius in 1. Cor. 14. Qui nullam praeter propriam intelligit linguā, quod proprium est auditoribus, quomodo dicet amen? hoc est, quomodo tuae benedictioni perhibebit testimonium vel consensum, cum ignoret ipsius lingu ae qualitatem? vnderstanding onely his owne tongue, knoweth not what thou sayest in that barbarous tongue? And least any man should take advantage, and vrge, as the Papists are wont to doe, that because he speaketh of a barbarous tongue, his words are not to bee vnderstood, of him that speaketh in one of the three learned tongues, hee sheweth, that he that speaketh in the Hebrew tongue, to him that vnderstandeth nothing but Greeke, or in the Greeke, to him that vnderstandeth nothing but Latine, or in Latine, to him that vnderstandeth nothing but Greeke, is a barbarian. Yea if a Roman, and such a one, as is not a Grecian, pronounce the symbol or creed in Greeke, hee is a barbarian to him, that vnderstandeth nothing but Latine, though hee bee of the same nation, and people.

In 〈◊〉 Cor. 14. Thomas Aquinas mentioneth this, but giueth another interpretation of the word, but not so fit; making them to bee barbarians, that excell in strength of body, but are defectiue in strength of reason, which how farre wide it is from the scope of the Apostle, a blinde man may see. But in the same place, proposing the question, how hee that vnderstandeth no other tongue, but that of the country wherein he was borne, can conforme himselfe and say, amen, to the prayers he vnderstandeth not; his answere is, that hee may comforme himselfe in a generality, but not in particular, seeing hee knoweth not in particular, what it is that the minister sayeth, though in generall hee know that hee prayeth, or blesseth. And farther, asking why the prayers and blessings are not in the vulgar, that more fully & particularly the ignorant might conforme themselues vnto the same; his answere is; that happily it was so in the primitiue Church, but now that the faithfull are instructed, and knowe what it is they heare in the service of the Church, the blessings are in Latin; How weake an answere this is to proceed from such a man, who seeth not? for when hee sayth they know what they heare, either hee meaneth in particular, and then hee contrarieth his former wordes; or onely in generall; and then, they can giue no consent, but in generall: and so the question is not answered, why the prayers and blessings are not in the vulgar, that so being distinctly vnderstood, there might bee a distinct conforming to the same.

Lyra writing vpon the same place hath these wordes. When a Lay man saith the Lords prayer, or any other, devoutly, his affection is lifted vp toGod; reficitur affectus, non intellectus: sed quandò intelligit, reficitur affectus, & intellectus: and this the Apostle sheweth to be true in respect of the publique prayers, because if the people vnderstand the prayer or blessing of the Priest, melius reducitur in deum, & devotius respondet Amen. And then proceeding to those words, If thou blesse, &c. hath these words, What shall hee doe that supplieth the place of the vnlearned? Which words import as much, as what doth it profite the simple people that vnderstand not? as if he should say, litle or nothing, because they know not how to conforme themselues, to him that is the minister of the Church, by answering Amen, and that for this cause in the Primitiue Church, the blessings and all other things pertaining to the publique seruice of God, were in the vulgar tongue; but after that people were multiplyed and increased, and they had now learned to conforme themselues to the Priest, by standing when the Gospel is reade, and by adoring the Eucharist, the seruice was in Latine, and that it sufficeth now, that the Clearke doth answere for the whole people.

Here is confession, that the people profiteth litle or nothing, when the praiers and blessings are in a tongue they vnderstand not; that therefore the Primitiue Church had the seruice in the vulgar; that while it is in Latine they cannot themselues, but another must answere Amen for them; and that yet, now they haue learned by standing or kneeling, differently to conforme themselues to the Priest, according to the different things he doth; (which a deafe man that neuer heard word, may doe by obseruation of the eye) it is well enough.

But Cardinall Caietan vpon the same place hath these words: Out of this doctrine of the Apostle Paul, it may be gathered, that it were better, & more for the edification of the Church, to haue the publique prayers that are reade in the hearing of the people, pronounced in a tongue common to the cleargy and people, and vnderstood of them both, then in Latine. opusc. tom. 3. tract. 15. And when hee was challenged by the Parisians for saying, it were better to haue the prayers said in the Church in the vulgar, rather then in the Latine tongue; his answere was, that they recited not his words fully: for he had not said, it were better, but it were better for edification, nor that the prayers should be said, but that the publique prayers should be said in the vulgar tongue; and this his assertion, hee said, was grounded vpon the authoritie of the Apostle.

instruct. Christian. Cardinall Contarenus, proposing the question, what is to bee thought of such prayers as ignorant men make without vnderstanding, answereth, that it is to be conceiued that they are of force, in respect of the affection of the mind, and intention they haue to pray vnto God, though they know not what they desire, or pray for; but that they want the fruit which they should haue, if they vnderstood those prayers that they vtter with their mouthes: for then they would direct the intention of their mindes, and their desires to God, for the obtaining in particular of such things as with the mouth they pray for; and they would bee more edified, by the pious sense and vnderstanding of their prayers; And he concludeth, that they pray not in vaine, but that they would pray better, if they vnderstood the meaning of their prayers. And to the same purpose 〈◊〉 Article •… 3. division. Harding against Bishop Iuell, saith, it were better the people should say their prayers in their owne tongue, that they might the better vnderstand them.

Cap. Quoniam in ple •… que extra: de officiis iudicis ordinarii. Innocentius the 3d seemeth to haue had due consideration hereof, & therfore he prescribeth, that, because in sundry parts there are mixed within the same city or diocesse, people of different languages, hauing in the vnity of the same faith, different rites and manners; the Bishops of such Cities or Diocesses, shall prouide fit men to celebrate divine service, according to the diversities of their rites and languages, & to minister the sacraments of the Church vnto them, instructing them both by word, and example. Some restraine the words of Innocentius to the Greeke and Latin tongues only, as if he had only allowed the hauing of the seruice in different tongues, in those citties and places, where Greeks and Latines met. Hosius de sacro vernacule legendo p 665. sayth the Pope meant not to make any innouation, but his meaning was that the Graecians and Sclauonians that already 300 yeare had the seruice in their owne tongue should haue priests to say seruice vnto them in the same. But I see not why these words should be thus restrained; seeing there is no question but this Pope would allow that which Iohn the 8 his predecessour & others had don, in permitting, nay in cōmanding the seruice to be in the Slauonian tongue. And besides, how he could say that the Greeks in some parts of the world agreed with the Latines in the faith, whom he so bitterly reproueth for very maine differences in religion, and who as Thomas à Iesu testifieth most stiffely hold their owne religion, though they liue vnder Princes of the Roman profession, I know not.

Wherefore to grow to a conclusion, it appeareth that anciently all Churches, & that euer most of the Christian Churches, had their seruice in a tongue vulgarly vndestood; that if any had not, it was either because they knew not how to write any thing in their owne tongue; or because that which was their naturall tongue ceased to be so, after they first had the seruice in it; that many had soe in the West Church when Luther first shewed his dislike of Romish errors & abuses: that there neuer wanted worthy diuines, Bs & Praelates of great esteem, who vrged the vnfitnesse, of hauing it in a tongue not vndestood, & the necessity of the vulgar; that all in whom there was any sparke of grace, sought to haue it vnderstood; And therefore as I noted before out of Iohn Billet, sundry Churches though they had their seruice in Latine, yet caused the same things that they read in Latine to be expounded in the vulgar; others, as the Bs in the third Cap. 71. councel of Tours, that such things should be read to the people in the vulgar, as might informe & instruct them, in all points of Christian faith & religion: their words are these. We all with vnanimous cōsent haue thought fit to ordain, that euery B. shall prouide and haue homilies containing necessary admonitions, that so they that are vnder him, may be taught: our meaning is, that these homilies shall containe instructions touching the catholike faith, according to their capacities, concerning the euerlasting rewards of the good, & eternall damnation of the wicked, the resurrection & last iudgment, & such works & course of life, whereby men may attain, or whereby they are sure to be excluded from eternall life. And we ordaine, that euery B. take care, to translate the same homilies, plainely and perspicuously, into the vulgar Roman or German tongue, that all may the more easily vnderstand the things that are vttered vnto them.

Among other articles proposed in the councell of Trent by the Embassadors of Ferdinand the Emperor, cōcerning the necessary reformation of the Church, one was, that Anno 1562 apud Goldastum constit imperial tom. 2 p. 376. Happily it were to be permitted, that in some places, prayers faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue, might be intermingled with those things that are sung in latine. Likewise in the articles of reformation exhibited to the councell of Trent, by Charles the 9. Apud Gold. constit. imper. tom. 3. p. 570. In sacrificio paraecialibus Euangelium apertè & dilucidè & pro populi captu copiose ex suggestu exponatur, quo in loco quae plebano praeeunte fient preces linguâ fiant vernaculâ, peractâ autem re diuinâ latine & mysticis precibus, lingua etiam vernacula publicae ad Deum preces fiant. & ibidem plura. Which thing if it had bin granted by the councell, no new nor strang thing had bin brought in, for as De sacramen. eucharist. pag. 134. Hosius testifieth, the Church neuer forbad, to sing in the Churches in the vulgar tongue, in time and place.

It were to be wished, sayth Erasmus, that the whole service of God, might be celebrated and performed, in a tongue vnderstood of the whole people, as in auncient times it was wont to bee, and that all things should bee soe plainely and distinctly sounded out, that they might bee vnderstood of all that list to s De mod orandi. attend. And Defensio. li de officio pij viri. pag. 141. Cassander, fully agreeing with Erasmus, and alleadging to this purpose the Popes permitting of it to the Slauonians vpon the hearing of a voice frō heauen, & the authority of Caietan, sayth; It were to be desired that according to the mandate of the Apostle, and the auncient custome of the Church, consideration might be had of the people in the publike praiers of the Church, and in the hymnes and lessons, which are there read and sung for the peoples sake; and that the ordinary and vulgar sort of beleeuers, might not for ever bee wholly excluded, from all communion of prayers and diuine readings: and hee addeth; that vnlesse there bee a reformation in this and other things, there is no hope of any durable peace or consent of the Church: and professeth, hee cannot see but that they to whom the government of the Church is committed, shall one day giue an account, why they suffered the Church to bee thus miserably disquieted and rent in sunder, and neglected to take away the causes, whence heresies & schismes do spring, as in duety they should haue done. So that in this poynt as in the former, we see the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died was a true Protestant Church.

CHAP. 5.

Of the three supposed different estates of meere nature, grace, and sinne: the difference betweene a man in the state of pure and meere nature, and in the state of sinne; and of originall sinne.

THey of the Church of Rome at this day imagine, that God might haue created a man in the state of pure nature, or nature onely, aswell without grace, as sinne; Cameracensis 〈◊〉 senten: d. 1. q 2. Scotus lib 3. d 27. quaest. 〈◊〉 and that in this state of pure or meere nature, without any addition of grace, hee might haue loued God aboue all, and haue kept all the commaundements of God collectiuely, so as to breake none of them, at the least for a short time, though happily hee could not haue holden on constantly so to keepe them all, as neuer to breake any of them: seeing there would haue beene a contrariety, betweene reason, and that appetite that followeth the apprehension of sense, in that state of pure or meere nature. So that, according to this conceipt, grace was added not to inable man to loue God aboue all, to keepe the severall cōmaundements, which hee hath giuen, & to doe the workes, of morall vertue, (For all these hee might haue beene able to performe, out of the power of nature, without any such addition,) but to make him able constantly to keepe all the commaundements of God collectiuely, so as neuer to breake any one of them, and to keepe them so as to merit eternall happines in heauen.

Hence they inferre diverse things: First, that the losse of grace or originall righteousnes, that was given to Adam, doth not depriue those of his posterity of the power of louing God their Creator aboue all, of keeping his commaundements divisiuely, and doing the seuerall workes of morall vertue, though happily not with that facilitie, that in the state of grace hee might haue done them. Secondly, That Infidels and such as haue no fellowship with the Saints & people of God, nor any part in his grace, may decline sinne, and doe the workes of morall vertue. Thirdly, That all the contrariety that is found in the powers of the soule, the rebellion of the inferiour faculties against the superiour, the pronenesse to euill, and difficultie to doe good, would haue beene the conditions, of meere nature without addition of grace or sinne, and consequently, that they are not sinne in the state wherein wee are; that these evills are not newly brought into the nature of man by the fall; that as man would haue beene mortall in the state of meere nature, because compounded of contraries, so out of the contrariety of sensitiue and rationall desire, hee would haue found a rebellion in himselfe, of the inferiour faculties against the superiour; that as a heauy thing falleth not downeward while it is stayed, but falleth so soone as the stay is taken away, by reason of the same nature it had, while it was stayed, and as a ship that lay quietly while it was stayed with an anchor, vpon the remouing of the same is driuen with the windes, yet in no other sort then it would haue beene before, if it had not beene stayed; so all these contrarieties, differences, and pronenesse to desire things contrary to the prescript of right reason, would haue beene in meere nature as the conditions of it, & would haue shewed themselues if grace had not hindered them; and that there is no other difference betweene a man in the state of pure or meere nature, and in the state of originall sinne, then there is betweene a man that neuer had any cloathing, and him that had, but by his owne fault and folly is stript out of all; betweene whom there is no difference in the nature of nakednesse, but all the difference standeth in this, that the one is in fault for not hauing cloathes, the other not so. For they suppose man would haue beene carried as strongly to the desire of sinfull things, in the state of pure nature, as now, that freewill is not made more weake, then in that state it would haue beene, nor the flesh become more rebellious then it would haue beene without grace, before the entrance of sinne.

This opinion Bellarmin followeth, and professeth, that though some of excellent b Degratiâ primi hominis l. vnic. c. 5. learning thinke, that both Thomas, and the best and most approued of the schoolmen, were of a contrary iudgment, yet they are deceiued in so thinking, and that this is the opinion of them all.

Against these erroneous conceipts, that are indeede the ground of all the points of difference, betweene them and vs, touching originall sinne, freewill, the power of nature, the workes of infidels, and the like, we oppose this proposition: That no state of pure or meere nature can be conceiued, but that either a man must be lifted aboue himselfe by grace, or fall below himselfe by sin. And this proposition is proued by vnanswerable reasons: For if the principall powers of the soule, cannot performe their owne proper actions, by any naturall facultie, nor without the addition of grace, and a kinde of divine force, and helpe, then can there be no conceipt of a state of pure or meere nature, seeing the nature of a thing implieth the powers pertaining to it, and a possibility to bring forth the actions of such powers: But it is evident that the principall powers of mans soule, cannot by any naturall facultie performe their proper actions, because the first trueth and chiefest good, are the obiects of the reason, and the will, and these are infinite, and the naturall capacitie of reason and the will is finite, so that whatsoeuer we vnderstand and conceiue concerning God, is so much lesse, and commeth so much short of his infinite perfection, as the capacitie of our vnderstanding is lesse then the infinite being of God.

But how then will some man say, can man attaine his good beeing so high, excellent, & farre remoued from him, and so infinitely beyond, & without the cōpasse of his naturall facultie. The answer hereunto is, that though nothing can be lifted vp, to be any thing aboue the nature of it, yet by forrain helpe a thing may bee carried or lifted aboue it selfe, or aboue the nature of it, that is, aboue that to which the naturall facultie of it extendeth it selfe, as a stone may by the hand of man be cast vp on high, whether it hath no facultie to moue it selfe: so the soule may be raysed and lifted by grace in the acts of her powers, aboue that to which by any naturall facultie, they can extend themselues: For though by nature men cannot know God as he is in himselfe, but onely so farre forth as by his effects and glorious workes he may be knowne, yet God may present himselfe vnto them in the light of grace, as he is in himselfe, and make his infinite greatnesse to appeare vnto them: All the knowledge that naturally we haue of God is by considering those perfections that are found in the creatures, that implye in them no imperfection, and which whatsoeuer hath, is better then those things are that haue th •… not: for perswading our selues that they are some where found in the highest degree, and without that mixture of imperfection that cleaueth to them in this or that particular, wee name that thing God, wherein they are so found in so excellent sort: now all these perfections that we conceiue and apprehend are finite, for they are perfections found and discerned in the creatures, and the degrees of them, are the degrees of things finite, so that vnlesse wee haue another illumination by grace, whereby wee may come to some apprehension of God, as he is in himselfe, we know not God as God, neither doe wee worship and honour him as God, because not as infinite, and all our worship is idolatrie, giuing that vnto the resemblance, that pertaineth to the trueth, as Cusanus sheweth at large de doctâ ignorantiâ l. 〈◊〉 c. 26. and so he must, or else man can neuer attaine that which is is his proper good. Actus rationalis creaturae, sayth Alensis. p: 3: q: 61: memb. 1. oportet quod ordinetur ad bonum quod est supra naturam, quod est summum bonum & infinitum; quia ergo non est possibilis extensio rationalis creaturae supra seipsam, ideo non est eipossibile per naturā vt ordinet suum actū siue perueniat in suum finem, & ideo necesse est quod iuuetur à gratiâ. The act of a reasonable creature, must be directed to a good aboue nature which is the chiefe good, and infinite; because therefore a reasonable creature cannot raise it selfe aboue it selfe, therefore it is not possible that by the power of nature it should order its act, or attaine its end: and therefore it must be holpen by grace.

So then there is no immediate knowledge of God, as hee is in him selfe, no knowledge that in time for his owne sake he made all things of nothing, no knowledg how and in what sort wee depend on him, how his prouidence reacheth to vs, how hee guideth us in all our wayes, and consequently how wee should loue him, feare him, and trust in him, and depend vpon him; And if within the compasse of nature there bee no such knowledge of God, then is there no right loue of God; For no man can rightly loue God, vnlesse hee rightly know him; And if we doe not rightly loue God, wee can do nothing well, nay wee cannot but continually doe evill; Grego: Ariminensis l. 2. d. 〈◊〉 . q. 〈◊〉 . For euery thing that a man willeth and affecteth, is either God, or some other thing besides God; If a man loue God & not for himselfe but for some other thing, this act is sinfull and culpable, and not morally good. If a man loue any other thing besides God, and loue it not finally for God, the act of his loue resteth finally in some other thing that is not God, and hee loueth it for it selfe without any further reference, and soe inioyeth some other thing besides God, as if it were the vttermost and most principall good, which act is culpable. Now if a man remaining within the compasse of nature withour addition of grace, cannot but doe euill, then can there bee noe state of nature that is not sinnefull, without grace, and consequently there can bee no state of pure or meere nature, seeing euerie thing that is culpable and faulty in any kind, is contrary to the nature of the thing wherein it is found, and a corruption of nature. But that all the principall actions of men without grace are culpable and faulty it is euident; because they loue God for some other thing and not for himselfe, neuer coming to any knowledge of him as hee is in himselfe, and they loue other things for themselues, and finally, without any reference to God. So that grace is necessarily required in man, for the performance of his actions, so as not to sinne. And it is true that vbi supra. Gregorius Ariminensis hath, that Adam in the state of his creation, was not sufficiently inabled, to performe any act morally good, or soe to doe any good thing as not to sinne in doing it, by any thing in nature, if hee had not had speciall grace added. Whence it will follow that there is no power to doe good, or not to sinne, in the nature of a man, but from grace; that when grace is lost, there is an impossibility of doing good, and a necessity of doing euill.

The Papists and wee agree that originall sinne is the privation of original righteousnesse; but they suppose there was in nature without that addition of grace, a power to doe good, and that it was not giuen simply to make man able to do good, but constantly, and so as to merit heauen; so that it being taken away, a man may decline each particular sinne, and doe the seuerall workes of vertue, though neither so as neuer to sinne, nor soe as to merit heauen thereby; But wee say there neither was nor could be any power in nature as of it selfe, to doe any act morally good, or not sinnefull; that grace was giuen to inable men, to performe the actions of their principall powers, about their principall obiects, and to do good; and that it being taken away, there is found in them an impotencie to doe any act of vertue, and a necessity of sinning in all their morall actions, till they be restored again to the state of grace; that the difficulty to do good, pronenesse to euill, contrariety betweene the powers and faculties of the soule, and the rebellion of the meaner against the superiour and better, are not the conditions of nature, as it was or might haue beene in it selfe before the entrance of sinne, but that all these proceede from the putting of the powers of the soule, by the losse of grace, out of that course, which by the law of GOD and nature they were to hold. For doth not the condition of mans nature require, that amongst things inquired after, thought of, and knowne, God should be the first? and amongst things desired and loued, nothing should be desired and loued more or before him, nor otherwise then for him? and is it not cleare and euident, that if God be the first thing that is thought of, sought after, and loued, and that nothing be sought after or respected, but after and for GOD, that there will bee noe pronenesse to euill, difficultire to doe good, contrariety betweene the powers of the soule, and rebellion of the meaner and inferiour against the better and superiour? surely there is none that can or will make question of it. Now it is confessed by the best learned amongst the Schoolemen, that howsoeuer it be not soe in the course of our vnderstanding, in this state wherein wee are, yet according to the course of the nature of our vnderstanding simply considered, it should bee soe, that Sensitivus appetitus rationis quasi particeps fuerat effectus, sed cum á deo voluntas ad seipsam defecir, appetitus spreto rationis imperio sui iuris esse caepit: at que hinc innumerae cupidirates, innumeri timores at que morbi, ex quo etiam factum est, vt cum in primo actionum suarum prncipio occaecatus sit intellectus, & in particulari bono vltimum sinem collocarit, & suae dignitatis ignarus in corpus sese & sensum demerserit, & in corporis naturam degenerarit, in corporis volupratibus assequendis, & doloribus fugiendis finem suum constituerit. Contarenus de libero arbitrio. GOD should bee the first thing sought after and knowne by vs.

Secundum naturam (sayth 1. Sent. d. 3. q. 1. Scotus) Deus est primum cognitum, quia naturalis cognitio procedit ab indeterminato ad determinatū, indeterminatū negatiuè est magis indeterminatum, quam priuatiue indeterminatum: ergo praeconcipitur illi; & illud indeterminatum priuatiue secundum nostram cognitionem praeconcipitur determinato, quia ens & res prima impressione imprimuntur in animâ nostrâ secundum Auicennam 1. Metaphys. c. 5. ergo indeterminatum negatiue omnino primo est objectum nostro intellectui. At rationalitèr posterius creaturâ cognoscitur: quia primo concipitur hoc bonum, deinde bonum vniuersale abstractum secundâ abstractione, puta quod est indeterminatum priuatiuè, deinde bonum primâ abstractione abstractum, quod scilicet est indeterminatum negatiuè. And therefore it is noted by the learned, that there is a double knowledge and apprehēsion of things; the one distinct, the other confused; in the confused knowledge of things that is first apprehended by vs, that first affecteth the sense, but in distinct knowledge cognitorum primum est communissimum, & quae propinquiora sibi sunt priora, & quae remotiora, posteriora; quia nihil concipitur distinctè, nisi quando concipiuntur omnia quae includuntur in ratione eius essentiali.

And to the same purpose it is that Bonaventura itinerarium mentis in deum. c. 5. Bonauentura hath, Cum non esse priuatio sit essendi, non cadit in intellectum nisi per esse; esse autem non cadit per aliud; quia omne quod intelligitur, aut intelligitur vt non ens, aut vt ens in potentia, aut vt ens in actu; si igitur non ens non potest intelligi nisi per ens, & ens in potentiâ non nisi per ens in actu, & esse nominat ipsum purum actum entis, esse igitur est quod primo cadit inintellectum, & illud esse est, quod est purus actus: sed hoc non est esse particulare, quod est esse arctatum, quia permixtum est cum potentiâ, nec esse analogum, quia minime habet de actu, eò quòd minimè est: restat igitur quod illud esse, est esse diuinum: mira igitur est coecitas intellectus, qui non consider at illud quod prius videt, & sine quo nihil potest cognoscere: sed sicuti oculus intentus in varias colorum differentias, lucem per quam videt caetera, non videt, & si videt non tamen aduertit: sic oculus mentis nostrae intentus in ista entia particularia, & vniversalia, ipsum esse extraomne genus, licet primo occurrat menti, & per ipsum alia, tamē non aduertit; vnde verissimè apparet, quod sicut oculus vespertilionis se habet ad lucem: ita se habet oculus mentis nostrae ad manifestissima naturae. Quia assuefactus ad tenebras entium, & phantasmata sensibilium, cum ipsam lucem summi Esse. entis intuetur, videtur sibi nihil videre: non intelligens, quod ipsa caligo summa est mentis nostrae illuminatio, sicut quando videt oculus puram lucem, videtur sibi nihil videre.

By this which hath bin sayd, it is euident, that according to the course of nature not disordered, nor put out of course, the first thing that is inquired after, thought of and knowne, is GOD, and that hee is the first good that is desired & loued, & that no other thing is desired or loued but after him, & for him. So that none of the things formerly mentioned can bee found in the nature of man, vnlesse it be put out of course. Whence groweth the contrarietie betweene the meaner and better, superiour and inferiour faculties of the soule, but from hence, that the soule in this state of her aversion from God, taketh the beginning of all her knowledge from the senses, apprehendeth particular things as good vpon the first view, & to be desired, which afterwards vpon better consideration, in respects not considered at the first, shee findeth are not good nor desirable? And whence is the rebellion of the inferiour against the superiour, but from hence, that the superiour hauing cast off the dependance it formerly had vpon God & respect vnto him, the inferiour also casteth off the respect it had to it? Bernard. serm. ad milit. Templi c. 11. de sepulchro. Quid iustius esse poterat, quam talionem recipere? Vita Deus animae est, ipsa corporis; peccando voluntariè volens perdidit vivere, nolens perdat & vivificare; sponte repulit vitam-cùm vivere noluit, non valeat eam dare cui, vel quatenus voluerit; noluit anima regi à Deo, non queat regere corpus: si non non paret superiori, inferiori cur imperet? Invenit conditor suam sibi rebellem creaturam, inveniat animasuam sibirebellem pedissequam; transgressor inventus est homo divinae legis, inveniat ipse aliam legem in membris suis repugnantem legi mentis suae, & captivantem se in legem peccati: porrò peccatum separat inter nos & Deum, separet proinde mors inter corpus nostrum & nos.

From hence likewise is that danger of erring, whereunto man is subject; for apprehending particular things first, his knowledge is imperfect, and confused; & not without much labour, and danger of erring, doth he come to the distinct knowledge of any thing, And hence also floweth that ignorance that is found in men; for taking the beginning of all the knowledge they haue from the senses, they know no more touching any thing then may bee discerned by the accidents and outward effects of it, and so neuer come to know any thing in the essence of it, or immediatly as it is in it selfe. So that according to that which before I noted, out of the booke called Destructorium vitiorum; as a man may know in the darke, the length, breadth, and other dimensions of a thing, but not whether it be faire or foule, white or blacke. So men in this obscurity of discerning, may finde out that there is a God, and that he is the beginning and cause of all things: but they cannot know how faire, how good, how mercifull, and how glorious hee is, that so they may loue him, feare him, honour him, and trust in him as God, vnlesse they haue an illumination of grace,

The difference therefore betweene those of the Church of Rome and vs, touching originall sinne, consisteth in two points. First, In that they make the former defects of ignorance, difficultie to doe good, pronenesse to euill, contrarietie betweene the powers of the soule, and the rebellion of the meaner and inferiour, against the better and superiour, consequents of nature, as it might and would be in it selfe simply considered, without all defection and falling from God: that originall righteousnesse was giuen, to prevent and stay the effects that these naturally would haue brought forth, and that these are not the consequents of Adams sinne, but that onely the leauing of them free to themselues to disorder all, is a consequent of the losse of that righteousnesse which was giuen to Adam, and by him forfaited and lost: that they proceede from the guilt of sinne, but that they make not them guilty in whom they are. But we say that these are no conditions of nature simply considered, that they cannot bee found but where there is a falling from God, that they are the consequents of Adams sinfull aversion from God his Creator, that they are a part of original sinne, and that they make men guilty of grieuous punishment, so long as they remaine in them.

The second thing is, that originall sin is indeed according to their opinion the privation of originall righteousnes: but as original righteousnes was not giuen simply to inable men to decline euill and do good, but collectiuely, constantly, and meritoriously to decline euill & doe good: so the privation of it doth not depriue men of all power of declining euill & doing good, but only of the power of declining all euill, and doing all good collectiuely & meritoriously. But we say that originall righteousnes was given, simply to inable men to decline euill & to doe good, and that without it the nature of man could not performe her proper and principall actions, about her principall obiects: So that the privation of it, depriveth a man of all power of knowing, loving, fearing, honouring, or glorifying God as God, and of all power, of doing any thing morally good or not sinfull; and putteth him into an estate, wherein hee cannot but loue and desire things that God would not, or so as hee would not haue him; yea of louing other things more than God: and and so as to dishonour God in any kind, rather than not to enjoy the things he desires.

So that if wee speake of originall sinne formally, it is the privation of those excellent gifts of diuine grace, inabling vs to know, loue, feare, serue, honour, and trust in God, and to doe the things he delighteth in, which Adam had & lost. If materially, it is that habituall inclination that is found in men averse from God, carrying them to the loue and desire of finite things more then of God, and this also is properly sin, making guilty of condemnation, the nature and person in which it is found. This habituall inclination to desire finite things inordinately, is named concupiscence; and this concupiscence is two fold as p. 2. q. 105. memb. 2. art. 1. Alensis noteth out of Hugo, for there is concupiscentia spiritus, and concupiscentia carnis, there is a concupiscence of the spirit, or superiour faculties; & of the flesh or inferiour; the former is sinne, the latter sinne and punishment. For what is more iust then that the will refusing to bee ordered by God, and desiring what hee would not haue it, should finde the inferiour faculties rebellious and inclined to desire things the will would haue to bee declined?

It remaineth therefore that wee proceede to proue, that this doctrine was receiued, taught, & continued in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued & died, till & after Luthers time. I haue shewed already that Gregorius Ariminensis professeth, that Adam in the state of his creation, was not inabled to perform any acte morally good, or so to doe any good thing, as not to sin in doing it, by any thing in nature, without addition of grace; which thing he proveth out of the master of the sentences, whose words are these, speaking of the first man before his fall. 2 sent. d. 29. Egebat itaque homo gratiâ, non vt liberaret voluntatem suam quae peccati serva non fuerat, sed vt praepararet ad volendum efficaciter bonum, quod per se non poterat. That is, The first man needed grace, not to free his will, for it neuer had been in bondage, but to prepare and fit it effectually to will that which is good, which of it selfe it could not doe.

And he confirmeth the same out of Saint August: his words are these, De correption. & grat. c. 11. Istam gratiam non habuit homo primus, quâ nunquam vellet esse malus; sed habuit in qua si permanere vellet, nunquam malus esset; & sine quâ etiam cum libero arbitrio bonus esse non posset; sed eam tamen per liberum arbitrium deserere posset; nec ipsum ergo Deus esse voluit sine suâ gratiâ, quem reliquit in eius libero arbitrio, quoniam liberum arbitrium ad malum sufficit, ad bonum au •… m nihil parumest, nisi adiuuetur ab omnipotenti bono: quod adiutorium si homo ille per liberum non deseruisset arbitrium, semper esset bonus, sed deseruit, et desertus est. that is, The first man had not that grace, that might make him so will good, as neuer to become euill; but truely hee had that, wherein if hee would haue continued, hee should neuer haue bin euill, and without which, notwithstanding all the freedome of his will, he could not be good; yet by the freedome of his will he might loose it; wherefore God would not haue him to be without his grace, whom he left in the freedome of his will, because free will is sufficient of it selfe to doe evill, but it is of litle force, (or rather as the true reading is of no force, & nothing) to do good, vnlesse it be holpē of the omnipotent good, which helpe if mā had not, forsakē by his free will, he had ever beene good; but he forsooke it, and was forsaken.

Thirdly he proueth the same in this sort: Si Adam ante peccatum potuisset per suas vires naturales praecise agere actum moraliter bonum, ipse potuisset facere se de non bono bonum, posito quod aliquando fuisset sine omni actu voluntatis, cum suis tā tum naturalibus; aut de bono meliorem, deo illum non specialiter adiuvante. that is, If Adam had power before the entrance of sin precisely by the strength of his naturall faculties to do an act morally good, then hee might haue made him selfe good of not good, supposing that sometimes in the state of meere nature he had no act of will; or at the least he might haue made himselfe of good better, without the speciall helpe of God; but this consequent must not be admitted; for if Adam might thus haue done, the good Angels might haue done soe, but that is contrary to St Augustine, his words are these: Si boni Angeli fuerunt prius sine bonâ voluntate, eam que in seipsis deo non operante fecerunt: ergo meliores à i De ciuitate Dei li. 12. c. 9. seipsis, quam ab illo facti sunt; Absit. At si non potuerunt seipsos facere meliores, quā eos ille fecerat, quo nemo melius quic quam facit: profecto & bonam voluntatem quà meliores essent, nisi operante adiutorio creatoris, habere non possent. that is, If the good Angells were first without any good motion of will, or the goodnesse of the will, and afterwards, God not working, wrought it in themselues, then they made themselues better then they were made of him, which God forbid wee should euer thinke. But if they could not make themselues better then he made them, then whom no man can do any thing better, truly vnles the helpe of their Creator wrought them to it, they could not haue that goodnesse of wil whereby they might become better then they were before.

That which hee thus proueth touching the state of man before the fall, is vndoubtedly true in the state of the fall; and therefore all the most pious and iudicious men in euery age, haue taught as wee now do, that since the fall of Adam, there is no power left in any of his posterity before they be renewed by grace, to decline sinne or to doe any worke morally good, and that may be truly named a worke of vertue. And these cannot but farther agree with Ariminensis and vs touching the impotencie of nature before the entrance of sin, to do any good act, or act of vertue, of it selfe, without the addition of grace. For if grace had not bin giuen in the state of the creation simply to inable to do good, but that there had bin a power of doing good in nature, without and before the addition of grace, then vpon the losse of it there had followed no such impotencie in the present state, as these men affirme there did, and they that hold the other opinion denie. All these affirme that all the posterity of Adam are plunged into such an estate of ignorance by this fall, that without speciall illumination of grace, they know not sufficiently concerning any thing that is to bee done or committed, that it is to be done or committed, and wherefore, & in what sort: & into such an estate of infirmity & impotencie in respect of the will, that they cannot will any thing that is to be willed, for such cause, and in such sort as it is to be willed, and withsuch circumstances as are required, to make an act to be morally good, and truly vertuous.

De libero arbit. l. 3. c. 17. St Austine sayth, that Adam and Eue, so soone as they had sinned, were cast headlong into error, misery, and death, & that it was most iust they should soe be; for what sayth hee is more iust then vt amittat quisque quo bene vti noluit, cum sine vlla posset difficultate si vellet; id est, vt qui sciens rectè non facit, a •… ittat scire quid rectū sit; & qui rectè facere, cum posset, noluit, amittat posse cū velit? that euery one should loose that which when with ease he might hee would not vse well; that is, that he that hauing knowledge doth not right, should loose the knowledge of that which is right: & that he that would not do well when he might, should loose the power of doing well when hee would. Enchirid. c. 24. And elsewhere speaking of the first sinne of the Angells and men; hee sayth, that, when they fell, Subintrauit ignorantia rerum agendarum, & concupiscentia noxiarum; that is, there entred in ignorance of things to bee done, and desire of things hurtfull that are to be declined. Prosper in his Cap. 39 booke in defence of the preachers of grace against Cassian, reprehendeth him because he had said in his collation de protectione Dei, that Adam gained the knowledge of euill after his fall, but lost not the knowledge of good which he had receiued, & telleth him that both these propositions are vntrue; so that hee thinketh that Adam lost the knowledge of good.

De sacram. fidei l. 1. part 6 c. 12. 13. 14. Hugo de sancto Victore saith, the first man was indued with a threefold knowledge, cognitione scilicet creatoris sui, ut cognosceret à quo factus erat; & cognitione sui, ut cognosceret quid factus erat, & quid sibi faciendum erat; deindè cognitione quoque illius quod secum factum erat, & quid sibi de illo, & in illo faciendum erat. That is, he was indued with knowledge of his Creator, that he might know of whom he was made, with knowledge of himself, that he might know what he was made, and what he was to doe; lastly, with knowledge of that which was made together with him, & what he was to doe with, & in it. For no man is to doubt but that man had perfect knowledge of all those visible things, that were made for him, & with him, as much as pertained either to the instruction of his soule, or the necessity of bodily vse. This knowledge man hath not lost by the fall, neither that whereby hee was to prouide things necessarie for the flesh, and therefore God was not carefull afterwards to instruct him touching these things by the Scriptures, but he was to bee taught that knowledge that concerneth the soule onely, when hee was to be restored, because he had lost that only by sinning. And in the same place hee excellently describeth the knowledge of God that Adam had, to haue bin not by hearing only from without, as now, but by inspiration within, not that whereby now beleeuers by faith seeke after God as absent, but that whereby by presence of contemplation, he was more manifestly seene of him as knowing him. And concludeth, it is hard to expresse the manner of the diuine knowledge the first man had, but that onely this is certaine, that being taught visibly by inward inspiration, he could no way doubt of his Creator.

In like sort the same ibid. part. 7. c. 11. & 17. Hugo sheweth most excellently, that man hath lost all rectitude of will; for whereas there was giuen to man a double desire, iusti, & commodi: of that which is just, and that which is pleasing: the one voluntary, the other necessary; that by the one he might merite, or demerite; by the other he might be punished or rewarded (for if he had no desire of that is pleasing, hee could neither be rewarded by hauing, nor punished by being depriued.) He hath lost the one, & is punished in the other which remaineth: when either he is kept from inioying the things he orderly desireth, or left free to desire such things, as orderly are not to be desired. If man haue lost all desire of that which is just as just, as here he saith he hath; then surely he sinneth in all his actions, and is depriued of all morall rectitude; for what morall rectitude is in him, that loueth nothing, because it is just, farther then it may be commodious, and in that respect pleasing?

The schoolmen are wont to vrge, that a man may naturally loue God aboue all; for seeing he naturally loueth that which appeareth vnto him to bee good, why should he not loue God aboue all, who is the chief good? To this Luthers answer is this, that there is a twofold loue; for there is amor amicitiae, & amor concupiscentiae, a loue whereby a man willeth the good of him that he loueth, & a loue whereby he desireth to make vse of the good of that hee loueth, and to make it serue his turne. In the first sort a man loueth his friend; by the latter his horse: now saith Luther, it is true, that euery sinfull man loueth God with the latter kind of loue, desiring to make vse of God to serue his owne turne: but it is not possible for a naturall man to loue God as a man loueth his friend, that is, to desire that God may rule, & raigne, & be glorified as God, to rejoyce when his will is done, though it be contrary to that we desire; to bee grieued when he is offended. And this surely is confirmed by Epist. 11. pag. 1406. Bernard, for he saith, that there are 4 degrees of loue. For 1, a man loueth nothing but himself. 2 Heloueth other things, & amōgst other things God for himself finding that he cannot be without him. Thirdly, He loueth God, for God. Fourthly he loueth him selfe for God. The two former are naturall, and as I thinke finfull: the two latter I am well assured in the iudgement of Saint Bernard proceede from grace, and not from nature, for hee sayth, That is first that is naturall, and then that which is spirituall; and that scarce any of the elect of God goe beyond the first of these two latter degrees in this life. So that according to that which before I alleadged out of Gregorius Ariminensis, euery one that willeth any thing, either willeth God, or some other thing that is not God; if God, & not for God, but for some other thing expected to bee had from him, or by him, this is vti fruendis, to make vse of that, for the hauing of some thing as more loued, that should be enjoyed as the best and most loued of all other things, and this is most perverse, as Saint Augustine telleth vs. If wee loue any thing else besides God, and not for God, it is likewise an iniquitie. So that seeing naturally it is impossible to loue for God, it is impossible to loue any thing rightly; and consequently all the actions of naturall & vnregenerate men are sinne. And that they are so indeede, it is proved by such authorities as may not be excepted against. Cyprian de bono patientiae in principio sayth, the true vertue of patience cannot be in Infidells; now there is the same reason of one vertue and of all, his words are these. Hanc se sectari Philosophi quoque profitentur, sed tam illis patientia est falsa, quam & falsa sapientia; vnde enim vel sapiens esse vel patiens posset, qui nec sapientiam nec patientiam Dei novit, quando ipse de ijs qui sibi sapere in mundo videntur moneat & dicat, perdam sapientiam sapientum, & prudentiam prudentum reprobabo? Contra Iulianum Pelagianum, l. 4. c. 3. Augustine sayth, Thou wilt say if a Gentile shall cloath the naked, is it sinne, because it is not of faith? truely in that it is not of faith, it is sinne; not because the action of cloathing the naked in it selfe is sinne: but to glory in such a worke and not in the Lord, none but an impious man will deny to bee sinne. If a Gentile that liueth not by fayth, shall cloath the naked, deliver him that is in daunger, binde vp the wounds of him that is wounded, bestow his goods to honest & friendly purposes: and shall not suffer himselfe to bee brought by any torments to beare false witnesse; I aske of thee, whether hee doe these good workes well or ill? for if hee doe these things ill, that are good, thou canst not deny but that hee sinneth, that doth any thing ill: if thou say hee doth these good things, and doth them well, then an euill tree bringeth forth good fruite, which he that is truth it selfe saith cannot bee. If thou shalt say that a man that is an Infidell is a good Sequitur ibidem apud Augustinum. Sed forte dicturus es miseri •… ors voluntas bona est. Recte istud dice •… etur, si que madmodum fides Christi, id est, fides quae per dilectionem operatur, semper est bona, ita misericordia semper esset bona; si autem reperitur & misericordia mala, qua persona pauperis accipitur in judicio, propter quam postremo rex Saul meruit à Domino vtique misericorde damnari, quia contra eius praeceptum captivo regi per humanum pepercit affectum, attentius cogita ne forte misericordia bona non sit, nisi quae huius bonae fidei fuerit. Imò responde, vt hoc sine dubitatione perspicias, vtrum bonam misericordiam existimes infidelem. Porto si vitium est male misereri, procul dubio vitium est infideliter misereri. Quod si & ipsa per seipsam naturali compassione opus est bonum, etiam isto bono male vtitur qui infideliter vtitur, & hoc bonum male facit, qui infideliter facit, qui autem male facit aliquid, profecto peccat. Ex quo colligitur etiam ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene vtitur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata, quibus & bona male faciunt, quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, h •… c est, stulta & noxi •… voluntate faciunt. Qualis voluntas nullo Christiano dubitante est arbor mala, quae facere non potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. tree, then hee pleaseth God, for that which is good cannot but please God who is good.

But Iulian the Pelagian answereth, as the Papists doe at this day: I acknowledge, saith hee, that they are steriliter boni, that is, their good is barren and bringeth forth no fruite, who not doing the good things they do for God, receiue not from him the reward of eternall life. The answere of Saint Augustine is out of the 6 of Mathew: If thine eye bee evill, thy whole body shall bee full of darkenesse, &c: Know that this eye is the intention, with which every one doth that hee doth; and learne by this, that hee that doth not his good workes, out of a good intention of a good faith, that is, of that faith that worketh by loue, all the whole body that consisteth of such workes as members, is full of darkenes, that is, the blacknes of sinnes. Or truely because thou grantest that such workes of infidels as seeme to thee to bee good, bring them not to eternall saluation and the kingdome of heaven: know thou that we say that that good will, that good worke by which onely a man may bee brought to the everlasting gift and kingdome of God, can bee given to none, without that grace that is given by him, that is the only mediatour betweene God and man. All other things that seeme to bee commendable amongst men, let them seem to thee to bee true vertues, let them seeme to thee to bee good workes, and done without all sinne. For my part this I know, that the will is not good that doth them, for an vnbeleeuing will and vngodly is not good. Let these wills be according to thy iudgement good trees, it sufficeth that with God, or in Gods judgement, they are barren, and so not good. Let them be fruitfull amongst men, amongst whom also they are good, vpon thy credit & authority, thy commendation, thy planting, if thou wilt haue it so: so that I obtaine this whether thou wilt or not, that the loue of this world, whereby euery one is a friend of this world, is not of God; and that the loue that maketh a man injoy the creatures whatsoever they bee without the loue of the creator, as the chiefest and vtter most good, is not of God. Now the loue of God whereby wee come to God, is not but from God the Father by Iesus, together with the holy Ghost. By this loue of the creator, each one vseth the creatures rightly, and without this loue of the creator, no man vseth the creatures well.

And againe, August. ibid. Noveris non officiis, sed finibus à vitiis discernendas esse virtutes. Officium est autem quod faciendum est: finis vero propter quod faciendum est. Cum itaque facit homo aliquid vbi peccare non videtur, si non propter hoc facit propter quod facere debet, peccare convincitur. Quae tu non attendens fines ab officiis separasti, & virtutes veras officia sine finibus appellandas esse dixisti. Ex quo te tanta absurditas sequitur, vt veram cogaris appellare iustitiam, etiam cuius dominam repereris avaritiam. Siquidem manus abstinere ab alieno, si officium cogites, potest videri esse iustitiae. Sed cum quaeritur, quare fiat, & respondetur, ne plus pecuniae litibus pereat: quomodo iam hoc factum verae poterit esse iusticiae, cum serviat avaritiae?

And againe. Ibid. Absit vt virtutes verae cuiquam serviant, nisi illi vel propter illum cui dicimus Psal. 79. Deus virtutum converte nos. Proinde virtutes quae carnalibus delectationibus, vel quibuscunque commodis & emolumentis temporalibus serviunt, verae prorsus esse non possunt. Quae autem nulli rei servire volunt, nec ipsae verae sunt. Verae quippe virtutes Deo serviunt in hominibus, á quo donantur hominibus. Quicquid autem boni fit ab homine, & non propter hoc fit, propter quod fieri debere vera sapientia praecipit, etsi officio videatur bonum, ipso non recto fine peccatum est. & ideo, De civitate Dei, l. 19. c. 25. Virtutes non relatae ad Deum, vitia potius sunt, quam virtutes: Nam licet à quibusdam tunc verae & honestae putentur esse virtutes, cum ad seipsas referuntur: nec propter aliud expetuntur, etiam tunc inflatae ac superbae sunt: & ideo non virtutes virtutes, sed vitia iudicandae sunt. August. in Ps. 31. Bona opera extra fidem, simillima sunt celerrimo cursui extraviam.

And againe, De civit. Dei l. 19. c. 25. Quamlibet videatur animus corpori, & ratio vitiis laudabiliter imperare, si tamen Deo animus & ratio ipsa non seruit, sicut sibi serviendum esse ipse Deus praecepit, nullo modo corpori vitiisque rectè imperat. Nam qualis corporis at que vitiorum potest esse mens domina, veri Dei nescia, nec eius imperio subiugata, sed vitiosissimis daemonibus corrumpentibus prostituta? Proinde virtutes quas sibi habere videtur, per quas imperat corpori & vitiis ad quodlibet adipiscendum vel tenendum, nisi ad Deum retulerit, etiam ipsae vitia sunt potius quam virtutes.

1 Lib. de vocatio: gentium cap. 7. Prosper agrees with Saint Austine: his words are these sine cultu veri Dei etiam quod virtus videtur esse, peccatum est; nec placere ullus Deo sine Deo potest. Qui verò Deo non placet, cui nisi sibi & Diabolo placet? That is, without the worship of the true God, euen that which seemeth to be vertue is sinne; neither can any man please God without God; And whom doth hee please that pleaseth not God but himselfe and the diuell? And the same Prosper in his Cap. 1. 3d booke de vitâ contemplativâ, Apostolus non dixit, omne quod non est ex fide, nihil est; sed dicendo, Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est: declaravit quod omnia gesta, sinon fuerint ex fide, non sint aliqua bona credenda, sed vitia, quae non invant suos operarios, sed condemnant, inflatosque praecipitant, atque à finibus aeternae salutis eliminant; That is, the Apostle did not say whatsoeuer is not of faith is nothing, but by saying it is sinne, he declareth that whatsoeuer things haue not beene done out of faith, are not to be thought good, but faults and vices, which doe not helpe the workers of them, but condemne them, and cast them headlong downe being puffed vp, and banish them out of the confines of eternall saluation. And the same Lib. sent. ex Augustino sentent. 106. Prosper in another place, Omnis infidelium vita peccatum est, & nihil bonum sine summo bono, ubi enim deest agnitio aeternae, & incommutabilis veritatis, falsa virtus est etiam in optimis moribus, That is, the whole life of Infidels is sinne, and there is nothing good without the chiefe good; and wheresoeuer the knowledge of the eternall and incommutable veritie is wanting, let a mans manners be neuer so good, it is no true vertue hee seemeth to haue.

There is nothing good without faith, saith Chrysostome, and that I may vse a similitude, and make a comparison, they that flourish in good workes and know not God, seeme to me to bee like the reliques of the dead wrapped vp fairely. Basil in his Qu •… st. 7. second booke de baptismate, proposing the question whether it be possible, or whether it be acceptable to God, that he that serueth sin, should doe the workes of righteousnesse, bringeth the explication of this question out of the Olde Testament, where GOD saith; the sinner that offereth to me a calfe, is as he that killeth a dogge, and in the New Testament the Lord saith, he that doth sinne is the seruant of sinne, and no man can serue two masters; wherefore we are to bee exhorted to make the tree good and her fruit good, and first to purge and make cleane that which is in the inside of the cuppe and of the platter, and then all that is without will bee cleane.

Lib. 22. c. 10. super 31. cap. Iob. Gregory in his morals, writing vpon those words of Iob, If my mouth haue kissed my hand, hath these words. Sancti viri sciunt se non virtute propri •… sed praeveniente supernâ gratiâ ad meliora vota vel opera commutatos; & quicquid sibi mali inesse cognoscunt de mortali propagine sentiunt meritum: quicquid verò boni in se inspiciunt, immortalis gratiae cognoscunt donum, eique de accepto munere debitores fiunt, qui & praeveniendo dedit eis bonum velle quod voluerunt, & subsequendo concessit bonum posse quod volunt. Let them that are otherwise minded, tell vs, whether the morall actions of Infidels bee good or euill, if good, then they are from grace, whereof they are not partakers, if euill, then haue they the thing proued about which we contend.

Beda writing vpon the 14th to the Romanes vpon those words, Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, saith as Prosper, that all the whole life of Infidels is sinne, that nothing is good without the chiefe good, that where the knowledge of the eternall and incommutable veritie is not, if the manners and conversation of them that haue it not, bee neuer so good, they haue no true vertue.

Bernard in his booke Cap, 40. de gratiâ & libero arbitrio: Liberi arbitrii conatus ad bonum & cassi sunt si non gratiâ adiuventur: & nulli si non excitentur: caeterum in malum dicit scriptura proni sunt sensus & cogitationes hominis. That is, the endeavouring of freewill to doe good is in vaine, if it bee not holpen by grace, and none at all if it be not stirred vp by grace; but the scripture saith the senses and thoughts of men are prone to euill. Neither can they say that hee speaketh onely of meritorious good, and such as is rewardable in heauen; for hee speaketh generally of good; as it appeareth, in that hee opposeth it not to some other kind of good, but to euill.

Comment: in 14. caput: epistolae ad Romanos. Anselme Archbishoppe of Canterbury fully agreeth with the rest, affirming in the same words that Prosper and Beda did before, that the whole life of infidels is sinne, that there is nothing good without the chiefe good, and that where the knowledge of the eternall and incommutable veritie is wanting, if the manners and conuersation of them that haue it not bee nouer soe good and commendable, they haue no true vertue. Peter Lombard the master of the sentences sometimes Bishoppe of Paris writing vpon the same place, hath the same words: and soe hath the ordinary glosse.

Citatus ab Ariminensi li. 2. d. 26. 27. 28. q. 1. artic. 1. Grosthead the renowned Bishoppe of Lincolne in his sermon vpon the Aduent, the beginning whereof is this, There shall be signes in the sunne and in the Moone, hath these words; Bright and glittering starres of vertue seemed to shine and appeare in the morall doctrine of naturall men, and in the conversation of many Gentiles, as of the Scipioes and others: but now it is truly manifest and cleare, that without the faith of Christ there is no true vertue, in the doctrine or conuersation of any man. And in his cap. 37. Enchiridion hee sayth, that this was the opinion of St Augustine; where treating of the foure Cardinall vertues, and proposing the question, whether Cato and the Scipioes had such vertues, hee sayth thus: Wee grant with Augustine that no man euer had or could haue true vertue without the faith of Iesus Christ: and proueth it immediately after in this sort. Non enim potest esse amor ordinatus, vbi contemnitur & non amatur quod maximè amandum est, cum non ametur nisi quod scitur aut creditur: vnde patet, quod qui nescit, aut non credit dominum Iesum Christum, non amat aut contemnit quod maximè amandum est, quapropter in tali virtus non est: quod etiam probat Augustinus talibus argumentis, dicens, Absit vt in aliquo sit vera virtus nisi sit iustus &c: that is, There can bee no orderly loue of things where that is contemned and not loued, that is to be loued most of all, whence it is cleere and euident, that seeing nothing can bee loued but that which is knowne or beleeued, hee who knoweth not or beleeueth not the Lord IESVS CHRIST, contemneth or at least loueth not, that which is most of all to bee beloued, and therefore in such a one there can bee noe true uertue, which also Augustine proueth by arguments of this sort, saying, GOD forbidde that true vertue should be conceiued to bee in any man vnlesse hee be iust &c. By these passages of the Bishoppe of Lincolne it appeareth, sayth Ariminensis, that hee thought, as wee doe, that noe act morally good, canne bee done without the speciall grace of GOD, for if there bee noe vertue without such grace, then canne there bee noe act morallie good: which is yet more fully cleared: for euery vertuous and morall good act, either is orderly loue, or presupposeth it: soe that if there can bee noe orderly loue without GODS grace, there can bee noe act of vertue, or act morally good. With this famous Bishoppe of LINCOLNE wee may ioyne Thomas Bradwardine, the noe lesse famous and renowned Archbishoppe of CANTERBVRIE, who is his Summe de causa Dei contra Pelagium at large confirmeth and proueth the same. Soe that it seemeth by Beda, Anselme, Grosthead and this BRADWARDINE, that this was euer the doctrine of the Church of England, as now it is.

De libertate Christianâ li. 2. cap. 34. Pupperus Gocchianus that liued a litle before Luthers time, saith, The whole life of infidels is sinne, there is nothing good without the chiefe good: where there wanteth the knowledge of the eternall trueth, if mens manners be never so commendable they haue no true vertue; hee that offendeth in one, that is, in charity is guilty of all; hee therefore that hath not faith and charitie, every action of his is sinne. And he addeth, Cap. 35. that when Augustine sayth, that they that haue not charity may doe good things, but not well, his words are not to bee vnderstood, as if the things which they doe without charitie were good, when they doe them without charitie, but that they would bee good, if they were done in charity, or that they are of such nature and kind, which being done in charity, may bee good: otherwise hee should bee contrary to himselfe, where hee sayth that every action of him that hath not charity is sinne.

Explicat. Orthodoxae fidei pag 273. Andradius saith, that there was much difference touching this poynt not onely amongst the latter, but the more auncient divines also: and that some did so deiect all the actions and endeavours of infidels, as to affirme that none of them are or can bee without sinne; It is true indeede that there were ever some in the latter ages of the Church that contradicted this verity, which wee haue hitherto proved, but they were such as had a touch of Semipelagianisme.

Lib. de gratiá & libero arbitrio contra Cassianum, c •… 9. definit. 8. Prosper speaketh of a rule found in the collations of Cassian, Cauendum nobis est, ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctorum referamus, vt nihil nisi id quod malum est, humanae ascribamus naturae. That is, Wee must take heed least wee so attribute all the merits of the Saints to God, as to ascribe nothing to nature, but that which is evill and perverse. This rule sundry carefully followed in the midst of the Church in all the latter ages, who so acknowledged that no man can merit heauen without Gods grace, that yet they thought they might doe many things morally good, by nature without grace. But Prosper bitterly reprehendeth this; his wordes are these. Quasi natura ante gratiam non sit in damnatione, non sit in caecitate, non sit in vulnere: aut non gratis iustificati sint, quorum inde sunt merita vnde iustitia. That is, As if nature before grace were not in a state of condemnation, were not in blindnesse, and greivously hurt, or as if wee were not freely justified, all whose merits are from thence, whence is our righteousnesse. And all they that rightly vnderstood the doctrine of the Church, cleared by Saint Augustine against the Pelagians, concurred with Prosper, and taught as wee doe now, that all the workes of infidells and men not renewed and iustified by Gods speciall grace were sinnes.

Yea so great is the force of this trueth, that since the councell of Trent, some of great esteeme and place, in a sorte giue way vnto it. For Didacus Alvarez an Archbishop within the dominions of the king of Spaine, hath written a learned worke de Auxiliis gratiae, and dedicated it with good allowance to the king that now is; wherein hee Lib. 6 d. 〈◊〉 . pag. 4 •… 〈◊〉 . 431. &c. sayth, that though euery morall acte that is good ex genere & obiecto, as to giue almes to a poore man out of naturall compassion, bee of that nature, that it may bee done in reference to God, as loued aboue all, as the authour of nature, or as the cause and obiect of supernaturall happinesse, yet no such can bee so done de facto, but by the acte of charitie. So that by a man vnregenerate, no such acte canne bee done in reference to God, formally, or vertually. Now I suppose there is no morall acte that canne bee done by man, but it must bee referred, formally or vertually to some last end, and if not to God, as hee sayth the workes of Infidells cannot, then to some other end, and then of necessity they must bee sinne, for whatsoeuer is done in reference to any thing besides God as the last end, is done perversely and sinfully, The good man, no doubt, saw the trueth touching this poynt; and therefore sayth, that there is no true vertue without charity, that the workes of Infidels are not onely not meritorious, but not truely good, nor the workes of vertue: and proveth the same at large out of Augustine; whence it will follow that they are sinne; for every morall acte is either a worke of vertue and truely good, though in an inferiour sort, or sinne; but this he durst not say, He therefore saith. Dupliciter potest dici vera virtus. Primo. in ordine ad bonum particulare, & ad finem proximum eiusdem virtutis siue ad obiectum illius particulare non apparens sed verè bonum, velut ordinabile quantum est in se ad principale bonum quod est ultimus finis, ut dare eleemosynam ex naturali pietate non apponendo malam circumstantiam, est actus verae virtutis comparatione obiecti seu boni particularis. Secundo comparatione ultimi finis seu boni vniuersalis ut non tantum in se ille actus sit ordinabilis ad bonum principale quod est finis ultimus, sed etiam ex parte operantis referatur actu vel virtute. and so putteth himselfe into a necessitie of contradicting himselfe: for if an infidell when hee giueth an almes, cannot doe this act in reference to GOD, as the last end, either formally, or vertually, then hee must doe it formally, or vertually, in reference to some other thing most loued by him; and if hee doe so, then he putteth an ill circumstance to this his action, and so it cannot but bee sinne.

Thus then wee haue strongly proued, out of the testimonies of such as best vnderstood the doctrine of the Church, that grace was giuen to Adam in the day of his creation, not onely to make him constantly and collectiuely to doe all the morall duties that were required of him, and to merit supernaturall happinesse, as if he might haue done the seuerall duties, and performed the seuerall acts of morall vertue without it; but simply to inable him to doe good, and decline euill, so that it being taken away, man knoweth not his true good, nor is any way inclined to seeke it as he should doe. For whereas there was a threefold eye in Adam, as Institutionis monasticae serm. 35. Hugo de Sancto Victore noteth; Carnis, quo mundum & quae in mundo cernebat: rationis, quo se, & quae in se: contemplationis, quo deum: primum perfectè habet, secundum ex parte, tertium omninò non habet, nam postquam tenebrae peccati intraverunt; oculus contemplationis extinctus est ut nihil videret; oculus rationis lippus factus est, ut dubiè videret: solus oculus carnis in suâ claritate permansit. That is, Of the flesh by which hee saw the world, and the things that are in it: of reason whereby hee saw and vnderstood himselfe, and all the things that were in himselfe: and of contemplation, by which he was to see God: the first he hath still in perfection, the second in part, the third he hath wholly lost; for after the darkenesse of sinne entred, the eye of contemplation was put out, so as to see nothing at all; the eye of reason was dimmed so as to see doubtfully; only the eye of the flesh remained in perfection. And two kindes of euill are brought into the nature of man, Privativa, amissio notitiae in intellectu, & rectitudinis in voluntate, & conversionis ad deum tanquam ad proprium obiectum: positiva, perpetuae & tristes dubitationes de Deo, de providentiá Dei, iudicio, promissionibus, comminationibus, in voluntate conversio ad obiecta contraria legi: That is, there are Bellarm. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati l. 5. c. 15 No new inclination positiuely carries vs to euil, but the olde set free by losse of grace, as a thing propendeth to fall not by addition of new waight, but by taking away the former stay, and as a horse is incited to runne, not by the spurre, but by taking away the bridle. newly brought into the nature of man, euils of two sorts: privatiue, as the losse of the true & right knowledge of God in the vnderstanding, of rectitude in the will, and of due conversion to God as her proper object: positiue, as perpetuall doubtings of God, of the providence of God, his judgement, promises, threates, in his will a conversion to the desiring of things the Law forbiddeth.

This corruption of mans nature is excellently described by De vocatione gentium l. 1. c. 6. Prosper, Humana natura in primi hominis praevaricatione vitiata, etiam inter beneficia, inter praecepta & auxilia Dei, semper in deteriorem est proclivior voluntatem, cui committi, non est aliud quam dimitti. Haec voluntas vaga, incerta, instabilis, imperita, infirma ad efficiendum, facilis ad audendum, in cupiditatibus caeca, in honoribus tumida, curis anxia, suspicionibus inquieta, gloriae quam virtutum avidior, fame quam conscientiae diligentior, & per omnem sui experientiam, miserior fruendo his quae concupiverit, quam carendo: nihil in suis habet viribus nisi periculi facilitatem. And againe, Cap 7. Omnes homines in primo homine sine vitio conditi sumus, & omnes naturae nostrae incolumitatem, eiusdem hominis praevaricatione perdidimus, inde tracta mortalitas, inde multiplex corporis, animique corruptio, inde ignorantia, & difficultas, curae inutiles, illicitae cupiditates, sacrilegi errores, timor vanus, amor noxius, iniusta gaudia, poenitenda consilia, & non minor miseriarum multitudo, quam criminum.

By this which hath beene sayd it appeareth, that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, euer taught as wee doe, touching the state of mans creation, fall, and originall corruption: and euer reiected the fancies of those more then Semipelagians, that brought in the errours the Romanists now maintaine, and so was in this as in the former points, a true, orthodoxe, and Protestant Church.

CHAP. 6.

Of the blessed Virgins conception.

HAuing spoken of Originall sinne and shewed the nature of it; the next thing that is questioned, is the generality of it; for wee say that amongst al them that haue beene borne of women, there neuer was any found that was not conceiued in sinne, besides Christ the Lord, who had God for his father, and a virgin for his mother; of whose spotlesse conception, his Fathers diuinity, and mothers virginity, were proofe sufficient. But they of the Church of Rome at this day, for the most part say, that the blessed virgin the mother of our Lord, was conceiued likewise without spotte of originall sinne.

Leo the tenth was moued to determine this question touching the conception of the virgin in the councell of Lateran; But Cardinall Opuscul. tom. 2. tractatus 1. de concep: B. virginis. c. 〈◊〉 . Caietan writeth a learned discourse touching the same matter, and offereth it to Leo praying him to be well aduised: and in this tract, for proofe of her conception in sin, he produceth the testimonies of 15 canonized Saints; For first S. Augustine writing vppon the 34 Psalme, sayth, that Adam died for sin, that Mary who came out of the loynes of Adam died for sinne, but that the flesh of the Lord which hee tooke of the virgin Mary, died for to take away sin. And in his 2d booke de baptismo parvulorum, Hee only who ceasing not to be God, became man, neuer had sinne, neither did he take the flesh of sin, or sinfull flesh, though hee tooke of the flesh of his mother that was sinfull. And in his tenth booke de Genesi ad litteram, he sayth, Though the body of Christ were taken of the flesh of a woman, that was conceiued out of the propagation of sinnefull flesh: yet because hee was not soe conceiued of her, as shee was conceiued, therefore it was not sinnefull flesh, but the similitude of sinnefull flesh. And Saint Ambrose vppon those words, Blessed are the vndefiled, hath these words: The Lord Iesus came; and that flesh that was subiect to sinne in his mother, performed the warrefare of vertue. And Crhysostome vpon Mathew sayth: Though Christ was no sinner, yet hee tooke the nature of man, of a woman that was a sinner. And Eusebius Emissenus in his second sermon vpon the natiuity, which beginneth, Yee know beloued &c. hath these words, There is none free from the tie and bond of originall sinne, no not the mother of the redeemer. Saint Remigius, vppon those words of the Psalme, O God my God, looke vpon mee: sayth; The blessed virgin Mary was made cleane from all staine of sinne, that the man Christ Iesus might bee conceiued of her without sinne. Saint Maximus in his sermon of the assumption of the blessed virgin, sayth; The blessed and glorious virgin was sanctified in her mothers wombe from all contagion of originall sinne, before shee came to the birth, and was made pure and vndefiled by the holy Ghost. Saint Beda in his sermon vppon missus est (and the same is in the ordinary glosse) sayth, that The holy spirit comming vpon the virgin, freed her minde from all defiling of sinnefull vice, and made it chast, and purified her from the heate of carnall concupiscence, tempering and cleansing her hart. Saint Bernard in his epistle to them of Lyons sayth: It is beleeued that the blessed virgin after her conception, receiued sanctification while shee was yet in the wombe; which excluding sinne, made her birth holy, but not her conception. Saint Erardus a Bishoppe, and a martyr, in his sermon vpon the natiuity of the virgin, crieth out: O happie damsell, which being conceiued in sinne, is purged from all sinne, and conceiueth a sonne without sinne. Saint Anthony of Padua in his sermon of the natiuity of the blessed virgin sayth: The blessed virgin was sanctified from sinne by grace in her mothers wombe, and borne without sinne. Saint Thomas Aquinas (for he also was a canonized Saint) in the third part of his summe quaest. 27. art. 2. sayth, that the blessed virgin because shee was conceaued out of the commixtion of her parents, contracted originall sinne. Saint Bonauenture vppon the third of the sentences, distinct. 3. p. 1. artic. 1. quaest. 1. sayth, Wee must say the blessed virgin was conceiued in originall sinne, and that her sanctification followed her contracting of originall sinne: this opinion is the more common, the more reasonable, and more secure. More common, for almost all hold it. The more reasonable because the being of nature precedeth the being of grace. The more secure because it better agreeth with the piety of faith, and the authority of the Saints, then the other. Saint Bernardine, in sermonum suorum opere tertio, in his tract of the blessed virgin, sermon the fourth, sayth. There was a third sanctification, which was that of the mother of God, and this taketh away originall sinne, conferreth grace, and remoueth the pronenesse to sinne mortally, or venially. Saint Vincentius the Confessor, in sermone de conceptione virginis, sayth, The blessed virgin was conceaued in originall sinne: but that the same day and houre, she was purged by sanctification from sinne contracted, so soone as euer shee had receiued the spirit of life. And besides all these holden to bee Saints in the Church of Rome, hee sayth, there were a great multitude of auncient doctors, who speaking particularly and distinctly of the virgin, say shee was conceiued in originall sinne: whose sayings who pleaseth may find in the originalls: or may find them in the bookes of Iohannes de Turrecremata, and Vincentius de Castro Nouo writing vpon the conception of the virgin, whence they are taken. Thus farre Caietan.

In 3. sent: d. 3. part. 1. artic. 1. q. 2. Bonauentura professeth, that the opinion of the blessed virgins spotlesse conception was so new in his time, that he had neuer read it in any author, neither did he finde it to be holden by any one, that he had euer seene, or heard speak. And In 3. l sent. d. 3: citatus à Caietano vbi supra. Adam Angelicus sayth: If the sayings of the Saints be to be beleeued, wee must hold that the blessed virgin was conceiued in originall sin: and none of the Saints is found to haue sayd the contrary. Yet in time some beganne to bring in this opinion, and to make it publike; as Scotus, and Franciscus de Maironis: but very doubtfully, and fearefully: for In 3. sent. d. 3. q. 1. Scotus hauing spoken of both opinions touching the conception of the virgin, sayth in the conclusion: that God onely knoweth, which of them is the truer: but if it be not contrary to the authority of the Church or of holy Scripture, it seemeth 3. Lib. dist. 3. probable to attribute that to the virgin, that is more excellent. And that indeede hee had reason to feare least hee should contrary the Fathers and holy men that went before, it will easily appeare by that of the master of Sentences: It may truely bee said, and wee must beleeue according to the consenting testimonies of the Saints, that the flesh which CHRIST tooke was formerly subiect to sinne, as the rest of the flesh of the virgin, but that it was soe sanctified, and made pure, and undefiled, by the operation of the holy Ghost, that free from all contagion of sinne, it was vnited to the word.

But see how strangely things were carried: this opinion which was vnknowne to the Church for more then a thousand yeares, and at the first broaching of it had fewe patrons, yet in time grewe to be so generally approued, that almost all they of the Latine Church, thought they did God good seruice in following this opinion •… many visions, reuelations, and miracles were pretended in fauour of it, and the Councell of Basil decreed for it. Bridget canonized for a Saint, professed it had beene particularly revealed to her: but Catharina Senensis, a Prophetesse also, and more authentically canonized then the former, professed that the contrary was revealed to her, as the Antoninus sum. p. 1. tit. 8. c. 2. prope finem. Arch-bishop of Florence reporteth in his summe. And Tractatus citati superius c. 1 Caietan saith; if miracles be pretended for proofe, great caution is to bee vsed, both in respect of the strange workes: and in respect of the illusions that may fall out in things of this kinde. In respect of the strange workes that are done, because the Angell of Satan transformeth himselfe into an Angell of light; and can doe many great and strange things, which wee would thinke to bee true miracles, and such things as God onely can doe: as the workes of healing, strange mutations in the Elements, and the like. Whence it is, that it is said, Antichrist shall doe so many miracles in the sight of men, that if it were possible the very elect should bee deceiued. Moreouer as the Apostle testifieth 1 Cor. 14, and blessed Gregory in his tenth Homilie, miracles were giuen to Infidels, not to beleeuers; but to the Church, as faithfull, and not faithlesse, the propheticall and Apostolicall revelation was giuen for her direction. So that though that course of proofe that is by miracles, was appointed by Christ, Marke the last, in respect of Infidels: and though it bee h Cap. cum ex iniuncto extra: de haereticis. allowed by the Church, to make good the personall condition of some man, as when one pretendeth to bee sent extraordinarily of God: yet vnlesse most clearely a true and vndoubted, not wonder, but miracle, were done in the sight of the Gouernours of the Romane Church, expressely to testifie that this particular is true, the Roman Bishops ought not to determine any doubtfull thing in matter of faith, vpon the doing of a miracle. And the reason is, because God hath appointed an ordinary course for the resoluing of points of faith, so that if an Angell from Heauen should say vnto vs any thing contrary to this way, wee were not to beleeue him, as the Apostle saith in the first to the Galathians. Adde hereunto, that the miracles which the Church admitteth in the canonization of Saints, which yet are most authenticall, are not altogether certaine, seeing the credite of them dependeth vpon the testimonie of men, and euery man is a lyar. And hee concludeth, that Cap, 3. these things being so, wise men thinke, that pretended miracles and revelations in this kinde, contrary to so many Saints, and auncient Doctours, argue rather that the Angell of Satan is transformed into an Angell of light, and that whatsoeuer things are alleadged in this kinde are meere fancies, and counterfeite stuffe, then that they prooue the trueth of this conceipt; and that proofes in this kinde are fitter for silly women, then councels to take notice of.

It appeareth by Saint Epist. 174. Bernard, that in his time they of Lyons in France, out of a superstitious conceipt, as he rightly censureth it, beganne to celebrate the Feast of the Conception of the blessed Virgin, supposing that she was conceiued without sinne; but he opposeth himselfe against this innovation, and saith, the observation of the Church hath no such thing, reason inferreth it not, nor ancient tradition commendeth it, that wee are not more learned & devout then our Fathers, that in like sort others may bring in the Feast of her parents Conception, that patriae non exilii frequentia haec gaudiorum, & numerositas festivitatum cives non exules decet: That, whereas some brought out a certaine pretended writing of divine revelation, it was not to be regarded, and that another might bring forth the like writing, wherein the holy Virgin might bee found to commaund the same thing to be done, in honour of her parents, according to the commaund of the Lord, Honour thy father and thy mother, so did hee shew his dislike. Yet after this many Churches receiued the same obseruation; and in processe of time all were brought to keepe the same day holy: yet so that many of them professed, that they would keepe it holy, not in respect of her preseruation, but of her sanctification from sinne. So that wee see, that this poynt of Romish superstition, was neuer admitted by the Church, but protested against by all the most worthy members of it; which thing besides that which hath already beene alleadged, the reader may finde farther confirmed by Ariminensis; who not only contradicteth this fancie himself, but produceth many authorities for the reproof of it. So that herein also the Church wherein our Fathers liued, and died, is found to haue beene a Protestant Church, as in the former.

But some man will say, many of those that we produce for witnesses that she was conceiued in sinne, yet thinke that shee was sanctified in the wombe, and borne without sinne. For answere herevnto, we must obserue that which Gregorius Ariminensis hath, that many thought shee was sanctified in the wombe, l Dist. 31. q. z. artic. 3. and borne without originall sinne, as sinne, and making guilty of condemnation: but not without concupiscence inclining to euill, which was wholly taken away, or so restrained by the superabundance of grace, when the holy spirit overshadowed her, that shee might be the mother of God; that it should neuer be an occasion of sinne: this opinion the Li. 3. d. 3. master of sentences followeth: and this opinion the Schoolemen followe for the most part.

But De praesentiâ Dei ad Dardanum ep. 57. post medium. p. 319. August: sayth, Ista sanctificatio quâ efficimur & singuli templa Dei, & in vnum omnes templum Dei, non est nisi renatorum, quod nisi nati homines esse, non possunt. Si homo regenerari per gratiam spiritus in vtero potest, quoniam restat illi adhuc nasci, renascitur ergo antequam nascitur, quod fieri nullo modo potest. Seeing therefore none can be sanctified before hee bee borne, neither canne any man be cleansed from originall sinne before his birth; in asmuch as that is not taken away, but by the infusion of grace. And the glosse vpon the eigth to the Romans saith, Christ was the first that was borne without sinne. And Anselme in his second booke cur Deus homo, hath these wordes: Though Christs conception were pure, and without the sinne of carnall delight, yet the virgine her selfe, of whom he tooke flesh, was conceiued in iniquity, and her mother conceiued her in sinne, and shee was borne with originall sin, because shee also sinned in Adam in whom all sinned.

And diverse of the Fathers feared not to make her subject to actuall sin. Rom. 5. 12. Homil. 17. in Lucam. Origen writing vpon Luke, insisting vpon those wordes of Simeon to Mary, a sword shall pierce thorough thy soule, hath these wordes: What is this sword that pierced the heart, not only of others, but of Mary also? It is plainly written, that in the time of his passion all the Apostles were scandalized, as the Lord himselfe had sayd, you shall all be scandalized this night: they were all therefore so scandalized, that even Peter the prince of the Apostles denyed him thrice. What shall we thinke that when the Apostles were scandalized, the mother of our Lord, was free from being scandalized? Surely if shee suffered no scandall in the time of the Lords passion, Christ dyed not for her sins; but if all haue sinned, and haue bin depriued of the glory of God, & are justified by his grace, & redeemed, then surely Mary was scandalized at that time: and that is it that Simeon now prophesieth, And even thy soule, (which knowest that being a virgine, and neuer knowing man, thou broughtest him forth, which heardest of the Angell Gabriel, the holy Ghost shall come vpon thee, & the power of the most high shall ouershadow thee,) a sword of infidelity shall pierce; thou shalt bee stricken with a sword of doubting: and thy thoughts shall rent thee into diuerse parts, when thou shalt see him whō thou heardest to be the son of God, and whom thou knewest to be generated in thee without the seed of man, to be crucified, to die, to be subiect to humane punishments, and at the last with teares & strong cries complayning & saying, if it be possible let this cup passe from me.

Apud Sixtum Senensem. li. 6. cap. 138. Chrysostome vpon the 13 Psalme agreeth with Origen: his words are these: When Christ was crucified, there was none found that did good: the Disciples all fledde away, Iohn ranne away naked, Peter denied him, the sword of doubting went through the soule of Mary her selfe. And Quaest: veteris & noui Testimenti q 73. Augustine to the same purpose hath these words. And that which hee addeth saying, and a sword shall pierce thy soule, that the thoughts of many harts may be reuealed: thereby doubtlesse, hee signified, that euen Mary herselfe, of whom the sonne of God tooke flesh, should doubt in the time of Christs death, but soe, as to be confirmed in his resurrection. And In 2. Luc. Theophylact vppon the same place of Luke, Happily by the sword he vnderstandeth the dolor, happily the scandall wherewith Mary was scanalized, for seeing him to bee crucified, happily shee thought how hee that was borne without the seed of man, who had done miracles and raised the dead, could be crucified, spitte vpon, and die: and that hee sayth, the cogitations of many harts shall bee reuealed, importeth no more but the thoughts of many that shall be scandalized, shall be reuealed: and being reprehended, they shall find present remedy: and so shalt thou o virgin, be reuealed, and manifested, what thou thoughtest of Christ: and then thou shalt be confirmed in the faith: so likewise Peter shall bee manifested, when hee shall denie him: but the power of God shall be shewed when he receaueth him vppon his repentance.

Homil. 45. in Mathaeum. Chrysostome writing vpon those words: behold thy mother and thy brethren &c. and those words of Christ, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? sayth, that Christ vttered these words, not as being ashamed of his mother, or denying her that bare him, (for had he bin ashamed of her, he would not haue passed through her wombe:) but shewing that it would nothing profit her, that she was his mother, vnles she did all those things that beseemed her: for this that she now attempted, argued too much ambition: for she would make it known to the people, that she had power ouer and could command her sonne, not conceauing any greate matter of him, and therefore shee came vnseasonably. See therefore, sayth hee, the want of discretion, in her and them, for it had beene fitte for them to come in, and to haue heard with the multitude: or if not, to haue stayd till hee had ended his speech, and then to haue come vnto him: but they call him out, and this they doe before all, shewing too much ambition, and willing to shew that with greate power they command him. And in another place, Homil. 46. in Mathaeum. It is admirable to see, how the disciples, though very desirous to learne, yet knew when it is fitte to aske him: for they doe not this in the sight and hearing of all: and this Mathew sheweth saying, and comming vnto him: and Saint Marke, they came vnto him priuately, or when hee was alone: It had beene fitte his mother and his brethren had done so, & that they should not haue called him out and made such a shew as they did. And writing vpon Iohn, and intreating of those words of the virgin (when the wine began to faile,) they haue no wine, sayth, Homil. in Ioannem 20. Shee was willing to do them a pleasure, and to make herselfe the more illustrious by her child: and happily shee was carried with some humane affection, as his brethren were, when they sayd, shew thy selfe to the world, desiring to reape glory from his miracles: and therefore hee auswereth something sharpely, saying, what haue I to doe with thee? my houre is not yet come: & a little after, speaking of her calling him out mentioned in the former place, hee sayth: Shee had not that opinion of him that was fitte, but because shee had brought him forth, shee thought to command him in euery thing, after the manner of other mothers, whom she should haue honoured and worshipped as her Lord: and therefore hee sayth, who is my mother? And Super Mathaei 12. v. 48. Theophylact writing vpon the same words, sayth: the mother of Christ would take vpon her to be a mother, and shew that shee had power ouer her sonne, for as yet shee conceiued noe great thing of him: and therefore shee would drawe him out vnto her, while hee was yet speaking, being a little proud, that she had such a sonne at her commaund. What doth Christ therefore? because he knew her intention, heare what hee saith. Who is my mother? which he said not to wrong his mother, but to correct her minde, desirous of glory, & subject to such affections as men are wont to be. Euthymius in his Commentaries obserueth the former place in Chrysostome, but dareth not reprehend it, as Lib. 6. c. 58. Sixtus Senensis telleth vs.

But they will say De naturà & gratiâ contra Pelagianos lib. uni •… . cap. 36. Augustine affirmeth, that the Mother of our Lord was without sinne; surely it will be found that he saith no such thing; the circumstances of that they alleadge out of Augustine are these; The Pelagian commemorateth sundry holy ones, which are reported not onely not to haue sinned, but to haue liued righteously, as Abel, Enoch, Melchizedech, Abraham, Isaak, Iacob &c. and addeth to these certaine women, as Deborah, Anna, Samuels mother, Iudith, Esther, another Anna the daughter of Phanuel, Elizabeth, and the mother of our Lord and Sauiour, whom he saith that pietie requireth vs to confesse to haue beene without sinne. The words of Augustine, in answer to the Pelagian are these: except therefore the holy Virgin Mary, (of whom for the honour of our Lord, I will make no question at all, now that wee are to speake of sinnes; for hence doe we know that more grace was giuen to her wholly to ouer come sinne, who was honored so much as to conceiue and beare him, whom wee know to haue had no sinne; this Virgin therefore excepted) if we could gather together all those holy men and women, as now liuing, and aske of them whether they were without sinne, what answer thinke we would they make? I pray tell me whether that which this man saith, or that which the Apostle Iohn? surely how much soeuer they excelled in sanctity while they were in this body, they would all crye out with a loud voice, If we say, we haue no sinne, wee deceiue our selues, and there is no trueth in vs.

ubi suprà. Gregorius Ariminensis noteth, that Augustine speaketh not of originall sin, but actuall, and that this ample grace to ouercome sinne, was not giuen her till the spirit ouer-shadowed her, and the power of the most High came vpon her, that shee might conceiue and beare him that neuer knew sinne, so that before shee might commit sinne, which yet hee will not affirme, because the moderne Doctours for the most part thinke otherwise, so intimating that all did not. And surely the wordes of Augustin, doe not import that shee had no sinne, but that shee ouercame it, which argueth a conflict: neither doth hee say, he will acknowledge shee was without sinne, but that hee will not moue any question touching her, in this dispute of sinnes and sinners. So passing by the point, and not willing to enter into this dispute with the Pelagian, who conceiued it would be plausible for him, to pleade for the puritie of the Mother of our Lord, and disgracefull for any one to except against her. By that which hath beene said it appeareth, that the Church of God neuer resolued any thing, touching the birth of the blessed Virgin without sinne, nor whether shee were free from all actuall sinne, or not.

If happily it bee alleadged, that the Church celebrated the Feast of her nativitie, and therefore beleeued that shee was borne without sinne. First, touching the celebration of this Feast, it is evident, that it was not auncient: vide Baronii Martyrologium mens. Septemb. That it was not in the dayes of Saint Augustine, (as some imagine, because on that day there is read in the Church a Sermon of Saint Augustines, touching the solemnitie of that day,) it is proued out of Saint Augustine himselfe, for in his 21 Sermon de sanctis he hath these wordes. Wee celebrate this day the birth-day of Iohn the Baptist, which honour wee neuer read to haue beene giuen to any of the Saints. Solius enim Domini & beati Ioannis dies nativitatis in universo mundo celebratur, & colitur: That is, For the birth-day of our Lord onely, and of Iohn the Baptist is celelebrated & kept holy throughout the whole world: illum enim sterilis peperit illum virgo concepit, in Elizabetha sterilitas vincitur, in beatâ Mariâ conceptionis consuetudo mutatur; That is, A woman that was barren bare the one, and a virgin the other, in Elizabeth barrennes is ouercome, in blessed Mary the ordinary course of conceiuing is changed. And in his 20•h sermon, hee hath these words: Post illum sacrosanctum Domini natalis diem, nullius hominum nativitatem legimus celebrari, nisi solius beati Ioannis Baptistae. In aliis sanctis & electis Dei, novimus illum diem coli, quo illos post consummationem laborum, & devictum triumphatumque mundum, in perpetuas aeternitates praesens haec vita parturit. In aliis consummata vltimi diei merita celebrantur, in hoc etiam prima dies, & ipsa etiam hominis initia consecrantur; pro hac absque dubio causà, quia per hunc Dominus adventum suum, ne subito homines insperatum non agnoscerent voluit esse testatum. That is, After that most sacred day of the birth of our Lord, wee reade not that the nativity of any one amongst men is celebrated, but of Iohn the Baptist onely; touching other Saints, and other the chosen of God, wee know that that day is celebrated, in which, after the consummation of their labours, after their victories and triumphs ouer the world, this present life bringeth them forth to begin to liue for euer. In others the consummate vertues of the last day are celebrated, in this the first day, and the beginnings of the man are consecrated; for this cause no doubt, because the Lord would haue his comming made knowen to the world by him, least if his comming had not beene expected and looked for, it might happily not haue beene acknowledged. Neither doth the reading of the sermon of Saint Augustine on that day pertayning to the solemnity of the day, proue that this day was kept holy before his time; for as vbi supra. Baronius sheweth, the sermon was fitted originally to the solemnity of the feast of the Annunciation, & the words were these, Let our land reioyce illustrated with the solemne, day of so great a virgine, which are altered and read in the breviarie in this sorte, Let our land rejoyce illustrated by the birth day of so great a virgin. And it is evident by the Can. 36. councell of Mentz holden in the time of Charles the great in the yeare 813, that this feast was not celebrated in the Church of Germany and France in those times. As likewise it appeareth by the Ex capitularibus Caroli magni & Ludovici Pij, l. 1. c. 164 l. 2 c. 35. l. 6. c. 186. citat. à Baronio in Martyrol. septemb. constitutions of Charles and Ludovicus Pius.

Secondly, the celebrating of the birth-day of the blessed virgine, will no more proue that shee was borne without all sinne, then that Iohn the Baptist was so borne; concerning whom Bernard sayth, hee knoweth he was sanctified before he came out of the wombe, but how farre this sanctification freed him from sinne, hee dareth not say or define any thing. Thus wee see that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, was a Protestant Church, in these poynts touching the conception & birth of the blessed virgine, aswell as in the former.

CHAP. 7.

Of the punishment of originall sinne and of Limbus puerorum.

De amissione gratiae & statu peccati, l. 6. c. 1. BEllarmine sheweth, that there are foure opinions in the Roman Church touching the punishment of originall sinne, and the state of infants dying vnregenerate; for Ambrosius Catharinus in his booke of the state of children dying vnbaptized, Albertus Pighius in his first controversie, and Savanarola in h •… s booke of the triumph of the crosse, doe teach, that infants dying without baptisme, shall after the iudgement enioy a kinde of naturall happinesse, and liue happily for euer, as it were in a certaine earthly paradise: howsoeuer for the present they goe downe into those lower parts of the earth, which are called Limbus puerorum. These men suppose, that infants incurre no staine or infection by Adams sinne; but that for his offence being denyed the benefit of supernaturall grace, which would haue made them capable of heauen happines, they are found in a state of meere nature, in which as they cannot come to heauen, so they are subiect to no euili that may cause them to sorrow. For though they see that happines in heaven, whereof they had a possibility, yet they no more greiue that they haue not attained it, then innumerable men doe that they are not Kings and Emperours, as well as others, of which honours they were capable as well as they, in that they were men. The second opinion is, that infants dying in the state of originall sinne not remitted, are excluded from the sight of God, and condemned to the prison house of the infernall dwellings for euer, so that they suffer the punishment of losse but not of sense; and that they are subiect to no dolour or greife inward or outward, this he saith is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, and some other Schoolemen. The third opinion is, that they are in a sorte subiect to the punishment of sense, that is, to greife and dolour, which floweth out of the consideration of their great and inestimable losse of eternall happines, but because they cannot haue remorse, not hauing lost that eternall good by their owne negligence and contempt, therefore they are not subiectto that dolour that is properly named the worme that neuer dieth, whereof wee reade in the ninth of Marke. Their worme dieth not and their fire neuer goeth out But Bonaventura sent. l. 2. d 33. art. 2. quaest. 2: sheweth, that if they haue any such dolour and greife it is without patience and hope, & so ioyned with murmuring and despaire; and if it proceed from deliberation, it cannot be without actuall obliquity, neither can it but redound into the flesh: so that if there be any such greife, there is not onely privatiue, but positiue and sensible greife also, there is therefore a worme and bell punishment. There is a fourth opinion, which is that of De fide ad Petrum, c. 27. Augustine, who sayth: Wee must firmely beleeue, and no way doubt, that not onely men that haue had the vse of reason, but infants also, dying in the state of originall sinne, shall bee punished with the punishment of eternall fire; because though they had no sinne of their owne proper action, yet they haue drawne to themselues the condemnation of originall sinne, by their carnall conception. To this opinion Gregorius Ariminensis inclined, fearing exceedingly to depart from the doctrine of the Fathers, and yet dareth not resolue any thing, seeing the moderne doctours went another way. And to the same opinion De gratiá & libero arbitrio, l. 1 tract. 3. c. 2. Driedo inclineth likewise.

Thus then wee see that Pelagianisme was taught, in the midst of the Church wherein our Fathers liued, and that not by a few but many; For was not this the doctrine of many in the Church, that there are foure mansions in the other world of men sequestred from God, and excluded out of his presence. The first ofthem that sustaine the punishment as well of sensible smart, as of losse, and that for euer, which is the condition of them that are condemned to the lowest hell. The second of those that are subiect to both these punishments, not eternally, but for a time onely, as are they that are in purgatory. The third of them that were subiect onely to the punishment of losse, and that but for a time, named by them Limbus patrum. The fourth of such as are subiect onely to the punishment of losse, but yet eternally; and this named by them Limbus puerorum? nay were there not that placed these in an earthly paradise? and was not this Pelagianisme? Surely Contra Iuli. anum, l. 5. c. 8. August: telleth vs, that the Pelagians excluded such as were not made pertakers of Gods grace, out of the kingdome of heaven, and from the life of God, which is the vision of God, and yet supposed that they should be for euer in a kind of naturall felicity; so that they imagined a third state and place, betweene the kingdome of heauen and hell, where they are that endure, not onely the punishment of losse, but of sensible smart also; where they are whose worme neuer dieth; and whose fire neuer goeth out; and this is the opinion of Papists, against which Saint Hypognost. l. 5. Austine mightily opposeth himselfe. The vnregenerate is excluded out of the kingdome of heauen, where Christ remaineth that is the fountaine of the liuing. Giue mee, besides this another place, where there may bee a perpetuall rest of life; the first place the faith of Catholiques by diuine authoritie, beleeueth to bee the kingdome of heauen: the second Hell, where euery apostata, and such as are aliens from the faith of Christ, shall suffer everlasting punishment: but that there is any third place we are altogether ignorant, neither shall wee finde in the holy Scripture, that there is any such place. There is the right hand of him that sitteth to iudge, and the left; the kingdome, and hell; life, and death; the righteous, and the wicked: On the right hand of the Iudge are the iust, and the workers of iniquity on the left. There is life to the ioy of glory, and death to weeping and gnashing of teeth. The just are in the Kingdome of the Father with Christ; the vnrighteous in eternall fire prepared for the divell and his Angels. By which words of Augustine it is euident, that there is no such place to bee admitted, as the Papistes imagine their Limbus puerorum to bee: neither did the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, beleeue any such thing, though many embraced this fancie,

And therefore Gregorius Ariminensis hauing proued out of Augustine, and Gregory, that infants that die in the state of originall sinne not remitted, shall not onely suffer the punishment of losse, but of sense also, concludeth in this sort. Because I haue not seene this question expressely determined either way by the Church, and it seemeth to me a thing to be trembled at, to deny the authorities of the Saints: and on the contrary side, it is not safe to goe against the common opinion, and the consent of our great Masters, therefore without peremptorie pronouncing for the one side, or the other, I leaue it free to the Reader to judge of this difference, as it seemeth good vnto him.

CHAP. 8.

Of the remission of originall sinne, and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate.

IN the remission of all sinne there are two things implyed; the taking away of the staine or sinfulnesse, and the remouing of the punishment, that for such sinfulnesse justice would bring vpon the sinner. In actuall sinne there are three things considerable. First, an act or omission of act. Secondly, an habituall aversion from God, and conversion to the creature remaining after the act is past, till we repent of such act, or omission of act; and this is the staine of sinne remaining, denominating the doers sinners, and making them worthie of punishment. And thirdly, a designing to punishment after the act is past. In remission therefore of actuall sinne there must bee; first, a ceasing from the act or omission; secondly, a turning to God and from the creature, and thirdly, for Christs sake, who suffered what we deserued, a taking away of the punishment that sin past made vs subject to.

In originall sinne there are onely two things considerable; the staine or sinfulnesse, and the designing of them that haue it to punishment. The staine of originall sinne consisteth of two parts: the one privatiue, which is the want of those divine graces that should cause the knowledge, loue, and feare of God: the other positiue, and that is an habituall inclination to loue our selues more then God, and inordinately to desire whatsoeuer may be pleasing to vs, though forbidden and disliked by God; and is named concupiscence. This sin first defileth the nature, and then the person; in that it so misinclineth nature, as that it hath the person at commaund, to be swayed whether it will. The remission of this sinne implieth a donation of those graces, that maycause the knowledge, loue, and feare of God, a turning of vs from the loue of our selues, to the loue of God, and forChrists sake a remouing of the punishment we were justly subiect to, in that we had such want, and inordinate inclination. The donation of grace maketh originall sinne cease so to misincline nature, as formerly it did, and so as to haue the person at command to be swayed whether it will; it maketh it not cease to misincline nature in some sort, and so to be a sinne of nature, it maketh it cease to be a sinne of the person, freeing it from being subiect to it, and putting it into an opposition against it; so that it is no farther a sinne of the person, then it is apt to be ledde by it, to be hindred from good, or drawne to euill. The nature and person are freed from the guilt of condemnation; the nature in respect of the sinne that remaineth in it is subiect to punishment; the person is not free from those punishments which the remaining sinne of the nature it hath, bringeth vpon it, as death &c: The person is freed from being subiect to any punishment, farther then it must needes be in respect of nature. So that originall sinne or concupiscence remaineth in act in the regenerate, mouing to desire things not to be desired; and so a sinne of nature, making it subiect to punishment; but it doth not remaine in act illiciendo & abstrahendo mentem, eius que consensu concipiendo, & pariendo peccata; that is, it doth not so remaine in act, as to allure and draw the minde, and to gaine the consent of it to conceiue and bring forth sinne, and so remaineth not in the guilt of condemnation, nor as a sinne of the person.

If therefore when the question is proposed, whether concupiscence in the regenerate which grace restraineth and opposeth, be sinne; wee vnderstand by sinne a thing that is not good, an euill that is not a pvnishment onely, but a vice and fault; and such an euill as positiuely and priuatiuely repugneth, against the law which the spirit of God writeth in the harts of the beleeuers; an iniquitie; a thing that God hateth, and which wee must hate and resist against by the spirit, that it bring not forth euill acts; if wee vnderstand by sinne such a disposition of nature, as God by the law of creation at first forbad, and ceaseth not still to forbidde to be in the nature of man; it is undoubtedly sinne, a sinne I say of nature, though not of person. And hereunto De doctrin. iustificationis l. 3. c. 7. p. 67. Stapleton agreeth; for whereas it is obiected out of Contra Iulian. lib. 5. c. 3. Augustine, to proue that concupiscence in the regenerate is sinne; that as blindnesse of hart is a sinne, in that men by reason of it beleeue not in God, and a punishment of sinne wherewith the proud hart of man is punished, and a cause of sinne, when men through errour of their blind hart do any euill thing; So that concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit opposeth good desires, is a sinne, in that there is in it disobedience against the minde that should command; and a punishment of sinne, because it was iustly brought vppon him, whose disobedience against God deserued so; and a cause of sinne, when it obtaineth a consent: hee answereth, setting aside all other answers as not sufficient, that concupiscence in that place is sayd by Augustine, not onely to be a punishment and cause of sinne, but sinne also, not as if it were truly and properly a sinne, making God displeased with the regenerate in whom it is; but that it is a sinne of nature, respecting the first integrity of it, and not of the person; according to that of the Apostle, It is not I that do it, but the sinne that dwelleth in mee that is in my flesh. For the reason which hee bringeth why it is sinne, doth euidently shew this. Because, sayth hee, there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the minde, it is therefore a certaine sinne, or fault, contrary to the integrity of nature, in which there was no disobedience of the flesh: as it is a fault of the eye, to be dimme, and of the eare to heare imperfectly. And though Sapleton say he had no author to follow in this interpretation: yet hee might easily haue found, that Alexander of Ales long since was of the same opinion, making concupiscence in the regenerate a sinne of nature and not of the person, as I haue Lib. 3. c. 26 else where shewed at large.

If this be soe, what then will some man say is the difference, betweene the Romanists and those of the reformed Churches? surely it is very great, for these teach that concupiscence was newly brought into the nature of man by Adams sinne, that in the vnregenerate it is properly sinne, that it maketh them guiltie and worthy of eternall condemnation that haue it. But the Romanists say it was not newly brought in by Adams fall: that it is a consequent of nature: that it is more free, and at liberty to produce the proper effects of it now, then it would haue beene if grace had not been lost, but not more then it would haue beene in nature simply considered without grace or sinne; and that it never made them guilty that had it. These say, that in the regenerate it is so far weakened, as that it hath no power to sway him that is so renewed, to what it pleaseth; that the guilt of condemnation which it drew vpon man before his regeneration, is taken away; that yet still it is a sinne of nature, making guilty of punishment, that yet still it is hated of God, and must be hated of vs: But the Romanists say, the guilt that is taken away, is not the guilt whereby concupiscence maketh guilty, but out of which it came, that man deserved to haue concupiscence free and at libertie: And therefore De amiss. gratiae & statu peccati, l. 5. c. 13. Bellarmine sayth, the guilt of concupiscence may be conceiued in three sortes. First, To be a guilt rising from it, and founded in it, making him guilty that hath it, as the guilt of theft is that whereby he is guilty that hath committed theft. Secondly, That may bee sayd to bee the guilt of concupiscence, not that floweth from it, but from which it floweth; as if a man should cut off his hand, he might be said to be guilty of the hand that is cut off, not because it is a sinne making guilty to haue a hand cut off, but because he is guilty of the not hauing a hand, that hath cut it off himselfe: so wee are to vnderstand the guilt of concupiscence, not as if the hauing of it did make a man guilty, but because Adam by sinne, made himselfe guilty of hauing concupiscence at libertie to sollicit him to ill, that was formerly restrained. Thirdly the guilt of concupiscence is that which it causeth, if it obtaine consent to those motions it maketh; not for that a man is guilty because he hath concupiscence, but because he yeeldeth to it. So that according to their opinion, when there is a remission of the offence, that set concupiscence at liberty, it is no guilt to haue it, for it is naturall. Foure things therefore are to be proved by vs. First, That concupiscence was no condition of nature. Secondly, That it maketh guilty of eternall condemnation, if it bee not remitted. Thirdly, That God hateth it, and that wee must hate it, as long as any remaines of it are found in vs. Fourthly, That the first motions of it are sin.

The first of these foure is clearely deliuered by Saint Augustine in his Cap. 13. third booke against Iulian, his wordes are these, An vero cuiuscunque frontis sis, audeas suspicari, in primâ hominum constitutione, priusquam culpam debita damnatio sequeretur, istam carnalem concupiscentiam aut extitisse in paradiso, aut inordinatis, vt eam nunc videmus motibus, pugnas adversus spiritum faedissimas edidisse? And in his Cap. 14. fourth booke where Iulian obiecteth, that if wee graunt, that that concupiscence of the flesh, against which wee resist by continencie, was not in paradise before sinne, but that it flowed from that sinne, which the devill first perswaded the first man to commit, it will bee consequent that the senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and handling, are not of God but of the devill; hee answereth, that Iulian is ignorant or maketh shew to be ignorant, per quemlibet corporis sensum, aliud esse sentiendi vivacitatem, vel vtilitatem, vel necessitatem; aliud sentiendi libidinem, Vivacitas sentiendi, quâ magis alius, alius minus, in ipsis corporalibus rebus, pro earum modo atque naturâ quod verum est percipit, atque id à falso magis minusve discernit. Vtilitas sentiendi est, per quam corpori vitaeque quam gerimus, ad aliquid approbandum, vel improbandum, sumendum vel reijciendum, appetendum, vitandumve consulimus; Necessitas sentiendi est, quando sensibus nostris etiam quae nolumus ingeruntur. Libido autem sentiendi est, de quâ nunc agimus, quae nos ad sentiendum, sive consentientes mente, sive repugnantes, appetitu carnalis voluptatis impellit. Haec est contraria delectationi sapientiae, haec virtutibus inimica. And in his Cap. 〈◊〉 . fifth booke he hath these wordes; Dixi inobedientiam carnis, quae in carne concupiscente aduersus spiritum apparet, diabolico vulnere contigisse. And again, Hanc legem peccati repugnantē legi mentis, á Deo illatam propter vltionem, & ideo poenam esse peccati. But I will no longer insist vpon this poynt, hauing sufficiently proved in that part that is of originall sinne, that all these evils did flow from Adams transgression, & were no conditions of nature,

The next thing that is to be proued is, that concupiscence till it be remitted, maketh them in whom it is, guilty of eternal condemnation: This is proued out of Saint Contra Iulian. l. 6. c. 6. Augustine, his words are these: Iulianus concupiscentiam bonam praedicat, Nos autem qui eam malam dicimus, & manere tamen in baptizatis, quamvis reatus eius (non quo ipsa erat rea, neque enim aliqua persona est, sed quo reum hominem originaliter faciebat) fuerit remissus, atque vacuatus; absit ut dicamus sanctificari, cum quâ necesse habent regenerati, si non in vacuum Dei gratiam susceperunt, intestino quodam bello tanquam cum hoste confligere, atque ab eâ peste desiderare atque optare sanari. And afterwards, Et concupiscentia quae manet oppugnanda atque sananda, quamvis in baptismo dimissa sint cuncta omninò peccata, non solùm non sanctificatur, sed potius ne sanctificatos aeternae morti obnoxios possit tenere, evacuatur.

Contra Iulianum l. 2. prope finem pag. 332. In baptismate mortuum est peccatum in to reatu quo nos tenebat: & iam non eodem modo appellatur peccatum quo facit reum, sed quod sit reatu primi hominis factum, & quod rebellando nos trahere nitatur ad reatum, nisi adiuvet nos gratia Dei per sefum Christum Dominum nostrum, ne sic etiam mortuum peccatum rebellet, ut vincendo reviviscat & regnet. Gregorius Ariminensis fully agreeth with Augustine, and contradicteth Bellarmine: his wordes are these, Originall sinne is in a sort taken away, and in a sort remaineth after Baptisme: for it is taken away in respect of the guilt, not of the essence; that is, that vice, or that qualitie that is named concupiscence, and is before Baptisme originall sinne, abideth truely in the essence of it after Baptisme, but not in the guilt; that is, it maketh not men guilty of condemnation after Baptisme, as it did before; and for proofe hereof he alleadgeth the testimony of S. Augustine in his booke de peccato originali: his words are these: Obesset ista carnalis concupiscentia etiam tantummodo quod inesset; nisi peccatorum remissio sic prodesset, ut quae in eis est, & nato, & renato, nato quidem & inesse & obesse, renato autem inesse quidem, sed non obesse possit. In tantum enim obest natis, ut nisi renascantur, nihil possit prodesse, si nati sunt de renatis. Manet quippe in prole, ita ut reatum faciat, originis vitium, etiamsi in parente reatus eiusdem vitii remissione ablutus est peccatorum. That is, Carnall concupiscence by onely being in a man would vndoe him; if remission of sinnes did not so helpe the matter, that it being in men borne, and borne a new; in men. as borne into the world, it is, and is to their hurt, and euill: in men k L. 2. d. 31. q. 1. art 4. borne anew, it onely is, but is not to their hurt. For it is so farre forth hurtfull l Cap. 39. to men borne, that vnlesse they bee borne a newe, it nothing profiteth them to haue beene borne, of such as were new borne. For originall sinne doeth so abide in the childe, as to make him guilty, though the guilt of the same sinne be taken away in the parent, by remission of sinnes.

The Master of sentences in his Dist. 3 •… . 2d booke, agreeth with Saint Augustine: his wordes are these: Vnlesse it be by an ineffable miracle of the Creator, Baptisme doth not cause the Law of sinne which is in our members to bee extinguished, and not to bee: it causeth indeede all the euill a man hath thought or done, to be abolished, and to be accounted as if it had neuer beene done: but it suffereth concupiscence (the bond of guilt, where with the diuell by it, held the soule, and separated it from God her Creator, being loosened) to remaine, that there may be a continuall fight. Bonaventura writing vpon the same place, saith: Concupiscence importeth in the vnregenerate an immoderate desire of commutable good, in such sort as to captivate reason, and to pervert the soule, so that it must preferre commutable good, before that which is incommutable: this concupiscence cannot be found in any, but it must make him, in whom it is, guilty of condemnation; the strength of this concupiscence, is so broken and ouerthrowne, by the grace of regeneration, that it hath no power to captiuate reason, to pervert the soule, & bring vpon it a necessitie of preferring things finite before infinite; and so the guilt of condemnation is taken away: but it hath still power to moue and sollicite vs to euill, and we by Gods grace haue power to resist & ouercome. For as the Master of the sentences saith in the same place; though concupiscence remaine after Baptisme, yet doth it not rule & raigne as before, but it is diminished, weakned, & made lesse forcible, that it may rule no longer, vnlesse any man will giue strength vnto his enimy, by going after the lusts thereof.

So that it is euident, that the Church of God taught as wee do, that concupiscence in it owne nature is a sinne, making guilty of grieuous punishment: that when it is weakned, and ceaseth to be so potent as formerly it was, yet it ceaseth not to be of the same kind that formerly it was, as Vbi supra. Gregorius Ariminensis sheweth: and therefore seeing it was before a sin, it is still in some sort a sin that God hating it before, he hateth it still: & we also are to hate it, & by all meanes to seeke to weaken and destroy it. In consultatione de articulis religionis artic. 2. Cassander sayth, that a very worthy and famous diuine affirmeth, that it is sin in the regenerate, though it be not imputed. And he addeth that the difference between them that say it is sin; and them that say it was sin properly, & made guilty of condemnation, but now being weake ned, & the guilt taken away, it is not properly sinne, is a meere logomachia.

And therefore in the conference at Wormes, the colloquutors agreed touching this point: formula concordiae de peccato originis & concup •… centiá i •… ta Wormatiae ann. 1541. inter Eccium & Mensingum, item Bucerum & Philippum Melancthonem, vt reperitur ibidem apud Cassandrum. the forme of their agreement is this; We confesse with vnanimous consent, that all that come of Adam according to the ordinary course, are borne in originall sinne and vnder the wrath of God. Originall sinne is the priuation and want of originall righteousnes, ioyned with concupiscence. We agree also, that the guilt of originall sinne is remitted in baptisme, together with all other sinnes, by the merit of Christs passion. But we thinke that concupiscence, a vice or fault of nature, an infirmity and disease, remaineth: taught soe to thinke, not only by the apostolicall scriptures, but by experience also. And touching this disease wee agree, that that which is materiall in originall sinne, remaineth in the regenerate, that which is formall being taken away by baptisme. And wee call that the materiall part of originall sinne, that tooke beginning from sin, that inclineth vnto sinne, and repugneth against the law of God, as Paul also calleth it: and in this sort it is briefely sayd in the Schooles, that the materiall part of originall sinne, remaineth in the baptized: and that the formall is taken away: By the formall part of sinne they vnderstand the priuation or want of those diuine graces, that should cause the knowledge, loue, and feare of God, the inordinate inclination to loue ourselues and finite things, so as not to regard God, and the consequent guilt of condemnation accompanying such priuation and inordinate inclination: by the materiall part they vnderstand, not concupiscence as it is in strength, captiuating all to the sinister loue of our selues, and things finite: but as weakened it still solliciteth to evill, but so that easily it may be resisted, if wee make right vse of the grace, that God hath giuen vs: this remainder of concupiscence is euill, inclineth to euill, God hateth it, and we must hate it &c. And therefore it is most absurd that the councell of Trent hath, that God hateth nothing in the regenerate, and the reason they giue is very weake, that therefore he hateth nothing in them, because there is no condemnation vnto them: for many things may be disliked, in them that shall not be condemned.

It remaineth that wee speake concerning first motions, Bonauentura describeth p Compend. theolog. veritatis. lib. 3. qui inscribitur de corruptelà pecca: cap. 10. first motions to be, the motions of sensuality according to the impulsion of concupiscence, impetuously tending to the fruition of a delectable creature. First motions (saith hee) are either primò primi, or secundò primi: primò primi sunt naturales, secundò primi sunt sensualitatis: primò primi sequuntur naturalium qualitatum actionem, secundò primi imaginationem: these first motions hee pronounceth to be sinne for three causes. First, because they moue to that which they should not, and to that which is vnlawfull. Secondly because they are in a sort voluntary: though not in themselues, yet in that they are not hindred by the will, or in respect of precedent apprehension. Thirdly, they are sinne in respect of delight annexed: for when the soule is ioyned by delight to the creature, it is darkned and made worse, as when it is ioyned to God, it is inlightened and bettered. These sayth he are veniall sinnes, because the will hath not a compleate dominion ouer these motions of sensuality, as ouer those acts that proceed from the command of the wil, but yet it might haue hindered them, & therefore they are veniall sins; & so they continue, so long as they stay & proceed not so farre as to haue the willes consent; but if they proceede so farre, as that the will consenteth to take delight therein, though not to proceede to action, it is a mortall sinne. This is the opinion of Bonauenture a cardinall and a canonized Saint, and with him agree sundry others: soe that in this point, the Church formerly taught as wee do now.

CHAP. 9.

Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne.

BEllarmine saith, that the Romanists with one consent do teach, that some sinnes in their owne nature, (no respect had to predestination, or reprobation; a De amissione gratiae & statu peccati l. 1. c. 4. to the state of men regenerate, or not regenerate) are mortall, other veniall; and that the former make men vnworthy of the fauour of God, and guilty of eternall condemnation; the other onely subiect them to temporall punishments and fatherly chastisements. But wee knowe the Church of God beleeued otherwise. For first, Ce vitâ ispirituali lect. 1. Gerson proueth, that euery offence against God, may iustly be punished by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgment, with eternall death, yea with vtter annihilation; because there is no punishment so euill, and so much to be auoyded, as the least sinne that may be imagined. So that a man should rather choose eternall death, yea vtter annihilation, then committe the least offence in the world. Secondly he proueth the same, because all diuines do agree, that wheresoeuer there is eternity of sinne, there must be eternity of punishment; now where there is no remission, there sinne must of necessity remaine for euer: for though sinne soone cease in respect of the act, yet euery sinne remaineth after the act is past, in respect of the staine and guilt, till it be remitted; whence it followeth, that euery sinne in it owne nature, and without grace to remitte it, remaineth eternally, and deserueth eternity of punishment and is mortall.

Wee say therefore that some sinnes are mortall and some veniall, not because some deserue eternity of punishment, and others do not; for all deserue eternity of punishment, and shall eternally be punished, if they remaine without grace, and vnremitted eternally: but because some sins, either in respect of the matter wherein men do offend, or ex imperfectione actus, in that they are not committed with full consent, exclude not grace, the roote of remission, and pardon, out of the soule of him that committeth them: whereas other, either in respect of the matter wherein they are conuersant, or the full consent wherewith they are committed, cannot stand with grace. Soe that, contrary to Bellarmines position, no sin is veniall in it owne nature, without respect had to the state of grace. And this is proued against him, by the authority of such mē, liuing in the Church in the dayes of our fathers, as he must not except against. Primâ lecundae quaest. 87. art. 5. Thomas Aquinas saith, eternity of punishment answeareth not to the grieuousnesse of sinne, but to the eternall continuance of it without remission: and that therefore, eternity of punishment is due, to every sinne of the vnregenerate so continuing, ratione conditionis subiecti, in respect of the condition and state of him that committeth it, in whom grace is not found, by which only sinne may be remitted. Whence it will follow, that euery sinne of the vnregenerate so continuing, is worthy of eternall punishment, and shall soe be punished, and therefore is mortall: And on the contrary side euery sin of the regenerate, that may stand with grace, and not exclude it, is rightly sayd to be veniall: that is, such as leaueth place for that grace, that can and will procure remission: of which sort are all the sins of the elect of God, called according to purpose, which are not cōmitted with full consent.

Cardinall Caietan writing vpon those words of Thomas Aquinas, cleareth this point exceeding well: Grace onely, saith hee, is the fountaine whence floweth remission of sinne: nothing therefore positiuely maketh sin veniall, or remissible, but to be in grace: nor nothing maketh a sin positiuely irremissible, or not veniall, but the being out of the state of grace: for to be in the state of grace, is to haue that which will procure remission of sin, & to bee out of the state of grace, is to be in a state wherein remission cannot be had. So that that which positiuely maketh sin veniall, or not veniall, is the state of the subiect wherein it is found: if we respect therefore the nature of sin, as it is in it selfe, without grace, it will remaine eternally in staine, & guilt, and so will subject the sinner to eternall punishment: so that euery sin in it selfe, deserueth eternall punishment and is mortall: but yet such is the nature of some sinnes, either in respect of the matter wherein they are conversant, or their not being done with full consent, that they doe not necessarily imply an exclusion of grace, out of the subiect in which they are found, & so doe not necessarily put the doers of them, into a state positiuely making them not veniall, by remouing grace the fountaine of remission. So that to conclude, no sin is positiuely veniall, as hauing any thing in it that may claime remission: for no sinne implyeth or hath any thing in it of grace the fountaine of remission: but some sin either ex genere, or ex imperfectione actus, in respect of the matter wherein a man offendeth, or in that it is not done with full consent, to the exclusion of grace, may bee saide to bee remissible or veniall, negativè, per non ablationem principii remissionis, in that it doeth not necessarily imply the exclusion of grace the fountaine of remission: and some sinnes either in respect of the matter, or manner, doe imply such exclusion, and are therefore named mortall.

Part. 1. sol. •… 43. Richardus de Sancto Victore agreeth with the former, and more clearely confirmeth our opinion then they doe. The circumstances of that wee finde in him touching this point are these: One had written vnto him desiring to be resolued in a certaine doubt; the doubt was this: how it could bee true, that hee had learned of his teachers, that veniall sinnes deserue onely temporall punishments, & mortall eternall; whereas yet in those that goe to hell, if any of those sinnes that they call veniall bee found, they must bee punished, and euery punishment sustained in hell, is eternall, seeing out of hell there is no redemption; whence it will follow, that euen those sinnes that are named veniall, deserue eternall punishment: for they are punished eternally in the damned, and it must not bee thought, that the punishment inflicted for them, is more then they deserue. All this concerning the eternity of the punishment of euery sinne of the reprobate, hee acknowledgeth to bee true: and therefore sheweth that some sinnes are said to bee veniall, and mortall: but for other considerations then some supposed. His resolution therefore of the doubt proposed is expressed in these words, That sinne seemeth vnto mee to bee veuiall, which found in the regenerate in Christ, of it selfe alone neuer bringeth vpon them eternall punishment, though they repent not particularly of the same: & that is mortall, which though it be alone, bringeth eternall death vpon the doers of it, without particular repentance: that therefore is a veniall sin, which of it selfe alone, & if there be nothing else to hinder, is euer sure to be pardoned and remitted in the regenerate, so as neuer to bring condemnation vpon them: & that is mortall, that of it selfe alone, putteth the doer into a state of condemnation and death.

Here we see sins are distinguished, some are said to be veniall, & some mortal; but none are said to be veniall, without respect had to a state of regeneration, as Bellarmiue imagineth. To these we may adde Iacobus Almain in tractatu 3. c. 20. Roffensis in refutatione articuli 32 Lutheri citat •… à Bellarmino de am •… ssione gratiae l. 1. c. 4. Almain and Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and sundry other: but it needeth not; for howsoeuer our Adversaries make shew to the contrary, they all confesse that to bee true that wee say; for every sinne eternally punishable, deserueth eternall punishment; but euery the least and lightest sin, that wee can commit, without grace, and remission, remaineth eternally in staine and guilt; and is eternally punishable, whence it will follow, that euery sinne deserueth eternall punishment; and so is by nature mortall Bellarmine c. 11. affirmeth, that veniall sins are not against, but beside the law; but Durandus, and others teach, that when men sin venially, they doe that the law forbiddeth, & so do contrary to the law, not only besides it: Dur. l 2. d. 42 q 6.. So that in this poynt as in the former, the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, is found to haue bin a Protestant Church.

CHAP. 10.

Of free will.

CArdinall Contarenus hath written a most diuine and excellent discourse touching free will; wherein hee sheweth the nature of free will, & how the freedome of will is preserued or lost; in this discourse, First, hee sheweth what it is to be free; and then 2, what that is, which wee call free will. What it is to be free, he sheweth in this sort; As he is a servant that is not at his owne dispose to do what he will, but is to do what another will haue him to do, so he is sayd to be free who is at his own dispose, so as to do nothing presently because another will haue him, but what seemeth good vnto himself, & he hath a liking to do. The more therefore that any thing is moued by, & of it self, the more free it is. So that in naturall things we shal find, that accordingly as they are moued by any thing within or without themselues in their motions, they come neerer to liberty, or are farther from it: so that a stone is in a sort free when it goeth downeward, because it is carried by something within: but it suffereth violence, and is moued by something from without, when it ascendeth: yet doth it not moue it selfe, when it goeth downward, but is moued by an impression of that waight, which it put not into it self, but the authour of nature, & moueth but one way; so that it is far from freedome & liberty euen in this motion also. Liuing things moue themselues; & not one way only, as the former, but euery way; as we see plants, & trees, wherein the first & lowest degree of life is discerned, moue themselues downewards, vpwards, on the right hand, & on the left: yet discerne they not whether, neither do they moue themselues out of any discerning, & so are far from liberty. Bruite beasts are moued by themselues in a more excellent sort: for hauing discerned such things as are fitting to their nature & condition, there is raised in them a desire of the same: so that they may very properly & truely be said to moue themselues, because they raise in themselues the desire that moueth them: yet is there no freedome or liberty in them.

For there is no liberty truely so called, but where there is an apprehensiō, not of things of some certaine kind onely, but of all things generally, of the whole variety of things, of the proportion which they haue within themselues, & of the different degrees of goodnes found in them: & answerable herevnto a desire of good in general, & a greater or lesse desire of each good, according as it appeareth to be more or lesse good, and so a preferr •… ng of one before another, & a choosing of what it thinketh best. So that reason is the roote of all liberty: for in that reason discerneth good in generall, the will in generall desireth it, in that it sheweth there is a good, wherein there is all good & no defect, the will if it haue any action about the same, cannot but accept it: in that it sheweth that one thing is better then another, the will preferreth or lesse esteemeth it, in that it sheweth some reasons of good, & some defects and evils, the will chooseth, or refuseth: when reason finally resolueth a thing now & in this particular to bee best, the will inclineth to it.

This generality of knowledge is not found in any thing below the condition of man: other liuing creatures haue an apprehension of some certaine things onely; they haue no knowledge of good in generall, but of certaine good things onely, nor no desire of good in generall, in the extent of it, but of such particular good things as are fitted to them: these therefore haue neither free and illimited apprehension nor desire of good; but limited, restrained, and shutte vp within a certaine compasse: so that they are like to a man shutte vp in prison, who though hee may moue himselfe and walke vp and downe, yet cannot goe beyond a certaine limitation and bounds set vnto him. But man was made to haue an apprehēsion of all things, to discern the nature of each, and the different degrees of goodnesse found in them: and accordingly to desire good in generall, to desire each thing more or lesse, as it appeareth more or lesse good: neuer to rest satisfied, till he come to an infinite good: to desire the same for it selfe, as originally good, and as the last end, because aboue or beyond it there is nothing to be desired: & to desire nothing but in reference vnto it, seeing nothing is good but by partaking of it.

And hence it is easy to see, how the liberty of our will is preserued: and how and in what sort it is lost: for seeing the desire of the chiefe good and last end, is the originall of all particular desires: if God be proposed vnto vs as our last end, and chiefe good, in whom, from whom, and for whom all things are: then our will without restraint, and without all going aside, and intangling, or intricating it selfe, shall freely loue whatsoeuer is good: and each thing more or lesse, according as it comes neerer to God, and nothing but that which is pleasing to him: thus is our liberty preserued and continued. But if we depart from God, and make any other thing our chief good, & last end: then we seeke that which is infinite, within the compasse of that which is finite, and soe languish, neuer finding that wee seeke, because wee seeke it where it is not to be found: and besides bring our selues into a strait, soe as to regard nothing though neuer so good, farther then in reference to this finite thing, which wee esteeme as if it were infinite: neither doe wee set vp any other thing vnto our selues to be our chiefe good, but our selues. For as Picus Mirandula noteth, the ground of the loue of friendshippe is vnity: now first God is more neere to euery of vs then we are to our selues: then are wee nearer to our selues, then any other thing: & in the third place there is a nearenesse and coniunction betweene other things and vs. So that in the state of nature instituted, wee loued God first, and before, and more then our selues: and our selues no otherwise but in and for him: but falling from that loue, wee must of necessity decline to loue our selues better then any thing else, and seeke our owne greatnesse, our owne glory, and the things that are pleasing to vs, more then any thing else: and because the soule vnmindfull of her owne worth and dignity, hath demersed herselfe into the body & senses, & is degenerated into the nature and condition of the body, she seeketh nothing more thē bodily pleasures as fitting to her, & declineth nothing more as cōtrary to her, then the things that grieue & afflict the outward man.

This is the fountaine of all the euills that are found in our nature: this putteth vs into horrible confusions: for hauing raised our selues into the throne of God by pride, and fancied vnto our selues a peerelesse and incomparable greatnesse, wee are no lesse grieued at the good of other men: then if it were our evill: nay indeede it is become our euill: for how can our excellence be pearles, and incomparable, if any other excell or equall us, or haue any thing wherein he is not subordinate to us: thus doe wee runne into enuy, and all other euills, and endleslely disquiet and afflict our selues. And secondly wee are hereby depriued of our former liberty; for neither do we know all the variety of good things, as we did, our knowledge being from sense nor their different degrees, that so wee might haue power to desire them, and to preferre each before other, according to the worth of it; neither can wee desire any good but as seruing our turne; so that what doth not so, we cannot esteeme.

Touching the wil of man since the fall; it is resolued by all diuines, that it hath lost the freedome it formerly had from sinne, and misery; but some vnderstand this in one sort, and some in another. For some affirme, that men haue so farre forth lost their liberty from sinne by Adams fall, that they cannot but sinne, in whatsoeuer morall act they doe; which thing I shewed to haue beene beleeued, by the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died. But they of the Church of Rome at this day, dislike this opinion, for they suppose, that though our will be not free from sinne, so as collectiuely to decline each sinne, and that though in the state wherein presently we are we cannot but sinne, at one time or other, in one thing or other; yet we may decline each particular sinne divisiuely, and doe the true workes of morall vertue. Much contending there is, & hath beene touching freewill; wherefore for the clearing of this point two things are to be noted. 1 from what, and 2dly wherein this liberty may be thought to be.

The things from which the will may be thought to bee free are fiue. 1 The authority of a superiour commander, and the duty of obedience. 2ly The inspection, care, gouernment, direction, and ordering of a superiour. 3ly Necessity, & that either from some externe cause enforcing, or from nature inwardly determining, and absolutely mouing one way. 4ly, Sinne, & the dominion of it. 5ly Misery. Of these fiue kindes of liberty, the 2 first agree only to God, so that in the highest degree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, freedome of will, is proper to God only; and in this sense Calvin and Luther rightly deny, that the will of any creature is, or euer was free. The third kind of libertie, is opposite not only to coaction, but naturall necessitie also: In opposition to coaction, the vnderstanding is free; for howsoeuer a man may be forced, to thinke & beleeue, contrary to his inclination, that is, such things as he would not haue to be true; yet the vnderstanding cannot assent to any thing contrary to her owne inclination, for the vnderstanding is inclined to thinke so of things as they are, & as they may be made to appeare vnto her to be, whether pleasing to nature or not: but the vnderstanding is not free from necessitie.

But the will in her action is free, not onely in opposition to coaction, but to naturall necessity also. Naturall necessitie consisteth herein, that when all things required to inable an agent, to produce the proper effect thereof are present, it hath no power not to bring forth such effect, but is put into action by them. So the fire hauing fit fuell in due sort put vnto it, & being blowed vpon, cannot but burne. The libertie of the will therefore appeareth herein, that though all those things be present, that are pre-required to inable it, to bring forth the proper action of it, yet it hath power not to bring it forth, and it is still indifferent & indeterminate, till it determine and incline it selfe; God indeed worketh the will to determine it selfe; neither isit possible that hee should so worke it, and it should not determine it self accordingly; yet doth not Gods working vpon the will, take from it the power of dissenting, and doing the contrary; but so inclineth it, that hauing libertie to doe otherwise, yet shee will actually determine so.

Here Luther, and Calvin are charged with the denyall of this libertie of the will; & many strange absurdities are attributed to them; for first Luther is said to haue affirmed, that the will of man is meerely passiue; that it produceth not any act, but receiueth into it such acts, as God alone without any concurrence of it, worketh & produceth in it. But all this is nothing but a meere calumniation; for Luther knoweth right well, that men produce such actions as are externally good & euill, willing, & out of choice; & confesseth that we doe the good things that God commandeth vs, when we are made partakers of his grace, but that God worketh vs to doe them; Wee beleeue, we feare, we loue: but it is God that worketh vs to beleeue, feare, & loue. Certum est nos facere cùm facimus, saith Saint De gratiâ & libero arbit. c. 16 Augustine, seà Deus facit ut faciamus. It is most certain that we doe those things we are said to doe, but it is God that maketh vs to doe them, not only by perswading, inviting, & inwardly drawing vs by morall inducements, but by a true & reall efficiencie. So that according to Luthers opinion, we moue not but as moued; nor are actiue, but as hauing first bin passiue: nor turne our selues, but as first wrought vpon, and made to turne: yet doe wee truely moue our selues, and truely, freely, and cheerefully choose that which is good, and turne ou rselues from that which is euill, to that which is good. Alvarez de auxiliis diuinae gratiae disput. 86. lect. 8. Diuines say that Facere vt velimus est operar •… in nobis aliquid quo disponamur & efficaciter inclinemur & determinemur ad volendum Alva: facere vt velimus, and facere ipsum velle, differ very much: that is, they say it is one thing to make vs to will, and another to produce the acte of willing. God worketh both, but in a different sorte, the first sine nobis facientibus nos velle: Secundum autem operatur, nobiscum simul tempore consentientibus & cooperantibus; that is, God worketh the first of these alone; we make not our selues to will, the second hee produceth together with vs, willing that hee would haue vs, and producing that wee doe. So that in the former consideration wee are meerely passiue, in the latter actiue: which neither Luther nor any of his followers ever denyed. Calvine, they say, confesseth, that the will concurreth actiuely to the acte which God produceth; but without any freedome at all: vnlesse wee speake of that freedome, which is from coaction. It is true indeede that Calvine denyeth vs to bee free from necessity: but hee speaketh of the necessity of sinning; but hee neuer denyeth vs to bee free h Vide Chemnicij examen de cretide libero arbitrio. from naturall necessitie, that is, from being put into action, so as naturall agents are, that is, without all choyce and liking ofthat wee incline to doe. It is evident that Calvine confesseth the will of man to bee free to doe euill; and he denyeth it not to bee free to performe acts civilly good, or morally good ex genere, & obiecto; yea hee thinketh that the will freely and out of choyce, willeth whatsoeuer it willeth; as in the state of auersion it freely willeth that it should not, so when God conuerteth it, hee turneth the course of the actions and desire of it, and maketh it freely and out of choyce to turne to good. En •… hirid. cap. 30.

That men haue lost the freedome from sinne, and put themselues into a necessity of sinning Saint Al •… recte faciendi licentiam. Augustine sheweth: Libero arbitrio male vtens homo, & se perdidit, & ipsum: sicut enim qui se occidit, vtique vivendo se occidit, sed se occidendo non vivit, nec seipsum potest resuscitare cum occiderit: ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio, victore peccato, amissum est & liberum arbitrium, à quo enim quis devictus est, huic & servus addictus est. Quae sententia cum vera sit, qualis quaeso potest servi addicti esse libertas, nisi quando eum peccare delectat? Liberaliter enim seruit, qui sui domini voluntatem libenter facit. Ac per hoc ad peccandum liber est, qui peccati servus est; vnde ad iustè faciendum liber non erit, nisi à peccato liberatus; esse institiae caeperit servus. Ipsa est vera libertas propter rectè facti Bernard in cant. serm. 81. laetitiam, simul & piaservitus propter praecepti obedientiam. Sed ista libertas ad bene faciendum, vnde erit homini addicto & vendito, nisi redimat ille cuius illa vox est, si vos filius liberaverit, verè liberi eritis? Quod antequam fieri in homine incipiat, quomodo quisquam de libero arbitrio in bono gloriatur opere, qui nondum liber est ad operandum benè: nisi se vanâ superbiâ inflatus extollat, quam cohibet Apostolus dicens, Gratiâ salui facti estis per fidem?

Here wee see necessity of sinning, and freedome from naturall necessity, doe stand together in the corrupted nature of man: Anima •… a carentia ratione carent libertate, sensu aguntur, feruntur impetu, rapiuntur appetitu, neque enim iudicium habent quo se diiudicent siue regant •… sed ne instrumentum quidem iudicij rationé. Hanc vim à natur •… solus homo non patitur, & ideo solus inter anim •… tia liber: & tamen interveniente peccato patitur quandam vim & ipse, sed à voluntate non à naturá; vt ne sic quidem ingenitá libertate privetur; quod enim voluntarium, & liberum Bernard. ibidem. Ioan. 8. Nescio quo prauo & miro modo ipsa sibi voluntas peccato quidem in deterius mutata, necessitatem facit; vt nec necessitas cum voluntaria sit, excusare valeat voluntatem; nec volnntas, cum sit illecta, excludere necessitatem. Est enim necessitas haec quodam modo voluntaria: est favorabilis vis quaedam, premendo blandiens, & blandiendo premens; voluntas est quae se cum esset libera servam fecit peccati, peccato assentiendo; voluntas nihilo minus est, quae se sub peccato tenet voluntariè serviendo. Vide quid dicas, inquit aliquis mihi: tune voluntarium dicis, quod iam necessarium esse constat? Verum quidem est quod voluntas seipsam addixerit, sed non ipsa se retinet, magis retinetur & nolens. Bene hoc saltem das, quod retinetur. Sed vigilanter retine voluntatem esse, quam retineri fateris. Itaque voluntatem nolentem dicis? Non vtique voluntas retinetur non volens: voluntas enim volentis est, non nolentis. Quod 〈◊〉 volens retinetur, ipsa seretinet. Quid ergo dicet, aut quid respondebit ei, cum ipsa fecerit? Quid fecit? Seruam se fecit; vnde dicitur, qui peccatum facit, servus est peccati. Propterea cum peccauit (peccauit autem, cum peccato obedire decrevit) servam se fecit. Sed fit libera si non adhuc facit. Facit autem in eâdem servitute se retinens: neque enim non volens voluntas tenetur: voluntas enim est. Ergo quia volens, servam seipsam fecit: non modo fecit, sed facit. Sed non me, inquis, decredere facies necessitatem quam patior, quam in memetipso experior, contra quam & assiduè luctor. Vbinam quaeso hanc necessitatem sentis? Nonne in voluntate? Non ergo parum firmiter vis, quod & necessario vis. Multum vis quod nolle nequeas, nec multum obluctans. Porro vbi voluntas, & libertas; quod tamen dico de naturali, non de spirituali, quâ libertate (vt dicit Apostolus) Christus nos liberauit. Nam de illâ idem ipse dicit: vbi spiritus Domini, ibi libertas. Ita anima miro quodam & malo modo, sub hâc voluntariâ quâdam & malè liberâ necessitate, & ancilla tenetur & libera: ancilla propter necessitatem, libera propter voluntatem: & quod magis mirum, magisque miserum est, eò rea quo libera, eoque ancilla quo rea; ac per hoc eo ancilla, quo libera. And afterward, Non quod volo hoc ago, sed me non alio prohibente: & quod odi illud facio, sed me non alio compellente. Atque vtinam haec prohibitio & haec compulsio, ita esset violenta, vt non esset voluntaria: forsitan enim sic possem excusari: aut certe ita esset voluntaria, vt non violenta: profecto enim sic possem corrigi.

It is true that naturall men may doe things that are good ex genere & obiecto, and performe such externall actions, as serue to entertaine this present life; but to doe any thing morally good, not onely ex genere & obiecto, but ex fine & ci cumstantiis, there is no power left in corrupted nature. It is excellent to this purpose that wee reade in Saint Hypognost. l. 3. August. lib. 1. retract. c. 15. voluntas in tantum libera est, quia in tantum liberata est: alioquin tota cupiditas, quae voluntas propriè nuncupanda est. Ep. 106. sine gratiâ nos dicimus ad non peccandum nihil voluntatis arbitrium valere. Prosper contra: Collatorem c 19. saith that man since the fall Labitur memoriâ errat iudicio, nutat incessu. And cap. 21. Infidelitas rapuit fidem, captivitas abstulit libertatem, nec potuit illic vlla portio residere virtutum, quo t •… ta irruperat •… ma vitiorum. Aug. de spiritu & literâ c. 3. Liberum arbitrium nihil nisi ad peccandum valet si lateat veritatis 〈◊〉 •… ut si agnita veritas non delectet & ametur. Augustine: Per velle malum, rectè perdidit posse bonum, qui per posse bonum, potuit vincere velle malum. Per peccatum igitur liberum arbitrium hominis possibilitatis perdidit bonum, non nomen & rationem. Esse fatemur liberum arbitrium omnibus hominibus, habens quidem iudicium rationis, non per quod sit idoneum, quae ad Deum pertinent, sine Deo aut inchoare aut certe peragere: sed tantum in operibus vitae praesentis, tam bonis, quam etiam malis. Bonis dico, quae de bono naturae oriuntur; id est, velle laborare in agro, velle habere amicum, velle habere indumenta, velle fabricare domum, artem discere diversarum rerum bonarum, velle quicquid bonum ad praesentem pertinet vitam &c. Malis vero dico, vt velle idolum colere, velle homicidium. And againe, de verbis apostoli serm: 13. Agis quidem Deo non adiuvante liberâ voluntate, sed male. Ad hoc idonea est voluntas tua, quae vocatur libera, & malè agendo fit damnabilis ancilla. Cum dico tibi sine adiutorio Dei nihil agis, nihil boni dico: nam ad malè agendum habes sine adiutorio Dei liberam voluntatem; quanquam non est illa libera. A quo enim quis devictus est, huic & servus addictus est: & omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. And againe contraduas epistolas Pelag: ad Bonifacium lib: 1. c. 3. Arbitrium in bono liberum non erit, quod liberator non liberauerit, sed in malo liberum habet arbitrium. And afterward, Haec voluntas quae libera est in malis, quia delectatur malis, ideo libera in bonis non est, quia liberata non est. And againe, De gratia & libero arbitrio, lib. 1. cap. 15. Semper est in nobis voluntas libera, sed non semper est bona. Aut enim à iustitiâ libera est, quando seruit peccato, & tunc est mala: aut à peccato libera est, quando seruit iustitiae, & tunc est bona. Gratia vero Dei semper est bona, & per hanc fit vt sit homo bonae voluntatis, qui prius fuit malae voluntatis. And in his booke de correptione & gratiâ, cap. 1. Liberum arbitrium & ad malum, & ad bonum faciendum confitendum est nos habere: sed in malo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae, servusque peccati: in bono autem liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus. And ad Bonifacium, lib. 3. cap. 8. Liberum arbitrium captivatum non nisi ad peccatum valet, ad iustitiam vero nisi divinitus liberatum, adiutumque non valet. Again, epistola 107. ad Vitalem: Liberum arbitrium ad diligendū Deum primi peccati granditate perdidimus. Lib. 2. d. 29 art. 2. Ariminensis saith, Voluntas determinata est ad malum actum, scilicet quod si sine speciali Dei auxilio eliciet actum, utique eliciet malum. And I haue shewed that many other concurred with him. It is excellent therefore that Hypognost. l. 〈◊〉 . Augustine hath. Ergo damnas (inquit Pelagianus) opera liberi arbitrij? Audi haeretice stulte, & inimice fidei veritatis: Opera liberi arbitrij bona, quae ut faciant praeparantur per gratiae praeventū, nullo liberi arbitrij merito, & ipso faciente, gubernante, & perficiente, ut abundent in libero arbitrio non damnamus, quia ex his vel huiusmodi homines Dei iustificati sunt, iustificantur, iustificabuntur in Christo. Damnamus verò authoritate divinâ opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur, & ex his tanquam meritis, in Christo iustificari extolluntur. L. 2. d. 28. q. 1. art. 1. Ariminensis: Ex his infero corollarium; quod nemo potest mereri primam gratiam de condigno, nec etiam de congruo, contra aliquorum sententiam modernorum: nomine autem gratiae intelligo quodcunque Dei speciale adiutorium ad benè operandum. Compend. theol. veritatis l. 〈◊〉 . c. 2. Bonaventura. Sciendum quod habilitatio sive praeparatio ad gratiam triplex est; scilicet Efficiens, formalis, materialis; prima est à Deo, secunda à gratiâ gratis datâ; tertia à nobis. Anima namque habet facultatem & instrumenta cognoscendi & diligendi Deum ex Naturâ; sed non habet cognitionem veritatis, & ordinem dilectionis nisi ex gratiâ.

In another place he hath these wordes, Compend. theol. veritatis l. 2. c. 56. Aqui, •… a adae. q. 109. art. 6. Praeparatio ad fruendum Deo per donum habituale: ad susceptionem huius doni, per auxilium Dei intus moventis animam & inspirantis bonum propositum. Libertas arbitrij triplex est, scilicet à necessitate, à peccao, à miseriâ. Prima libertas est naturae, secunda, gratiae: tertia, gloriae: item prima est bonorum & malorum, secunda est tantummodò bonorum, tertia est in coelo regnantium. Libertas malorum est velle peccare, & etiam posse peccare. Liberum arbitrium liberius est in bonis, quàm in malis, quia in bonis est tantummodo servitus miseriae, in malis autem est servitus miseriae & peccati: sed in patriâ est liberrimum, quoniam omnis talis servitus destruetur. Nota quod licet Deus non possit malè facere & similiter Angelus, & animae beatae, tamen est in eis liberum arbitrium: quia bonum eligunt, & malum declinant, non ex infirmá necessitate, sed liberâ voluntate. Eodem modo dicendum est de diabolo, quòd habet liberum arbitrium, bonum tamen semper respuit, & malum eligit: sed hoc non facit in eo violenta coactio, sed voluntaria obstinatio. Liberum arbitrium habet se in quibusdam indifferentèr ad bonum & ad malum, ut in primis parentibus ante lapsum: in quibusdam plus se habet ad malum, quàm ad bonum, ut in regeneratis per baptismum: in quibusdam plus se habet ad bonum quàm ad malum, ut in sanctificatis in utero: in quibusdam necessariò se habet ad malum, ut in infidelibus non regeneratis: in quibusdam necessario se habet ad bonum, ut in confirmatis, sicut fuit beata Virgo post conceptionem filij.

And in another place. Compend. theol. veritatis l. 〈◊〉 . qui est de corruptel •… peccati c. 10. Sap. 9. Homo pronior ad malum quàm ad bonum; & hoc multis de causis. Primò quia sicut dicitur: corpus quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam trahens illam ad malum, & non sic erigens ad bonum. Secundò Quia sicut dicit Augustinus: plus valet malum inolitum, quám bonū insolitum. Tertiò, Quia naturalitèr facilius est descendere, quàm ascendere: & unus magis trahit deorsam, quàm decem sursum. Quartò, quia incitans ad malum praesens est, sed finis virtutum incitans ad bonum absens est. Delectabile autem apprehensum persensum, vel imaginationem, quasi de necessitate movet concupiscentiam. Quintò, quia plures circumstanti'ae requiruntur ad bonum, quam ad malum. Sextò, quia tendimus ad nostrum principium, scilicet ad nihilum. 7o Quia fomes, qui mouet ad malum semper intra nos est: gloria vero quam quaerimus extra nos est. 8o Quia vires animae sunt actiuae ad diligendum temporalia: sed passiuae & materiales ad ea, quae sunt gratiae & gloriae. Quia non possunt haberi virtutes per modum acquisitionis, sed per modum receptionis. Vnde malum possumus facere per nos, sed bonum non possumus facere sine gratiâ adiutrice.

Peter Lib. 2. d. 41. Lombard, proposing the question whether all the intentions, and actions of them that lacke faith be sinne, hath these words; Si sides intentionem dirigit, & intentio bonum opus facit; vbi non est fides, nec intententio bona, nec opus bonum esse videtur. Quod à quibusdam non irrationabiliter astruitur, qui dicunt omnes actiones & voluntates hominis sine fide malas esse, quae fide habitâ bonae existunt, vnde Apostolus ait, Omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est. Quod exponens Augustinus ait, Omnis infidelium vita peccatum est, & nihil bonum est sine summo bono: vbi deest agnitio aeternae veritatis, falsa virtus est etiā in optimis moribus. Et Iacobus in epistolâ canonicâ ait, Qui offendit in vno, scilicet in charitate, factus est omnium reus. Qui ergo fidem & charitatem non habet, omnis eius actio peccatum est, quia ad charitatem non refertur. Quod enim ad charitatem non refertur (vt supra meminit Augustinus) non fit quemadmodum fieri oportet, ideoque malum est. Non ergo mandata custodit, qui charitate caret, quia sine charitate nullum mandatorum custoditur. Impossibile est (vt ait Apostolus) sine fide aliquid placere Deo. Quae ergo sine fide fiunt, bona non sunt: quia omne bonum placet Deo. His autem obijcitur quod supra dixit Augustinus, scilicet quod in seruili timore, etsi bonum fiat, non tamen benè: nemo inuitus bene facit, etiamsi bonum est quod facit. Hic enim dicit bonum fieri sed non benè, ab illo qui charitatem non habet. Qui enim seruiliter timet chiritate uacuus est: de quo tamen hic dicit, quia bonum facit, sed non benè. Qui etiam super illum locum Psalmi. Turtur inuenit sibi nidum vbireponat pullos suos dicit, quod Iudaei, haeretici, & Pagani opera bona faciunt, quia vestiunt nudos, & pascunt pauperes, & huiusmodi, sed non in nido ecclesiae, id est, in fide: & ideo conculcantur pulli eorum. Quibus illi respondent, dicentes bona opera appellari huiusmodi, quae sine charitate siunt, non quia bona sint quādo sic siunt, quod euidenter supra Augustinus docuit: sed quia bona essent, si aliter fierent: quae in suo genere sunt bona, sed ex affectu sunt mala. But he sayth, there are others of another opinion, making the actions of men to be of three sorts, & denying all the actions of infidels to be sinne. Opera cunsta quae ad naturae subsidium siunt, semper bona esse astruunt. Sed quod In Psal. 13. Augustinus mala esse dicit, si malas habeant causas; non ita accipiendum est, quasi ipsa mala sint: sed quia peccant, & mali sunt, qui ea malo fine agunt.

Thomas Bradwardin in his summe against the Pelagians of his time, cleerely resolueth, that the will of man since the fall, hath noe power to bring forth any good action, that may bee morally good, ex fine & circumstanti •… s. And Aluarez, though hee thinke that all the actions of infidels are not sinne, yet sayth, that none of them is truly an act of vertue, noe not in respect to the b Lib. 6. d. 50. last naturall end. Consult. art. 18. CASSANDER sayth, that the article of the Augustane confession touching originall sinne, agreeth with the doctrine of the Church, when as it teacheth that the will of man hath some kinde of liberty, to bring forth a kinde of ciuill iustice, and to make choyce in things subiect to reason: but that without the spirit of God, it hath no power to doe any thing that may bee just before God, or anything spiritually iust. And all orthodoxe divines agree against the Pelagians, that it is the worke of grace, that wee are made iust of vnjust, truely, and before God; that this grace createth not a new will, nor constraineth it against the liking of it, but correcteth the depravation of it, and turneth it from willing ill, to will well; drawing it with a kinde of inward motion, that it may become willing of vnwilling, and willingly consent to the divine calling.

The Pelagians the enemies of Gods grace, being vrged with those texts of Scripture, wherein mention is made of grace, sought to avoyde the evidence of them, affirming that by grace, the powers, faculties, and perfections of nature, freely given by God the Creator at the beginning, are vnderstood; when this would not serue the turne, they vnderstood by grace the remission of sins past, and imagined that if that were remitted wherein wee haue formerly offended, out of that good that is in nature wee might hereafter so bethinke our selues, as to doe good & decline euill. Thirdly, When this shift failed likewise, they began to say, that men happily will not bethinke themselues of that duety they are bound to doe, or will not presently and certainely discerne what they are to doe without some instruction or illumination; but that if they haue the helpe of instruction and illumination, they may easily out of the strength of nature decline evill, and doe that they discerne to be good. Against this it is excellent that Saint Bernard hath, Non est eiusdem facilitatis, scire d De gratia & li •… o arbitrio 〈◊〉 •… tio. quid faciendum sit, & facere. Quoniam & diversa sunt, caeco ducatum, ac fesso praebere vehiculum Non quicunque ostendit viam, praebet etiam viaticum itineranti: aliud illi exhibet qui facit ne deviet, & aliud qui praestat ne deficiat in viâ. Itanec quivis doctor statim & dator erit boni, quodcunque docuerit. Porro duo mihi sunt necessaria, doceri, ac iuvari; tu quidem homo rectè consulis ignorantiae, sed si verum sentit Apostolus, spiritus adiuvat infirmitatem nostram. Immo vero qui mihi per os tuum ministrat consilium, ipse mihi necesse est ministret per spiritum suum adiutorium, quo valeam implere quod consulis.

When they were driven from this device also, they betooke themselues vnto another; to vvit, that the helpe of grace is necessary, to make vs more easily, more constantly, and vniuersally to doe good, then in the present state of nature vve can; and to make vs so to doe good, as to attaine eternall happines in heauen. And this is, and vvas the opinion of many in the Roman Church, both aunciently, and in our time. For many taught that men in the present state of nature as now it is, since Adams fall, may decline each particular sinne, doe vvorkes truely vertuous & good, fulfill the severall precepts of Gods law, according to the substance of the vvorke commaunded, though not according to the intention of the lavv-giver; Camaracensis. 1. sent. d. 1. q. 2. art. 2. ait multos doctores asserere hominem e •… tra gratiam per sola naturalia posse diligere Deum super omnia. that they may loue God aboue all, as the authour and end of nature. So that to these purposes there vvas no necessity of the gift of grace, but that grace is added to make vs more easily, constantly, & vniversally to doe good, and to merit heaven. And therefore De Iustificat. l. 2 cap. 4. Respectu prima gratia, meritum ex congruo jampridem explosum est. Stapleton ibid. Stapleton confesseth, that many vvrote vnaduisedly, aswell amongst the Schoolemen heretofore, as in our time, in the beginnings of the differences in religion, but that novv men are become vviser. I vvould to God it vvere so, but it vvill bee found, that hovvsoeuer they are in a sort ashamed of that they doe, yet they persist to doe as others did before them: for Bellarmide gratia & libero arbitrio, l. 〈◊〉 . c. 〈◊〉 . & cap. 9. they teach still that men may decline each particular sinne, doe the true vvorkes of morall vertue, doe things the lavv requireth, according to the substance of the things commaunded, though not so as to merit heauen, or neuer to breake any of them. De gratia & libero •… bit. 10, l. 6. c. 7. Bellarmine indeede denyeth, that vvee can loue God aboue all in any sorte, vvithout the helpe of grace. But I •… primam secundae quaest. 109. art. 3. Cardinall Caietan saith, that though vvee cannot so loue God aboue all, as to doe nothing but that vvhich may be referred to God as the last end, yet so as to doe many good things in reference to him as the last end. And Bellarmine if he deny not his owne principles must say so; for first he defendeth, vbi supra, l. 5. c. 9. that man may doe a worke morally good without grace, and doe it to obey God the author of nature: And elsewhere he proueth, L. 5. c. 5. that man cannot perpetually doe well in the state of nature without grace, because it is so turned away from God to the creature by Adams sinne, & specially to himselfe, that actually, or habitually, or in propension, hee placeth his last end in the creature, & not in God: & so cannot but offend, if he bee not watchfull against this propension. Whence it followeth, that seeing a man must place his chief good in God, if he doe good, & that naturally he can doe good, he can naturally place the same in God. That which he some-where hath, vbi supra l. 5. c. 9. that it is enough to intend the next end explicitè, & that it will of it selfe be directed to GOD the last end, seeing euery good end moueth virtute finis ultimi, is idle: for it moueth not but virtute finis ultimi amati: nam finis non movet nisi amatus, ergo amat finem ultimum.

So that many formerly, & almost all presently in the Church of Rome, are more then Semipelagians, not acknowledging the necessitie of grace to make vs decline euill, & doe good, but to doe so constantly, vniversally, & so as to merite heauen: But Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, Gregory, Beda, Bernard, Anselme, Hugo, many worthy Divines mentioned by the Master of Sentences, yea •… he Master himselfe, Grosthead, Bradwardine, Ariminensis, the Catholique Divine that Stapleton speaketh of, those that Andradius noteth, Alvarez, and other, agree with vs, that there is no power left in nature to avoide sin, & to doe any one good action, that may be truely an action of vertue, & therefore they say, grace must change vs, and make vs become new men.

De liber. arb. Cardinall Contarenus noteth, that the Philosophers perceiuing a great inclination to euill to be found in the nature of mankind, thinking it might bee altered & put right, by inuring them to good actions, gaue many good precepts & directions, but to no purpose: for this euill being in the very first spring of humane actions, that is, the last end chiefly desired, which they sought not in God, but in the creature, no helpe of Nature or Art was able to remedie it: as those diseases of the body are incurable, which haue infected the fountaine of life, the radicall humiditie. GOD onely therefore who searcheth the secret & most retired turnings of our soule & spirit, by the inward motion of his holy spirit, changeth the propension & inclination of our will, and turneth it vnto himselfe. And in De praedest. another place, he hath these wordes. Wee must obserue that at this present, the Church of God by the craft of the diuell, is divided into two sects, which rather doing their owne busines then that of Christ, & seeking their owne glory, more then the honour of GOD & the profite of their neighbours, by stiffe & pertinacious defence of contrary opinions, bring them that are not wary and wise to a fearefull downefall. For some vaunting themselues to be professours of the Catholique Religion, & enemies to the Lutherans, while they goe about too much to maintaine the libertie of mans will, out of too much desire of opposing the Lutherans, oppose themselues against the greatest lights of the Christian Church, and the first & principall teachers of Catholique verity, declining more then they should vnto the heresie of Pelagius. Others when they haue beene a little conversant in the writings of S. Augustine, though they haue neither that modestie of minde, nor loue towards God, that he had, out of the pulpit propose intricate things, & such as are indeed meere paradoxes to the people. So that touching the weakenes of nature, & the necessitie of grace, we haue the consent of all the best and worthiest in the Church, wherein our Fathers liued and died.

The nextthing to be considered is, the power of freewill in disposing it selfe to the receipt of grace. In 1. sent. q. 6. prolog. art. 3. & 2. sent. d. 28. q. 5. Durandus is of opinion, that a man by the power of free will, may dispose and fitte him selfe for the receipt of grace, by such a kind of disposition, to which grace is to be giuen by pact, and diuine ordinance, not of debt. Amongst the latter diuines there are that thinke, that as one sinne is permitted that it may be a punishment of another, soe God in respect of almes, and other morall good workes done by a man in the state of sinne, vseth the more speedily and effectually to helpe the sinner, that hee may rise from sinne; and that God infallibly and as according to a certaine lawe, giueth the helpes of preuenting grace, to them that doe what they can out of the strength of nature: & this is the merit of congruence, they are wont to speake of in the Roman Schooles.

But as I noted before, Gregorius Ariminensis resolutely rejects the conceipt of merit of congruence. Stapleton saith it is exploded out of the Church. And Lib. 7. d. 55. Aluarez, that S. Augustine, & Prosper, whom Aquinas & the Thomists follow, reiect the same. August. l. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelagii c. 8. Si sine Dei gratià per nos incipit cupiditas boni, ipsum caeptum erit meritum, cui tanquam ex debito, * Aug. l. 1. quaestionum ad Simplicianum Quare tamen & huic ita, & huic non ita? Homo tu quis es? debitum si non reddishabes quod gratuleris: si reddis non habes quod quetaris. gratiae veniat adiutorium, ac sic gratia Dei non gratis donabitur, sed meritum nostrum dabitur. &c. 6. lib. 4. & lib. de praedest. sanctorum: & de dono perseuerantiae. Et Prosper lib de gratiâ & libero arbitrio ad Ruffinum, ait; Quis ambigat tunc liberum arbitrium cohortationi vocantis obedire, cum in illo gratia Dei affectum credendi, obediendique generauerit? Alioquin sufficeret moneri hominem, non etiam in ipso nouam fieri voluntatem, sicut scriptum est, Praeparatur voluntas à domino. Neque obstat (sayth •… bi supra. Aluarez) quod idem Salomon Prouerb. cap. 16. inquit, hominis est praeparare animam. Intelligit enim hominis esse, quia libere producit consensum, quo praeparatur ad gratiam: sed tamen id efficit, supposito auxilio speciali Dei inspirantis bonum & interius mouentis, sic explicat istum locum August. lib. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelag. cap. 8. And so those words are to be vnderstood, If any one open the doore I will enter in, Reuela. 3, and Isa •… 30. The Lord expecteth that he may haue mercy on you: for he expecteth not our consent, as comming out of the power of nature, or as if any such consent were a disposition to grace, but that consent hee causeth in vs. Fulgentius lib de incarnatione cap. 19. Sicut in nativitate carnali omnem nascentis hominis voluntatem, praecedit operis diuini formatio: sic in spirituali natiuitate, quâ veterem hominem deponere incipimus. Bernard, de gratiâ & libero arbitrio, in initio: Ab ipsâ gratiâ me in bono praeuentum agnosco, & provehi sentio, & spero perficiendum. Neque currentis, neque volentis, sed dei miserantis est. Quid igitur agit ais liberum arbitrium? breuiter respondeo: saluatur; tolle liberum arbitrium, non erit quod saluetur, tolle gratiam non erit vnde saluetur, opus hoc sine duobus effici non potest: uno á quo fit, altero cui vel in quo fit, Deus author est salutis, liberum arbitrium tantum capax; nec dare illam nisi Deus, nec capere valet nisi liberum arbitrium: quod ergo a solo Deo, & soli datur libero arbitrio, tam absque consensu esse non potest accipientis, quam absque gratiâ dantis, & ita gratiae operanti salutem cooperari dicitur liberum arbitrium, dum consentit, hoc est, dum saluatur: consentire enim saluari est.

Yet must we not thinke that God moueth vs, and then expecteth to see whether wee will consent: Concilium Arausicanum Can. 4. Si quis vt a peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram Deum expectare contendit, non autem vt etiam purgari velimus, per sancti spiritus infusionem, & operationem in nos, fieri confitetur: resist it ipsi spiritui sancto, per Salomonem dicenti, praeparatur voluntas a domino, & Apostolo salubriter praedicanti Deus est qui operatvr in nobis, & velle & perficere pro boná voluntate. Soe that God doth not stirre and moue the will, and soe stay to see whether it will consent or nor, but worketh, moueth, and inclineth us to consent. s Aluarez. li. 9. disp. 97.

The good vse of grace proceedeth, not from the meere liberty of our will, but from God working by the effectuall helpe of preoperating grace, and causing a man freely to consent and cooperate. If not, God were not the totall cause, which as the first roote bringeth forth all that, which discerneth the righteous from the sinner. Quis te discernit? Our consent, and effect of predestination. The will doth not first begin her determination and consent: The influx of free will into a good action, or the good vse of grace exciting, is supernaturall: as being about a supernaturall obiect, therefore it must proceede from a supernaturall cause &c: God is a cause, and the first eause: in that a cause, he hath reference to the effect, in that the first to the second; when therefore by his helping grace, he worketh together with vs to will and performe, his operation hath a double respect: first to our will, which it effectually moueth to worke this; and secondly to our act of willing which it produceth together with our will: for our will hath no operation but in one respect only, that is, of the act it bringeth forth; but it hath no influence upon it selfe, antecedently to the production of the act. So then God is the first determiner of our will; for i •… the created will originally begin her owne determination, it will follow that it is the first free, the first roote, and the first cause of her owne determination: which must not be granted: for seeing a created thing that is free, is free by participation, it must of necessity be reduced to a first free, as to a former cause: otherwise duo prima, principia. Soe that God by his effectuall grace, not onely morally, but truly efficiently, moueth and inclineth the will, to the loue and liking of what hee will, in such sort that it cannot but turne, nor cannot dissent in sensu composito, though it may in sensu diuiso: The meaning of this is, that the effectuall motion of Gods grace, and an actuall dissenting, resisting, or not yeelding, cannot stand together: but the efficacy of Gods grace, and a power of disenting, do stand together. For the efficacie of grace doth not take away the power, but soe directeth the will, as infallibly in such liberty to bring forth that he pleaseth. Cap •… eolus. Est simultas potentiae ad opposita, non autem potentia simultatis ad opposita simul habenda: there is in some created thing at the same time, a possibility of hauing or doing things opposite, as to sitte or walke, but there is no possibility of hauing these together. Soe there is in free will moued by effectuall grace a power to doe, or not to do in sensu diuiso, because the efficacy of grace and power of dissenting may stand together, but not in sensu composito, that is, that the motion of grace and actuall dissenting should stand together. This is the opinion of Lib. 9. d. 94. Aluarez and many other opposing the Iesuites: neither had Caluin or Luther any other apprehension of these things. So that the necessity, efficacy, power, and working of Gods grace, is rightly deliuered by sundry in the Roman Church euen till this day. It is not to be maruelled therefore if it be sayd, that the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, beleeued and taught as we now do.

Aloisius Lippomannus, in catenâ, ad lectorem, hath these words. Illud te admonitum esse volumus, vt si in toto hoc opere Chrysostomum aliquando legeris dicentem, homini quoties is sua attulerit, & conatum omnem fecerit, abundè postea à Deo gratiam suppeditari, caute, & prudenter pium doctorem legas, ne in errorem illum decidas, vt credas gratiam Dei dari propter merita nostra: nam si ex meritis, non est gratia: cum nec istud ipsum sua afferre, & conatum omnem facere, sine praeueniente Dei gratiâ possit esse, juxta illud Psalmi: & misericordia ejus praeueniet me; item que , & misericordia ejus subsequetur me in omnibus diebus vitae meae, ac illud sanctae Ecclesiae: tua nos quaesumus domine gratia semper praeueniat & sequatur: cui nos quo que scrupulo prouidè occurrentes, in duobus fortassis aut tribus locis paucula quaedam in Chrysostomum apposuimus.

Gocchianus de libertate christianâ l. 2. c. 23. Maria salutatur gratia plena, vt quic quid in eâ & per eam diuina dispositione fieri conspicitur, totum ex dono dei nullis praecedentibus meritis, designetur &c. habes qualiter in exordio humanae reparationis praesumpsio humanae facultatis dejicitur. In eo, quod Maria plena gratiâ nunciatur, praedicatur in eaplenitudo gratiae, ut nihil proprii meriti, sed totum quod in ea est gratia esse designetur. August. in enchirid. Quid humana natura in homine Christo meruit, ut in unitate personae unici filii Dei, singulariter esset? Quae bona voluntas? cuius boni propositi studium? quae bona praecesserunt, quibus mereretur iste homo, ut una fieret persona cum Deo? nempè ex quo homo esse caepit, non aliud caepit esse quam Dei filius, idemque hominis filius, &c. Magna hic & sola Dei gratia ostenditur, ut intelligant homines, per eandem gratiam eius se iustificari a peccatis, per quam factum est ut homo Christus nullum habere posset peccatum. Eccehabes in Mediatore Christo gratiam commendatam, qui cum esset unicus Dei filius, non gratiâ, sed naturâ, & ob hoc plenus veritatis, factus est hominis filius; ut esset etiam gratiae plenus, verbum caro factum est. Cùm in Christo in quo omnia instauranda, tanquam in fonte vnde totius humani generis derivatur salvatio, nihil aliud invenitur, quam gratia; unde alicui aliquid aliud de proprio potest provenire, per quod potest salvari? Miranda quidem, imò potius miseranda humanae praesumptio facultatis, quae cùm per humilitatem gratis salvari possit, propriâ impediente superbiâ salvari non velit, Omnes, inquit Esaias, sitientes venite ad aquas; & qui non habetis argentum & aurum, properate, emite, & comedite, emite absque ullâ commutatione vinum & lac. Gocch. ibid. l. 2. c. 23. Idem spiritus movet hominis voluntatem, ut bonum velit quod prius noluit, & bonam voluntatem adiuvat ut bonum volitum ad effectum perducat, nullâ cooperatione propriae voluntatis facultatis, sed sanatae & renovatae. Cap. 20. Aug. de patientia; Gratia non solùm adiuvat iustum, verum etiam iustificat impium; & ideo etiam cùm adiuvat iustum, & videtur eius meritis reddi; nec sic desinit esse gratia, quoniam id adiuvat, quod ipsa est largita. M •… scel. 2. l. 2. ut. 137. Hugo de Sancto Victore: Benefaciendi tres sunt gratiae; praeveniens, cooperans, & subsequens; prima dat voluntatem; secunda facultatem, tertia perseverantiam. So that in the matter of free will and grace, the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, is found to haue beene a Protestant Church.

CHAP. 11.

Of Iustification.

THey of the Church of Rome doe teach, that there is a threefold iustification. The first, when a man borne in sinne, and the childe of wrath, is first reconciled to God, and translated into a state of righteousnesse and grace. The second, when of righteous hee becommeth more righteous: And the third, when hauing fallen from grace, he is restored againe.

The first Iustification implyeth in it three things, remission of sinnes past, acceptation and receiuing into that fauour, that righteous men are wont to find with God; and the grant of the gift of the holy spirit, and of that sanctifying & renewing grace, whereby we may be framed to the declining of sinne, and the doing of the workes of righteousnesse. These being the things implyed in the first justification of a sinner, it is agreed by all, that when in sorrowfull dislike of former mis-doings wee turne vnto God, all our sinnes past are freely remitted, thorough the benefite of Christs satisfaction imputed vnto vs; as also that for the merite of Christs actiue righteousnes, consisting in the fulfilling of the Law, wee are accepted and finde fauour with God, as if wee had alwayes walked in the wayes of God, and pleased him. And both these are necessary; Scotus l. 1. d. 17. q. 2. art. 2. & l. 4 d. 1. q. 6. for if a man cease to bee an enemie, he doth not presently become a friend; and though hee pardon him that offended him, so as not to seeke revenge of the offence, yet doth it not follow that presently hee receiueth him into fauour; but it is possible hee should neither respect him as an enemie, nor as a friend; and neither will euill vnto him as to an enemie, nor good as to a friend. So likewise it sufficeth not that God remitte our sinnes, and seeke not our euill, for Christs passion, but it is necessary also that hee bee so reconciled, as to embrace vs as freinds, and to doe good vnto vs: this wee haue by the merit of Christs actiue righteousnes, who having a two fold right to heaven, the one of inheritance, because borne the sonne of God; the other of merit, because he had done things worthy the reward of heauen; made vse onely of the one, and communicateth the other vnto vs. Neither is this all, that the sinner when he is to bee iustified, seeketh after; for hee neuer resteth satisfied, till hee haue not onely obtayned remission of sinnes past, and acceptation with God, but the graunt of the gift of the spirit also, and of that grace that may keepe him from offending God so as formerly, and incline him to doe the things that are pleasing vnto him. And therefore in the conference at Annos 541. Ratisbon, the Diuines of both sides agreed, that no man obtayneth remission of sinnes, nisietiam simul infundatur charitas sanans voluntatem; vt voluntas sanata, quemadmodum ait Augustinus, incipiat implere Legem. Fides ergo viva est, quae, & apprehendit misericordiam Dei in Christo, & credit iustitiam quae est in Christo sibi gratis imputari, & quae simul pollicitationem spiritus sancti, & charitatem accipit.

So that it is evident that to bee iustified, hath a three fold signification? For first it importeth as much as to bee absolved from sinne, that is, to bee freed from the wofull consequents of that disfauour and dislike, that vnrighteousnes and sinne subjecteth vs vnto. Secondly, To bee accepted and respected so as righteous men are wont to bee: And thirdly to bee framed to the loue and desire of doing righteously. And in this sort doth Dominicus à Soto explicate this poynt: and with him doe all they agree, who say, that grace doth justifie formaliter charitas operativè, and opera declarativè, that is, that grace doth iustifie formally, charitie as that which maketh men doe the workes of righteous men, and that good workes by way of declaration make it manifest, that they are righteous that doe them. For they vnderstand by grace a state of acceptation, that is, such a condition, wherein men are not disfavoured as hauing done ill, but respected as if they had done all righteousnes: which is in trueth a relation, as the Protestants teach: For what is it but a relation, in reference to another, to bee respected by him, and accepted to him? And in this sense a man may bee iustified, that is, accepted as if hee had neuer done ill, or failed in any good, for the righteousnes of another And to this purpose it is that the Protestant divines doe vrge that the word of iustifying is verbum forense, & that it signisyeth as much as to pronounce for one in iudgement; which may bee conceiued two wayes; first so as to cleere him from the imputation of hauing sinned, that bath sinned, and to pronounce that he hath done righteously that hath not; and in this sense if God should iustifie the sinner, his iudgement were not right; and to atas this to him were absurde, as our aduersaries rightly tell us: or else, to cleere and free one from punishment, as if he had neuer offended, and to adiudge such freedome to him as righteous men are wont to enioy, such as he might looke for, if righteous, and to graunt him the gift of renovation making him accline ill and doe good.. Nay they all confesse, that all they that are justified, are so accepted, for the obedience, merit, and satisfactory sufferings of Christ, when they are first reconciled to God. So that it is strange that they should vrge as sometimes they doe, that a man canne no more bee justified, that is, accepted as if righteous, for the righteousnes of another, then a line canne bee, or bee accounted straight, for the straightnes of another: For, as Durandus rightly noteth, though one mans merit and well doing, cannot bee imputed to another, as to bee, or bee accounted his merit, and hee esteemed to haue merited and done well; yet it may bee so communicated, as that the fruite, benefit, & good of it, shall redound to him, & he be accounted worthy respect, for the others sake, as if he had done well. Neither doe they nor can they make any question hereof, if they will but vnderstand what they say; For whereas three things are required of a man, if hee will bee subject to no euil, and enjoy good: viz. not to haue done euill; to haue done good; and to doe good in the present and time to come: though we be framed to the doing of good hereafter, yet wee canne neither bee freed from the punishment our former evill doings deserued, but by the benefit of his sufferings, that suffered what hee deserued not, to free vs: nor to be accepted hauing done nothing worthy acceptation, but for his merit: who did all good in our nature to procure vs acceptation.

Lib. 15: c. 5. Andreas Vega confesseth that men may be absolued from their sins, that is, freed from the punishment of them, by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse: and that they may become acceptable and deare unto God, in such sort as iust men are, formally, by being beloued of him: but that if we speake Philosophycally of iustice, it is in the predicament of quality & not of relation: which we willingly yeeld vnto. And though he say, Lib. 15. c. 2. no man euer in expresse words affirmed before Bernards time, that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to e Epistol. 109. us: yet he thinketh it may rightly be sayd to be imputed, both for satisfaction & merit: that is, so as to free us from punishment, & bring good vpon us, as if we had merited it: and that to these purposes it is imputed to vs, as if it were ours. Cap. 3. And farther he addeth, that as God doth nothing in nature, but by his sonne as God: so he will do nothing pertaining to our iustification and restauration, but for him, as he is man: and that there is no benefit bestowed on vs, or good done vnto us, but it presupposeth a newe application, and imputation of the merits of Christ. Soe that euery one is newly made partaker of Christs merits, and oweth newe thankes to him, soe often as new gifts and benifittes, are conferred and bestowed vpon him: and he feareth not to pronounce, that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto vs, not only when wee are baptized, (as he sayth a man excellently learned vnaduisedly affirmeth,) but in other sacraments, and as often as men receiue any newe gift from God: yea that a new g Cap. 10. imputation of Christs righteousnesse is necessarily required, for the remission of those veniall sinnes, into which the iustified fall, and the freeing of vs from temporall punishments. Sermon. in coena domini. Bernar: Nemo leuia peccata contemnat, impossibile est enim cum iis saluari, impossibile est ea dilui, nisi per Christum, & à Christo: & L. 83. q. q. 68. August: tam de eo qui leuioribus peccatis obnoxius est, quam de eo qui grauioribus pronunciat: quod si sibi relinquerentur interirent.

All therefore acknowledge, as he thinketh, that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed; but there are, as he telleth vs, 2 opinions in the Church of Rome touching this point, the one, that Christs righteousnes is no otherwise communicated or imputed to us, but in that for the merit of it, wee are accepted, all things necessary to fitte vs for iustification are giuen vnto us, righteousnesse making vs formally iust, that is, inclining vs to decline euill & do good, is infused into vs, and what soeuer is profitable to set vs forward, and to make us continue in the same, is bestowed on vs.

Others renowned for learning and piety do thinke, that for the attaining of heauen happinesse, not only in a twofold righteousnesse is necessary, the one inherent, the other imputed, as to the former; but that this imputed righteousnes of Christ, is twise offered and presented, by Christ to God the Father; First that we may be iustified, that is, that our sinnes may be remitted, we accepted, and renewing grace may be giuen vnto vs. And secondly that we may avoyd and decline, the extremity and seuerity of Gods iudgment, that he may accept our weake indeauours, and admitte vs to heauen, notwithstanding the imperfection and defects thereof: that for his sake the imperfection & impurity of our righteousnesse may be couered.

This opinion is clearely deliuered by Cardinall De iustificatione. Contarenus: & he tellethus it was allowed in the conference at Ratisbon, by the diuines of both sides: his words are these. Seeing we haue affirmed that we artaine a twofold righteousnesse by faith: a righteousnesse inherent in vs, as charity, and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature, and the iustice of Christ giuen and imputed vnto vs, as being graft into Christ, and hauing put on Christ: it remaineth that wee enquire, vppon which of these wee must stay and relie, and by which wee must thinke our selues iustified before GOD, that is, to be accepted as holy and just, hauing that justice which it beseemeth the sonnes of God to haue. I truely thinke, that a man very piously and Christianly may say, that wee ought to stay, to stay I say, as vpon a firme and stable thing, able vndoubtedly to sustaine vs, vpon the justice of Christ giuen & imputed to vs, and not vpon the holinesse and grace that is inherent in vs. For this our righteousnes is but imperfect, and such as cannot defend vs, seeing in many things we offend all, &c. But the justice of Christ which is giuen vnto vs, is true & perfect justice, which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God, & in which there is nothing that offendeth God. Vpon this therefore as most certaine & stable, wee must stay our selues, & beleeue that wee are justified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians, which whosoeuer findeth, selleth all that he hath to buy it.

Art. 8. pag. 28 29. 30. Ruard Tapper followeth the other opinion, and saith, that whereas according to Bernard; our righteousnesse is impure, though sincere and true, we must not conceiue that this impurity defileth our righteousnesse, as if it selfe were stayned, or any thing were wanting in it, for so it should not bee true, and right; but that it is saide to bee impure, because there are certaine staines and blemishes together with it, in the operations of the soule; for GOD onely is absolutely free from sinne, and in many things wee sinne all: our righteousnesse therefore according to his opinion, is imperfect in vertue and efficacie, because it cannot expell and keepe out all sinne, out of the soule wherein it is, by reason of the infirmity of the flesh; but the good workes of the just, doe abide the severity of Gods judgment, neither can they bee blamed, though tryed most exactly, and discussed in all their circumstances, yea though the divell should be permitted to say what he can against them, for they haue no fault nor deformitie.

Here for the better clearing of this point, it is to bee obserued, that it is confessed by all, that the most righteous liue not without sinne, & consequently that they haue need continually of remission of sinnes.

It is resolued amongst all Catholiques, saith L. 14. c. 17 Andreas Vega, that there was neuer any found amongst the Saints, the blessed Virgin onely excepted, that in the whole course of their liues, avoided all veniall sinnes. Iob. 14 Iob asketh who shalll be cleane from filthinesse? and answereth himselfe, according to the translation which the ancient Doctors followed, & namely Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and others, no one though he liue but one day vpon earth. And Psal. 143. ps. 32. Dauid saith generally, no man liuing shall bee justified in thy sight, and in another place, for this impiety of sinne shall euery holy one pray vnto thee: hee saith not euery sinner, but euery holy one (saith Saint 2 de peccat. meritis c. 7. Augustine) for it is the voice of the Saints, If we say wee haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, & there is no trueth in vs, and Solomon saith, there is no man righteous on earth, that doth good, and sinneth not; and those sayings of the Apostles are well knowne; in many things wee sinne all: If wee say wee haue no sinne, wee deceiue our selues, &c. And who is hee that neuer needed in his whole life to say that part of the Lords Prayer, forgiue vs our trespasses?

And all this is strongly proued, in that if wee looke on the liues of all the Saints, which are marvailously commended in Scripture, we shall finde none of them that had not some blemish, as in the most beautifull body. Let vs begin with the more ancient, for we intend not to accuse the just, but to shew the infirmitie of man, and the mercie of GOD, vpon, and towardes all. Enoch, as Ecclesiasticus testifieth, pleased GOD, and was translated into paradise, but in that it is written in Genesis, hee pleased GOD, after he begat Methusalem, Homil 57. Basil doth not without cause collect, that hee formerly did not so please GOD; and the same Basil saith, that that great Father of the faithfull, is found to haue beene some-where vnfaithfull: and not without cause, for when God first promised Isaak vnto him, though he fell on his face, yet he laughed in his heart, saying, thinkest thou that a sonne shall bee borne, to him that is an hundred yeares old, and that Sarah who is ninety yeares old shall bring forth? Wherevpon Hierome speaketh of Sarah and him in this sort; they are reproved for laughing, and the very cogitation and thought is reprehended, as a part of infidelity; yet are they not condemned of infidelity, in that they laughed, but they receiued the garland of righteousnes, in that afterwards they beleeued. Besides these the Scripture giueth ample testimony, to Noah, Daniel, & Iob, who onely in Ezechiel it saith, may escape the anger of God ready to come on men; & yet Noah fell into dr •… nkennes, which is a sinne; and Daniel professeth he prayed vnto the Lord, and confessed his owne sinne, and the sin of his people: Iob also is commended in the Scripture, and of God himselfe, as being a sincere man, righteous, fearing God, and departing from euill, and that not in an ordinary sort, but so as that none of the most righteous then in the world, might be compared vnto him, as St Austine rightly collecteth, out of the words of God vnto Satan: This man though hee were a singular example, of innocencie, patience, and all holines, and though hee indured with admirable patience, horrible tribulations and trials, not for his sinnes, but for the manifestation of the righteousnes of God; yet as Augustine and Gregorie (who as loud sounding trumpets set forth his prayses) freely confesse, hee was not without veniall sinne. Which thing is strongly confirmed, in that the same most sincere louer of righteousnes, confesseth of himselfe, saying, Iob. 7. I haue sinned, what shall I doe vnto thee ô thou •… eeper of men? And being reproued by the Lord, and in a most mild sort willed, to say what hee could for himselfe, hee answered without any circuition, that he had spoken foolishly: and therefore the Scripture as it were carefully declining, the giuing occasion to any one, to attribute so great innocencie to Iob, as to make him sinles, sayd not, that he sinned not, but that hee sinned not in all those things, that hee suffered before that time, when he answered his wife, if wee haue receiued good things of the hand of the Lord, why should we not patiently suffer the evils he bringeth vpon vs? Numer. 20. Moses beloued of God & men, and the most meeke of all the inhabitants of the earth, Aug. de vtilitate p •… t. doubted something of the promise of the Lord, when hee stroke the rocke twise with the rodde, to bring out water for the people, being distressed for want of water: and that his doubting, displeased the Lord God, and hee let him know so much, both by reprouing him and punishing him, and therefore presently he sayd to him & Aaron, because yee beleeued mee not, to sanctifie mee before the children of Israel, you shall not bring in this people, into the land which I will giue them. The Scripture also highly commendeth Samuell, but as August: noteth; that neither hee, nor Moses, nor Aaron, were v Aug 2. de pecc •… torum meritis & re •… : without sin, David sufficiently declared, when he said; thou wast mercifull vnto them, and didst punish all their inventions, for as August: noteth, he punisheth them that are appointed to condemnation in his wrath, the children of grace in mercy, but there is no punishment, no correction, nor no rod of 〈◊〉 P •… 9 •… . God due, but to sinne. Zacharie and Elizabeth are renowmed for eminent righteousnes, for they are both sayd to haue beene iust before God, walking in all his commandements without reproofe; but that Zacharie himselfe was not without fault & sinne, Gabriel shewed when hee sayd vnto him, behold thou shalt be silent, and not able to speake. And the same may be proved out of Paul who sayth, that Christ onely needed not daily as the priests of the law, to offer sacrifice first for their owne sinnes, and then for the sinnes of the people. And it is one thing (as the fathers of the councell of Mileuis, haue well noted, in their epistle to Innocentius) to walke without sinne, & another thing to walke without reproofe, for he that walketh so, that no man can iustly complaine of him, or reprehend him, may bee said to walke without reproofe, though sometimes thorough humane frailety, some lighter sinnes doe seize vpon him; because men doe not reproue, nor complaine, but onely of the more greivous sinnes. And to what end should wee runne thorough other examples of the Saints? Whereas the lights of the world, and salt of the earth, the Apostles of Christ, that receiued the first fruits of the spirit, confessed of themselues, that in many things they offended and sinned.

And therefore the Church taught this euer with great consent. 2 contra Marc. Tertullian: Quis hominum sine delicto? Li. 3. ad Quirin. Cyprian proveth by Iob, Dauid, and Iohn, that no man is without sinne, and defiling: In Ps. 118. Hilarie vpon those words, thou hast despised all them that depart from thy righteousnes; If God should despise sinners he should despise all; for there is none without sinne, In Ionam. Hierome shewing that the Ninivites vpon good ground and for good cause, commaunded all to fast, both old and young, writeth thus; The elder age beginneth, but the youngger also followeth in the same course, for there is none without sinne, whether he liue but one day or many yeares; for if the starres be not cleane in the sight of God, how much lesse a worme, rottennes, and they that are holden guilty of the sinne of Adam, that offended against God. And in another place, wee follow the authority of the Scripture, that no man is without sinne. e Q •… r 8. ad A gas. And Li 2. de pec cat. meritis & re •… i: cap. 14. Saint Augustine; whosoeuer are commended in Scripture, as hauing a good heart, and doing righteously, and whosoeuer such after them, either now are, or shall be hereafter, they are all truely great, iust, and praise worthy, but they are not without some sinne, nor no one of them is so arrogantly mad, as to thinke he hath no need, to say the Lords prayer, and to aske forgiuenes of his sinnes. And in his 31 sermon de verbis Apostoli, he hath these words: Haehetici Pelagiani & Coelestiani dicunt iustos in hac vitâ nullum habere peccatum, redi haeretice ad orationem, si obsurduisti contra veram fidei rationem, Dimitte nobis debita nostra dicis an non dicis? Si non dicis, etsi praesens fueris corpore, foris tamen es ab ecclesiâ. Ecclesiae enim oratio est, vox est de magisterio Domini veniens. Ipse dixit, sic orate, discipulis dixit, Apostolis dixit, & nobis qualescunque agniculi sumus dixit, arietibus gregis dixit, sic •… rate. Videte quis dixerit & quibus dixerit, Veritas discipulis, pastor pastorum arietibus dixit, sic orate, Dimitte nobis debita nostra; &c: Rex militibus, dominus servis, Christus Apostolis, veritas hominibus loquebatur, sublimitas humilibus loquebatur. Scio quid in vobis agatur. Ego vos appendo, ego de trutinâ meâ renuncio, prorsus dico quid in vobis agatur. Hoc enim ego plus quam vos scio, dicite, Dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut &c: Oratio ista regeneratorum est, id est, baptizatorum: Postremo quod totum superat filiorumest. Nam si non est filiorum, quâ fronte dicitur Pater noster? &c. And in his retractations he saith expressely, no man doth so keepe the mandates of g Cap. 13. righteousnes, as that it should not bee needefull for him in praying to say, forgiue vs our debts. And De bono perseverantiae. els-where; that amongst those three articles, which the Church defendeth against the Pelagians, one is, In quantâcunque iustitiâ, sine qualibuscunque peccatis, in hoc corruptibili corpore neminem vivere. Homil. 58. Basil: No speech is so profitable vnto me, as that touching repentance, because there is no man without sinne. De ecclesiast. dogmat. c. 49. Gennadius: There is no holy nor iust man that is without sinne; yet doth hee not therefore cease to be holy. Moral. 18. c. 4. Gregorie inquireth how that may be vnderstood, that Iob sayth; his heart reproued him not; whereas before he had accused himselfe saying, I haue sinned: and he professeth, that if he shall goe about to iustifie himselfe, his owne heart will condemne him: and he answereth himselfe in this sort; that there are sinnes that may be avoyded by the iust, and that there are some that even the righteous cannot decline; of the first kinde he sayth it is to thinke euill, of the second to consent to euill thoughts. Rightly therefore he that confesseth himselfe a sinner saith, his heart reproued him not, because though sometimes happily he were wanting in rectitude, in that hee thought euill, yet by a strong fight of the minde hee resisted the same. De praecept. & dispens. Bernard. Ipsi de se fatentur apostoli in multis offendimus omnes, & si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus; that is, the Apostles confesse of themselues, in many things wee sinne all, and if wee say, wee haue no sinne, wee deceiue our selues. De perfect. iustit. resp. 17. August. treating of those words, that wee may bee holy and vndefiled. Hoc agitur, inquit, ut hoc simus, si immaculati intelligendi sunt, qui omninò sine peccato sunt; si autem immaculati sunt, qui sunt sine crimine, etiam in hâc vitâ fuisse atque esse, negare non possumus: legitur homo sine crimine, legitur sine querelâ; at non legitur sine peccato, nisi filius hominis, unus idemque filius Dei unicus. And Moral. 21. c. 9 Gregory: In hâc vitâ multi sine crimine, nullus verò esse sine peccatis valet.

Vegal. 14. c. Yea the Fathers teach, not onely that no man doth, but also that no man can liue without veniall sinne. Ps. 118. Hilary in illa verba, amputa à me opprobrium, &c, Propheta in corpore positus loquitur, & neminem viventium scit sine peccato esse posse. Augustin, Homil. 2. in Apocalyps. Non Angels indigent poenitentiâ sed homines, qui sine peccato esse non possunt, & subiungit. Non dicam Laici, sed etiam Sacerdotes, unâ die esse non debent fine poenitentia, quia quomodò nullus dies est, in quo homo possit esse sine peccato, sic nullo die debet esse sine satisfactionis remedio. Et de bono perseverantiae cap. 13. citat ex Ambrosio, & approbat, Cauere difficile; exuere autem impossibile surreptiones, in quibus dubium non est, quandoque nos peccare venialiter. In lib. de fide ad Petrum cap. 41. ut firmissimè tenendum traditur, neminem ex adultis sine peccato esse posse. Gregorius homil. 17. in Evangel; Humana vita sine culpa transiri non potest. Et alibi, Etiam a iust is peccata haec minuta asserit inevitabilia 18, Moral. c. 4. Beda in illa verba, Ecce agnus Dei. Quamdiu sunt sancti in hoc corpore, peccato carere nequeunt. 〈◊〉 Bernard. in lib. de praecepto & dispens. Fateor sane impossibile cuivis mortalium, vel venialiter interdum non delinquere. And the Councell of Trent anathematizeth all those that shall say, that the justified man may so avoid & decline all veniall sin, as not to commit any in the whole course of his life, vnlesse it be by speciall priviledge, as in the blessed Virgin.

But yet Andreas L. 14. c. 21. Vega thinketh, that the just by the assistance of Gods grace, may decline all veniall sinne, so as in the whole course of their life to fall into none; which his saying he confesseth, will seeme hard to most men, euen as it seemed formerly to himselfe. But hee saith, if it be not granted that the commaundements of GOD may bee kept collectiuely, as well as divisiuely, then that hee requireth is impossible, for hee requireth the fulfilling of all collectiuely, so as not to doe any of them is sinne. If a man commaund his seruant, to carry so much of something, out of the field into his house euery houre, though hee haue power to carry so much any houre, yet if hee haue not power to carry it euery houre, it seemeth hee requireth that which is impossible, and his mandate is vnjust. And besides, if wee haue power to doe the things the Law requireth, divisiuely onely, and not collectiuely, then we cannot fulfill the Law, ex toto, sed ex parte tantum, which is the opinion of the Protestants, whom the Councell condemneth.

It is true that he noteth touching this point, that they cannot avoid, but that God hath commaunded things impossible, who say, that men may divisiuely doe each thing the Law requireth, but not collectiuely all the things it requireth, seeing God commandeth vs to doe all these things collectiuely; and yet this is the opinion of most Diuines in the Roman Church. So that they are forced by the evidence of truth, to confesse together with vs, that God hath commanded such things, as in the present state, by reason of the infirmity of our sinfull nature, cannot be fulfilled by vs.

Neither can Vega avoyde the evidence of the testimonies of the Fathers, & the Decree of the Councell of Trent, so that hee must bee forced to confesse, that no man can so collectiuely fulfill the Law as not to sinne, and consequently, that no man can performe that the law requireth. For his distinction of logicall or metaphysicall, and morall impossibility, will not helpe the matter; for howsoeuer it be true, that God may giue grace, freeing the will, and inabling it to doe good, in such sort as to decline all ill, (and in his opinion euery iustified man might haue such grace, if he were not wanting to himselfe) yet according to the course, which generally he hath, doth, and will euer hold, for reasons best knowne to himselfe, hee giueth not that superexcellent grace, and mans condition is still such, as that continuing in it, hee connot auoyd all sin.

Iustificat. l. 6. cap. 2. Sapleton treating of the fullfilling of the lawe, layeth downe these propositions. 1 They that are renewed in Christ Iesus, receiue the grace of the ho •… y spirit, whereby they may fullfill the lawe, De spiritu & littera. c. 19. Lex, sayth S. Augustine, data est vt gratia quaereretur, gratia data est vt lex impleretur, & Cap. 9. voluntas ostenditur infirma per legem, vt sanet gratia voluntatem, & voluntas sanata impleat legem, non constituta sub lege, nec indigens lege. Item, Cap. 30. Lex non evacuatur per fidem, sed statuitur, quia fides impetrat gratiam, quà lex impleatur. Contra Faustum l. 19. c. 31. Ad praecepta facienda adiuuat per gratiam, sicut promissa implenda curat per veritatem. Lib. 17. c. 6. Impletur lex cum vel fiunt quae ibi praescripta sunt, vel cum exhibentur quae ibi Prophetata sunt, gratia pertin •… t ad charitatis plenitudinem, verit as ad prophetiarum impletionem, & quia vtrumque per Christum, ideo non venit soluere legem aut Prophetas, sed adimplere.

This first proposition hee qualifieth by a second, in this sort. Haec impletio g Cap. 3. legis non intelligitur, necessario & praecise, in omnibus mandatis legis, toto tempore & cursu iustitiae humanae, sed ille censetur implere, qui voluntatē & affectū habens implendi, vniuersa legis eatenus implet, quatenus humana fragilitas, in reliquiis naturae corruptae, per gratiam adiuta implere in hac vita vel potest, vel solet. And this proposition he sayth is clearely proued, and strongly confirmed, by the knowne doctrine of the Church, Concil. Mileuita. Can. 6. 7. & 8. Concil. Aphrica. c. 81. & sequen. Aug. l 2 de peccato: meritis & remissi. De spiritu & litt. lib. 4. contra ep. Pelagiani de perfect: Iustitiae. long since clearely deliuered against the Pelagians, that none of the iust do liue without sinne. Whereas therefore, it is sayd of Zachary and Elizabeth, that they were both iust before God, walking in all the commandements, and iustifications of the Lord, without blame; and of Dauid, that hee was a man after Gods owne hart, doing all his will; and of Asa, that hee did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, as Dauid his father did, and that his hart was perfite before the Lord all his dayes, as likewise it is sayd of Iehosaphat, Ezechias, Iosias; It is not to bee vnderstood that they were soe iust, as to be without sinne, for the sinnes of them all are recounted in scriptvre. Zachary was incredulous, and therefore became dumbe; the adultery and murder of David are well knowne; 2 Chron. 19. Iehosaphat is reprehended by the Prophet for helping wicked Ahab: 2 Chron. 32. Ezechias fell through the pride of his hart; Iosias sinned grieuously, in not resting in the words of Necho, 2 Chron. 35. But they are sayd to haue beene iust, because they had a desire to fullfill all, though through frailty they offended in many things. Contra Pelag. lib. 3. Hierome sheweth that men are soe iust in this life, as that yet they are not without sinne, Positum, inquit, est in nostrâ potestate non peccare, sed hoc pro modo, & tempore, & conditione humanae fragilitatis, perpetuitas autem impeccantiae, soli Deo reservatur, nec quia ad breue tempus abstinere possum, coges me vt possim iugiter, & dicimus hominem posse non peccare si velit, sed hoc pro tempore, pro loco, pro imbecillitate coporis, quamdiu intentus est animus, quamdiu chorda nullo vitio laxatur in cithara. And Saint Augustine. Nullus sanctus & iustus caret peccato, nec tamen ex hoc desinit esse iustus, cum affectu teneat sanctitatem. m Lib. de ecclesiasti: dogmatibus c. 86.

Thirdly to this proposition hee addeth in the same place, That the iust though they be not without sinne yet decline those that are mortall, or if n cap. 5. at any time they fall into them they rise againe by repentance.

cap. 6. Fourthly, though the righteousnesse of the iust be not perfect in this world, so as to be free from all mixture of sinne, yet it is perfect suo modo, in that it continually endevoureth to bee free from sinne, going on from day to day. Leo de qua. dra •… . ser. 2. Haec est perfectorum vera iustitia, vt nunquam praesumant se esse perfectos: ne ab itineris nondum finiti intentione cessantes, ibi incidant in deficiendi periculum, vbi proficiendi deposuerint appetitum. August. in Ps. 〈◊〉 . Quantumcunque hic profecerimus, nemo dicat sufficit mihi, iustus sum, qui sic dixit remansit in viâ, non novit pervenire. Vbi dixit sufficit ibi haesit.

Cap. 8. Fiftly, Iustit ia bonorum operum in fide, est vera coram Deo iustitia, vtcunque mixta peccatis & imperfecta, tum quoad vniuersa mandata implenda, tum quoad modum implendi, verèque & plenè legi Dei satisfacit, non solum quia quam proximè arcedit ad plenam & perfectam iustitiam, aut quia grauioribus saltem criminibus caret, aut etiam quia id agit proficiendo de die in diem, vt omni prorsus peccato careat, & plene satisfaciat, sed adhuc praeterea, quia quicquid deest ad plenam, & perfectam adimpletionem, mandata praetermittendo, & frequenter venialiter peccando, sive propter imperfectionem, in modo & ratione implendi, id totum Christi misericordia & gratia indulget, atque ignoscit, facitque indulgendo, vt perinde simus coram Deo iusti, ac si vntuersa ad amussim omnia mandata, eademque perfectissimè fecissemus.

This doctrine of Stapleton thus deliuered, is such as no Protestant can dislike, neither can he dissent from them, if hee constantly persist in the same, but that hee may make shew of some difference betweene him and them, hee sayth, that a three fold fraude of the Protestants touching remission of sinnes, is to bee avoyded. First, In that they make our iustification, so consist in the sole remission of sinnes by faith, that the sacraments conferre nothing to our justification. But this is vntrue, for they teach no such thing, but that baptisme and repentance, are necessarily required, in them that are to bee first iustified. The second supposed fraude is, that actions of vertue, and the carefull indeavour to walke in the commaundements of God, are not necessary to our second justification, or the augmentation, progresse, and daily perfecting of the same more and more. But this is a calumniation as the former; for they make the second justification, to consist of two parts. The daily progresse in well doing, whereby the righteousnes inherent is more and more perfected. And the daily remission of such sinfull defects, as are found in their actions. Neither do they say, that mortall sinnes, and such as doe vastare conscientiam, stand with iustification; and therefore the daily remission which the iustified man seeketh, is not of those. The third fraud, to wit, that this remission of sinnes is obtayned by faith onely, without all those meanes that are necessary to attaine the same, is but his owne imagination; for howsoeuer faith onely apprehend this remission, yet other things necessarily concurre, as fitting to the receiuing of the same.

Hitherto wee haue strongly proued that no man can liue in this world without veniall sinne, and consequently that no man fulfilleth the law exactly. Wee haue likewise shewed that the best learned in the Roman Church doe thinke, that the iustified doe so fulfill the law, as that they haue need of continuall remission of sinnes. Onely onething may be alleadged against this that wee haue hitherto insisted vpon, Chemnitius (saith Bellarmine de iustific. l 4. c. 14.) v •… geth that hee that fulfilleth the whole law a •… b no sinne, that in many things wee si ne all and that therefore 〈◊◊◊〉 the whole law. This argument they doe not well answere, that thinke veniall sinnes to bee properly sinnes and against the law, s •… •… cy must •… ay it is possible to fulfill, not because it may wholly be kept, but in the greater part. Thomas 1. 2. quest. 88. art. 1. a •… serit peccata ven •… ia, non esse peccata simpliciter, sed imperfectè, & secundum quid, neque esse contra legem, sed praeter legem. that veniall sinnes are not against but besides the law, that they are improperly sinnes, and that they doe not offend nor displease God, and that therefore the committing of those no way hindereth, but that the fulfilling of the law may bee accounted perfect. But Lib. 14. cap. 13. Andreas Vega learnedly refuteth this fancie, and sheweth at large, that they are properly and absolutely sinne, for that they are actus mali simpliciter, quippe qui voluntarij & circa materiam indebitam, & à rectâ ratione deviant, ac dissentiunt, & poenâ, ac reprehensione digni iure apud omnes censentur. And sundry others agree with him in the same. So that it is cleere, that though the gift of righteousnes be giuen to the iustified, and they inclined to doe the things the law requireth, yet it doth not make them to decline all euill, or to doe all good that the lawe requireth, but so to decline euill, as not to suffer it to bee predominant, and so to doe good, as principally to delight in well doing, and aboue all things to desire to please God.

Onely one thing remaineth that is questionable, whether the good workes of the iustified bee sinne or not. That they are wee haue the testimony of 9 Moral. c. 1: Gregory, Sanctus vir omne meritum virtutis nostrae vitium esse conspicit, si ab interno arbitro districtè iudicetur, ideo recte subiungit, si voluerit contendere cum eo, non poterit ei respondere vnum pro mille, et 9. Moral. c. 28. Quamvis lamentis supernae compunctionis infundar: quamvis per studia rectae operationis exe •… cear, in tuâ tamen munditiâ, video quia mundus non sum. Intentam quippe in Deum animam, ipsam adhuc corruptibilis caro diuerberat, eiusque amoris pulchritudinem, obscaenis & illicitis cogitationum motibus faedat. Et 9. Moral. c. 14. Omnis humana iustiua iniustitia conuincitur si districtè iudicetur: prece ergo post iustitiam indiget, vt quae succumbere discussa poterat, ex solà iudicis pietate convalescat.

And Li. 11. c. 40. Vega confesseth, that not onely the life of all the holiest in this world, is stayned with many veniall sinnes, but also that the good workes of the most perfect, come short of that goodnes, with which it were fit, wee should worshippe, prayse, and honour God, they are not so pure, so holy, so fervent, as the greatnes of God and of his benefits bestowed on vs, might iustly require and exact of vs.

De Iustific. li. 6. c. 21. Stapleton sayth Non est tanta eorum iustitia vt vel sine peccato semper sit, vel nihil illi addi queat. De perfect. iustitiae. August: contra Coelestium, In illâ plenitudine charitatis praeceptum illud implebitur, Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, & ex totâ animâ tuâ, &c: Nam cum est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnimodo ex totâ animâ diligitur Deus. Stapl. ib. c. 10. Propter concupiscentiam minuitur, distrahitur, & impeditur illa dilectio. Non amatur Deus perfectè ex tota anima in hac vita: non quia avertitur à Deo, sed quia avocatur, non quia à Deo abstrahitur, sed quia distrahitur. Denique non quia charitas Dei per hunc conflictum tollitur, sed quia vsus ipsius charitatis impeditur, vt scitè distinguit Thomas 2. 2, q. 44. ar. 4. ad 2. Fit autem haec avocatio, haec distractio, haec diminutio delectationis sanctae in ipsà animâ, quia sine animâ caro non concupiscit, quamvis caro concupiscere dicatur, quia carnaliter anima cōcupiscit. August. l. 4. c. 2. contra Iulian Concupiscētia inquantum inest nocet, non quidem ad perdendum de sorte sanctorum nisi ei consentiatur, tamen ad minuendam spiritualem delectationem sanctarum mentium, illam scilicet de quâ dicit Apostolus, Condelector legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem. There is an imperfection in our loue of God, and wee come short of that which the Law requireth of vs, for we should loue him so, as to loue or desire nothing more, nothing so much, nothing but for him, nothing that he would not haue loued, nothing otherwise then he would haue vs: but this wee doe not, therefore we breake this law. Their Stapl 16. c. 11. answere is, that these lawes doe onely teach vs, what we are to desire, and what we are hereafter to attaine, but doe not binde vs vnder the paine of sinne. If wee aske them why, they answere, because our nature is so corrupted, that we cannot fulfill them, and thus doth Stapleton answere this question; but himselfe presently sheweth the insufficiency of this answere, for he telleth vs out of August: that the righteousnes of the first man was such, as to obey God, and to haue no lawe of concupiscence, De peccat: merit: & remission. lib. 2. cap: 23. And out of the same August. De Ciuitate Deil. 14. c. 10 Erat amor eius imperturbatus in Deum, that is, he was wholly carried vnto God without distraction or perturbation. And addeth, that this primitiue righteousnes, (which the law of nature bound man to haue,) the law was to prescribe and require, quia ideo data est, vt extinctam propemodum naturae legem in hominibus restauraret; August. qu: in vetus testiment. q. 4. And that the rule of the lawe, which is a perpetuall and immutable lawe of iustice in God, was not to be altered or any way bowed and iuclined in respect of the deprauation of our nature; He sayth therefore that the rule, without any change remaineth the same, and commandeth all manner of perfection: and that not to haue the perfection it requireth, is a transgression of the law, in all them that by Adams sinne are so corrupted, vnlesse this corruption be remitted. So then this law bindeth the vnregenerate; and do the regenerate owe lesse to God? It remaineth therefore a cleare truth, that the most iust do not performe the workes of vertue, with that purity and fervencie of affection, that the lawe requireth, according to that of S. Paul who confesseth, that what he would do that he did not, and what he would not that he did, that to will, was present with him, but that he found no ability to performe.

Ambrosius de fugâ saeculi citatus ab August. contra duas epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium lib. 4. cap. 11. hath these words, Frequenter irrepit terrenarum illecebra cupiditatum, & vanitatum offusio mentem occupat, vt quod studeas vitare, hoc cogites animoque voluas. Quod cauere difficile est homini, exuere autem impossibile. Non in potestate nostrâ est cor nostrum, & nostrae cogitationes, quae improuiso offusae, mentem animumque confundunt, atque alio trahunt quam tu proposueris, ad saecularia reuocant, mundana inserunt: voluptaria ingerunt, illecebrosa intexunt, ipsoque in tempere quo elevare mentem paramus, insertis inanibus cogitationibus, ad terrena plerumque deijcimur.

And Contra Luciferianos. Hierome, Fiat tibi inquit Deus secundum fidem tuam, hanc ego vocem audire nolo, si enim secundum fidem meam fiat mihi peribo. Et certè credo in Deum patrem, credo in deum filium, & credo in Deum spiritum sanctum, credo in vnum Deum: & tamen secundum meam fidem nolo mihi fieri. Saepe quippe venit inimicus homo & inter dominicam messem zizania interserit. Neque hoc dico, quod maius quicquam sit quam sacramenti fides, quam puritas animae: sed indubitata ad Deum fides arduè reperitur. Verbi gratiâ dictum sit, vt quod volumus perspicuum fiat, ad orationem assisto, non orarem si non crederem, sed si verè crederem, illud cor quo Deus videtur mundarem, manibus tunderem pectus, genas lacrimis rigarem, corpore inhorrescerem, ore pallerem, iacerem ad Domini mei pedes eosque fletu perfunderem, crine tergerem, haererem certè trunco crucis, nec prius amitterem, quam misericordiam impetrarem. Nunc vero creberrimè in oratione meâ aut per porticus deambulo, aut de faenore computo, aut abductus turpi cogitatione, etiam quae dictu erubescenda sunt gero. Vbi est fides? siccine putamus or asse Ionam? sic tres pueros? sic Danielem inter leones? sic certè latronem in cruce?.

And this is confirmed by the author of the booke called Scala coeli, written in English long since a manuscript whereof I haue seene, When thou wouldest haue the mind of thy hart vpward to God in thy prayer, thou feelest so many thoughts in vaine, and of thine owne deedes before done, or what thou shalt doe, that it cannot be soe: yet doe wee rightly require it should bee soe. Thou shalt loue God with all thy hart, and all thy soule, and thy might, it is impossible to any man, to fullfill this bidding so fully as it is sayd, liuing in earth, and yet neuerthelesse our Lord bad vs to loue soe, for this intent as S. Bernard sayth, that we should know thereby our feeblenesse, and then meekly cry mercy, and we shall haue it.

Saint In Cantica serm. 50. Bernard making two constructions of that precept, Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God &c. The one, that it requireth that we should first tast the sweetnesse of the Lord, and loue him as the first thing that is deare vnto vs, and our selues in and for God, no otherwise, as finding nothing in our selues worth regarding, but for him, without whom we are nothing. The other, that it requireth us to loue nothing so much as God, to be affected towards him as most worthy to be beloued, & to desire that we might so tast of his goodnesse, as to loue him first, & nothing but for him. The former of these 2 he saith, is impossible to be had in this life. Quis enim sibi arrogare id audeat quod se Paulus ipse fatetur non cōprehēdisse? Nec latuit praeceptorē praecepti pōdus hominū excedere vires, sed iudicauit vtile, ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficientiae admoneri: & vt scirent sanè ad quem iustitiae finem niti pro viribus oporteret. Ergo mandando impossibilia, non praevaricatores homines fecit, sed humiles, vt omne os obstruatur, & subditus fiat omnis mundus Deo. Quia ex operibus legis, non iustificabitur omnis caro coram illo. Accipientes quippe mandatum, & sentientes defectum, clamabimus in coelum, & miserebitur nostri Deus, & sciemus in illâ die, quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam saluos nos fecit.

And that all our best workes are defectiue, and that it is not safe to trust to them; the same Bernard sheweth in his sermon De verbis Apostoli, Qui gloriatur in domino glorietur. Perfecta & secura gloriatio est, cum veremur omnia opera nostra, sicut testatur beatus Iob de seipso, & cum Esaiâ Prophetâ omnes iustitias nostras, non aliud quam panum menstruatae reputandas esse cognoscimus; nihilominus tamen confidimus etiam, & gloriamur in domino, cuius misericordia tanta est super nos, vt à grauioribus quidem, quae ad mortem peccata sunt, custodiat nos, & tam benignè imperfectionis nostrae delicta, & conuersationis impuritatem nobis manifestare, cognitam condonare dignetur, quatenus in humilitate & sollicitudine, & gratiarum actione firmiter radicati, iam non in nobis, sed in domino gloriemur.

De justificat. art. 8. p. 19. Ruard Tapper sayth, our righteousnesse is imperfect, in vertue and efficacy, in that it cannot expell, and keepe all sinne out of the soule: whence it will follow, that it is sinnefully defectiue in it selfe. For righteousnesse keepeth out sinne by way of contrariety, and each contrary if it be in such degree as it should, keepeth out the contrary; if therefore it be in such degree as it should be, it will suffer no sinne. For God requireth of vs an intire obedience; and as hee that will leaue a sinne in such sort as hee should, must leaue all: soe he that will haue any one vertue so as he should, must haue all, and consequently can haue noe sinne. Bellarmine de justificat: lib: 4. cap: 14: sayth, He that keepeth the whole law, and offendeth in any one, is guilty of all, and that therefore if those sinnes which wee call veniall, (as many the best in the Roman Church defend,) be simply and absolutely sins, and violations of the law, whosoeuer committeth any one of them and breaketh the law in so doing, is in a sort guilty of the breach of all, and keepeth noe one of them as hee should.

Wherefore by the cleare confession, of many the worthyest in the Church in former times, and by necessary consequence from that all taught, it is euident, that our righteousnesse is imperfect, not onely by reason of the mixture of sinnes, but of the sinnefull defect and imperfection, found in the good workes which wee doe Which thing Augustine long since excellently deliuered, ad Bonifacium lib. 3. cap. 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homine iusto, hactenus perfecta nominatur, ut ad eius perfectionem pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis, & in veritate agnitio, & in humilitate confessio. Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem, pro suo modulo perfecta, ista parva iustitia, quandò etiam quid sibi desit intelligit. & 1 Retract. c. 19. Omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. & in Confess. Vae hominum vitae quantumvis laudabili si remotâ misericordiâ iudicetur.

Wherefore seeing it is clearely confessed, that the righteousnesse of the iust is impure, as Bernard speaketh, not onely in respect of the mixture of sinne, but of sinfull imperfection, found in the best workes of vertue, done by them. I thinke we may safely follow their opinion who say, that for the attayning of heauen happines, not onely a twofold righteousnesse is necessary, the one inherent, the other imputed, but that this imputed righteousnesse of Christ, is twise offered and presented by Christ to God the Father, first that our sinnes may bee remitted, wee accepted, and renewing grace may bee giuen vnto vs: and secondly, that for his sake the imperfections & defects of our inherent righteousnes found in vs, by renewing grace may bee covered, that wee may avoyde the extremity and seuerity of Gods righteous judgement, & that he may accept our weake endeavours, and admit vs into heauen, notwithstanding all our failings.

Posid. de vitâ Aug. c. 27. Pos •… idonius writeth of Ambrose, that when he was ready to dye hee vsed these words, Non sic vixi vt me pudeat inter vos vivere: sed nec mori timeo, quia bonum Dominum habemus: and he saith that S. August. when he was now aged, was wont much to admire and praise this saying of S. Ambrose, Ideo enim eum dixisse nec mori timeo, quia bonum Dominum habemus; ne crederetur praefidens de suis purgatissimis moribus praesumpsisse, Non sic vixi vt me pudeat inter vos vivere: Hoc dixerat ad illud quoa homines de homine nosse poterant. Nam sciens examen aequitatis divinae, de bono Domino se dicit magis, quam de meritis suis confidere: cui etiam in oratione quotidianâ Dominicâ dicebat: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c. And Cuthbertus that writeth the life of Beda saith, that he also was wont often to repeat this saying of S. Ambrose.

S. Aug. cont. Crescon l. 3. c. 80. speaketh thus, Ad existimationem hominum magna testium qui me noverunt suppetit copia, ad Dei vero conspectū sola conscientia, quam contra vestras criminationes, cum intrepidā geram, non me tamen sub oculis omnipotentis iustificare audeo, magis que ab illo effluentem misericordiae largitatem, quam judicij summum examen expecto, cogitans quod scriptum est, Cúm rex iustus sederit in throno, quis gloriabitur castum se habere cor, aut quis gloriabitur mundum se esse à peccato? Which thing Gerson also sheweth De verbis Christi, Venite ad me omnes. Haec & his similia Diabolo tentanti, & peccatum suae diffidentiae vel desperationis ingerere volenti soleo respondere: ne quando praevaleat inimicus meus super me. At si quando me cogitatio in conspectu divinae maiestatis rapuerit, ibi certè longèaliter procedo, quia tunc me pulverē cinerem que esse recognosco. Tunc me peccatorem miserrimum, & supplicio dignissimum profiteor, & cum omni reverentiâ veniam deprecor. Tunc quasi super terram sto, & alas submitto, quas in altercatione Diaboli quasi in coelo volans extensas teneo: vt semper & coram Diabolo erectus inveniar, & humilis coram Deo.

Guil. in vitâ Bernard. c. 12. Of S. Bernard it is reported, cùm extremum iam spiritum trahere videretur, in excessu mentis suae, ante tribunal domini sibi visus est praesentari, affuit antem & Satan ex adverso, improbis eum accusationibus pulsans; vbi vero ille omnia fuerat prosecutus, & viro Dei pro suâ fuit parte dicendum, nihil territus aut turbatus ait, Fateor non sum dignus ego, nec proprijs possum meritis obtinere regnum coelorum; caeterum duplici iure illud obtinens Dominus meus, haereditate scilicet patris, & merito passionis; altero ipse contentus, alterum mihi donat, ex eius dono iure illud mihi vendicans non confundor. In hoc verbo confusus inimicus, conventus ille solutus, & homo Dei in se reversus est. De simil. c. 6. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury bringeth in a godly man thus speaking to the Angels, Quod in regno Dei vestrâ quaerimus aequalitate beari, dono & gratiae Iesu Christi Domini nostri id ascribimus: qui ad hoc dignatus est homo fieri, pati, mori, vt nos ab omni delicto, in sanguine suo iustificatos, ipsius regni consortes efficeret.

And the same Anselme is Hosius Tom. 1. pag. 291. confessionis Cathol. c. 73. said, to haue prescribed certaine interrogatories, to be proposed to such as were ready to die, Inter quas extrema est, Credis te non posse nisi per mortem Christi saluari? respondet infirmus etiam. Tum illi dicitur: age igitur dum superest in te anima, in hâc solâ morte fiduciam tuum constitue; in nullâ re aliâ fiduciam habe; huic morti te totum committe, hâc solâ tetotum contege, totum te immisce in hâc morte, totum confige, in hâc morte totum involue; & si Dominus Deus voluerit te iudicare, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi obijcio inter me & iudicium tuum: aliter tecum non contendo; & si tibi dixerit quia peccator es, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi pono inter te & peccata mea; si dixerit tibi, quòd meruisti damnationem, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi obtendo inter me & mala merita mea, ipsiusque mortem offero pro merito, quod ego debuissem habere, nec habeo; si dixerit, quod tibi est iratus, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi oppono inter me & iram tuam.

And Ibid p. 292. Hosius saith, the booke called Hortulus animae hath the same interrogatories; and that the Franciscan Friers observant, had the same in the frierie at Trent, translated into Italian, & that he had seen Sacerdotale Romanum, in which this interrogation is found, Credis non propriis meritis, sed passionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi virtute et merito, ad gloriam peruenire? Respondet infirmus, credo: Iterum sacerdos, Credis quod Dominus noster Iesus Christus pro nostrâ salute mortuus sit; & quod ex propriis meritis, vel alio modo, nullus possit saluari, nisi in merito passionis eius? Respondet infirmus credo; Et in fine dicit sacerdos; si Dominus Deus voluerit te secundum peccata tua iudicare, dicas: Domine Deus, ego pono mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi inter me & iudicium tuum: et quamuis meruerim aeternam mortem propter peccata mea, interpono tamen meritum passionis eiusdem, loco meriti, quod ego miser habere deberem & non habeo Item, Domine pono eandem passionem & mortem Domini mei Iesu Christi inter me et iram tuam, & in manus tuas Domine cōmendo spiritum meum. Citat: ab Hosio: ibid. There is extant a certaine forme of confession attributed to S Bernard, in which he speaketh to God in this sort, Recordare Domine Iesu, quia tuum non est perdere quicquam eorum, quae Pater tuus dedit tibi: quin tibi proprium est misereri semper & parcere, neminem perdere sed salvare; nam Pater tuus misit te in mundum, non vt iudices mundum: sed vt vitam habeamus per te; vt sis propitiatio nostra, & advocatus noster, non contra nos. Quod enim debuimus, tu soluisti, quod peccavimus, tu luisti; quod negleximus, tu supplesti; proficiat ergo nunc Domine, et in extremis meis plenaria, imò superflua satisfactio, amarissima mors tua, & pretium inaestimabile fusi sanguinis tui, cōmemoratio satisfactionis tuae, &c: Hosius ibid Ante annos 200, quidam Dominicanus Coloniae, quomodo forēt aegroti consolandi, docuit his verbis, Morti jam vicinus, prorsus nihil suis bonis operibus confidere debet, nec propter mala diffidere: sed omnem spem in merita Christi, & ejus immensam misericordiam collocare; haec est fides Catholica, & Christiana, quae neminem fallere potest. So that hetherto wee finde, the Church wherin our Fathers liued and died, was a Protestant Church, and that they were taught to die in the same faith, that wee now are.

But some man will say, howsoeuer these disclaimed all merit, and confidence in workes, as liuing in bad times, wherein iniquity abounded, and charity was waxen cold, yet others of a more excellent quality, pleaded their owne righteousnesse and innocency, desiring to be iudged according to the same. So Dauid Ps. 26. and elsewhere. And so when the Lord had said to Ezechias, set thy house in order, for thou must die, hee turned his face to the wall, and prayed vnto the Lord, & said, Es: 38. I beseech thee Lord remember, how I haue walked before thee in truth, & with a perfect hart, & haue done that which is good in thy sight. And Paul 2. Tim. 4. with more confidence, when his dissolution was at hand, & he was ready to be offered vp, I haue fought a good fight, I haue finished my course, I haue kept the faith, & henceforth there is layd vp for mee a crown of righteousnes, which the Lord the righteous iudge shall giue me in that day. Of Hilarion Hierom reporteth, that when he was ready to die, he vsed these words, Egredere, quid times, egredere anima mea, quid dubitas, sexaginta annis seruiuisti Christo, & mortē times? & in haec verba spiritum exhalauit.

But the answer herevnto is easy, for the diuines doe note, that there is justitia causae, facti, personae, a righteousnesse of some particular cause, of some particular fact, & of the person. Causae, & so Dauid oftentimes desired of God, to be judged in the differences, between him & his aduersaries that wronged him, according to his righteousnes & innocency in those quarrels. Of fact, so it is sayd that Phinees stood vp & wrought vengance, & it was imputed to him for righteousnesse, that is, he was iudged to haue done a righteous act in so doing. The righteousnes of the person is twofold, for there is a righteousnes that is sincere, true, & pure; & there is a righteousnes that is true, & sincere, but not pure. None of the Ss euer pleaded the former kind of righteousnes, nor desired to be iudged according to the same. For Dauid in that respect declineth iudgment saying, Enter not into iudgment with thy seruant, for no flesh is righteous in thy sight; & again, If thou Lord shouldest be extreame to marke what is done amisse, who should be able to abide it? But in the latter sort, they do plead the truth, & simplicity of their harts, & the sincerity of the righteousnes that is found in them. And this for 2 reasons, first in that hereby they are assured, that they pertain to God, that hath thus begun to do good vnto them, & so confirme themselues, in the hope & expectation of that they desire, by the cōsideration of the good he hath already done vnto them. And besides also, for that they know this is the condition, wherewith all the promises of God made vnto them for their good are limitted; and therefore if they found not this they could expect nothing of God, & finding this they need not to doubt to obtaine any thing that is necessary for thē. And in this sort do Cardinall Contarenus, & Albertus Pighius men of no small esteeme in the Roman Church, cleere these obiections. So that it remaineth firme which I haue deliuered, that the righteousnes which is inherent in the iust, is impure & vnperfect, & that it is not safe to relie vpon it.

But because this is a matter of great consequence, I will demonstrate, that the same was taught before, at, & after Luthers time, by men of best place and quality, in the Church wherein our fathers liued. De verbis Esaiae Vidi dominum sedentem &c. serm. 5. Bernard distinguisheth 4 kinds of righteousnesse. Our righteousnes he sayth is Recta, sed non pura: of which our Fathers sayd no lesse truly then humbly, All our righteousnesse is as the poluted ragges of a menstruous woman. For how can our righteousnesse be pure, wherein it cannot be but there should be sinne? The righteousnesse of the first man, was both right, and pure, but because it was not firme and constant, it lost purity, and retained not so much as the rectitude it had. In the Angells there is righteousnesse right, pure, and firme, of an high and excellent nature, but much inferiour to that of God. Non enim innata est iis, sed à Deo collata, ut natura ipsa, quod ex se est, non modo iustitiae, sed etiam iniustitiae capax inveniatur. Numquid non ista est pravitas quaedam quam in angelis suis vera illa iustitia legitur invenisse? That is. The righteousnesse that is found in the Angels, is not inborne, but giuen to them, & bestowed on them: so that their nature, as of it selfe, is capable not only of righteousnesse, but of vnrighteousnesse also. And is not this a kind of pravity and iniquity, which that true and perfect justice is said to haue found in his Angels? For he that was not ignorant of the justice of God, saith, no one liuing shall be ivstified in thy sight. Hee saith not, no man, but no one liuing, happily that thou maist know that he excepteth not the Angelicall spirits. For they liue, and so much more truely then men, as they are nearer to him in whom is the fountaine of life. Yet these are just, sed ex eo non coram eo, munere eius, non in eius comparatione, that is, from him, not before him, by his gift, but not in comparison with him.

For the clearing of this point Pet. Pomponatius noteth, that there is defectus in specie, defectus in genere, and defectus in latitudine entis, that is, Things doe fail & come short of perfection 3 wayes, for there are some things that want that perfectiō that pertaineth to things of their particular kind: some things that want not that perfectiō, & yet come short of that, which some other of the same generall kind haue: & somethings that haue all perfectiō, that any thing of their kind any way can haue, & yet come short of that which is found in the latitude & extent of perfectiō & being. Examples of the first, ignorance, error, blindnes, &c. in men. Of the second, the want of reason in bruit beasts, which are liuing creatures as well as men, & yet come short of that perfection that is found in men; and likewise the sonnes of men come short of that perfection of intellectuall light, that is found in the Angels. Of the third in all the most perfect creatures, which come short of that which is found in God, who is being it selfe: they are this, and not that, they haue being after not being, and would haue not being after being, if they were left to themselues, they are good, but not connaturally, they are no lesse capable of euill then of good, they are good, but mutably good, and so in respect of GOD, imperfectly good. In this sense Iob saith, God found folly in his servants, and vanitie in his Angels. This kind of defect or euill, is without all fault, sinne, or blame of things wherein it is found: and is incident to the nature and condition of all created things, which are compounded of being and not being, perfection and want: and consequently haue some thing of good, and some thing of euill. That defect that is in respect of perfections, that other things of the same generall kind haue, is likewise a naturall consequent of the different degrees of things, and nothing is blamed for being thus defectiue. So the righteousnesse that was in Adam, was inferiour to that of the Angels cōfirmed in grace, yet was it not sinful.

But the righteousnesse of the iust, commeth short of that which pertaineth to men. And though it be right, true, sincere, and not dissembled, yet hath it such defects, that it is impure. What may all our righteousnes bee before God? will it not bee found and esteemed as the Prophet saith, to bee like the ragges of a menstruous woman, and if it bee strictly examined, will not all our righteousnes be found to be vnrighteous and defectiue? What therefore will become of our sinnes, when our righteousnes is not able to answere for it selfe? Therefore crying out earnestly with the Prophet, Lord enter not into iudgment with thy seruant, let vs with al humility fly to mercy, which only is able to saue our souls. Bernardus super Cantica serm. 61. Vbi tuta firmaque infirmis securitas & requies, nisi in vulneribus saluatoris: Tanto illic securior habito, quanto ille potentior est ad salvandum; fremit mundus, premit corpus, diabolus insidiatur, nec cado: fundatus enim sum super firmam petram. Peccavi peccatum grande, turbatur conscientia, sed non perturbabitur, quoniam vulnerum Domini recordabor. Ego vero fidenter quod ex me mihi deest, vsurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini, quoniam misericordia effluit, nec desunt foramina per quae effluat. Ps. 22. Foderunt manus eius &c. & per has rimas licet mihi sugere mel de petrâ, oleumque de saxo durissimo. Cogitabat cogitationes pacis, & ego nesciebam. Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? At clauis •… eserans, clavus penetrans factus est mihi, vt videam voluntatem Domini. Meum meritum, miseratio Domini: non planè sum meriti inops, quamdiu ille miserationum non fuerit. Nunquid iustitias meas cantabo? Domine memorabor iustitiae tuae solius: ipsa est enim & mea: nempe factus es tu iustitia mihi à Deo. Nunquid mihi verendum nè vna ambobus non sufficiat? non est pallium breve, quod (secundum Prophetam) non possit operire duos. But because happily some exception may bee taken to Saint Bernard, as if hee had some singular opinion, I will shew that all the glorious lights of the Church, ever beleeued as hee did, and as wee doe. Theodoret in Ps: 23. Quae existimantur remunerationes, propter solam diuinam benignitatem hominibus praebentur. Omnes enim hominum iustitiae, nihil sunt ad dona, quae à Deo nobis suppeditata sunt, nedum ad futura munera, quae omnem humanam cogitationem transcendunt. Chrysost: in Ps. 4. Etiamsi innumerabilia recte fecerimus à miserationibus & clementiâ audimur. Etiamsi ad ipsum virtutis fastigium pervenerimus, servamur à misericordiâ. Et in Ps. 6. super illa verba, Miserere mei Domine quoniam infirmus sum. Hâc voce omnes egemus, etiamsi innumerabilia rectè & ex virtute fecerimus, & vel ad summam peruenerimus iustitiam.

August: in Ps. 142. Omnes dereliquistis me dicit Dominus: quid vultis mecum in iudicium intrare, & vestras iustitias commemorare? Commemorate iustitias vestras; ego novi facinora vestra. Nolo tecum habere causam, vt ego proponam iustitiam meam, tu convincas iniquitatem meam. Ne intres in iudicium cum servo tuo, Quare hoc? Quare times? Quoniam non iustificabitur coram te omnis viuens. Omnis itaque viuens iustificare forte potest se, coram se, non coram te. Quomodo coram se? sibi placens, tibi displicens, coram te autē non iustificabitur omnis vivens. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videar, producis tu de thesauro tuo regulā, coaptas me ad eā et pravus invenior.

Grego: moral: vlt. Si autem de his diuinitus districtè discutimur: quis inter ista remanet salutis locus, quando & mala nostra pura mala sunt; & bona quae nos habere credimus, pura bona esse nequaquam possunt? Beda in explicatione Ps. 24. Ne memineris delicta, sed potius memento mei Domine, ut miserearis secundum misericordiam tuam, id est, te condignam, non secundum iram me condignam; tu dico ad quem pertinet, qui solus misereris, solus mederis, solus peccata dimittis; & hoc non facias propter merita mea, sed propter bonitatem, id est suavitatem tuam. Et in Ps. 31. Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, &c. Instruit videlicet, vt nemo vel libertatem arbitrii vel merita sua sufficere sibi ad beatitudinem credat, sed solâ gratiâ Dei se salvari posse intelligat. Alcuinus in Ps. 50. Sordidare me potui, sed emundare nequeo, nisi tu Domine Iesu sancti sanguinis tui aspersione, mundum me facias. Et in Ps. 142. Ad meum cum respicio nihil aliud in me nisi peccatum invenio, tota liberatio mea tua est iustitia, item, Dei miseratione in nomine salvatoris, non nostris meritis vivificati sumus.

Radulphus Ardens, homil: super Evangelium Dominicae quartae Adventus. Quid ergo dicemus fratres, nisi vel quantumcunque bonum fecerimus, semper nos indignos dicamus? Nec hoc dicamus solo ore, quasi mentiendo ex humilitate, sed mente credamus, ore confiteamur. Iuxta quod ipsa veritas admonet, dicens. Cum omnia feceritis quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite, servi invtiles sumus, quod debuimus facere non fecimus. Et Homil: super Evang. Dominicae Septuagesimae. Sicut Deus est liber ad promittendum, ita est liber ad reddendum, praesertim cum tam merita quàm praemia sint gratia sua. Nihil enim aliud quàm gratiam suam coronat in nobis Deus, qui si vellet in nobis agere districtè, non iustificaretur in conspectu eius omnis viuens. Vnde Apostolus qui plus omnibus laboravit, dicit: Existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis, &c.

Gerson de consolat: theolog: l. 4. pros. 1. Quis gloriabitur se mundum cor habere? &c: Quis non constitutus sub iudicijs Dei terribilis in consilijs suis super filios hominum trepidaverit? Hinc afflictus Iob, verebar omnia opera mea, &c. Et iterum, Si voluerit mecum contendere, non potero vnum respondere pro mille; cui conformis est oratio prophetica, Non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine, quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens; & rursus, Si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine quis sustinebit. Porro quid Esaias se cum caeteris involuens sibique vilescens protulerit legimus, Omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae. Quis igitur iustitias suas velut gloriabundus ostentaverit Deo, plus quam pannum confusionis suae mulier viro?

Gabriel Biel writing vpon the Canon of the Masse fol. 209. lect. 82. Alleadgeth and approveth this saying of Bernard serm. 5. de dedicatione ecclesiae; Nonnunquam de animâ meâ cogitans, videor mihi in eâ fateor velut duo contraria invenire; si ipsam prout in se est, & ex se intueor, nihil de eá verius sentire possum, quam ad nihilum esse redactam, cum sit onerata peccatis, obfusa tenebris, irretita illecebris, pruriens concupiscentiis, obnoxia passionibus, & impleta illusionibus, prona semper ad malum, & in vitium omne proclivis, &c: nimirum si ipsae quoque iusticiae nostrae omnes ad lumen veritatis inspectae, velut pannus menstruatae inveniuntur, iniustitiae quales deinceps reputabuntur? si lumen quod in nobis est tenebrae sunt, ipsae tenebrae qnantae erunt? Facile cuique est si sua plenius vniversa, & sine dissimulatione vestiget, & judicet sine acceptione personae, attestari per omnia apostolicae veritati, & libere proclamare, qui se putat aliquid esse cum nihil sit, ipse se seducit. Quid est homo quia magnificas eum, ait fidelis & devota confessio; aut quid apponis erga eum cor tuum? Quid? sine dubio vanitati similis Gal. 9. Iob. 7. factus est homo; ad nihilum redactus est homo; nihil est homo; Quomodo tamen penitus nihil est, quem magnificat Deus? Quomodo nihil erga quem appositum est cor divinum. Tanquam nihil reputatur homo in judicio veritatis tuae, sed non sic in affectu pietatis tuae; nimirum vocas ea quae non sunt, sicut ea quae sunt: & non sunt, ergo quia vocas ea quae non sunt: & sunt, quia vocas: licet enim non sunt quantum apud se, apud te sunt vtique juxta Apostolum; non ex operibus, sed ex vocante. Sic nimirum consolaris in tuâ pitate, quem in veritate tuâ humiliasti; vt magnificè dilatetur in tuis qui merito angustiatur in suis: siquidem vniversae viae domini misericordia & veritas requirentibus testamentum tuum & testimonia tua Pupperus Gocchianus de libertate Christ. part. 3. c. 12, Christus sic operatur iustificationem in sanctis suis, quamdiu sunt in hâc vitâ, vt tamen semper in ijs sit aliquid adijciendum, quod petentibus benignè adijciat, & confitentibus misericorditèr ignoscat. And the same Gocchianus hath many things against the merit of workes, as I will farther shew, when I come to speake of merite.

But to leaue particular men, it is evident that the Church of God taught so as we now doe, by those questions whereof I spake before, which were wont to be proposed to men that were ready to dye. Casper Vlenbergius saith, our Fathers thoroughout the Christian world, euen till our time, by those questions by them vsed, and the answeres which they taught men to make to them, lead as it were by the hand the simpler sort to the knowledge of Christ, and the attaining of eternall saluation. And because those questions and answeres, containe and comprise in a briefe sort, the whole summe of the doctrine of saluation, and the very marrow and kernell of Christianitie, as the same Vlenbergius rightly noteth, I will set them downe together, as they are founde in the booke intitled De arte benè moriendi. Primo quaeratur sic, frater laetaris quod in fide Christi morieris? respondeat etiam. Frater poenitet te non tam benè vixisse sicut debuisses? respondeat etiam. Frater habes emendandi animum si spatium vivendi haberes? respondeat etiam. Frater credis te non posse nisi per mortem Christi salvari? respondeat etiam. Agis ei gratias ex toto corde de hoc? respondeat etiam. Age ergo dum est in te anima tua ei semper gratias, & in hâc ejus morte te totum contege, in hâc solâ morte fiduciam tuam constitue, in nullâ aliâ re fiduciam habe, huic morti te totum committe, hâc solà te totum contege, totum immisce te in hâc morte totum confige, in hâc morte te totum involve, & si Dominus Deus te voluerit judicare, dic, Domine, mortem Domini mei IESV CHRISTI objicio inter te & me, & judicium tuum, aliter tecum non contendo; si dixerit quod mereris damnationem, dic, mortem Domini mei IESV CHRISTI objicio inter te & me, & mala merita mea, ipsumque dignissimae passionis meritum offero, pro merito quod ego habere debuissem, & heu non habeo; dicatur iterum. Domine, mortem Domini mei IESV CHRISTI pono inter me, & iram tuam: deinde dicat ter, In manus tuas Domine commendo spiritum meum.

And as this was the doctrine of the Church euen till our dayes, so in Luthers time, and after, many that joyned not with him in the thorough reformation of the Church, yet concurred with him in this point. Pope In 4. sent. de sacram. Euchar. •… ol. 61. Adrian the sixt, Non sine magna temeritate, & damnabili elatione animi, quis innititur propriis meritis, aut praeparationi per confessionem oris, cordis compunctionem, aut alias tanquam ex ijs dignus sit, venerabile Sacramentum Eucharistiae sumere; sunt enim merita nostra & praeparatio, velut baculus arundineus, cui dum quis innixus fuerit confringitur, & perforat manum innitentis, & quasi pannus menstruatae sunt omnes justitiae nostrae, ut habetur Esa. 64: Iugiter enim supra pannum bonae vitae, quem justitiae operibus reximus, stillamus saniem diversorum criminum. Quae igitur ex ijs poterit esse fiducia ad Deum, qui neminem diligit nisi ex toto corde conversum? Recte igitur suasit salvator cum feceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite servi inutiles sumus, quae debuimus facere fecimus, Luc. 16. &c. Restat igitur ut nemo confidat in se homine, quia sic recedit cor ejus à Deo. Hierem. 17. Maledictus qui confidit in homine, & ponit carnem brachium suum, &c: sed pro dignâ praeparatione, diffidat de omni suâ industriâ, & cum Daniele non in suis justificationibus proferat preces suas, sed in miserationibus domini multis & magnis nimis Dan: 9. sic habitabit in adjutorio altissimi, & in protectione Dei coeli commorabitur: quia ad neminem Deus aspicit, nisiad pauperculum, id est, humilem spiritu, qui se non effert in cogitatione velut taurus, sed parua de se sentiens, totum projicit in Deum: Es: vlt. Ad quem aspiciam nisi ad pauperculum?

The Fol. 138. Enchiridion of Christian institution, published in the prouinciall councell of Colen, hath these words. Scimus quandam esse plenam & absolutam justiciam, seu charitatem, quam in hac vitâ nemo assequitur, sed tantum in futurâ, quando videbimus facie ad faciē, & cognoscemus sicuticogniti sumus: sed alia minor est huic vitae competens, quâ ex fide viuimus & ambulamus. Haec etsi omnes motus terrenae cupiditatis, nondum omnino absorbeat atque consumat, consensum tamen prohibet ac extinguit, ac insuper facit, vt magis ac magis in bono proficere pergamus: quae etsi à perfectione iusticiae longè adhuc absit, ea tamen imperfectio iustificationem nostram non remoratur, nec accusationi seu damnationi legis subjacet, saltem in ijs qui sunt in Christo Iesu. Nam qui Christo (in quo lex quod accusaret, nihil inuenit) per fidem concorpores facti sunt, legis imperium beneficio Christi euaserunt: adeo vt, silex imperfectionem eorum accusare pergat, respondere possint. Quid nobis tecum est lex? non tui sed alterius sumus. Tu quae es quae judicas seruos alienos? domino nostro stamus aut cadimus, huic sic visum est ex gratuitâ misericordiâ nos indignos assumere, & quicquid in nobis imperfectionis est cōdonare, quid ad te? Quid nobis alienū inuides beneficiū? Recepit nos ille in membra sua, scuto suae bonae voluntatis protexit nos, suâ justitiâ nos induit. Quāobrem si nos impetere pergas, eum tibi opponemus, cui per fidem inhaerescimus, in eo certè non habes quicquam, proinde nec in nobis, qui de corpore ejus per gratuitam misericordiam facti sumus. Fol. 138. Et ibid. paulo ante. Per fidem donum iustificationis tunc demum accipis, cum perterrefactus ac concussus in poenitentiâ, rursus erigeris per fidem, credens tibi remissa esse peccata propter meritum Christi, qui in se credentibus remissionem peccatorum pollicitus est: & cum simul sentis te jam alio affectu quam prius rapi, hoc est, eo affectu quo peccata quae prius delectabant, jam ex animo odis, & ad faciendum bonum, carnis infirmitati fortiter repugnans, intus accenderis, tametsi is affectus nondum sit in bono perfectus & absolutus. Hanc enim imperfectionem quam viribus tuis supplere non potes, supplebis ex fide in Christum, credens justitiam Christi (cujus membrum factus es) tuum imperfectum suppleturam, si tamen perpetuo pro viribus quas tibi dominus suppeditauerit, coneris eam quam accepisti gratiam promouere, & praeteritorum oblitus, non respiciens iterum retro, in anteriora te extendere annitaris.

Martinus De certitudine salutss. Eisengreinius, alleageth & alloweth this of the councell of Colen, & sundry other passages of learned and renowned men, in the latter ages of the Church before our time, tending to the same purpose, as namely those things I formerly cited out of Anselme and Hortulus animae: to these Pag. 500. hee addeth Thaulerus a famous preacher amongst the Dominicans at Colen more then two hundred yeares since, who prescribing how the Pastors should comfort the sicke, hath these words, Morti jam vicinus, prorsus nihil suis bonis operibus confidere debet, firmâ fiduciâ in meritum Christi saluatoris, & in abyssum maris ejus misericordiae, in cruenta vulnera ejus, cum omnibus suis peccatis se totum immergat: minutissima Christi vulnera omne peccatum mortalium obnubilare ac tegere possunt.

And with him he joyneth Ludovicus Berus, who in his booke de mortis periculo x Pag. 463. writeth thus. The diuell is wont to tempt men that are ready to die, but let the sick man reject all those temptations, & let him inuocate God and say thus Auerte faciem tuam à peccatis meis, & respice in faciem Christi tui Iesu saluatoris nostri. Tentator; Scelera tua superant arenam maris. Aegrotus. Copiosior est Domini misericordia. Tentator. Quomodo speras iustitiae praemium tu totus iniustus? Aegrotus. Iustitia mea Christus est. Tentator. Tu sceleribus opertus quomodo migrabis in requiem? Aegrotus. Cum latrone qui audiuit in cruce hodie eris mecum in Paradiso. Tentator. Vnde ista fiducia qui nihil boni feceris? Aegrotus. Quia bonum habeo Dominum, exorabilem iudicem, gratiosum advocatum, Christum Iesum omnipotentem saluatorem. Tentator. Detraheris in tartara. Aegrotus. Caput meum in coelo est.

In confutatione Prolegomenon Brent •… l. 5. in fine. Hosius hath these wordes, Non gloriamur de meritis nostris, non habemus in illis fiduciam nostram collocatam, de hoc solo gloriamur, in hoc solo confidimus, quod membra sumus illius corporis tui, quod pro nobis passum, crucifixum, & mortuum, abundè pro peccatis totius mundi satisfecit. Quamobrem si merita requiris, ecce proferimus tibi merita corporis tui, quod cum de nostro sit, nostra sunt & illius merita: proferimus tibi meritum passionis tuae, ineritum crucis tuae, meritum mortis tuae: haec sunt merita nostra, quae tu clementissime Domine nobiscum pro immensâ benignitate tuâ communicare dignatus es: Secundum haec merita abs te iudicari postulamus, his meritis freti coram tribunali tuo nos intrepidisistimus: nostra sunt quia nostri sunt capitis; nostra sunt quia nostri sunt corporis, á quo nos nefario schismate nunquam praecidimus: haec merita interponimus inter nos & iudicium tuum, aliter tecum iudicio contendere nolumus: de quo solenniter protestamur. These wordes of Hosius, Eisengreinius saith, are worthy to bee written in letters of gold. c pag. 475.

In fide & Iustific. fol. 45. Albertus Pighius writeth thus, In hominibus duplex considerari potest iustitia, sicut duplex invenitur regula cui conformari debeant: altera quâ iusti sunt coram hominibus, aut inter homines, nempe respondentes legibus quibus constat iustum inter homines; vt neminem afficientes iniuriâ, imo benevolentiâ, humilitatis, charitatisque officijs prosequentes proximos, omnibus in omni ordine, reddentes quod suum est. Altera est iustitia quâ iusti sunt coram Deo. Quod tamen trifariam ferè intelligere possumus. Vel quod nostra iustitia, cum divinâ conferatur. Sic non iustificatur in conspectu eius vlla creatura: vt cuius puritate, merito inquinantur omnia. Velintelligitur homo iustificari coram Deo, hoc est coram tribunali diuini iudicij, dum regulae divinae iustitiae, quâ parte ipsum respicit, exactè respondet. Regula est lex: illā dupliciter intelligere possumus, vel in suâ illâ absolutâ perfectione; Vt cum praecipitur vt diligamus Deum, ex totâ animâ, totâ mente, totis viribus, pag. 46. Vel prout illa ipsa divinae iustitiae lex & regula nos respiciens, nostrae infirmitati aptata condescendit & convenit. Si hoc modo intelligas, ex voluntatis humanae inconstantiâ, & inclinatione quâdam ad carnis sui hospitis amica & desideria, quae ab illâ lege diuinae iustitiae nos deflectere, & ad se attrahere, ac sollicitare nunquam cessat, adhuc invenire non est iustum quenquam coram Deo inter filios Adae, sed verum reperietur etiam de hâc ipsâ quamvis imperfectâ iustitiâ, quod non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens; Siquidem iustitia haec, est ad suam regulam, etiam nostrae infirmitati attemperatam exacta correspondentia, & commensuratio in actionibus nostris omnibus. Totum enim vniuersumque hominem denominans iustitia haec, secundum omnes eius partes, & omnes singularum partium actiones, vt illi regulae suae correspondeat, & in officio suo constet necesse est, cuicunque haec iustitia convenit. Neque enim qui partem vnam aliquam legis seruauerit, praevaricator in caeteris, hic iustus est. Imo: Quicunque (inquit Iacobus) totam legem servauerit, offendit autem in vno, factus est omnium reus. Si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, &c. Christus omnes nos neminem quantumvis iustum excipiens docuit orare, Di •… nobis debita &c. Aversatur Deus omnem iniustitiam. Constat ergo quae de nobis omnibus foret sententia, si Deus voluisset districto nobiscum judicio agere: si non misericordissimè nobis succurrisset in filio: & nostrâ justitiâ vacuos, ejus involuisset justitiâ. Quod verissime intellexit ille, qui ait: Si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine quis sustinebit? Ne intres in judicium, &c. Fol. 47. In Christi autem obedientiâ, quòd nostra collocatur justitia; inde est, quòd nobis illi incorporatis, ac si nostra esset accepta ea fertur: ita ut eâ ipsâ, etiam nos justi habeamur. Et velut ille quondam Iacob, cùm nativitate primogenitus non esset, sub habitu fratris occultatus, atque eius veste indutus, quae odorem optimum spirabat, seipsum insinuavit Patri, ut sub aliena persona benedictionē primogeniturae acciperet. Ita & nos, sub Christi primogeniti fratris nostri preciosâ puritate delitescere, bono eius odore fragrare, eius perfectione, vitia nostra sepeliri, & obtegi, atque ita nos piissimo patri ingerere, ut iustitiae benedictionem, ab eodem assequamur necesse est. This of Pighius is acknowledged by our adversaries, and they are wont to alleadge his example, to shew how dangerous it is to reade the writings of Protestants, seeing a man so well grounded as he was; was drawne into this opinion by reading of Calvin.

The most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colein, in their antididagma opposed against the booke of reformation of Religion, intended by their Archbishop Hermannus, follow the same opinion that Pighius doeth, their wordes are these. Fol. 30. Iustificamur à Deo justitiâ duplici, tanquam per causas formales & essentiales. Quarum una & prior est consummata Christi justitia: non quidem quomodo extra nos in ipso est, sed sicut & quando eadem nobis (dum tamen fide apprehenditur) ad iustitiam imputatur. Aliter verò iustificamur formaliter per iustitiam inhaerentem. Cu •… tamen inhaerenti iustitiae (quod sit imperfecta) non innitimur principaliter: sed eâ tanquam interiori quodam experimento, certificamur, nobis (qui talem renovationem spiritus nostri, in nobis sentimus & experimur) remissionem peccatorum factam, & Christi consummatam iustitiam nobis imputari, atque ita Christum per fidem in nobis habitare. Non ignoramus nos nulli alii merito praeterquam solius Christi, neque item ulli alii iustitiae, quàm iustitiae Christi, sine qua omninò nulla est iustitia, tanquam fundamento fidei nostrae inniti debere. Quanquam oporteat nos interim, internae illius renovationis, quae fit per charitatem, quam spiritus sanctus in corda nostra diffundit, tanquam arrabonis, aut certè experientiae impetratae remissionis peccatorum, & imputationis justitiae Christi, rationem habere.

Apud Goldast. constit. imper. tom. 2. The booke commended to Charles the fifth, as opening a way for the composing of the controversies in Religion then moued, and by him offered and recommended to the Diuines, appointed of both sides in the assembly at Ratisbon, for to conferre about the composing of the differences in Religion, clearely contayneth the same doctrine that the most reverend Canons of Colein deliuered before. For in the 5 Article of the same booke, the Authors and composers of it, amongst other good things communicated to vs in our Iustification, reckon the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, and say, that we are said to bee justified by faith, that is, accepted and reconciled vnto God, in that it apprehendeth mercy, and the righteousnesse that is imputed to vs for Christs sake and his merite, and not for the dignity and perfection of the righteousnesse which is communicated vnto vs in Christ; And farther they say, that the faithfull soule doth not rely vpon that righteousnesse that is inherent in it, but vpon the onely righteousnesse of Christ giuen vnto vs, without which there neither is, nor can be any righteousnesse. And they adde hereunto, that they that truly repent of their sinnes, should most firmely, and with great assurance of faith, resolue, that they please God for Christs sake, who is a Mediatour betweene God and them, because he is a worker of propitiation, a High Priest, and an Intercessour for vs, whom the Father hath giuen vnto vs, and all good things together with him. And therefore though they say not, as the Canons of Colen, that Christs righteousnesse is the formall cause of our justification: yet Lib. 7. c. 21. Vega thinketh they followed the same opinion, because besides inherent righteousnesse, they affirme that another righteousnes, namely that of Christ, is communicated to vs, by which especially wee are made righteous, and vppon which only we must rely.

The Interim published by Charles the 5, with the assent of the imperiall states, deliuereth the same touching iustification, that the former authors haue done. And the diuines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon, agreed in the same explication of the article of iustification that wee haue hetherto deliuered.

A great contention there is and hath beene, whether the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs, bee the formall cause of our justification, and whether we be formally justified by his imputed righteousnesse or not. But Lib. 7. c. 23. Andraeas Vega supposeth, that it is a meere logomachie, and verball contention; which his conjecture I thinke will be found more then probable. For as I haue already shewed, in the justification of a sinner three things are implyed. 1 To be free from dislike, disfauour, and punishment, as if he had neuer offended. Secondly, to be respected, fauoured, and indeared vnto God, in such sort as righteous men are wont to be, as if he had done all righteousnes. And thirdly To haue the grant of the gift of righteousnesse, to keepe from euill, and incline him to good in the time to come. All these denominations are respectiue, and a man may be so denominated from something without. For one man is reconciled to another, in that hee no longer intendeth euill vnto him: and one man is deare vnto another, and we are deare vnto God formally, by that loue whereby we are beloued of him. And because that which giueth satisfaction to God, and that which maketh him well pleased towards vs, is that for which formally, or in respect whereof, God willeth our good & not euill; by both these we may be sayd though in a different sort, to be formally iustified. Wherefore hauing sufficiently cleared the point of controuersie, touching the first justifying, and reconciling of a sinner to God, and made it appeare, that the Church euer beleeued as we now do; it remaineth that we speake of the second justification.

The second justification consisteth, in the 1. Iohn 1. If we say wee haue •… o sinne wee deceiue our selues &c. but if wee confesse our sins, God is faithfull and iust to remit vnto vs our sins, and to cleanse vs •… om all iniquity; this perpetuali wishing away of sinnes C •… rist sign •… fied lotione pedum. remission of such sinnes, as the justified man dayly through infirmity falleth into, and the progresse and going on in well doing, and the dayly preuailing against sinne, whereby the kingdome of sinne is weakened, and the kingdome of grace and righteousnesse is confirmed, and more strongly established in us. Touching the second justification, there is no difference between vs & them that so deliuered the doctrine of the first justification, as I haue before expressed, but between the Romanists & vs, there are sūdry things cōtrouerted. For 1 t many of thē, deny the veniall sins into which the regenerate do fal, to be properly sins, & therefore think not aright of the remissiō of thē. 2 They imagine, that sūdry externall obseruatiōs ex opere oper •… to giue grace, & remit those sins, whereas in truth, & in the opiniō of others, they auaile no otherwise, then they stirre vp deuotion, and raise in vs good motions and desires, to purge out the remaines of sinne, and to seeke the remission of it. Thirdly, they make the good workes of men justified, to deserue increase of grace, & the reward of eternall life, of condignity. But I will shew in that which followeth, that the doctrine of merit was neuer admitted in the Church, neither before, nor after Luthers time. In this justification, men are justified meerely by faith as in the first, so farre forth as it importeth remission of sins: but in that it importeth an increase, confirmation, and growth in that good that is begun in us: our working of vertue and good indeauours causing the same, may be sayd to justify, that is, to make vs more iust inherētly then before, & more strōgly inclined to good; in which sense S. Iohn saith, Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc.

The third kind of justification, which is sayd to bee the restoring of men once justified, and afterwards fallen from grace, to the state of grace againe, is meerely imaginary. For they that are called according to purpose and soe justified, do neuer totally nor finally fall from God.

The sins which men run into, I haue elsewhere shewed to be of 2 sorts: Inhabiting only, or Raigning: the former in the judgment of our aduersaries themselues, do stand with grace, & the state of iustification. Sins regnant are (as Theodoret writing vpon the sixt to the Romans, & after him, others do rightly note) of 2 sorts: for either they raigne as a tyrant, or as a king: a king reigneth with the loue & liking of his subjects, who wish nothing more then to liue vnder him, & think there is no happines but in his slauery: a tyrant with dislike. They that are justified & called acording to purpose, neuer haue sin raigning in them as a king, but somtimes as a tyrant they haue. Hugo de sancto victore de sacramentis fidei l. 2. part. 13. c. 12. sed dicunt. si Dauid peccando charitatem amisit: quomodo ergo verum est, qd scriptum est de ipso, quòd spiritus Domini non recedebat a Dauid, ab eo die & de inceps? Si enim charitas recessit: quomodo spiritus Domini remansit? Quasi vero spiritus domini secūdū multa alia remanere non potuerit, etiamsi secundum donum charitatis recesserit. Nonne & in illis siue cum illis remanet, quos cadentes custodit nè pereant: quos tamen stantes non custodit nè cadant? Iustus cum ceciderit non collidetur: qiua Dominus supponit manum suam. For though Dauid & Peter were strangely transported, with the violēt passions of feare & lust, yet who will euer think, that these lost all their former good affections towards God, & thought it their happines to be subject to his enemies? Nay it is cleerly deliuered concerning Peter, by Theophylact, and sundry others, that though the leaues were shaken off, yet the roote remained vnmarred.

Iustification likewise, as I haue shewed in the same place, importeth 2 things, An interest, right, & title to the kingdome of heauen, & a claime to it by vertue & force of the same right & title: the one of these may cease & be suspended, when the other remaineth. If a man that hath much due vnto him vpon good assurances, do some act for which he is excommunicated, or outlawed, he looseth not the title & right he had to the things due vnto him vpō those assurāces, but if the same things be detained, all prosecution of his right is suspēded, & all actuall claime ceaseth, during the time he continueth in that estate. So in like manner, if a man called according to purpose & justified, who can neuer finally fall from God, fall into grieuous sin, & such as is in some sort regnant, as Dauid did, hee looseth not the right & title hee formerly had: but the actuall claime to that whereto he hath title is suspended. So that he falleth not totally from justification, but so only as for the present to haue no actuall claime to any thing by vertue o •… it. The remission of his originall sin, the right to heauen obtained in baptisme, the force and vertue of repentance of former sins, and the right to the rewards of actions of vertue formerly done, remaine still: neither needeth he newly to seeke remission of sins formerly remitted, but of this only, & the remission of the other will be reuiued again, & he may make claime to all those things he had formerly right vnto, by vertue of the former right. This is cleerely deliuered by Alexander of Ales p. 4. q. 12. memb. 4. art. 6. In 4. sent. dist. 22. q. 1. art. 2. Scotus, In 4. senten. d. 22. q. 1. Durandus; & the rest of the Schoole-men. So that the elect & chosē of God once justified, neuer falling totally from justification, are neuer to be newly justified againe: but the dayly & lighter sins they run into, stand with the right they haue to the fauours of God, & eternall happines, & the actuall claime to the same by that right. The more grieuous depriue thē of the claime only, & not of the right; & when they are justified & acquitted from these by particular repentance, they are restored to their former claime only, hauing neuer lost their right; so that they cannot properly be sayd to be newly justified, but only to be justified from such particular sins, as they newly run into.

Hauing spoken of justification and the nature of it, as it is considered in it selfe; it remaineth that wee come to speake of the things required in men, for the disposing and fitting of them, that they may be capable of this grace. There were amongst the Schoole-men, as St. de. justific. l. 2. c. 4. Stapleton telleth vs, and after them in the beginning of these controuersies in religion, who extenuating the corruption of nature, taught vnaduisedly, that men without and before the motions of grace, may doe certaine morall good workes, in such sort, as thereby to fitte themselues, for the receipt of the grace of justification, and to merit it ex congruo. Who to expresse this their false conceipt, were wont to say, facienti quod in se est, Deum non denegare gratiam, that is, that God will not faile to giue grace, to such as doe the vttermost that lyeth in them. But the same Stapleton telleth vs, that the more sound and judicious euer taught, that there is no power nor will in man to dispose and fit himselfe, for the receipt of this grace, vnlesse hee bee moued by preventing grace, stirring, inciting, and inclining him to turne to God; and that the merite of congruence, hath beene long since hissed out of all Schooles.

Touching these preparations wrought in men by preventing grace. First it is agreed betweene those of the Church of Rome, and those of the reformed Religion, that faith to beleeue in generall the truth of things revealed and contained in Scripture, is necessarie in the first place, and before all other things. Secondly, that in particular there must be a viewing of the things there found; that the consideration of mans originall state there described, the fall, corruption of nature, and manifold sinfull euils into which each man is plunged, together with the apprehension of Gods displeasure against the same, is necessarily required. Thirdly, a feare & sorrow, growing out of the discerning of this vnhappy condition wherein we are. Fourthly, an enquirie by what meanes wee may escape out of these euils. Fiftly, faith to beleeue, that God most inclinable to releeue vs, rather then man should vtterly perish, sent his owne Sonne into the world, to suffer the punishment of sin, to satisfie his justice, to bring grace, & dissolue the workes of the diuell; that so all that in sense of former euils, flye to him for mercy and deliuerance, may escape & be saued. Sixtly, hauing found so happy meanes of escape, a flying vnto God, in earnest desire to bee receiued to mercy for Christs sake, to be freed from the guilt of sinne, to bee reconciled to God, and to haue grace to decline euill, and doe good in the time to come. All these things in the judgement of the Diuines of both sides, are necessarily required, in them that are to be justified.

The most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen, in the booke called Antididagma Coloniense, make the things required in them, on whom the benefite of justification is bestowed, to be of two sorts. For there are some that onely dispose & prepare vs, other by which we receiue the same. Of the former sort is the generall perswasion of faith, touching the trueth of things in Scripture; the particular consideration of things concerning the knowledge of God, and our selues; sorrow, feare, dislike of our present estate, desire to be deliuered out of it, to be reconciled to God, & to haue grace to decline euill and doe good. Of the latter sort is the perswasion of faith, whereby we assure our selues without doubting, that God will not impute our sins vnto vs, that thus penitently turne vnto him, but that the course of his mercies now and euer, shall be turned towards vs for his Sonne Christs sake,

This is that speciall faith, they of the reformed Religion speake of, and the Romanists seeme so much to dislike: whereas yet the best and most judicious amongst them, euer did, and still doe admit the same. Andraeas Vega l. 9. c. 7. saith, that there hath beene a great controversie about this matter, not onely betweene Catholiques, and such as they esteeme heretickes, but euen amongst the most learned Catholiques of this age, at Rome, at Trent, at Ratisbone, and in sundry other places: many affirming that a man without speciall revelation, may vndoubtedly beleeue, and certainely assure himselfe, that he is in grace, and hath obtayned remission of all his sinnes. This perswasion rising as a conclusion out of, In that God •… ath promised r •… ssion to all that truely turne, and he findeth his heart to be so turn •… d. two propositions, the one of faith, the other euident vnto vs in our owne experience, is a perswasion of faith; because whensoeuer a conclusion is consequent vpon two propositions, the one of faith, the other euident in the light of reason and experience, it is to bee beleeued by faith, or as Iohn Bacon, certitudine consequente fidem. This opinion, as L. 9. c 36. Vega telleth vs, Considerat. 2. ult. cap. 2. ad Tim. Claudius Belliiocensis followed, in his Commentaries vpon Timothy: And the most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen, together with the Authors of the Enchiridion of Christian Religion, published in the Provinciall Councell of Colen vnder Hermannus, so much esteemed (as Consult. art. 4. Cassander telleth vs) in Italy, & France; The Authors of the booke offered by Charles the 5, to the Diuines of both sides; And as some say, Hieron. Angestus.

But for the better clearing of this point, First I will produce the testimonies of such as liued before Luthers time. Secondly, I will make it appeare, that the same trueth was defended after Luthers time, till the Councell & after. Origen writing vpon those wordes, Rom. 8. Ipse spiritus testimonium perhibet spiritui nostro &c: writeth thus, Ipse spiritus adoptionis per quem in filiū quis adoptatur, reddit testimonium & confirmat spiritum nostrum, quod sumus filij Dei, posteaquam à spiritu seruitutis in adoptionis spiritum venerimus, cum jam nihil inest timoris, id est, nihil propter poenam gerimus, sed propter amorem patris cuncta perficimus.

Cyprianus ad Demetrianum hath these wordes, Viget apud nos spei robur & firmitas fidei, & inter ipsas saeculi labentis ruinas erecta mens est, & immobilis virtus, & de Deo suo semper anima secura. De coena Domini; An ma se sanatam et sanctificatam agnoscens, fletibus se abluit, & lachrymis se baptizat. De mortalitate; Quis hic anxietatis et sollicitudinis locus est? Quis inter haec trepidus & maestus est, nisi cui spes & fides deest? Ejus enim est mortem timere, qui ad Christum nolit ire: eius est ad Christum nolle ire, qui se non credat cum Christo incipere regnare. Scriptum est enim, justum fide vivere, si justus es & fide vivis, si verè in Deum credis, cur non cum Christo futurus, et de Domini pollicitatione securus, quod ad Christum voceris amplecteris? And againe in the same place; Deus de hoc mundo recedenti tibi immortalitatem at que aeternitatem pollicetur, & tu dubitas? Hoc est Deum omnino non nosse; hoc est Christum credentium Dominum et magistrum, peccato incredulitatis offendere; hoc est in ecclesiâ constitutum, fidem in domo fidei non habere.

Ambrose serm. 5. writeth thus; Quisquis illi fermento Christi adhaerescit, efficitur & ipse fermentum, tam sibi vtilis, quam idoneus vniuersis, & de suâ certus salute, & de aliorum acquisitione securus. And S. Chrysostome writing vpon those wordes Rom. 8. Ipse spiritus &c. affirmeth, that from the testimony of the spirit we haue such certainety, as leaueth no place for doubting.

Augustine serm. 28. de verbis Domini; O homo faciem tuam non audebas ad coelum attollere, oculos tuos in terram dirigebas, et subito accepisti gratiam Christi. Omnia tibi peccata dimissa sunt. Ex malo seruo factus es bonus filius. Ideo praesume non de operatione tuâ sed de Christi gratiâ. Non ergo hic arrogantia est sed fides: praedicare quod acceperis non est superbia sed devotio. Ergo attolle oculos ad patrē, qui te per lauachrum genuit, ad patrē qui per filium te redemit, & dic, Pater noster &c. And in his 22 tract, vpon Iohn; 'Credo promittenti, saluator loquitur, veritas pollicetur, ipse dixit mihi, Qui audit verba mea, & credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, et transitum facit de morte in vitam, & in judiciū non veniet: ego audiui verba Domini mei, credidi. I am infidelis cum essem, factus sum fidelis, sicut ipse monuit, transij à morte ad vitam, ad judicium non venio, non praesumptione meâ, sed ipsius promissione. In Ps. 149. Est quidam modus in conscientiâ gloriandi, vt noueris fidem tuam esse sinceram, noveris esse spem tuam certā, noveris charitatem tuam esse sine simulatione. Ser. 6. de verbis Apostoli; Ex ipsâ dilectione justitiae, integrâ fide, catholicâ fide, spiritū Dei nobis inesse cognoscimus. Trac. 75. in Ioan. In illo die, inquit, vos cognoscetis, quia ego in patre, & vos in me, & ego in vobis. In quo die; nisi de quo ait, & vos viuetis? Tunc enim erit, vt possimus videre quod credimus, nam & nunc est in nobis, & nos in illo: sed hoc nunc credimus, tunc etiā cognoscemus, quamvis & nunc credendo nouerimus, sed tunc contemplando noscemus. De trinitate li. 13. c. 1. Non sic videtur fides in corde in quo est, ab co cuius est, sed eam tenet certissima scientia, clamatque conscientia. Cum itaque propterea credere jubeamur, quia id quod credere jubemur videre non possumus, ipsam tamen fidem quando inest in nobis videmus in nobis: quia et rerum absentium praesens est fides, & rerum quae foris sunt intus est fides, & rerum quae non videntur, videtur fides. Lib. 8. cap. 8. Qui diligit fratrem, magis nou it dilectionem quâ diligit quam fratrem quem diligit. Tractat: 5. in epist. Ioannis; nemo interroget hominem: redeat vnusquis que ad cor suum, si ibi inuenerit charitatem fraternam, securus sit quia transijt a morte ad vitam. Tractat: in Psal. 85. Dicat vnusquis que fidelium, Sanctus sum. Non est ista superbia elati, sed confessio non ingrati. De bono perseuerantiae cap: 2. Sicut ergo sanctus cum Deum rogat vt sanctus sit, id vtique rogat •… t sanctus esse permaneat; ita vtique & castus, cum rogat vt castus sit: continens, vt continens sit: justus, vt justus sit: pius, vt pius sit: & caetera quae contra Pelagianos dona Dei esse defendimus, hoc sine dubio petunt, vt in eis perseuerent bonis, quae se accepisse nouerunt.

Leo in his 8. sermon on the Epiphanie sayth; Ipsam matrem virtutum omnium charitatem, in secretis suae mentis inquirat: & si in eâ dilectionem Dei & proximi toto corde intentè repererit, ita vt etiam inimicis suis eadem velit tribui, quae sibi optat impendi, quisquis hujusmodi est, Deum & rectorem & habitatorem sui esse non dubitet. Gregory moral. l. 9: c: 17. vpon these words of Iob, Etiamsi simplex fuero hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea: writeth thus; Plerum que si scimus bona quae agimus, ad elationem ducimur: si nescimus minimè seruamus. Quis enim aut de virtutis suae conscientiâ non quantulumcun que superbiat? Aut quis rursum bonum in se custodiat quod ignorat? Sed contra vtra que quid superest, nisi vt recta quae agimus, sciendo nesciamus: vt haec & recta aestimemus & minima: quatenus & ad custodiam sensificet animum scientia rectitudinis, & in tumorem non eleuet aestimatio minorationis. And cap. 27. he sayth: Sciendum vero est, quod viri sancti ita incerti sunt vt confidant, at que ita confidunt, vt tamen ex securitate non torpeant.

Anselme, writing vpon the 8. chapter of the epistle to the Romans sayth: Ipse spiritus diuinus testimonium reddit spiritui nostro, id est, recognoscere & intelligere facit spiritum nostrum, quia sumus filij Dei. Et per hoc quod ipse spiritus sanctus charitatem nobis infundit, quae nos facit imitatores esse diuinae bonitatis, vt diligamus inimicos nostros, & benefaciamus his qui oderunt nos, sicut pa •… er coelestis solem suum oriri facit, super bonos & malos, atque pluit super justos & iniustos, euidenti testimonio declarat menti nostrae, nos esse filios Dei, cuius bonitatem pro modulo nostro sequimur. In 2. Cor. 13. Qui fidei sensum in corde habet, hic scit Christum Iesum in se esse, & uos ita scitis eum in uobis esse, nisi fortè reprobi estis, hoc est enim reprobum esse, nescire fidem professionis suae. Et vos cognoscitis, quia per sensum fidei, & per affectum dilectionis, ac strenuitatem rectae actionis, est Christus in vobis nisi forte reprobi estis, id est, ab eo quod prius caepistis, retro conuersi, & a Deo rejecti.

Bernardus epist. 107. Iustus autem quis est, nisi qui amanti se Deo, vicem rependitamoris? Quod non fit nisi revelante spiritu per fidem homini aeternum Dei propositum super suâ salute futurâ. Quae sanè reuelationon est aliud quam infusio gratiae spiritualis: per quam dum facta carnis mortificantur, homo ad regnum praeparatur quod caro et sanguis non possident, simul accipiens in vno spiritu et vnde se praesumat amatum, et vnde redamet nè gratis amatus sit. In Cantica serm. 69. Prorsus habet ecclesia Dei spirituales suos, qui non modo fideliter, sed & fiducialiter agant in eo, cum Deo quasi cum amico loquentes, testimonium illis perhibente conscientiâ gloriae ejus. Da mihi animam nihil amantem praeter Deum, et quod propter Deum amandum est: cui viuere Christus non tantum sit, sed & diu jam fuerit: cui studij et otij sit prouidere Deum in conspectu suo semper: cui sollicitè ambulare cum Domino Deo suo, non dico magna, sed vna voluntas sit, & facultas non desit: da mihi inquam talem animam, & ego non nego dignam sponsi curâ, majestatis respectu, dominantis fauore, sollicitudine gubernantis: & si voluerit gloriari non erit insipiens, tantum vt qui gloriatur in domino glorietur. And afterwards, Ex propriis quae sunt penes Deum, agnoscit nec dubitat se amari quae amat. And a little afterwards. Vides quomodo non solum de amore suo certum te reddat, si quidem tu ames illum: sed etiam de sollicitudine sua quam pro te gerit, si te senserit sollicitum sui. In Octavâ Paschae, Serm. 2. Sanè novum supervenisse spiritum, certissimè conversatio nova testatur.

Idem Epist. 107. Ponamus hominem in seculo seculi adhuc & suae carnis amore retentum: & cum terrestris hominis imaginem portet, incubantem terrenis, nil de coelestibus cogitantem: quis hunc non videat horrendis circumsusum tenebris, nisi qui in eâdem mortis umbra sedet: quippe cui nullum adhuc suae salutis signum eluxerit, cui necdum in aliquo interna testetur inspiratio an boni de se quippiam aeterna teneat praedestinatio? At verò si superna eum miseratio dignantèr quandoque respexerit, immiseritque spiritum compunctionis, quatenus ingemiscat & resipiscat, mutet vitam, domet carnem, amet proximum, clamet ad Deum, proponat que de caetero vivere Deo, non seculo: ex quâ deinde superni luminis gratuitâ visitatione, & subitâ mutatione dexterae excelsi, agnoscat se merito quidem non iam irae sed gratiae filium, quippe qui paternum erga se divinae bonitatis experitur affectum, quod se uti que hactenus in tantum latuerat, vt non solum nesciret vtrumnam dignus foret amore, an odio, verumetiam odium magis & non amorem propria conversatio testaretur, erant enim tenebrae adhuc super faciem abyssi: nonne is tibi videtur quasi de abysso profundissimâ, & tenebrosissimâ horrendae ignorantiae, in aliam quandam quoque trahi abyssum, èregione amoenam & lucidam claritatis aeternae? & tunc demum quasi dividit Deus lucem à tenebris, cùm peccator sole illucescente iustitiae, abiectis operibus tenebrarum induitur arma lucis: & is quem prior vita ac propria conscientia tanquam reverâ filium gehennae deputaverat ardoribus sempiternis, ad tantam visitantis se orientis ex alto dignationem respirans, gloriari etiam incipit, praeter spem in spe gloriae filiorum Dei, quam iam nimirum è vicino revelatâ facie exultans novo in lumine speculatur, & dicit: Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui Domine: dedisti laetitiam in corde meo. O Domine, quid est homo quia innotuisti ei: aut filius hominis quia reput as eum? iam se o bone Pater, vermis vilissimus, & odio dignissimus sempiterno, tamen confidit amari, quoniam se sentit amare: imo quia se amari praesentit, non redamare confunditur. Iam apparet in lumine tuo ô inaccessibilis lux, quid boni penes te, etiam cùm malus esset, miserum maneret homunculum. Amat proinde non immerito, quia amatus est sine merito. Amat sine fine, quia sine principio se cognoscit amatum. Prodit in lucem ad miseri consolationem, magnum consilium quod ab aeterno latuerat in sinu Aeternitatis: quod nolit videlicet Deus mortem peccatoris, sed magis vt convertatur & vivat. Habes homo huius arcani indicem spiritum iustificantem: eoque ipso testificantem spiritui tuo quod filius Dei & ipse sis. Agnosce consilium Dei in iustificatione tui. Confitere & dic: Consilium meum iustificationes tuae. Praesens namque iustificatio tui, & divini est consilii revelatio, & quaedam adfuturam gloriam praeparatio.

Idem de quatuor modis orandi. Surge, tolle lectum tuum, &c. Et tu ergo si iam surgis desiderio supernorum, si grabatum tollis, corpus scilicet a terrenis elevans voluptatibus, vt iam non feratur anima à concupiscentiis eius, sed magis ipsa vt dignum est, regat illud, & ferat quo non vult, si demum ambulas quae retro sunt obliviscens, & ad ea quae ante sunt, te extendens desiderio, & proposito proficiendi, curatum te esse non dubites. Item serm. 1. in annunciatione beatae Mariae. Si credis peccata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccasti, & in quem peccatum non cadit, bene facis: sed adde adhuc, vt & hoc credas, quia per ipsum tibi peccata donantur. Hoc est testimoniū quod perhibet in corde nostro spiritus sanctus, dicens: Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua. Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus, gratis iustificari hominem per fidē.

Gulielmus Altisiodorensis in sent. lib. 3. tract. 6. Quidam dicunt, quod quidam sciunt se non habere charitatem, scilicet qui sunt in actu vel proposito peccandi. Alij dubitant se habere charitatem cum habent aequè fortes rationes ad vtramque partem contradictionis. Alij putant se habere charitatem. Alij sciunt se habere charitatem, scilicet qui gustauerunt dulcedinem Dei, & in quibus ferè extinctus est fomes, vt Maria Magdalena et Aegyptiaca post multos fletus. And a litle after distinguishing 2 kinds of knowledge properly so named, he saith, by the one we know we are in grace and not by the other.

The booke called part. 〈◊〉 . regimen animarum agreeth with Altisiodorensis, making 5 sorts; some that knowe they haue not; some that doubt; some that thinke they haue; quidam qui experiuntur se habere charitatem, vt illi qui gustant diuinam dulcedinem, in quibus fomes ferè extinctus est, & qui semper vel bona faciunt vel affectant; quidam certi sunt se habere charitatem vt sunt illi quibus Deus reuelauit secreta coelestia, sic fuit Paulus.

part. 1. de grata, c. 10. Pantheologia likewise saith, Quidam dicunt, quod aliqui sciunt se esse in gratia experimentaliter, sicut illi qui sentiunt dulcedinem divinae bonitatis, & in oratione gustant quam suav is est Dominus. Alios scire se esse in gratia Dei supernaturaliter sicut sunt illi qui ita dotati sunt à Deo & perfecti quod jam non habent rebellionem fomitis, sed habent plenam pacem spiritus, & sentiunt se elevatos in contemplatione divina sicut fuerunt Paulus, & Maria Magdalena.

Alexander of Ales 3. part. 9. 61. memb. 7. art. 3. First reckoneth the opinion of 5 sorts of men formerly mentioned, to wit, of men knowing they are not in grace; of men doubting; of men thinking they are; of men experimentally knowing it, as doe they, qui sentiunt dulcedinem divinae bonitatis in oratione, & gustant quam suavis est Dominus. And lastly of men who haue knowledge that they are in grace; qui ita sunt dicati Deo & perfecti, quod iam non habent rebellionem fomitis, sed habent plenam pacem spiritus, & sentiunt concupiscentias carnis in se consopitas, & sentiunt se omninò elevatos in divinam contemplationem, sicut fuit Beata Magdalena, & Paulus qui ait ad Rom 8. Quis separabit &c. And then he distinguisheth contemplatiue and affectiue knowledge, that some make a knowledge by science, and a knowledge by experiment, the one an infallible the other a fallible medium, and thinketh that wee may knowe by certaine experiments that wee are in grace; which experiments are, charitas apud vim rationalem, pax apud irascibilem, laetitia apud concupiscibilem. That a man may haue certaine knowledge that hee is in grace, he proveth out of Revel. 〈◊〉 . To him that overcommeth I will giue the hidden Manna, &c. which no man knoeth but hee that reeciueth it, therefore hee that receiueth it doth know it; but that hidden Manna &c: is not vnderstood onely, of the injoying of diuiine sweetnes in glory in heauen, but by grace in this world; but he that receiueth it knoweth it, therefore he that receiueth the diuine sweetnes by grace knoweth it, therefore hee knoweth hee hath grace, by it, as by a certaine experiment. Besides, the taste that is well affected, cannot but discerne the sweetnes that is put vnto it, therefore if the soule bee rightly affected, it cannot but discerne the diuine sweetnes put to it; but the discerning of diuine sweetnes is by grace, therefore a soule rightly affected, cannot but know that it hath grace, therefore grace is experimentally knowen, as by the sense of diuine sweetnes. 2. Cor. vlt. Doe yee not know your selues that Christ Iesus is in you except you bee reprobates? This the Apostle speaketh to the Corinthians, therefore there is some man who if he bee not a reprobate, knoweth that Christ is in him, and if hee know this, he kuoweth hee hath grace, because Christ is not in vs but by grace; whence it followeth, that hee knoweth experimentally that hee hath grace.

Iohn Bachon, lib. 3. dist. 30. q. 1. saith expressely that men may be certaine they are in grace by a certainety following faith, or flowing out of faith. In our age Cardinall Caietan, Commentar: in Ioan. 14. Dat Deus etiam hoc, vt sciamus quae à Deo nobis donata sunt, &c. Cuilibet diligenti ipsum promittit, non quod se manifestabit, sed quod se insinuabit, dictio enim graeca significat velut tacitè & clam indicare, quoniam Iesus cuilibet diligenti se, indicat sei psum intus, internâ illustratione & inspiratione, diversimodè, prout electi experiuntur, accipientes manna absconditum, quod nemo novit nisi qui accepit. And writing vpon those wordes, 1. Io: 2: In hoc scimus quontam cognovi •… us eum, he sayth. Intendit Iohannes ad litteram monstrare, signum infallibile internae lucis divinae in nobis esse, si mandata eius servauerimus. Roffensis saith, Sacramenta ideo potissimum sunt instituta, vt per vsum illorum citra vllam dubitationem confidamus, gratiam nos esse consecutos. de sacr. eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 6.

Vega. l. 9. c. 7. The Authours of the booke offered by Charles the fift to the Diuines appoynted for the conference at Ratisbon, in the fift article plainely affirme, Oportere vt verè paenitentes fide certissimâ statuant, se propter mediatorem Christum Deo placere. The same was agreed vnto by the Divines of both sides. Cardinall Contarenus president of the meeting and conference approved it; and as the same Vega sayth, many Catholiques in the Councell at Trent; before the publishing of the decree, followed the same opinion as most probable, and sought to confirme it by many arguments. Vega. l. 9. c. 46 And hee reporteth, that amongst others there was one learned man, that professed, hee held the denying of the certainety of grace, to bee a worse errour then that imputed to Luther, for whereas the Lutherans attribute too much to faith, this opinion derogateth from fayth, the sacraments, & the merits & workes of vertue.

Yet in the end there was a Sessio 6. can. 13. Si quis dixerit, omni homini ad remissionem peccatorum assequendam necessarium esse, vt credat certò, & absque vllâ haesitatione propriae infirmitatis & indispositionis peccata sibi esse remissa, anathema sit. decree passed for the vncertainety of grace, but in such sort, that who would held their former opinions still, and made such constructions of the decree as they pleased: as it appeareth by Ambrosius Catharinus, in his apology against Dominicus à Soto, wherein he defendeth an absolute certainety of grace, and a certainety of fayth, and yet will not be thought to be touched, by the censure of the councell.

Martinus Eisingreinius, a man of no small account, hath a whole booke in explication and defence of this one decree of the councell, and telleth vs, the councell neuer meant simply to condemne the certainety of grace, but onely that kinde of certainety that heretickes imagine, which is without all examination of themselues, their estate, the trueth of their profession, their dislike of sinnefull evills, and desire of reconciliation, and grace to decline euill and to doe good, to perswade themselues they are justified. And whereas most men, conceiue the meaning of the councell to bee, that hee is accursed, that thinketh it necessary for the attayning of remission of sinnes, that every man should perswade himselfe, without any doubting in respect of his owne indisposition, that his sinnes are remitted, & that thus to perswade himselfe procureth remission: hee maketh the meaning of it to be, that whosoeuer without consideration of his estate whether hee be rightly disposed or otherwise, presumeth of Gods grace & fauour, is worthily anathematized, but if a man hauing examined himselfe, finde a disposition, in dislike of former euills, to returne vnto God, to seeke remission & grace not to offend in like sort any more, he may notwithstanding the decree of the councell, nay he ought to assure himselfe of remission, and grace. And there vpon bringeth forth a cloude of witnesses for confirmation of the certainety of grace. But whatsoeuer wee thinke of the construction he maketh of the wordes of the decree, he pag 162. resolueth, that a man may bee as certaine that his sinnes are remitted, and he receiued to grace, as that twise two are foure, twise foure eight, and that euery whole is greater then his part, or as a man is resolued touching the things hee seeth with his eyes, and handleth with his hands.

1. parte iustitiae quadripartitae, l. 2. fol. 222. Gaspar Casalius a Bishoppe of Portugall, that was present in the councell of Trent, writeth largely against that kinde of imagined certainety, which Eisingreinius sayth the councell meant to condemne. And then goeth forward; An non licet homini unquam credere firmiter se esse iustum á peccatis, saltem á mortalibus? Quidem in eâ formâ nunquam licet vt ex dictis patet, quia est illa fides siue confidentia, & superba & imprudentissima. An licet in aliâ formâ? Vtique licet. In quâ formâ licet? habendo respectum ad divinas promissiones conditionales, & ad conditiones quas requirunt. Etenim omnes tenemur firmiter credere, fide diviná cui non potest subesse falsum, tam de nobis ipsis quam de aliis, omnes Adae filios de facto iustos esse, aut iustificari, quotquot habent eas conditiones, quas diuina promissio, sive diuina lex conditionalis, ad id requirit in nobis. Hoc constat, quia omnes tenemur tali fide credere, Deum veracem in omnibus dictis suis, pertinentibus ad doctrinam, promissiones, & cunctis aliis: adhibito autem diligenti in nobis de nobis examine, dum quis seipsum probat, & ad iudicium rationis ac legis trahit, licet vnicuique iudicare de se, prudenter tamen procedendo cum examine & discretione, quòd eas conditiones requisit as habet, vel non habet, Si enim hoc non liceret nobis, non diceret Paulus 1 Cor. 11. Probet autem seipsum homo, & sic de pane illo edat, & de calice bibat. Nec diceret Apostolus Ioannes, 1 Ioh. 4. Nolite omni spiritui credere, sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint, quoniam multi Pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum. Ecce committitur nobis probatio adhibitis his quae ad rem ipsam adhiberi debent tum nostritum spirituum. Licet ergo nobis iudicare de nobis benè vel malè, prout in nobis invenerimus: dummodo prudenter agamus, cum prudentiâ intuentes, discurrentes, & concludentes. Mox vero prout quis cum prudentiâ de se iudicaverit, quod conditiones á Deo requisitas habeat, potest etiam iudicare de seipso quod iustus sit, si certò, certò, si cum formidine, cum formidine, firmae enim praestant divinae promissiones iuxta suas conditiones, & ex parte illarum nullus est defectus nec esse potest.

So that according to this opinion, a man certainely finding in him the performance of the condition required, may assure himselfe of his justification & acceptation with God: and this assurance is an act of faith. No man liuing, sayth L. 9. c. 39. Vega, should euer draw mee to doubt, neither indeede could I doubt if I would, of my being in the state of grace, if I might inferre it out of two propositions, the one beleeued, and the other some other way evident vnto mee. For there are many propositions de fide, which can no otherwise bee proved to be de fide, but because they cleerely follow vpon things beleeued, & some proposition evident in the light of nature; As Scotus sheweth, that this proposition, the father differeth really from the sonne, is a proposition of faith, because it is inferred out of these two, The father begat and the sonne was begotten, and this other evident in the light of nature, Omnis generans realiter differt à genito. Qui pertinaciter dubitaret de propositione illatâ evidenter ex vn •… credit •… , & alia evidenti, esset haereticus, hic enim cum non posset dubitare de consequentiâ, nec de euidenti, dubitaret de credita.

It will bee sayd, that graunting such a proposition to bee de fide, as followeth out of two propositions, whereof one is beleeued, and the other some other way evident vnto vs: yet it will not follow that wee may bee certaine, that wee are in the state of grace. Because that cannot bee inferred out of two such propositions, seing one of them must depend on experience, and the knowledge of our inward actions, which as some thinke cannot be certainely knowen by vs. Let vs see therefore whether a man may certainely discerne; the quality and condition of his soule, and the motions, actions, and desires of the same. There are that thinke, that our inward actions are vnknowen vnto vs, and that the nature of the heart is such, as is knowen onely to God; But Saint Paul sayth, 1 Cor. 2. that the spirit of a man, knoweth the things that are in him. And besides, if wee could not knowe our inward actions, wee should not bee commaunded or forbidden to doe such actions, neither should wee bee required to confesse our inward sinnes, if wee could not know them. All which things are absurde and hereticall. It is cleere therefore, that wee may know and discerne our inward actions, that wee may know what we do, what wee will, and in what sort, and to what end wee will it. Wee may know therefore, whether we sorrow for sinnes, because wee haue thereby displeased God, or for some other reason; whether wee esteeme the losse of Gods favour the greatest euill; whether wee would rather regaine it, then haue all things without it; whether wee would not bee willing to leaue any thing, though never so deare vnto vs, if wee should vnderstand, that wee must either leaue it, or not come into favour with God.

It is true, sayth Vega l. 9. ca. 47. Dispositio non vnum aliquem actum, comprehendit, sed observationem omnium mandatorum diuinorum, & dolorem de omnibus peccatis, & in nullo peccato perseuerare, ne que per ignorantiam, neque per negligentiam, neque per obliuionem aut in considerationem •… Vega, that wee may know all these things; but because there may bee some sinne, that wee thinke not of, thorough forgetfulnes, ignorance, or want of consideration, from which if wee depart not, we cannot obtaine the fauour of God; therefore we cannot certainly know, whether wee be so disposed, as is required for the receipt of grace. But this is a silly allegation, for Roffensis adversus Lutherum artic. 14. sayth. Ignoratio peccatorum nihil obstat, quo minus quisquam vere conteri posset, nisi velis cavillum ex vocabulo quaerere; neque enim dubito quin Maria Magdalena verè contrita fuerat, quam si Christus interrogasset an verè fuisset contrita, potuit respondisse, se verè contritam esse, verèque doluisse pro peccatis, nec tamen est credibile, quod singula peccata quae prius in tot vanitatibus suis admisit, integre venerint in ejus memoriam. Sed omittamus hanc quae singulare poenitudinis exemplar fuerat: de communibus loquamur peccatoribus. Num aliquot ex his opinaris, ad sacramentum absolutionis accedere cum vero dolore? Num eos usque adeo stupidos arbitraris, ut non sentiant an verè & non fictè doleant? Quod si conscientia fuerit ijs judex quod verè doleant, cur (te quaeso) respondere non licet se verè dolere? Quid huic rei peccatorum obsistit ignoratio? cùm pro cunctis dolere possint tam ignoratis quam cognitis. Nam qui damni perpendit immensitatem, quod ex peccato conquisivit, is odiet facile peccatum, & detestabitur tam in alijs quam in seipso, neque minus id quod occultum est quam quod est agnitum. So that we may reason thus, If a man sorrow, or sorrow not for sinne; or not for the true causes, or not so much as he should; either hee may know when he doth right, and when he faileth, or not: If he may, then a man may know when he is in such a disposition, as is required in him that is to be justified. If he may not, then he hath no power to sorrow, or to sorrow in this or that sort. For no mā hath power to do that act, that he knoweth not how to do: neither doth any man know how to doe a thing, but he knoweth likewise when he doth the same thing, whether he doe so or not. If he haue no power to sorrow for sinne, or to sorrow so and in such sort as he should, then God hath commanded things impossible to bee done, Impossible, I say, in respect both of Nature and grace.

Vega. l. 9. c. 39. They will say a man knoweth when he sorroweth rightly for each particular sinne, but not when for all in generall: But against this as before, if he knowe how rightly to sorrow for all, then he knoweth when he doth so, but he knoweth how rightly to sorrow for all. If he know not rightly how to sorrow for all, then he cannot rightly sorrow for all; If hee cannot rightly sorrow for all, then either God hath not commaunded so to doe, or hee hath commaunded impossibilities: if he haue not commaunded vs in this sort to sorrow for all, then for none, for wee If a man may know that hee sorroweth rightly for one sinne, he is sure he sorroweth for all as much as is necessarily required to iustification. cannot rightly sorrow for one, vnlesse wee sorrow for all: for if wee might, we might haue remission of one, and not of another, then wee might be in the state of saluation & damnation together.

L •… . 9. c. 46. Vega having debated the matter, alleadging the objections and answeares of both sides, for and against the certainty of grace, in the end concludeth, that hauing maturely considered all that is sayd on either side, hee thinketh it more probable, that some spirituall men, may so farre profitte in spirituall exercise and in diuine familiarity, that without all rashnes, they may beleeue certainely, and without all doubting, that they haue found grace and remission of sinnes with God; and bringeth many excellent proofes of that his saying; As, that the law of friendship requireth so much; for it cannot bee, that one friend should not powre forth his very soule to another. And that familiaritie and exceeding loue, that the Canticles shew that God beareth towards his Church, and somtimes sheweth to it, make it evident, there are alwayes some to whom God speaketh so familiarly, that they are certaine, and no way doubt of his loue. Besides, the resolution and securitie with which many of the Saints of God goe out of this world, that ardent desire, quo charitas cum perfecta fuerit, clamat, Cupio dissolui & esse cum Christo, illa laetitia, quâ permulti exultant, dum intelligentes sibi propinquum esse diem mortis, dicunt cum Davide: Laetatus sum in his quae dicta sunt mihi, in domum Domini ibimus. Alacritas etiam & admiranda constantia Martyrum, & despicientia omnium tormentorum, are a sufficient proofe of this; they would neuer doe so that doubted of their estate. Ibid. apud Veg. Ambrose in Ps. 118. Videmus in saeculo innocentes laetos ad iudicium festinare, odisse moras, celeritatem affectare iudicij. Beatus itaque ille qui coeleste judicium laetus expectat: scit enim sibi regnum coelorum, Angelorum consortium, coronam quoque bonorum repositam esse meritorum. And Ib. apud Veg. Catharinus in his purgation of himselfe, sheweth the same in the examples of many Saints; Such confidence Ezechias may bee thought to haue had, 2. Reg. 12. when he prayed thus; Remember Lord how I haue walked before thee &c: where this his prayer is approued by Gods answeare, I haue heard thy prayer &c. Ibidem. The testimonie of the spirit seemeth to require, vt aliquibus saltem viris perfectis, & spiritualibus, hoc ipsum de adoptione in particulari semper contestetur interius: vt quilibet iustorum ex eo testimonio verè possitaudacter clamare, Abba, pater; Et verbum istud spiritui nostro, huc videtur nos vocare & inflectere. Cumque illud testimonium, quicquid sit de intelligentiâ Pauli, dubium non sit, vt & sancti doctores saepe tradiderunt, persaepe interius exhiberi à spiritu sancto, loquente interius familiarissime cum his, qui ei toto corde famulantur, consentaneum non est, neque verisimile, quin aliquando ita sese illis aperiat, vt omnem abigat for •… dinem de ipsorum poenitentiâ, & eorum iustificatione, praesertim cum teste Paulo, ad hoc detur nobis, vt sciamus, quae nobis à Deo sunt donata.

This certainty hee calleth morall, distinguisheth it from the certainty of •… aith, that he may avoyd the decree of the councell of Trent: and yet saith it excludeth all doubt and feare, of the being otherwise of that he is thus certaine of: and saith if any man will name this a certainty of faith hee will not striue. 〈1 line〉 The difference hee maketh betweene them is this, that in the one men are sure and know, they neither are nor can be deceiued: in the other they knowe and are certaine that they are not, not that they cannot bee deceiued. But this difference cannot staud, for if a man know and bee certaine that hee is not deceiued, he must certainly know, that no such thing doth now fall out, as doth fall out when men are deceiued in apprehensions of this kind, and consequently, that now and things so standing, he cannot be deceiued. For example, a man dreaming, thinketh he is waking, and vndoubtedly perswadeth himselfe, hee seeth or doth something, wherein he is deceiued, because it is but representation in a dreame; but he that is waking, knoweth that he waketh, that hee seeth that which he thinketh he seeth, that in this perswasion hee is not, nor cannot be deceiued things so standing.

Amongst the Articles agreed vpon in the Apud Bucer. pag. 45. conference at Ratisbon, 1541, this is one, Docendum est ut qui vere poenitent, semper fide certissimâ statuant, se propter Mediatorem Christum Deo placere: quia Christus est propitiator, Pontifex, & interpellator pro nobis, quem pater donavit nobis, & omnia bona cum illo. Quoniam autem perfecta rectitudo in hac imbecillitate non est, sunt que multae infirmae & pavidae conscientiae, quae cum gravi saepe dubitatione luctantur, nemo est à gratiâ Christi, propter ejusmodi infirmitatem excludendus: sed convenit tales diligenter adhortari, ut ijs dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant, & augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent: juxta illud, Adauge nobis Domine fidem. So that touching this point it is evident that the Church of God euer taught, that which we now teach.

Neither haue wee departed from the doctrine of the Church, in that wee teach that faith onely justifieth. For many of the ancient haue vsed this forme of words; as Origen ad Rom. 3. Dicit Apostolus sufficere solius fidei justificationem, ita ut credens quis tantummodo justificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum. Hilar. can. 8. in Math. Fides sola justificat. Basil. homil. de humilitate. Haec est perfecta & integra gloriatio in Deo, quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum, solâ autem fide in Christum justificatum. Ambros. ad Rom. 3. Iustificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei. Chrysost. Homil. de fide & lege naturae: Eum qui operatur opera iustitiae sine fide non potes probare vivum esse, fidem absque operibus possum monstrare, & vixisse, & regnum coelorum assecutam, nullus sine fide vitam habuit, latro autem credidit tantum, & iustificatus est. Aug. l. 1. contra 2 Epistolas Pelag. c. 21. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquòs praedices justos, non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris. 83. q. q. 76. Si quis cùm crediderit mox de hâc vita decesserit, iustificatio fidei manet cum illo: nec praecedentibus bonis operibus, quia non merito ad illam, sed gratiâ pervenit, nec consequentibus, quia in hac vita esse non sinitur. Theophylact. ad Galat. 3. Nunc planè ostendit Apostolus, fidem vel solam, iustificandi habere in se virtutem. Bern. ser. 22, in Cantic. Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus, esurit & sitit iustitiam, credat in te qui iustificas impium, & solam iustificatus per fidem, pacem habebitad te. Et ep. 77. citans illud. Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit salvus erit. Cautè, inquit, non repetiit, qui vero baptizatus non fuerit, condēnabitur, sed tantū qui vero non crediderit, innuens nimirum solam fidem interdum sufficere ad salutem, & sine illâ sufficere nihil.

Sometimes by these phrases of speech they exclude all that may bee be without supernaturall knowledge, all that may be without a true profession. Sometimes the necessity of good workes in act or externall good workes. 3. The power of nature without illumination and grace. 4. The power of the Law. 5. The sufficiency of any thing found in vs to make vs stand in judgement, to abide the tryall, and not to feare condemnation. And in this sense faith onely is said to justifie, that is, the onely mercy of God, and merite of Christ apprehended by faith: and then the meaning of their speech is, that onely the perswasion and assured trust that they haue, to bee accepted of God for Christs sake, is that that maketh them stand in judgement, without feare of condemnation. And in this sense all the Diuines formerly alleadged, for proofe of the insufficiency of all our inherent righteousnesse, and the trust which wee should haue in the onely mercy of God, and merite of Christ, doe teach as wee doe, that faith onely iustifieth. For neither they nor we exclude from the worke of Iustification, the action of God as the supreme and highest cause of our iustification: for it is he that remitteth sinne, and receiueth vs to grace: nor the merit of Christ, as that for which God inclineth to shew mercy to vs, and to respect vs: nor the remission of sinnes, gratious acceptation, and grant of the gift of righteousnes, as that by which we are formally justified: nor those works of prenenting grace, whereby out of the generall apprehension of faith, God worketh in vs dislike of our former condition, desire to be reconciled to God, to haue remission of that is past, & grace hereafter to decline the like euils, & to do contrary good things. For by these wee are prepared, disposed, and fitted for iustification; without these none are iustified. And in this sense, & to imply a necessity of these to be found in us, sometimes the fathers & others say, that we are not justified by faith only. And we all agree, that it is not our conuersion to God, nor the change we find in our selues, that can any way make us stād in judgment without feare, and looke for any good from God, otherwise then in that we find our selues so disposed and fitted, as is necessary for justification, whence we assure our selues, God will in mercy accept us for Christs sake.

CHAP. 12.

Of Merit.

MErit as Cardinall Contarenus rightly noteth, if we speake properly, importeth an action, or actions, quibus actionibus aut earum autori, ab altero iusticia postulante, debeatur praemiū. No man can merit any thing of God. Vide Ianseni um •… n concordiam euangeli •… am cap. 98. p. 704. First because we are his seruants, & owe much more seruice vnto him thē bond-slaues that are bought for money owe vnto their masters: & though no reward were promised, we were bound to obey his commands. Yet if we looke on the bounty of God, he deales with us being bond-men, as 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. d. 17 q. 1. in solutione quaest. with hired seruants, recōpencing that with a reward which we stood bound in duty to performe. 2. Because no profit cōmeth vnto God frō any thing we can * Apostolus ad Rom: 8. Aestimo inquit qd non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis, ad futu •… am gloriam quae re •… elabitur in nobis. S •… non sunt cond •… gnae non ergo ex debito justitiae, sed ex dono gratiae, gloria pro il •… s datur, unde Glossa ibidem. passiones hujus temporis non s •… t omnes s •… mul con •… g nae, id est, sufficientes, si districte ageretur nob •… m, ad promerendam •… tam aeternam. do: the good & saluation of our soules he accounteth his gaine, and out of his goodnesse so esteemeth of our good workes, as if they were profitable unto him. 3. Because though our workes were profitable vnto God, and though we were able to do them of our selues, yet wee could neuer repay vnto him so much good, as wee haue already & do dayly receiue from him: but now it is so, that he first bestoweth on us one gift, which he may afterwards reward with another. 4 Because in many things we offend all, & so haue neede of pardon: so farre are wee from meriting any thing at Gods hands. 5 Because no meritorious act is so great a good as eternall life, & so not equiualent vnto it, and therefore so great a reward cannot in strictnesse of justice be due vnto it. Actus secundum se consideratus (sayth Scotus) abs que acceptatione diuinâ secundum strictam justitiam, non fuisset dignus tali praemio ex intrinseca bonitate, quam haberet ex suis principiis, quod patet, quia semper praemium est majus bonum merito, & justitia stricta non reddit melius pro minus bono: ideo bene dicitur quod semper Deus praemiat vltra meritum condignum, vniuersaliter quidem vltra dignitatem actus qui est meritum; quia quod ille actus sit condignum meritū, hoc est vltra naturam & bonitatē actus intrinsecā, ex mera gratuita acceptatione diuina. Et forte adhuc, vltra illud ad quod de cōmuni lege esset actus acceptandus, quando que Deus praemiat ex mera liberalitate. And againe, Lib. 4. dist. 49. q. 6. de tertio dubio. De praemio quod est aeterna beatitudo, dico quod loquendo de stricta justitia, Deus nulli nostrum propter quaecunque merita, est debitor perfectionis reddendae tam intensae, quam est beatitudo, propter immoderatum excessum illius perfectionis vltra illa merita: sed esto quod ex liberalitate sua determinasset, meritis conferre actum tam perfectum tanquam praemium, tali quidem justitia qualis decet eum, scilicet, supererogantis in praemijs: tamen non sequitur ex hoc necessario, quòd per illam justitiam sit reddenda perfectio perennis tanquam praemium: imo abundans fieret retributio in beatitudine vnius momenti.

6. To merit is to make a thing due, that was not due before, whence it followeth that no man can merit eternall life. Bellarm. de justificat. lib. 5. c. 12. For they that define merit do say, that no man can merit soe great a good as eternall life ex condigno, vnlesse he be first justified, reconciled to God, and made partaker of the diuine nature, but whosoeuer is soe justified, reconciled to God, and made partaker of the diuine nature, hath right to eternall life, in that hee is justified, reconciled, and made partaker of the diuine nature. Therefore seeing to merit, is to make that due that was not due before, noe man can merit eternall life. And De justificat. l. 5. c. 20. Bellarmine confesseth, that many thinke eternall life cannot be merited; but onely some degrees in the same. and for this reason, as it appeareth by the epistle of Cardinall Contarenus to Cardinall Farnesius, the diuines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon, thought good to omitte and suppresse the name of merit. 1 For that it might be thought a derogation to the goodnesse and bounty of God, that giueth vs freely eternall life, to say that wee meritte it. And secondly, for that it might be conceiued, that it was not due before in respect of free gift, and that our working could merit it, though it were not due to vs by gift. Let vs see therefore what the Church of God hath taught touching merit.

The Author of the answere to Bells challenge named by him the downefall of Popery, article the fift chapt: 3. pag. 220. protesteth, that Bell doth greatly wronge the Romanists, in saying it is a part of their faith, and that it was defined in the councell of Trent, that good workes done in Gods grace, are cōdignely meritorious of eternall life; for the councell defined no such thing, and they that hold it, hold it not as a point of faith, but as an opinion onely. Whereupon Vega, who was one of the duines of the councell of Trent, writeth de fide & operib •… quaest: 4. that some noble Schoole diuines, being moued with no light arguments, and vsing a certaine sober and prudent moderation, haue denied that there is any condigne merit of eternall happinesse; and hee sayth quest. 5. Gregor. 1. d. 17. q. 1. Duran. q. 2. Marsil. in 2. Walden. de sacram. c. 7. Burgensis in psal. 35. Eckius in centur: de praedest. that Gregory, Durand, Marsil, Walden, Burgensis, and Eckius, doe deny condigne merit. Sotus also another diuine of the sayd councell lib. 3. de naturâ & gratiâ cap. 7. sayth, that there is some difference amongst catholiques about condigne merit, and chap: 8. after he had proued condigne merit out of the councell and otherwaies, yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith, but onely calleth it conclusionem probatissimam, a most approued conclusion. And Bellarmine lib: 5: de iustificatione cap: 16: after hee had rehearsed two opinions of catholiques, whereof the one seemeth to deny condigne merit, the other admitteth it only in a large sense, proposeth and defendeth the third opinion, which defendeth condigne merit absolutely, onely as verissimam, & communem sententiam theologorum, most true, and the common opinion of diuines. This confession might suffice to proue, that the Church neuer admitted of the doctrine of merit of condignity, as any point of her faith, in the daies of our Fathers, seeing euen since these differences grewe that are now afoote, betweene those of the reformation, and the stiffe maintainers of all confusions formerly found in the state of the Church and religion, there are many found amongst the enemies of reformation, that reiect the merit of condignity. Yet for the better satisfaction of the reader, I will more fully and at large sette downe the opinions, of them that opposed against the doctrine of meritte properly soe named before LVTHERS time.

Lib. 1. d. 17. quaest. 1. Gregorius Ariminensis, besides the reason formerly alleaged, that no act of man, though done in, & out of the habite of charity, is so great a good as eternall life, and equivalent to it, & consequently that so great a reward as eternall life, cannot be due vnto it ex debito iustitiae; hath sundry other reasons for proof of the same. Intelligendum est, saith he, etiam ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera, quibus cum vita aeterna redditur, quid aliud nisi gratia pro gratia redditur? haec Augustinus. Idem Antecedens probatur ratione: Nam constat quod animae carenti charitate simul & gloriâ: Deus quantum ad neutram est illi debitor: & si dat charitatem, gratis donat. Nunc autem nullus diceret, quod ex eo quod Deus donat aliquod munus alicui, fiat ei alterius muneris debitor. Ergo non ex eo quod Deus gratis dat charitatem, debetur consequenter ipsi animae gloria, sive beatitudo aeterna. Et si dicatur quod non ideo debetur alicui vita aeterna, quia habet charitatem, aut quia data est charitas illi, sed quia secundùm acceptam charitatem operatur. Contra, quòd omnes operationes nostrae secundùm charitatem factae, & omnia merita nostra sunt Dei dona, ut dicit Augustinns 13 de trinitate cap. 10. & autoritate ejusdem praeallegatâ, & per consequens non ex illis est Deus debitor alterius praemij. Ad quartum dicendum, quod cùm sit justitia vnicui que reddere quod suum est, id est, sibi debitum, secundùm sententiam Augustini 1. de Libero Arbitrio, sic vita aeterna juste meritoriè redditur operanti. Et dicitur corona justitiae, sicut ei debita est, pro talibus operibus meritorijs. Eis autem non est simpliciter debita, nec ex natura ipsorum, sed solùm ex gratuita ordinatione Dei, qui ex abundantia misericordiae suae, statuit tales actus vitâ aeternâ praemiare: propter quam statutam gratiae legem, sibi debita dicitur & justè retribui, & secundùm hanc considerationem, posset etiam dici stipendium bonorum operum vita aeterna. Ad quem intellectum loquitur etiam Augustinus in lib. de gratia, & lib. arbit. & tamen simpliciter gratis donatur, & vt ibi dicit Augustinus gratia pro gratia redditur. Vnde & glossa super illud Apostoli 2 ad Tim. 4. Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi: in reliquo reposita est mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die justus Iudex, &c. dicit, quod vita aeterna est gratia pro gratia. Et ideò sicut notat Augustinus super eisdem verbis 1. lib. ad Simplicianum, quamvis Apostolus dixerit reddet, quasi jam sit ex debito, cùm tamen ascendit in altum, scilicet Christus, captivavit captivitatem, non reddidit, sed dedit dona hominibus, volens per hoc Augustinus innuere, quod cum aeterna vita datur justis, non tam redditur quam donatur. Ex eodem sensu intelligendae sunt glossae, cùm justus dicitur retribuendo bona pro bonis, & misericors retribuendo bona pro malis, non quia non sit utrobique misericordia, sed quia magis apparet misericordia in dando bona pro malis, & in dando bona pro bonis generaliter loquendo, videtur quaedam justitia ratione conformitatis meriti ad praemium, in hac generali ratione, quia utrumque bonum est, in hac tamen speciali retributione utique misericordia est, vnde in glossa prius allegata sequitur immediate, & ipsa tamen justitia, quâ retribuuntur bona pro bonis, non est sine misericordia. Huic etiam concordat commune dictum doctorum dicentium, quod Deus praemiat ultra condignum, ergo vita aeterna non debetur ex condigno meritis nostris.

L. 2. d. 27. q. 2. item l. 1, d. 17. q. 2. Durandus clearely and fully agreeth with Scotus and Ariminensis, distinguishing merite of condignity, making it to be of two sorts. Quoddam est meritum de condigno largè sumpto, pro quadam dignitate quam Deus ex ordinatione requirit in operibus nostris, ad hoc vt remunerentur vita aeterna, & haec dignitas est in nobis per gratiam & charitatem habitualem. Aliud est meritum de condigno strictè & proprie accepto, & tale meritū est actio voluntaria, propter quam alicui merces debetur ex justitia, sic quod si non reddatur, ille ad quē pertinet reddere injuste facit, & est simpliciter & propriè injustus, & tale meritum de condigno invenitur inter homines, sed non est hominis ad Deum. Quod patet, quia quod redditur potius ex liberalitate dantis, quàm ex debito operis, non cadit sub merito de condigno stricte sumpto; sed quicquid à Deo accipimus, sive sit gratia, sive sit gloria, sive bonum temporale, vel spirituale, praecedente in nobis propter hoc quocun que bono opere; potius & principalius accipimus ex liberalitate Dei, quam reddatur ex debito operis; ergo nihil penitus cadit sub merito de condigno sic accepto. Facilius & minus est reddere aequivalens ejus quod quis accepit ab alio, quam eum constituere debitorem, sed nullus potest reddere Deo aequivalens; Deo & parentibus nemo potest reddere aequivalens secundum philosophum; ergo multo minus est possibile, quod ex quocun que nostro opere Deus fiat nobis debitor: All that we are and haue, whether good actions, good habits or good vse of things, it is all from the goodnes of God, ex dono gratuito nullus obligatur ad dandum amplius, sed potius recipiens magis obligatur danti, ideo ex bonis habitibus, & ex bonis actibus siue vsibus nobis à Deo datis, Deus non obligatur nobis ex aliquo debito justitiae, ad aliquid amplius dandum, ita quod si non dederit sit injustus, sed potius nos sumus Deo obligati: & sentire seu dicere oppositum est temerarium seu blasphemum. Ex hoc quod Deus dat quaedam non obligatur ad dandum alia, ita vt non dando sit injustus, & si quid pro bonis operibus nostris nobis datur vel redditur, potius & principalius est ex liberalitate Dei dantis, quā ex debito nostri operis. Quod si quis dicat quod quamvis Deus non constituatur nobis debitor ex aliquo nostro opere, constituitur tamen debitor ex suâ promissione. Non valet propter duo; Primum est quia promissio divina in scripturis sanctis, non sonat in aliquam obligationem, sed insinuat meram dispositionem liberalitatis divinae; Secundum est quia quod redditur, nō ex debito praecedentis operis, sed ex promissione praecedente, non quidem redditur ex merito operis de condigno; sed solum vel principaliter ex promisso. Sicut reddere justum preciū pro re acceptâ ab aliquo est actus justitiae, ita recompensare mercedem, vel praemium laboris nostri operis est actus justitiae. Et ideo in illis in quibus est simpliciter justum, etiam simpliciter ratio meriti & praemij seu mercedis; in quibus autem nō est simpliciter justum sed secundum quid, in his non est simpliciter ratio meriti, sed secundum quid: inter Deum autem & hominem, non potest esse justum simpliciter, sicut nec aequale, sed solum justum secundum quid, scilicet domina-, tivum, quia totum bonū qvod est hominis, est Dei & à Deo, & multo amplius quam actiones serui sint sui Domini in humanis, propter quod meritum hominis apud Deum, non potest esse meritum simpliciter de condigno, sed solum secundum praesuppositionem divinae ordinationis, ita scilicet vt homo id consequatur á Deo per suam operationem quasi praemium, ad quod Deus ei virtutem operandi deputavit. Et supra dicit; maximam esse inaequalitatem inter opus nostrum & vitam aeternam, nec valere quod quidam dicunt, quod sit quaedam aequalitas secundum quod ex gratiâ spiritus sancti procedit, & quod valor ejus attenditur secundum virtutem spiritus sancti moventis nos in vitam aeterternam. Bellar. de Iustific. l. 5. c. 16. Durandus videtur omnino velle merita nostra ex gratiâ Dei procedentia, & positâ promissione, adhuc non esse talia vt ijs ex justitiâ debeatur merces, sed ex solâ Dei liberalitate.

Thomas Waldensis tom. 3. de sacramentalibus c. 7. confuting this saying imputed to Wickliffe, Confidat homo in merito proprio, quia ad mensuram illius Deus necessario praemiabit, alleageth out of Aug: Deus non inveniret aliquid in hominibus nisi ad interitum, si cum ijs ageret per pondera meritorū. Super illud Ps. 94. Praeoccupemus faciē ejus in confessione. Quomodo distinguis, vota quae reddis Deo: vt eum laudes, te accuses, quia illius est misericordia, vt peccata nostra dimittat: nā si vellet pro meritis agere, non inveniret, nisi quos damnaret; haec Aug: Et cum illud obiiceretur 2 Tim. 4. Bonum certamen certaui, cursum consummaui &c: Quamvis bona opera recoluit, tamē non in eis confidit, qui soli Deo gloriā dedit. Et cum omnia faceret: non autē ego, inquit, sed gratia Dei mecum. Hanc item normam observat Psalmista cum dicit. Retribuet mihi Dominus Psal. 17. secundum iustitiam meam, & secundum innocentiam meā super me. sed his verbis praemisit: quoniam voluit me. Gratiam ergo voluntatis ejus prae •… umens, descendit ad innocentiam actionis. Et Cassiodorus: dicit Apostolus, De reliquo reposita est mihi corona justitiae &c: non qd suis aliquid meritis humilis applicabat, sed quia praemissis beneficijs domini, jam deberi posse praemium confidebat. Hoc non erat in meritis cōfidere, sed in beneficijs Domini. Et supra: Nec hoc dico quin accepta gratia fiduciā praestet orandi, sed omnino non oportet vt fiduciam in eâ constituat quisquam impetrandi. Hoc solum conferunt haec prima dona, ab eâ misericordiâ, quae tribuit haec, vt speremus & ampliora. And he addeth, Quantum mea sapit modicitas, haec ipsa determinatio scripturarum, quam sic ex Apostolo & Psalmistâ annotant sancti patres, congruentius jungeretur locutionibus de meritis hominum, quàm absolute diceretur quod homo ex meritis est dignus regno coelorū, aut hac gratiâ, vel illâ gloriâ: quamuis quidam Scholastici inuenerunt ad hoc dicendum, terminos de condigno & congruo. At Chrysostomus dicit, Quid dignum facimus in hoc seculo, vt participes domini nostri, in regnis coelestibus fieri mereamur? Ideo justè dicit Apostolus, Existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam. Reputo igitur saniorem theologum, fideliorē catholicum, & scripturis sanctis magis concordem, qui tale meritum simpliciter abnegat, & cū modificatione Apostoli & scripturarū, concedit quia simpliciter quis non meretur regnū coelorū, sed ex gratia Dei, aut voluntate largitoris. Sic enim dicit Apostolus, Non qd sufficiētes simus existimare aliquid à nobis: sed sufficiētia nostra ex Deo est. 2. Cor. 3. Haec locutio crebra esset in ore peritorum fidelium, vt Pelagianis qui gratiam Dei •… acent vel abnegant, & in meritis hominum omnino confidunt, ex parte gratiae Dei inueniremur esse discordes, sicut omnes sancti priores vs que ad recentes Scholasticos, & cōmunis scripsit ecclesia. Vnde in oratione Canonis ad Deum. Non aestimator meriti, sed veniae quaesumus largitor admitte &c: Feriâ quartâ passionis: Vt qui de meritorum qualitate diffidimus, non judicium tuum, sed misericordiā consequi mereamur. Et in secretâ oratione dominicae secudae advētus: Vbi nulla suppetūt suffragia meritorū, tuae nobis indulgentiae succurre praesidijs. Meritum nostrum in articulo minimè Deus attendit, siue rationem congrui, vel condigni, sed gratiam suam, aut voluntatem suam, aut misericordiam suam.

Paulus Burgensis in additione in Psalm. 35. Manifestum quod misericordia Dei maximè relucet in Coelo, vbi beati misericordiam Dei plenè consequuntur, vt in Math: 5. cujus ratio est, nam gloriam coelestem nullus de condigno secundum legem communem meretur. Vnde Apostolus ad Rom: 8. Non sunt condignae passiones &c: Epist. 19. Cassander sayth, he found it thus written by a certaine schoole-man in an old manuscript, Nota quod cum dicitur, Deus pro bonis meritis dabit vitam aeternam: pro, primo notat signum, vel viam, vel occasionem aliquam: sed si dicatur propter bona merita dabit vitam aeternam, propter, notat causam efficientem. Ideo non recipitur à quibusdam, sed hanc recipiunt, pro bonis meritis, & consimiles earum, assignantes differentiam inter pro & propter. Lib. 1. c. 39. Thomas Bradwardin in summa contra Pelagianos, Disputat meritum non esse causam aeterni praemij, cumque scriptura & doctores confirment, Deum praemiaturum bonos propter merita sua bona, propter non significare causam propriè, sed impropriè, vel causam cognoscendi, vel ordinem, vel denique dispositionem subjecti. Bernard: de gratiâ & libero arbitrio. Merita nostra sunt via regni non causa regnandi. Camaracensis in 4. quaest: 1: artic: 1. Quia causa est illud ad cujus esse sequitur aliquid. Dupliciter potest aliquid dici causa: vno modo propriè, quando ad praesentiam esse vnius, virtute ejus ex naturâ rei sequitur esse alterius, & sic ignis est causa caloris: alio modo impropriè, quando ad praesentiam esse vnius sequitur esse alterius, non tamen virtute ejus, nec ex natura rei, sed ex solâ voluntate alterius, & sic actus meritorius dicitur causa respectu praemij: (subdit autem) causa sine quâ non, non debet simpliciter & absolutè dici causa, quia propriè non est causa. And the same Cameracensis proueth at large, that there is no condigne meriting of eternall life.

Manipulus Curatorum, fol. 129. Quare melius dicimus, adveniat regnum tuum, quam dicamus adveniamus in regnum tuum? dico quod ad denotandū, quod gloria Paradisi non habetur ex propriis meritis, sed ex mera gratia Dei, iuxta verbum Apostoli dicentis, Non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos. Sed secundùm misericordiam salvos nos fecit, non autem dicimus, adveniamus, quia ut dictum est, ex meritis nostris non possumus ad illud venire, nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater meus traxerit illum, ut dicitur Ioan. Citatus ab Hosio conf. cathol. c. 73. tom. r. p. 286. Stephanus Brulepher l. 1. d. 17. following the opinion of Scotus, layeth down two propositions, the first, Nullus actus elicitus ex charitate, & secundùm inclinationem charitatis, quantum cunque bonus sit, est dignus vitâ aeternâ ex naturâ rei: probatur, Non sunt condignae passiones &c. Christus in Evangelio cum feceritis omnia, &c. Sed si homo faceret actus ex naturâ rei dignos aeterno praemio, non esset servus inutilis: the second, Omnis actus elicitus ab habente charitatem; & secundùm inclinationem charitatis, solum est dignus vitâ aeternâ, propter passivam acceptationem Dei. Quid sit autem acceptare, Scotus explicat ipse dicens, acceptare est velle aliquem secundùm dispositionem quam nunc habet, esse dignum tali praemio, quem prius non voluit esse dignum; verbi gratia, sit aliquis gravis peccator, non modo non dignus coelesti praemio, verumetiam dignissimus qui sempiterno supplicio afficiatur, convertatur is ad Deum, studeat eum placare jejuniis, orationibus, eleemosynis; quamvis haec omnia naturâ suâ non sint ejusmodi, ut sint coelesti praemio digna; tamen secundùm has dispositiones acceptat Deus hominem ex gratuita sua bonitate, & vult esse dignum tali praemio.

Anselm. Si homo mille annis serviret Deo etiam ferventissime, non mereretur ex condigno dimidium diem esse in regno coelorum, l. de mensurat. crucis. Apud. Hos. ib. Simon de Cassia, Neminem Deus nisi per misericordiam salvat, nec reprobat nisi justo judicio. Drogo l. de Sacramento dominicae passionis: Terra mentis nostrae est velut chaos quoddam, confusione teterrimum & involutum, ignorans tam sinem suum quam principium, & naturae suae modum, nisi quod a summo Creatore de nihilo mirabiliter factam se credit, & post hanc vitam, vel ad inferos pro suis meritis, vel ad coelos pro misericordiâ sui autoris transferendam. Citatus ab Hosio ibid. Rogerus Benedictinus scribens vitam Brunonis Archiepiscopi Colon. ante annos 500 sic orditur, sapientiae nimirum est scire, unde sit donum quod quis accipit, nè à se sibi hoc esse, aut à Deo quidem sed sibi debitum putet, si enim quaerimus quid nobis debeatur, nihil inveniemus nisi supplicium, misericordia autem Dei praerogauit nobis gratiam, ut haberet quibus redderet gratiam pro gratia, & hoc jam esset debitum, quia Deus voluit, non quiahomo meruit, quid enim habes, ait Apostolus, quod non accepisti, si autem accepisti quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis? Bernard, Sufficit ad meritum, scire quod non sufficiunt merita; in Cantica ser. 68. Et serm. 61. Meum proinde meritum miseratio domini: non plane sum meriti inops, quamdiu ille miserationum non fuerit; quod si misericordiae domini multae, multis nihilominus ego in meritis sum; quid enim si multorum sim mihi conscius delictorum? nempe vbi abundavit delictum, superabundavit & gratia. Et si misericordiae domini ab aeterno, & usque in aeternum, ego quoque misericordias domini in aeternum cantabo. Num quid justitias meas? Domine memorabor iustitiae tuae solius: ipsa est enim & mea, nempe factus es mihi tu justitia à Deo. & ser. 68. Merita habere cures, habita donata noveris, fructum speraveris Dei misericordiam, & omne periculum evasisti, paupertatis, ingratitudinis, praesumptionis. Haimo in ps. 131. Nemo debet de suis meritis praesumere, sed omnē salvationē ex Christi meritis expectare Hier. in Es. 64. Si nostra consideremus merita desperandū est, si tuā autem clementiā qui flagellas omnē filium quē recipis, audemus preces fundere, tu enim pater noster es. Orig. in 4. ad Ro. Cum considero sermonis eminentiam, quòd dicit, operanti secundum debitum reddi, vix mihi suadeo quod possit vllum opus esse, quod ex debito remunerationem Dei deposcat.

Theodoret: explicans illud Sophoniae vlt., Vae qui accepit super eam opprobrium, Hominum inquit salus ex solâ Dei misericordiâ pendet, neque enim hanc adipiscimur praemium & mercedem iustitiae, sed Dei bonitatis donum est. Explicans illud Psalmi 23. Hic accipiet benedictionem à Domino. Ingeniosè admodum misericordiam cum benedictione coniunxit. Etenim quae existimantur remunerationes, propte •… lam diuinam benignitatem hominibus praebentur. Omnes enim hominum iustitiae nihil sunt ad dona, quae â Deo nobis suppeditata sunt, nedum ad futura munera, quae omnem humanam cogitationem transcendunt. Basil: in Psal. explicans illud, Propter nomen tuum propitiaberis peccato meo. Ego te inquit oro vt propitius sis peccatis meis, non propter exactam meam poenitentiam, sed propter benignitatis nomen quod habes; explicans illum Psal. 142. locum Exaudi me in iustitiâ tuâ. Quid facuô homo? infra dicis non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens, & si iniquitates observaueris &c: & hic secundum iustitiam exaudiri petis? quid est igitur quod dicit? iustitiam hic benignitatem Dei dicit, & hoc multis in locis vider •… potest, & valde merito. Apud homines enim iustitia misericordiâ caret, apud Deum vero non ita, sed immixta est misericordiâ, atque ita immixta, vt ipsa iustitia benignitas vocetur. Chrysost: in Psal. 4. Etiamsi innumerabilia rectè fecerimus, á misericordiâ & clementiâ audimur, etiamsi ad ipsum fastigium virtutis pervenerimus, servamur á misericordia. Ambros: in Psal: 118. Semper homo etiamsi sanctus & iustus sic debet orare, vt exaudiat eum secundum misericordiam suam, non secundum meritum virtutis alicuius.

Hitherto I haue sufficiently proved, that both the latter Schoolemen & the more auncient fathers, reiected the merit of condignity; I will onely adde the testimony of a great learned man, that liued immediately before Luthers time, and the opinion of some of the best learned after his time, and so conclude this poynt. Gocchianus part: 3. c. 6. Aquinas scripto tertio in sent: d. 18. dicit actum charitate informatum, mereri vitam aeternam ex condigno, quia inter huiusmodi meritum & praemium, invenitur aequalitas secundum rectam aestimationem, & huiusmodi meritum innititur divinae iustitiae. Contra Paulus Rom. 4. si Abraham ex operibus &c: vbi dicit glossa Aug. in lib. de spiritu & litterâ, quod actus hominis quantumvis sit informatus charitate, tamen non potest esse tam perfectaeiustitiae, vt ex debito mereatur praemium beatitudinis aeternae, & examplificat de Apostolis, In multis offendimus omnes, & iterum, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus &c: Quis vestrum habens servum &c: docet suos quod ex operibus iustitiae de fide formatâ procedentibus, non debet expectari praemium aternae beatitudinis ex debito iustitiae, tanquam fecissent Deum sibi debitorem per huiusmodi. 1 Quia nihil vtilitatis Deo ex nostris operibus accrescit. 2 Quia quicquid facere possumus, ex debito servitutis debuimus; Attende servum tam in agro quam domo laborantem, & tamen à Domino suo ex debito iustitiae nec gratias merentem; Vt ex praemissis advertere potes, homo per quoscun que actus suos qualitercunque factos, mereri non potest, quia omnium operum suorum quae facere potest debitor est, & ideo ecclesia i •… fide Christi fundata innititur meritis Christi, & per ease credit & sperat saluari, ipse enim meruit nobis à peccatis & á diabolo liberationem, vitae iustificationem & glorificationem, vt in omnibus honorificetur Deus. 3 Ostendit idem Esaias, facti sumus vt immundi omnes nos, & quasi pannus menstruatae vniuersae iustitiae nostrae; Quae ergo proportio nostrorum bonorum operum, quae tam erunt judici abominabilia, & aeternae beatitudinis, quae tantae pulchritudinis & dulcedinis perfectione abundat?

Anno 1541. In the time of Charles the fifth and by his appointment, there was a conference betweene six learned diuines at Ratisbon, for the conposing of the differences in religion, whereof three were chosen for the Roman, and three for the reformed part; at which conference Cardinall Contarenus was present. At this conference the collocutors of both sides, agreed in all the poynts that concerne Iustification, composed the differences touching the same, and offered the forme of their agreement to the Emperour and the imperiall states. In this agreement they left out the matter of merit; which when some disliked, & there wanted not in Rome that tooke exception to their so doing; Cardinall Contarenus writeth to Cardinall Farnesius, and sheweth at large, that there is no merit properly so named, out of the grounds of Philosophie and Divinitie. And strongly proueth, that there is no merit of eternall life; because if there bee, then either men merit it before or after Iustification, not before, then enimies &c: not after, because to merit is to make that due that was not due before, whereas the happines of eternall life is due to the iustified, by the right of his iustification, so that the workes of the iustified doe not make the same newly due.

CHAP. 13.

Of workes of Supererogation and counsailes of perfection.

THe Papists imagine certaine degrees of morall goodnesse: the lowest whereof, who so attayneth not, doeth sinne, as not doing that the precept requireth; the higher, such as men are counselled vnto, if they will bee perfect, though not by any precept vrged therevnto; they that attaine to such height of vertue, are sayd by them to doe workes of supererogation. But De consilijs Evangelicis & statu perfectionis. Gerson sheweth, that these men erre, in that they discerne not betweene the matter of precepts and counsailes, imagining that the precept requireth the inferiour degrees of vertue, and the counsailes the more high and excellent: whereas the precept requireth all the actions of vertue in the best sort they can bee performed, and the counsailes are conversant in another matter, namely, in shewing vs the meanes whereby most easily, if all things bee answerable in the parties, men may attaine to the height of vertue. Herevnto agreeth In concordiā evangelicam, c. 100. Iansenius, alleaging the authority of Aquinas, secundâ secundae quaest. 184. Artic. 3. who affirmeth that the perfection of Christian life, consisteth essentially in keeping the commaundements: and of another, who sayth, that watchings, fastings, nakednesse, and forsaking all, are not Christian perfections, but the instruments of perfection, not the ends of Christian discipline, but the meanes whereby men doe oftentimes attaine to the height of vertue: so that as Gerson, and In sent. l. 3. d. 34. qu. 3. Paludanus doe shew, some men at sometime, and in some state of things, may attaine to as great height of perfection, liuing in marriage, and possessing much, as they that liue single, and giue away all they haue: Bellar. lib. 2. de Monachis. cap. 6. But the conceit of the Iesuites is, that the entring into a Monasticall life, wherein are implied the vowes of single life and voluntary pouerty, is essentially of so great merit, and acceptation with God, that it is a kinde of Baptisme freeing from all temporall punishments otherwise due for precedent sinnes.

CHAP. 14.

Of Election and Reprobation depending on the foresight of something in the parties elected or reiected.

WHy these or these men are predestinated or reprobated, Li. 1. d. 40. qu. 1. art. 2. Ariminensis saith, some yeeld a positiue reason, to wit, workes, or the well vsing of free will; others, a priuatiue, to wit, the not resisting against grace: against these opinions hee opposeth these conclusions; the first, that no man is predestinated, for that God foresaw hee would vse the liberty of his will aright; the second, that no man is predestinated, because God foresaw, he would not resist against his grace; the third, that whom God did predestinate, hee did freely, and onely of mercy predestinate them, according to the good pleasure of his will. See the diverse opinions touching Predestination formerly found in the Romane Church, in In 1 sent. q. 12 Cameracensis.

CHAP. 15.

Of the seuen Sacraments.

DVrandus L. 4. d. 26. q. 3. denyeth Matrimony to bee a Sacrament properly so named, and of the same nature with the rest, or to giue grace. L. 8. c. 5. Canus sayth, the Divines speake vncertainely of the matter and forme of Matrimony, and that they doe not certainely resolue, whether it giue grace or not. Part. 4. q. 5. memb. 2. art. 1. q. 5. memb. 3. art 2. q. 9. memb. 2. art. 2. Alexander of Hales sayth, that there are onely foure, which are in any sort properly to bee said Sacraments of the new Law, that the other three supposed Sacraments had their being long before, but receiued some addition by Christ manifested in the flesh, that amongst them which beganne with the new Covenant, onely Baptisme and the Eucharist were instituted immediatly by Christ, receiued their formes from him, and flowed out of his wounded side: whence it commeth, that water is the matter of Baptisme, and bread and wine of the Eucharist, without any other consecration, but that which they receiue from the words of Sacramentall forme: but the matter of the other two supposed Sacraments, requireth consecration, and hallowing, before it can bee the matter of those Sacraments, so that though the wordes of forme bee pronounced, they haue no vertue of Sacraments, but from precedent consecration: Whereby it appeareth, that they take their force from the prayers of the Church, by the Ministery whereof they were appointed, and not from the words of forme, as the other doe. Hence also it commeth, that they are variable both in their matter and forme. The Apostles, sayth Alexander of Hales, confirmed with the onely imposition of their hands without any certain forme of wordes or outward matter or Element, but afterward it was otherwise ordayned, both in respect of the one, and the other: the formes of Baptisme, and the Eucharist being appoynted by Christ, are kept inviolably without all change: but touching the wordes of forme to be vsed in any other of the supposed Sacraments, there is no certainty, but they are diversly and doubtfully desiuered. The reason whereof is, because they are of humane devising. By this which hath beene sayd, it may appeare, that the other pretended Sacraments are not of the same nature with Baptisme and the Eucharist, as euen De sacram. in genere l. 1. de definit. Sacram. c. 9. Bellarmin himselfe is forced to confesse: the sacred or holy things, sayth he, which the Sacraments of the new Law signifie, are threefold; the grace of Iustification, the Passion of Christ, and eternall life, as Thomas teacheth; touching Baptisme, and the Eucharist, the thing is most evident, concerning the other it is not so certaine.

CHAP. 16.

Of the being of one body in many places at the same time.

THE possibility of the being of one body in many places at the same time, was euer denyed by many worthy members of the Church, and consequently the locall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament, whether definitiue, or circumscriptiue, was likewise reiected, as a thing impossible. To affirme, sayth Quolib. 3. q. 1. art. 2. Aquinas, that one body may be locally in this place, and yet also in another at the same time, implyeth a contradiction: and therefore the power of God extendeth not to the effecting of any such thing. Lib. 4. dist. 10. quaest. 2. Scotus confesseth, that Egidius, Godfredus de font, Alanus, and Henricus, are of the same opinion with Thomas. Lib. 4. dist. 11. q. 1. &. 11. Durandus sayth, that which is present in one place definitiuely or circumscriptiuely, cannot in any such sort be in many places at the same time. Whervpon he pronounceth, that the body of Christ is no otherwise in the Sacrament, but by reason of a certaine habitudinary vnion betweene it, and the sacramentall elements: whence it was wont to be sayd, that Christs body is personaliter in verbo, localiter in coelo, sacramentaliter in Eucharistia: Personally in the eternall word, locally in heauen, sacramentally in the Eucharist. The first that taught otherwise, and brought in the locall presence, was Scotus, whom Li. 4. q 4. Occam followed, though he deny not, but the former opinion had great fauourers.

CHAP: 17.

Of Transubstantiation.

THe conuersion of the bread and wine into Christs body and blood, all of us, sayth In 3 part. qu. 75. art. 1. Caietane, do teach in words, but in deede many deny it, thinking nothing lesse. These are diuersly diuided one from another: for some by the Conuersion that is in the sacrament, vnderstand nothing but Indentity of place, that is, that the bread is therefore sayd to be made the body of Christ, because where the bread is, the body of Christ becomes present also; others vnderstand by the word Conuersion, nothing else but the order of succession, that is, that the body succeedeth, and is vnder the vailes of those accidents, vnder which the bread, which they thinke to be annihilated, was before. This opinion in substance Scotus followeth, though in the maner of his speech he seemeth to decline it. Some admit both the word and thing, but yet not wholy, but only in part, as Durandus. Lib. 4. dist. 11. qu. 2. Bonauentura sayth, that some seeing the accidents to remaine both in their being and operation, thinke the matter of the sacramentall element still remaineth; Other, the forme; but that the more Catholike or generall opinion is, that the whole substance of the elements is turned into Christs body and blood. We see, he maketh the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be but an opinion. Centilogij conclus. 39. Occam sayth, there are three opinions of Transubstantiation, of which, the first supposeth a couersion of the sacramentall elements; the second an annihilation; the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated into the body of Christ, that it is no way changed in substance, or substantially cōuerted into Christs body, or doth cease to bee, but onely that the body of Christ in euery part of it becomes present in euery part of the bread. This opinion he sayth, the Master of sentences mentioneth, not much disliking it; yet is it not commonly holden. 4. sent. q 6. Cameracensis sayth, that the more common opinion is, that the substance of bread doth not remaine, but wholly ceaseth; and that though this opinion be not euidently deduced from the scriptures, nor concluded out of any determination of the vniuersall Church for ought he can see, yet he is resolued to follow it. Tom. 2. de sacram. Eucharistiae, cap. 43. Waldensis sayth, hee found in a certaine old booke of decrees, that in the yeare 1049. there was a meeting of Archbishops, Bishoppes, and other religious persons in a Synode, and that when they were come together, they beganne to speake of the body and bloud of Christ, some saying one thing, some another; but that before the third day of meeting, they that denyed the substantiall conuersion of the sacramentall elements, were silent. Cap. 19. But in the same booke he reporteth out of Christopolitanus Zacharias, his booke intituled Quatuor vnum, that there were some, perhaps many, but hardly to be discerned and noted, that thought still, as Berengarius did, whom they then condemned, and yet condemned him with the rest, in this respect onely disliking him, for that refusing the forme of wordes the Church vsed, with the nakednesse of his maner of speaking, hee gaue offence, not following the vse of the Scriptures, which every where call things that are signes, by the names of things signifyed, especially in the matter of Sacraments, the more liuely to expresse their vertue and efficacie: these men ceased not to charge others secretly, that they knew not the nature of figuratiue speaches, & therefore not without grosse errour, killing the soule, tooke signes for the things, whereof they are signes; scorning not a little the folly, of them that say, the appearing accidents of bread and wine after the conuersion, doe hang in the ayre, or that the senses are deceiued. In the same place he sayth, that Guitmundus reporteth some other that were not of the faction of Berengarius, but with great vehementie, contrary and opposite vnto him, to haue beene of opinion, that the bread and wine in part are changed, and in part remaine; these supposed so much onely to bee changed, as is to serue for the communicating of the worthy receiuers: others thought the whole to be changed, but that when vnworthy men come to communicate, the body and blood of Christ cease to bee present, and the substances of bread and wine returne, and are there present to be receiued by them. But that it may yet more clearely appeare, that the opinion of Transubstantiation neuer passed currantly in the Church, let vs adde another testimony of the same Waldensis, Cap. 64: who sayth, that some supposed the conuersion that is in the Sacrament, to bee in that the bread and wine are assumpted into the vnity of Christs person: some thought it to be by way of Impanation: and some by way of figuratiue or Tropicall appellation. The first and second of these opinions, found the better entertainment in some mens mindes, because they graunt the essentiall presence of Christs body, and yet deny not the presence of the bread still remayning to sustaine the appearing accidents. These opinions hee reports to haue beene very acceptable to many, not without sighes, wishing the Church had decreed, that men should follow one of them; Wherevpon Iohn Paris writeth, that this way of Impanation so pleased Guido the Carmelite, sometimes Reader of the holy Palace, that hee professed, if hee had beene Pope, hee would haue prescribed and commaunded the imbracing of it. Neither was it lesse pleasing to many in Waldensis time, who, as hee sayth, did as it were wish in their hearts, it were free from them to defend it, and that a decree in the Church were passed in the favour of it.

CHAP. 18.

Touching or all Manducation.

ALexander 4. part. qu. 1 •… . memb. 2. art. 2. of Hales, and Lib. 4 sent. dist. 12. art. 3. qu. 1. Bonaventura doe teach, that no man can eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his blood, without faith: and that the eating of Christ is mysticall, not corporall, Bonaventura sheweth; for that whereas there are three things implied in corporall eating, to wit, a mastication or chewing, a traiection into the stomacke and bellie, and a conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater; this later, which is most essentiall in eating, cannot agree vnto the body of Christ, which is not turned into our substance, but rather in mysticall sort turneth vs into it selfe. It appeareth by that of Waldensis cited before, that many thought, the wicked doe not eate the flesh of Christ, seeing they supposed so much onely of the bread to be turned into the body of Christ, as is to be receiued by the beleeuers; or if all bee turned, that yet the body of Christ ceaseth to be in the Sacrament, when a wicked man is to receiue it, and that the bread returneth againe.

CHAP. 19.

Of the reall sacrificing of Christs body on the Altar, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and dead.

TOuching the reall sacrificing of Christs Body on the Altar, the Church neuer taught any such thing, as the Romanists now teach, as appeareth by these testimonyes following. Although, sayth In Canonem Missae lect. 85 Biel, Christ were once offered, when he appeared in our flesh, he is offred notwithstanding dayly hidden vnder the vailes of Bread & wine, not touching any of those things which import punishment or suffering (for Christ is not dayly wounded, he suffereth not, he dyeth not) but for two other causes, the consecration and receiuing of the holy Eucharist, may be named a sacrifice & oblation: first, because it is a representation and memoriall of the true sacrifice & holy oblation made on the Altar of the Crosse; secondly, because it maketh vs partakers of the effects of the same: now the resemblances of things, as Augustine noteth, writing to Simplicianus, are called by the names of those things whereof they are resemblances, as we are wont to say, when we behold a paynted table or wall, this is Cicero, this Salustius. Wherefore seeing the celebration of this sacrifice is a liuely resemblance of the Passion of Christ, which is the true sacrificing of him, it may rightly bee named the sacrificing of him. Peter Lombard, Thomas, and the other Schoolemen, sayth 2 Tom. contr. 3. l. 5. de Eucharistia qui est 1. de missa, c. 15. Bellarmine, were not carefull of that, which is now in question, touching the dayly renewed Reall sacrificing of Christ, but only sought to shew how the sacrifice of the Masse, may be called an offering of Christ, that is, a slaying of him; & therefore proposing the question, whether the Eucharist be a sacrifice, they answer, for the most part, that it may be sayde to bee an offering or sacrifice, because it hath a resemblance of the true and Reall offering which was on the Altar of the Crosse, and because it communicateth vnto vs the effects of the true and Reall killing of Christ.

CHAP. XX.

Of Remission of sinnes after this life.

THat Remission of sinnes after this life was not taught, nor beleeued in former times by the Church, appeareth by the judgement of these Divines who teach the contrary. The prayers of the liuing, sayth L. 1. dist. 45. quaest. 1. Durandus, may be vnderstood to benefit the dead two wayes: either in respect of remitting the fault, or diminishing or taking away the punishment: in the first sort, the prayers of the liuing cannot profit the dead, because either the sin, wherein they depart out of this life, is mortall, or veniall; if it be mortall, hee that so departeth is not capable of Remission: if veniall, he needes no helpe, because such remission of sinne consisteth in the ordering the will aright againe, whereby men rightly dislike, that they ill affected before: now the willes of them that depart hence in grace, & yet with veniall sinne, so soone as they are out of the body, are brought into due order, because, as weight and lightnesse, carry the things that are heavy or light, if there be no impediment, to their owne places; so Grace and Charity carry men going hence, to the possessing of eternall happinesse, so that all things hindering or staying, from the present enjoying thereof, are bitter and vnpleasant. Now because not onely punishments for mortall sinnes formerly committed, but also veniall sinnes, if any bee found in him that dyeth in state of grace, hinder from such desired enjoying, therefore they must needes bee disliked: in which dislike, the will is reordered againe, which in the liking of that it should not, was disordered, &c. The merites, sayth Lib. 4. dist. 21. quaest. 1. Scotus, of him that dyeth in charity, are a sufficient cause of the remission of veniall sinnes, neither is this cause hindred from working the proper effect thereof, in him that dyeth, as it often is, in him that liueth; for in him that liueth, there is a stop and hindrance, so long as hee remaineth actually in sinne; but after death there is no stop, because then a man committeth no sinne, and therefore by such merits sinnes are remitted: Whence it followeth, that in the instant of death, all veniall sinnes are remitted, to men dying in state of grace. Lib. 4. q. 15. mem. 3. art 3. Alexander of Hales maketh grace to be of three sorts; the first, that which is giuen in baptisme; the second, that which is found in men repenting of sinne committed after Baptisme; and the third, that which is in men departing hence, which he calleth finall grace: this last, he saith, taketh away all sinfullnesse out of the soule, because when the soule parteth from the body, all pronenesse to ill, and all perturbations which were found in it, by reason of the conjunction with the flesh, do cease, the powers thereof are quieted, and perfectly subjected to grace, and by that meanes all veniall sinnes remooued: soe that no veniall sinne is remitted after this life, but in that instant, wherein grace may be sayd to be finall grace, it hath full dominion and absolute command, and expelleth all sinne. Whereas therefore, the Master of sentences, and others do say, that some veniall sinnes are remitted after this life, we must soe vnderstand their sayings, that therefore they are sayd to be remitted after this life, because it being the same moment or instant, that doth continuate the time of life, and that after life, (so that the last instant of life, is the first after life) they being remitted and taken away in the very moment of dissolution, are sayd to be remitted after this life: for otherwise, the wills of men after death are vnchangeable, and there is no more place left for merit. Hereunto Dialog. lib. 4. c. 46. Gregory seemeth to agree, saying, that the very feare that is found in men dying, doth purge their soules going out of their body, from the lesser sinnes. Seeing therefore, as In Psal. qui habitat, •… er. 10. Bernard sayth, if all sinne be perfectly taken away, whi •… is the cause, the effect must needes cease, which is punishment: it followeth, that seeing after death, there is no sinne found in men dying in state of grace, there remaineth no punishment, and consequently no purgatory.

CHAP. 21.

Of Purgatory.

TOuching Purgatory, Bellarm. li. 2. de Purgatorio, cap. 11. whether they, that are to be purged, be purged by materiall fire, or by some other meanes, it is doubtfull: likewise Cap. 6. touching the place, the Roman Church hath defined nothing. Whereupon some thinke, that soules are purged, where they sinned, some in one place, some in another: neither is there any more certainty Cap. 9. touching the continuance of sinfull soules in their purgation. In dist. 19. qu. 3. art. 2. Dominicus â Soto thinketh, that no man continueth in this purgation ten yeares: his reason is, for that seeing, men may pacifie Gods wrath, by very short penance in this life, where they can neither endure any great extremity, nor are perfectly apprehensiue of smart & griefe, therefore much sooner in the other, where they may endure greater extremity, and are more apprehensiue of it; so that the extremity of their passion, may counteruaile long continuance in paine. This of Soto, if we grant to be true, saith Bellarmine, no soule needes stay in purging one houre: neither indeed cā he proue, that any doth, by Scripture, or Fathers, or any resolutiō of the Church, but only because they vse to pray for men departed a long time after their death; which doth no more proue, that they neede prayers so long as they are prayed for, then pardons for thousands of yeares proue Purgatory to continue so long; and by certaine visions, which sometimes Cap. 13. he regardeth not. For howsoeuer sundry visions reported by Beda, Dionysius Carthusianus, and in the first booke of the life of Bernard import, that the soules of men in Purgatorie are tormented by diuels, yet he thinketh that the children of God, ouercomming Satan in the last conflict, & being secure of their future state for euer, are neuer molested by Satan any more. Thus then we see, that notwithst •… ding any thing defined in the Church, the soules of men may be purged from all the drosse of sinnefull remainders, and freed from all punishments, in the very moment of dissolution, which is that wee say. Hereupon Li. 4. dist. 45. quaest: 1. Iohn Bacon sayth, there be some, who thinke that Purgatory after this life cannot be prooued by the authority of the Scripture, & that these do say, the bookes of Macchabees are not Canonicall, and that the Apostle, 1. Cor. 3. speaketh of that fire, that shall purge the elements of the world, in the last day: And touching that saying of Christ, of sinne, that shall neuer be remitted in this world, nor that to come, they say it prooueth not the remission of any sinnes in the other world, but that this forme of speaking is vsed, only for the better inforcing of that he intendeth to deliuer; as if a man should say to a barren woman, thou shalt neuer beare child, neither in this world nor in that which is to come.

CHAP. 22.

Of the Saints hearing of our prayers.

THat the Saints doe heare our prayers, or are acquainted with our particular wants, was neuer resolued in the Church of God. In canone •… missae, lect. 31. Biel sayth, that the Saints by that naturall, or euening knowledge, whereby they see and know things, as they are in themselues, do not know or discern our prayers, neither mentall nor vocall, by reason of the immoderate distance betweene them and vs: and touching that morning knowledge, whereby they see things in the eternall word, it no way pertaining to their essentiall felicity, to see and know our desires, and it being vncertaine, whether it appertaine to their accidentall happinesse, hee sayth, it is not certaine, but that it may seeme probable, that God revealeth vnto them all those suites, which men present vnto them. The Lib. 4. d. 45. Master of sentences sayth, it is not incredible, that the soules of the Saints, that delight in the secrets of Gods countinance, in beholding the same, see things that are done in the world below. De Sacram: lib: 2. cap. 11. Hugo de Sancto Victore leaueth it doubtfull whether the Saints do heare our prayers or not, and rejecteth that saying of Gregory, brought to proue that they do, Qui videt videntem omnia, videt omnia. The interlineall glosse vpon Esay 63. sayth Augustine, was of opinion, that the dead, though Saints, know not what the liuing, though they be their owne children, doe here in this world. Which appeareth to be true by his owne words, pronouncing, that if so great Patriarkes as was Abraham, knew not what befell to the people that came of them, it is no way likely that the dead, do intermeddle with the affaires of the liuing, either to know them, or to further, and set them forward: whereupon he concludes, that, for ought is knowne to the contrary, the Saints remaining only in heauen, and praying for vs only in generall, God by the ministery of Angels, or immediately by himselfe, without their particular intermedling, giueth vs the things we haue need of. In 4 sent. li. 3. tract. 8. cap. 5. quaest. 6. Willihelmus Altisiodorensis sayth, that many do thinke, that neither wee do properly pray to the Saints, nor they pray for vs in particular, but that improperly only we may be sayd to pray to them, in that wee desire God that the fauour which they finde with him, resting from their labours, and their workes being gone after them, may procure vs their brethren, acceptation likewise, whom they haue left behind them in the warfare of this world. Whereupon the prayers are, Adiuuent nos eorum merita &c. In the margent he sayth, that this was a common opinion in his time.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉
CHAP. 23.

Of the Superstition and Idolatry committed formerly in the worshipping of Images.

THat many in the Romane Church did see the abuse & superstition, that was in the vse of Images, appeareth by Picus Mirand. his Apology of his conclusion proposed in Rome, that neither the Crosse, nor any other image is to be worshipped with diuine worship; by Rational. divin l. 2. de picturis. Durand. blaming many things in the practise of the Church at that time, and by De defect. viror. Eccles. Gerson, disliking the honour then giuen to Images, their number and fashion, as being occasions of Idolatry in the simple; which to be true, the words of In Psal. 113. Augustine are proof sufficient, who demaundeth who it is, or where he may bee found, that adoreth or prayeth, beholding an Image, as the manner was in the Romane Church, & is not in such sort affected, that he perswadeth himselfe it heareth him, and is able and ready to grant him the things he desireth, and seeketh in his prayer.

CHAP. 24.

Of Absolution.

ABsolution is now supposed by those of the Church of Rome, to be a Sacramentall Acte, giuing grace, ex opere operato, and so remitting sinne, both quoad culpam & poenam: but in the Primitiue Church it was nothing else, but a restoring of men formerly put from the Sacrament, & cast out of the Church, to the Churches peace, and vse of the Sacraments again; as appeareth by Cyprians Epistles. Neither was Absolution giuen in those times till pennance were first performed. Amongst the ancient, sayth Panopliae l. 4. c. 70. Lindan, Absolution was seldome giuen, but after penance performed; onely in time of persecution, pestilence, warre, or dangerous sicknesse of the party, the manner was, sometimes to giue absolution presently at the suit of the penitent, & to require of him the performance of pennance afterward, if hee escaped those dangers. Hence in time it came, that ordinarily, they gaue Absolution first, and then imposed penance to be performed afterward, Now because they could not conceiue, from what this Absolution should free them, not being formerly subjected to any censure of the Church, some began to thinke, that it freeth them from the staine of sinne, and the punishments due vnto the same, thereby making it a Sacramentall Acte, yet so, as many retayned a right perswasion still. The Priest, saith Part. 4. q. 21. memb. 1. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 18. art. 2. q. 1. Alexander of Hales, is a Mediatour betweene God & man: to God he ascendeth, as an inferiour, by way of petition, and as a suiter; to man he descendeth, as a Commaunder and Iudge. In the first sort, hee obtayneth for men, by his prayer, and procureth acceptation with God: in the second, hee reconcileth them to the Church, his prayer obtayneth grace, his absolution presupposeth it, so that the Keyes of the Church extend to the remission of sin, by way of request obtayning it, not by way of authority giuing it.

CHAP. 25.

Of Indulgences and Pardons.

TOuching Indulgences or Pardons; they were originally nothing else, but the releasing of some part of that penance, that had beene enioyned, as appeareth by the whole course of antiquity. Wherevpon it was a long time, the opinion of many in the Romane Church, that Indulgences are of force, onely in indicio Ecclesiae, not in iudicio Dei: and that they free men only from injoyned penance, which the forme of them was wont to import, it being euer added in those relaxations, ab iniunctis poenitentiis; and Opusc. tom. 1. tract. 15. c. 1. 2. 3. Caietan sheweth the same, affirming, that an Indulgence is principally an acte of jurisdiction, and the freeing from enjoyned penance. That which bred another conceit in the Romane Church in later times, was an errour in practise: for whereas aunciently they neuer remitted any part of the penance they had enjoyned, but out of the consideration of the extraordinary signes of repentance, appearing in the penitent, arguing that to bee performed in shorter time, than was expected, which was intended; in later times they granted these relaxations and remissions in favour, when there was no inducement, in respect of any thing, appearing in the parties. Now because to free them from these penitentiall exercises, tending to the preventing of Gods Iudgements, before so much was performed, as was necessary for the turning away of his displeasure, might seeme hurtfull, rather than beneficiall to them, to whom such favours were shewed, in that they were left to Gods judgements, into whose hands it is fearefull to fall, they began to bethinke them, how they might supply the defects of penitentiall conversion vnto God, in those they thus pardoned, and not leaue them to the danger of his future judgement. This they could not otherwise devise to doe, but by casting the ouerplus of other mens satisfactions vpon them, and releeuing them out of the treasury of the Church: which groweth, as they suppose, out of the satisfactorie sufferings of Christ and his Saints, multis tamen doctoribus aduersantibus, as Opusc. tom 1. tract. 8 qu. 3. Caietan noteth; where hee sheweth, that Durandus teacheth, that the Saints had no superfluous merits, not rewarded in themselues. Touching Indulgences, In 4. dist. 20. quaest. 3. Durandus sayth, little can bee sayd of any certainety, or as vndoubtedly true, seeing the Scripture speaketh not expresly of them, neither the Fathers, as Augustine, Hillarie, Ambrose, Hierome, and the rest; so that in speaking of them, wee must follow the common course. Touching the force of these pardons, how vncertainly and vnconstantly their greatest doctours dispute, it is not vnknowne; for Bonaventura noteth, that many were of opinion, that pardons haue no other vse, nor haue any further force or vertue, but onely to remit certaine dayes penance, if the cause, in respect whereof they be granted, bee equivalent vnto the penance, which was to haue beene performed; so making them to bee, but onely a commutation of penance, and not a relaxation or remission. De indulgen. tijs consid. 2. Gerson sayth, the judiciall and publike power of the keyes extendeth not it selfe principally, or directly, to the diminishing or taking away of any punishments, but such, as it selfe inflicted, or might haue inflicted, as are the punishments of Excommunication, irregularity, and other disablings to performe Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall actes. And in Consid. 11. another place he sayth, the granting of Indulgences extendeth not it selfe to punishments, following the corruption of nature, and flowing from originall sinne; for it is certaine that the Pope doeth not absolue, and free men from thirst, hunger, infirmities and death; so that such absolutions extend only to the punishments aboue mētioned, & such as may be inflicted by the just Iudgment and prescription of him that imposeth penance for actuall sins. Whe ther the power of the Keyes extend only, to such as are on earth, or to them also that are in Purgatory, the opinions, hee sayth, of men are contrary & vncertaine: Consid. 8. but howsoeuer, this he pronounceth confidently, that onely Christ can giue such pardons for thousands of dayes and yeares as many Popes assume to themselues power to graunt.

CHAP. 26.

Of the Infallibility of the Popes judgment.

TOuching the infallibility of the Popes judgment: it was so farre from being a thing resolued of in the Church of God before our time, that Cont. 3. q. 4. Stapleton confesseth, it is yet no matter of faith, but of opinion onely; because so many famous and renowned Deuines, haue euer holden the contrary, as Gerson, Almaine, Occam, allmost all the Parisians, all they that thought the councell to be aboue the Pope, Adrianus Sextus, Durandus, Alfonsus à Castro: and many moe.

CHAP. 27.

Of the power of the Pope, in disposing the affaires of Princes and their states.

LAstly, Touching the power of the Pope, in disposing the affaires of Princes & their States, there were euer many worthy men, that opposed themselues against his vnjust and Antichristian claimes. There are some sayth Doctrinal. fidei, lib. 2. art 3. quaest. 78. Waldensis, that erre, supposing, that the roote of all terrene power, dependeth in such sort of the Pope, that it is deriued vnto Princes, by commission from him; and that if they abuse the same, hee may take the disposing of such affaires as belong vnto them, into his own hands. This they indeauour to proue, because the Ecclesiasticall power is more eminent and excellent than the power of Princes; but this their proofe is too weake: for let vt runne through all examples of things which are different in degree of excellencie, and one of them more worthy than another, wee shall see that the Sunne is better than the Moone, yet the power and vertue of moystening that is in the Moone, is not imparted to it from the Sunne; the soule is more excellent than the body: yet the body was before the soule came into it, and in it many workes of sense are performed, which the spirit by it selfe cannot performe; gold is better then leade, yet doth it not giue being vnto it: so that though it were granted, that Episcopall dignity is more high and eminent then the authority of Princes, yet the first spring of Regall power, is in the King from God, and not from the Pope. There is, sayth Waldensis, one doctor Adam, a Cardinall, who in a dialogue betweene a Bishoppe and a King, indeauoureth altogether to deriue the authority of Kings from the Papall power, both in the being and excercise of it, and reserueth onely a power of execution to Princes, at the commaund of the high bishop: this errour hee condemneth, and sayth, that howsoeuer the solemnities of the oath, vnction, crowning, and the like are performed to Kings by Bishoppes, yet hath not kingly dignity her beginning from Priesthood, but by the ministery of Priests, Kings receiue it from God, and are put in possession of it. Fawning and deceitfull flattery, sayth De potestate ecclesiastica cnosid. 12. Gerson, whispereth in the eares of Ecclesiasticall persons, especially of the Pope, in shamelesse manner saying vnto them, O sacred Clergie, how great, how great is the height and sublimity of thy Ecclesiasticall power! how is all secular authority, compared thereunto, altogether nothing! For as all power in heauen and earth was giuen to Christ, soe Christ left it all to Peter, and his Successours: soe that Constantine the Emperour gaue nothing to Pope Syluester, that was not his before, but onely restored that which had bin vnjustly detayned: besides, as there is no power but of God, so is there none, whether Temporall or Ecclesiasticall, Imperiall or Regall but from the Pope, in whose thigh CHRIST hath written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: of whose power to dispute, is sacrilegious boldnesse, to whom no man may say, Sir, why doe you so? though he alter, over-turne, waste and confound all States, Rules, Dominions, and Possessions of men, whether Ciuill, or Ecclesiasticall; let me be judged a Lyar, saith he, if these things bee not found written, by them that seeme wise in their owne eyes, and if some Popes haue not giuen credit to such lying and flattering wordes. Nay, I am greatly deceiued, if before the holding of the sacred Synode of Constance, this tradition did not so farre forth possesse the mindes of very many men, rather literall then literate, that whosoeuer should haue taught the contrary, should haue beene noted and condemned for heresie.

THE FOVRTH BOOK, OF THE PRIVILEDGES OF THE CHVRCH.
CHAP. 1.

Of the divers kindes of the priviledges of the Church, and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church.

NOw it remayneth, that wee proceede to the other parts of our first generall diuision, to wit, the priviledges that pertaine to the Church, & the diverse and different degrees, orders, and callings of them, to whom the gouernement of it is committed. The priviledges, that pertaine to the Church, are of two sorts: The first, proper to the best, and most essentiall parts of it, to wit, the elect and chosen of God; as are the promises and assurances of euerlasting loue and happinesse: the second, such as are communicable vnto others, not partaking in that highest degree of vnitie, the partes of the Church haue amongst themselues, or with Christ their head. These are specially foure: the first, the possession of the rich treasure of heauenly trueth; whence it is called by Contra haereses l 3. c. 4. Irenaeus Depositoriū diues; & by the 1 Timothy, 3. 15. Apostle, the pillar and ground of truth. The second is the office of teaching and witnessing the same truth. The third, the authority to iudge of such differences, as arise amongst men, concerning any part of it. The fourth, is power to make lawes, for the better guiding & gouerning of them, that professe this truth.

Touching the first, that wee may the better vnderstand, in what degree and sort, and vpon what assurances, the Church is possessed of the knowledge and profession of the truth reuealed in Christ; wee must obserue the diverse acceptions of the name of Church: for accordingly, more or lesse in this kinde is attributed to it, and verified of it. The Romanistes make the Church to bee of three sorts. For there is (as they say,) Ecclesia virtualis, repraesentativa, & essentialis. By the name of virtuall Church, they vnderstand the Bishoppe of Rome, who, being by Christes appointment (as they suppose) chiefe Pastor of the whole Church, hath in himselfe, eminently and virtually, as great certainty of truth, & infallibility of iudgement, as is in the whole Church, vpon whom dependeth all that certainety of truth, that is found in it. By the name of representatiue Church, they vnderstand the assembly of Bishops in a generall Councell, representing the whole body of the Church, from the seuerall parts whereof they come. By the name of the essentiall Church, they vnderstand the whole multitude of the beleeuers.

This essentiall Church, either comprehendeth all the faithfull, that are and haue beene, since CHRIST appeared in the flesh; or all that are, and haue beene since the Apostles time; or onely those that now presently liue in the world.

CHAP. 2.

Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church.

IF we speake of the Church, as it comprehendeth the whole number of beleeuers, that are, and haue beene, since CHRIST appeared in the flesh, it is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of Diuine things, that are to be knowne by revelation, Quid enim latuit Petrum, &c. For, as Tertullian sayth rightly and aptly to this purpose, What was hidden and concealed from Peter, vpon whom Christ promised to build his Church, and to whom hee gaue a Lib. de praescript adversus haereticos. the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen? from Iohn the Disciple hee so dearely loued, which leaned on his breast at the mysticall Supper? and the rest of that blessed company? that should after bee manifested to succeeding generations? so that touching the Church taken in this sort: there is no question, but it is absolutely led into the knowledge of all truth, without any mixture of ignorance, errour, or danger of being deceiued.

Let vs come therefore to the second acception of the name of the Church, as it comprehendeth onely all those beleeuers, that are, and haue beene since the Apostles time. The whole Church, taken in this sort, may bee ignorant in sundry things, which though they bee contained within the compasse of revealed truth, yet are not of necessitie to be expressely knowne by all that will be saued: but that the whole Church in this sort conceiued, should erre in any thing of this nature, it is impossible; seeing errour, which is an aberration, declining, or swaruing from the truth once deliuered, necessarily implyeth a kinde of particularity and novelty.

Neither onely is the whole Church (comprehending all the beleeuers that are, and haue beene since the Apostles time) freed from errour in matter of faith; But wee thinke it impossible also that any errour, whatsoeuer, should be found in all the Pastors and guides of the Church, thus generally taken. Secondly, though there may be some question, whether any errour may be found in all them, whose writings now remaine, yet because they haue all written of nothing, but that which is absolutely necessary to bee knowne, for the attayning of euerlasting saluation, and that was euer generally receiued, it is not possible they should all be convinced of errour. Thirdly, though all, whose writings remaine, haue not written of a thing; yet if all that mention it, doe constantly consent in it, and their consent be strengthened by vniuersall practise, wee dare not charge them with errour. Yea, though their consent be not strengthened by such practise, if it be concerning things expressed in the Word of trueth, or by necessary and evident deduction to be demonstrated from thence, we thinke no errour can be found in all them, that speake of things of that nature, if in euery age of the Church some be found to haue written of them. Eorum quae dul 〈◊〉 esse possunt circa fidem, quaedam sunt quae ex Scripturis divinis deductione infallibili inferri p •… ssunt: quaedam, quae non possunt: quemadmodum per beatum Hieronymum beatam Virginem esse corporaliter in coelo, ex scripturis certitudinaliter haberi non potest: sicut etiam •… c quod 〈◊〉 , de quibus dicitur Math. 27. multa corpora sanctorum surrexeru •… t cum eo, &c. corporaliter ascenderint in coelum nec quod corporaliter non ascenderint infallibiter deduci non potest ex scripturis divinis. Occam. lib. 3. 1. •… ractat 3. part. cap. 10. But in things that cannot be clearely deduced from the rule of faith, and word of diuine and heauenly trueth, wee thinke it possible, that all that haue written of such things, might erre and be deceiued.

This matter is excellently handled by Pererius in Genesim. lib. 7. q. 7. Cornelius Iansenius cap. 14 •… . concordiae Euangelicae. Bellarm. de gratiâ 1. hominis li. 1. c. 12, 14. ostendit neminem ex veteribus dicere paradisum perijsse, & omnes qui de eo scripserunt, affirmar •… adhuc superesse; & tamen aliter sentire Pererium Eugubinum, Iansenium, Hieron. ab Oleastro & Vatablum. Pererius, Augustinus Eugubinus, Cornelius Iansenius, & Hieronymus ab Oleastro: who hold it probable, that Paradise doth not remaine in originall beauty, notwithstanding the consent of all the auncient (that haue written of that matter) to the contrary. Soe likewise, Caietan: in proaem. comm: in Genes. Caietaine and Andradius de script: sacrae & traditionum authoritate. li. 2. fol. 257. 260. Andradius professe, they dare goe against the torrent of all the Doctours, and dissent from them, in the interpretation of some parts of Scripture.

Bellarm. de gra. prim: hominis lib. 1. cap. 14. Bellarmine blameth Pererius, Eugubinus, and the rest, for that they durst imbrace an opinion contrary to the iudgment of antiquity: yet doth hee not fasten vpon them any note of heresie, or sauouring of heresie.

Touching the Church, as it cōprehendeth only the belieuers that now are, & presently liue in the world, it is most certaine & agreed vpon, that in things necessary to be known & belieued expressely and distinctly, it neuer is ignorant, much lesse doth erre. Yea, in things that are not absolutely necessary to be knowen & belieued expressely & distinctly, we cōstantly belieue, that this Church can neuer erre, nor doubt pertinaciously, but that there shall euer be some found ready to imbrace the truth, if it be manifested vnto them, and such as shall not wholly neglect the search and inquiry after it, as times and meanes giue leaue.

As therefore wee hold it impossible, the Church should euer by Apostasie and missebeliefe wholly depart from God (in prouing whereof, Bellar. de ecclesia militante lib. 3. c. 13. Bellarmine confesseth, his fellowes haue taken much needlesse paines, seeing no man of our profession thinketh any such thing;) so we hold that it neuer falleth into any heresie: so that he is as much to be blamed, for idle & needeles busying himselfe, in prouing that the visible Church never falleth into heresie, which we most willingly grant. g Occam dialog. 1. part. lib. 3. cap. 28.

CHAP: 3.

Of the meaning of certaine speeches of Caluine, touching the erring of the Church.

THat Bellar. de ecclesia militant, l. 3. c. 13. which he alleageth out of Caluine, and others, as if they supposed the true Church to be sometimes altogether inuisible, and that the outward profession of the trueth doth sometimes wholly faile, is to no purpose; for they meane not that it is wholly inuisible at any time, but that it is not alwayes to be esteemed by outward appearance; that sometimes the state of things is such, that the greatest, in place of Ministery in the Church, peruert all things; & that they, that defend the truth, make thēselues a reproach.

To this purpose, Dialog. part. 1. li. 5. cap. 28. Occam hath diuerse excellent things out of Hierome: and Con •… : profanas haer: nouitates. Vincentius Lirinensis sheweth, that the poisoned doctrine of the Arians did infect, not onely a part, but almost the whole Church: soe that almost all the Bishops of the Latine Church were misseled, and fewe found to defend and maintaine the truth, as beseemed them.

There are therefore foure things, Caluin. instit l. 4. c. 8. sect. 11. 12. cited by Bel. de militante ecclesia lib. 3. cap. 14. which Caluin sayth. The first, that the Church may not so farre presume of the assistance of the spirit of truth, as that she may deuise newe articles of faith; and, without the certaine direction of the word of God, proceede in the determination of doubts in matters of religion. The second that she must not relie vpon traditions, & a pretended vnwritten word, but must cōtain her selfe within the compasse of that heauenly doctrine, which is comprehended in the scripture. The 3d, that so containing her selfe she connot erre. The 4th, that we haue no assurance, that Church shall alwaies so precisely follow the directions of the word of truth, as that she shall neuer erre; but soe farrefoorth only, that she shall euer be free from all errour in things necessary to saluation, and such things that men cannot be ignorant of, to erre in, without pertinacy, or ouer-grosse and damnable negligence; yea, that shee is secured from erring in any thing, with hereticall pertinacy.

This last part of Calvins speach it is, that the Iesuite disliketh, that he sayth, The Church is not absolutely freed from errour, but from some kinde of errour onely. Yet Melchior Canus de auctorirate ecclesiae Catholicae, li. 4. c. 2. Picus theoremate 4. ecclesia vniuersalis in ijs quae pertinent ad substantiam fide •… errare non potest: in alijs potest, vt ostendit Thomas &c. Melchior Canus confesseth, that sundry great Diuines seeme to be of this opinion: as the Authour of the Interlineall glosse; Thomas Aquinas, Cardinall Turricremata, and Alfonsus á Castro; Yea, Picus Mirand •… la in his theoremes is of the same opinion, confirming it by the authority of Aquinas, who thinketh, that the Church may erre in Canonizing of Saints, and proposing such to be honoured, whom God rejecteth from his presence, as vessels of his wrath.

Notwithstanding, the Bellarm. de eccle sia militante. l. 3. c. 14. Romanists at this day seeme to hold, that the whole Church, that presently is in the world, cannot erre in any thing, that either concerneth faith or manners, which they endevour to proue by these reasons.

CHAP. 4.

Of their reasons, who thinke the present Church free from all errour in matters of faith.

FIrst, for that it is the pillar and ground of trueth: secondly, for that it is guided by Christ her head, and spouse: and thirdly, because it is led by the spirit of trueth. These reasons will be found exceeding weake, if we examine them. Let vs therefore take a particular view of them.

1 Tim. 3. 15. First the Apostle (say they) calleth the Church the Pillar and ground of trueth; therefore it cannot erre. These wordes cannot proue that, for confirmation whereof our aduersaries alleage them; seeing hee speaketh in this place of a particular Church, to wit, the Church of the Ephesians, in which hee left Timotheus, when he departed from it. Now, that particular Churches may erre in matter of fayth, and become hereticall, our adversaries make no question.

That the Apostle speaketh of the Church of Ephesus, and calleth it The pillar and ground of trueth, it appeareth by all circumstances of the place. These things haue I written, sayth hee, hoping to come shortly vnto thee; but if I tarrie longer, that thou mayest know, how to behaue thy selfe, in the house of God. That house of God, in which Paul left Timothie, in which he directeth him, how to behaue himselfe till hee come, he calleth The Church of God, and Pillar of truth; that Timothie might bethinke him the better, how to demeane himselfe in the government of it.

The Church of God is named the Pillar of trueth; not, as if the truth did depend on the Church; or, as if God could not otherwise man fest it, than by her Ministery; or, that our fayth should be built on the authority of it; or, that we should thinke it absolutely free from all ignorance and errour: but because it doth strongly hold and maintaine the sauing profession of the truth, notwithstanding all the violence of wicked and cruell enemies, as both the Ordinary glosse, and that of Lyra doe interpret it; and for that by instructions, admonitions and comforts, it strengtheneth, stayeth, and supporteth such as otherwise would fall, as the Interlineall glosse seemeth to expresse it. So then the Church is The pillar of trueth, not, because it is absolutely free from all errour, or, that our faith should be builded vpon the infallibility of it; but because it alway retayneth a saving profession of heauenly trueth, and by strength of reasons, force of perswasions, timelinesse of admonitions, comforts of Sacraments, and other meanes of sauing grace, (The powerfull force whereof the sonnes of God doe feele) it strengtheneth and stayeth the weakenesse of all them, that depend vpon it.

This is it, that Calvine meaneth, when hee sayth the Church is called, The pillar of trueth, because it firmely holdeth the profession of it, and strengtheneth others by the knowledge of it. Bellarmines cavill, that, if this were all, the Church might more fitly be compared to a chest, than a Pillar, is not worth the answering: for it doth not onely preserue the trueth as a hidden treasure, but by publique profession (notwithstanding all forces endeavouring to shake it) publisheth it vnto the world, & stayeth the weakenesse of others, by the knowledge of it; in which respect it is fitly compared to a Pillar, and not vnto an Arke or chest:

The second reason is much more weake than the former. For thus they argue: The Church is governed by Christ, as by her head and spouse; and by the spirit, as by the soule and fountaine of her life; therefore if shee erre, her errour must be imputed vnto Christ, and to the spirit of trueth. This their consequence is blasphemous and impious. For who knoweth not, that particular men, companies of men, and Churches are governed by Christ, as by their head and spouse, & by the spirit of trueth, as being the fountaine of their spirituall life; as the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and the Revel. 〈◊〉 . 12. Churches mentioned in the Revelation of S. Iohn, called golden Candle stickes, in the midst whereof the Sonne of God did walke, yet had they their dangerous and grievous errours, and defaults, for which they were blamed; so that by the argument of our adversaries men may blame the spirit of trueth for their errours.

That which the Iesuite addeth, that Christ the husband of the Church is bound to free it from all errour in matter of faith, whence any great euill may ensue, is as childish an argument, as may be devised. For if great and grievous euils may be found in the Church, then, notwithstanding this argument, errours also. Now that the Church is subject to great & grieuous euils, he that maketh any questiō, seemeth to know nothing at all. As therfore God giueth that grace, whereby the children of the Church may avoyde great and grievous euils, and neuer with-draweth the same, but for punishment of former sinne, and contempt of grace: so he giueth the gracious meanes of illumination, and neuer withdraweth the meanes of knowledge, but when the contempt of the light of knowledge, and the abusing of it, procure the same. So that the sinnes and errours of the children of the Church, proceede from themselues, and not from any defect, or want of Christ, the husband of the Church.

The third reason is, he that heareth not the Church, must bee holden for an Ethnike, therefore it cannot erre. See the same proued at large by Erastus, writing of the Presby teries and excommunications, and by Doctor Bilson now B. of Winch in his booke of the perpetuall gouernment of the Church c. 4. But they should know, that Christ speaketh in that place of the Sanedrim of the Iewes, which whosoeuer refused to obey, they held him as an Ethnicke. Yet was not that great Councell of State, among the Iewes, free from danger of erring. If these wordes of our Saviour be applyed to the Church, as they are ordinarily by the Fathers, they must be vnderstood by the censures of the Church, which are not alwayes just and righteous, De vera religione c. 6. as Augustine sheweth, and not of her doctrinall determination.

But, saith Bellarmine, the Councels were wont to denounce Anathema to all that obey not their decrees: therefore they thought they could not erre. To this we answere, that they denounce Anathema, not because they thinke euery one that disobeyeth the decree of the Councell to bee accursed, but because they are perswaded in particular, that this is the eternall truth of God, which they propose, therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist, as Gal. 1. Paul willeth euery Christian man, to Anathematize an Angell comming from Heauen, if he shall teach him any other doctrine, then he hath already learned, yet is not euery particular Christian, free from possibility of erring.

The other argument, that because the Church is holy, and her profession holy, therefore shee cannot erre, will proue as well, that particular Churches cannot erre, as the vniversall. If they say, the vniversall Church is holy, and the profession of it holy, in such adegree as freeth it from error, it is petitio principii.

Their next argument is, that if the Church be not free generally from erring, but only from erring in things necessary to saluation, many Catholike verities may be called in question & doubted of: for that there are many things that pertaine to faith, which are not necessary to saluation. This argument holdeth not: for though the Church which comprehendeth onely the number of beleeuers, that are at one time in the world, may erre, yet haue men other meanes to finde out the truth, as namely, the Scriptures, and resolutions of former times, which whosoeuer findeth, is bound to beleeue, though the rest of the Church not finding them, may in the mercies of God be saued.

That which is alleaged out of the Fathers, is to no purpose: for they speake of the Church, as it comprehendeth the faithfull that are, and haue been, which we confesse cannot erre in matters of faith.

CHAP. 5.

Of the promises made vnto the Church, how it is secured from errour, and of the different degrees of the obedience, we owe vnto it.

THe right vnderstanding of the promisses made, and due consideration of the parties to whom they are made, will leade vs to the right vnderstanding of the Churches infallibility, and assurance of truth. For, seeing, though they be made to all the faithfull generally, and to the particular Churches as well as to the whole, yet they are vnderstood to bee performed proportionably, according to the measure, and degree, of each part, but to the whole Church wholly, and entirely; the Church being particular, not onely in respect of place, but also of time, the whole is not necessary to be performed, to the Church of one time, (vnlesse wee speake of the Primitiue, wherein the whole was originally) but to the Church that comprehendeth the whole number of beleeuers, that are and haue beene: in which sense that promise is to bee vnderstood, Ioh. 16. 13. that the spirit shall leade the Church into all trueth.

Hither wee may refer, those different degrees of obedience, which wee must yeeld to them, that commaund and teach vs, in the Church of God, excellently described, and set downe, by W •… ldensis doctrinal. fidei lib. 2. art. 2. cap. 27. Waldensis. We must, sayth he, reuerence, and respect, the authority of all Catholike Doctours, whose doctrine and writings the Church alloweth: wee must more regard the authority of Catholicke Bishops: more then these, the authority of the Apostolicke Churches; amongst them, more specially the Church of Rome; of a generall Councell, more thē all these: yet we must not listen so to the determinations of these, nor so certainly assent vnto thē, as to the things cōtained in the Scripture, or beleeued by the whole vniuersall Church, that hath bin euer since the Apostles time, but as to the instructiōs of our Elders, & fatherly admonitiōs. We must, sayth he, obey without scrupulous questioning, with all modesty of minde, and reuerence of body, with all good allowance, acceptation and repose in the words of them that teach us, vnlesse they teach us any thing, which the authority of the higher and superiour controlleth; yet so as then the humble, and obedient children of the Church, must not insolently insult vpon them, from whom they are forced to dissent, but must dissent with a reuerent, childe-like, and respectfull shamefastnesse.

Thus hee prooueth out of Lib. 2 de baptismo, contra Donatistas c. 3. Augustine, Tom: 7. lib. 2. De baptismo contra Donatistas. Who knoweth not, (sayth S. Augustine) that the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures of the old and new Testaments, are contained within their set & certaine boundes; and that they are so, & in such sort, set in a higher degree of authority, then any of the writings of the succeding Bishops, that of them we may not doubt nor make any question, whether it be true or right, that is there contained: but the writings of the Bishops of the Church, which either haue beene published since the perfecting of the Canon of Scripture, or which shall be hereafter, may be censured and reproued, by the wiser judgment of any, that are skilfull in the same things, whereof they write; or by the grauer authority of other Bishops, and the wisdome of them that are learned themselues, and able to teach others: and by the determinations of Councels, if happily they haue gone aside from the truth; And the Councels themselues, which are holden in seuerall Countries and Prouinces, must giue place to the authority of generall councels, gathered & assembled out of the whole Christian World: & of plenary Councels, oftentimes, the former are to be corrected by the later, when by experience, & more perfect knowledge of things, that which was shut, is opened, and that knowne which was hidden before. Euery of these must be content to yeeld one to another, without the puffe of sacrilegious pride, without swelling arrogancie, without euious contending, with all holy humility, with all Catholike peaceable disposition, and Christian charity.

Thus then we thinke, that particular men and Churches may erre damnably, because notwithstanding, others may worship God aright, but that the whole Church, at one time, cannot so erre; for that then, the Church should cease vtterly for a time, and so not be Catholicke, being not at all times; and Christ should somtimes be without a Church; yet, that errours, not preiudicing the saluation of them that erre, may be found in the Church that is at one time in the world, we make no doubt; only the whole symbolicall and catholike Church, which is, and was, beeing wholly free from errour.

Thus touching the possession of the rich treasures of heauenly truth, I haue sufficiently cleared our iudgment, which is the same, that all wise and learned men haue euer beene of, to wit, that the Church which comprehendeth the whole number of belieuers, that are and haue beene, since Christ appeared in the flesh, (so including the Apostles) can neither erre in, nor be ignorant of any thing that was to be reuealed by Christ, the eternall Word and Angell of the great Couenant of God. Secondly, that the Church, that comprehendeth all the faithfull that are and haue beene since the Apostles, may be ignorant of some things, which in processe of time shall be known, but cannot erre in any thing. Thirdly, that all the Pastours of this Church, cannot erre. Fourthly, that all the Pastors, that haue committed the treasure of their wisdome & learning to writing, cannot erre in any thing wherein they consent in their writings: because it is not possible, that they should all haue writen of any thing, but such as touch the very life of the Christian faith generally receiued in all their times. Fiftly, that it is not possible, that all that doe speake of a thing, consenting together, should erre, if it be a matter of substance, and if in euery age some haue written of it, though many that haue written, be silent and say nothing of it. Sixtly, that the most famous & renowned in all ages, consenting in any thing, that toucheth the substance of the Christian faith, & no man dissenting from them, (without note of nouelty & singularity,) may not without intolerable rashnesse, be charged with errour. Vincentius Lirinensis sayth, if heresies be inueterate, and so haue time and means to corrupt the monuments of antiquity, for the confutation of them, we must flee to the Scriptures only. Soe did Luther and the rest in the beginning, seeming to decline the triall by the Fathers, because the corruptions of their writings were so many, as could not easily be discouered at the first: but now hauing found out by the helpe of so many learned men, both of our aduersaries, and amongst our selues, that haue trauelled in that kind, which are their vndoubted workes, and which doubtfull or vndoubtedly forged, wee willingly admit the triall by the Fathers. Seuenthly, that though the writings of the auncient may be much corrupted, so that the cōsent of antiquity cānot alwaies be easily known, yet there will be euer some meanes to find it out, & to discry the errours, and frauds of the corruptors: & so I vnderstād that of Vincentius Lirinensis, that the iudgmēt of antiquity is to be sought out, at the very first rising of heresies & not afterwards when they are grown inveterate; for that then they will corrupt the monuments of antiquity. 8, That the whole present Church may be ignorant of some things, and erre in them; but that in matters necessary to bee knowne and beleeued expressely, it cannot erre, and that it cannot erre in any the least thing, with pertinacie, such and so great as is found in Heretickes. Ninthly, that Councels and Popes, may erre in matters of greatest consequence.

This our opinion thus layde downe, is defended by Waldensis, Occam, and others. Waldensis doctrin. fidei l. 2. art. 2. cap. 19. ibidem certiores iudices esse dicit in causa fidei patres successivè, quàm Synodum Antisti •… um generalem, & cap. 20 ait Gregorium non comparare 4. concilia scripturis, sed similitudinem quandam insinuate, sicut Christus in Evangelio, Volo ut sitis perfecti sicut pater vester. Waldensis saith, the Church, whose faith neuer faileth, according to the promise made to Peter, who bare the figure of the Church, when Christ said, I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not, is not any particular Church, as the Church of Africa, within the bounds whereof Donatus did inclose it: nor the particular Romane Church, but the vniversall Church, not gathered together in a generall Councell, which hath sometimes erred, as that at Ariminium vnder Taurus the Governour, and that at Constantinople vnder Iustinian the younger, but it is the Catholique Church, dispersed through the whole world, from the Baptisme of Christ vnto our times, which doth holde and maintaine the true faith, and the faithfull testimony of Iesus.

CHAP. 6.

Of the Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth; and of their errour, who thinke the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith, and that shee may make new articles of our faith.

THus hauing spoken of the Churches assured possession of the knowledge of the truth, in thenext place wee are to speake of her office of teaching, & witnessing the same: touching the which, our adversaries fall into two dangerous errours: the first, that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei, & ratio credendi, the rule of our faith, & the reason why we belieue. The second, that the Church may make new articles of faith.

Touching the first of these erroneous conceipts, the most of them doe teach, that the last thing to which the perswasion of our faith resolueth it selfe, & the maine ground whereupon it stayeth, is the authoritie of the Church guided by the spirit of truth. For (say they) if infidels and misbeleeuers demaund of vs, why we beleeue the Trinity of persons in the Vnity of the same Divine essence, the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, the Resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come: we answere, because these things are contayned in the Scriptures. If they proceede farther to aske, why wee beleeue the Scripture: we answere, because it is the word of God: if, why wee beleeue it to bee the word of God: because the Church doth so testifie of it: Primum inter credibilia, quod est ratio credendi alia, & ad quod fit ultima ma resolutio credibilium, est, credere Ecclesiam regi à spiritu sancto. Durand. l. 3. dist. 24. quaest. 〈◊◊〉 . Vera esse contenta in scriptura, & a Christo revelata, per nullam viam scimus, nisi quia hoc credit Ecclesia, & sic audivimus à patribus nostris. Greg. Arimin. l. 1. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 4. if, why we beleeue the testimony of the Church, because it is guided by the spirit of truth: so that, that vpon which our faith settleth her perswasion touching these things, is the authority of the Catholique Church, ledde and guided by the spirit of truth.

If it be said, that it is one of the things to bee beleeued, that the Church is thus guided by the spirit, & therefore that the authority of the Church cannot be the reason & cause of beleeuing all things, that pertain to the Christian faith, because not of those things which concerne her owne authority: Relect. con •… o. 4. de potestate ecclesiae in se. q. 3. art. 2. resp. ad argumentum 5. Stapleton who professeth to handle this matter most exactly. Sometimes seemeth to say, that this article of faith, that the Church is guided by the spirit, and appointed by God to be a faithfull mistrisse of heauenly truth, is not among the Articles of faith, nor in the number of things to be beleeued. Which the Rhemists vpon these words, The 1 Tim. 3. 15. Church is the pillar and ground of truth, most constantly affirme, saying, We must beleeue, heare, and obey the Church, as the Touchstone, Pillar, and firmament of truth: for all this is comprised in the principle, I beleeue the holy Catholique Church.

Sometimes, that though perhaps in that Article it be implyed, that wee beleeue whatsoeuer the Church teacheth vs, yet not necessarily, that wee beleeue, that the Church is a faithfull and infallible witnesse, & mistresse of trueth.

And sometimes, as in his Fol. 189. triplication against Whitaker, he sayth, that when we professe that we beleeue the holy Catholike Church, we doe not onely professe to beleeue that there is such a Church in the world, but that wee are members of it, and doe beleeue and embrace the doctrine of it, as being guided infallibly by the spirit of trueth; and that wee are taught in the Articles of our faith, that the Church ought to bee listned vnto, as to an infallible mistresse of heauenly trueth. Surely it seemeth, his braine was much crased when he thus wrote, saying, vnsaying, & saying, he knew not what. That which he addeth, that this proposition, God doth reveale vnto vs his heavenly truth, & teach vs the mysteries of his kingdome by the ministery of his Church, is a transcendent, wherevpon that article, wherein wee professe to beleeue the Catholike Church, doth depend, as all the rest do, & is not an Article of the Creede; doth but more & more shew the distemper of his head. But in that which hee addeth for confirmation hereof, that we do not professe in the first Article of our faith, to beleeue God as the reuealer of all hidden and heauenly truth, and to rest in him as in the fountaine of all illumination, is the note & brand of an impious miscreant. For this doubtlesse is the first thing implyed in our faith towards God, that we yeeld him this honour, to be the great master of all trueth, vpon whose authority we will depend, renouncing all our owne wisedome, & knowing, 1 Cor. 2. 11. that as no man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man; so no man knoweth the things of God, but the spirit of Got; Math. 16. 17. and, that flesh and blood cannot reueale these things vnto vs, but our father which is in heauen.

That the precept of louing God aboue all, is not distinctly set downe among the rest of the tenne commaundements, but is implyed, though principally in the first, yet generally in all, is to no purpose. If he thinke, it is not at all contayned in the Decalogue, his folly is too too great.

CHAP. 7.

Of the manifold errours of Papistes, touching the last resolution of our faith, and the refutation of the same.

THus wee see, hee cannot avoid it, but that the Church is one of the things to be beleeued, & therefore cannot be the first & generall cause of beleeuing all things that are to be beleeued. For when we are to be perswaded of the authority of the Church, it is doubtfull vnto vs, and therefore cannot free vs from doubting, or settle our perswasion; because that which setleth the perswasion, must not be doubted of.

There is no question then, but that the authority of the old Testament may bee brought to proue the new, to him, that is perswaded of the old, and doubteth of the newe; and the authoritie of the newe, to proue the old, to him, that is perswaded of the new, and doubteth of the old: but to him that doubteth of both, we must not alledge the authority of either of these, but some other thing: so likewise, we may proue the authority of the Scripture by the Church, to him that is already perswaded of the Church; & of the Church by the Scripture to him, that is perswaded of the Scripture; but to him that doubteth of both, we must bring other reasons. For no man proveth a thing doubtfull, by that which is as much doubted of, as it selfe. So that to proue the authority & infallibility of the Church, by the testimony and authoritie of the Church, which is the thing doubted of, is, as if one taking vpon him to be a Lawgiuer, whose authority is doubted of, should first make a law, and publish his proclamation, and by vertue there of giue himselfe power, to make lawes; his authority of making the first lawe, being as much doubted of as the second.

Thus then it being cleare and euident, that it is one of the things that are to bee beleeued, that the Church is guided by the spirit, if Stapleton be asked, why he beleeueeth it to bee soe guided, hee sayth, hee soe beleeueth, because the spirit mooueth him so to beleeue. But he should knowe, that three things concurre to make us beleeue that whereof we are doubtfull. The light of Diuine vnderstanding, as that whereby wee apprehend the things of God; The spirit, as the author of this illumination; and the reasons and motiues, by force whereof, the spirit induceth, mooueth, and perswadeth vs. Euen as in the apprehension of things within the compasse of the light of nature, when wee are to be perswaded of a thing, seeming doubtfull unto vs, not only the actiō of him that perswadeth vs, and the light of naturall vnderstanding, are required to the effecting of it, but also the force of reasons winning vs to assent to that, we are to be perswaded of. Wee therefore demand not of Stapleton, who it is that perswadeth vs to belieue, or what that light of vnderstanding is, that maketh him capable of such perswasion; but, what those reasons, or motiues are, by force whereof, the spirit settleth his minde, in the perswasion of the truth of those things, he formerly doubted of.

Triplicatio fol. 188. Surely he sayth, the highest and last reason, that moueth a man to beleeu the things that partaine to faith, is the authority of the Church. Let vs suppose it to be so, touching all other things; yet can it not be so, in respect of those things, we are to beleeue touching the authority of the Church it selfe. What is the motiue then, whereby the spirit moueth vs to beleeue, that the Church hath diuine authority? Hee sayth, because it is so contained in the Scripture; and in the Articles of the Creed. See then if he be not forced to runne round in a circle. He beleeueth other matters of faith, because contained in the Scripture; and the Scripture, because it is the word of God; and that it is the word of God, because the Church deliuereth it to be so; and the Church, because it is ledde by the spirit; and that it is ledde by the spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture, and the Creede. This kind of circulation, Campiani 10 rationes. Campian reckoneth amongst the Sophismes, he wrongfully imputeth vnto vs: but it will euer be found true, that the Prophet pronounceth of the wicked; Psalm. 11. 10. Impij ambulant in circuitu; The wicked runne round, till they be giddie, and are in the end, where they were, when they began.

Out of this maze Stapleton cannot get himselfe, vnlesse hee flye to humane motiues and inducements, and make them the highest and last reason of his faith, and soe indeede hee doth. For fearing that hee hath not sayd well, in saying he beleeueth the Church is guided by the spirit, because it is contained in the Scripture, hee addeth another reason, why hee so beleeueth, because it is the generall opinion, and conceipt of all Christian men, that it is so guided: and so indeed his perswasion stayeth it selfe vpon humane grounds, though hee bee vnwilling that men should so thinke, and conceiue.

Th •… se mazes and labyrinths, other Papists seeking to avoyd, runne without any such shewe of feare, as Stapleton bewrayeth, into most grosse absurdities; some thinking, that the authority of the Church is the reason moouing vs to beleeue all other things; and that we beleeue that the Church is ledde and guided by the spirit, and that the truth of God, which the Church teacheth vs, moued thereunto by humane motiues; namely for that, that must needes be the truth, which so many miracles haue confirmed, which a few weake and silly men, contemptible in the eyes of the world, haue wonne all the world to belieue, & haue holden out the defence of it, against all the furies of enemies whatsoeuer: which they could not haue done, had not the spirit and power of the most high beene with them, making them more then conquerours. This is the opinion of Durandus. li. 3. dist. 24. q. 1. art. 1. & distin: 25. q. 3. Durandus, who maketh humane motiues and inducements, the highest and last reason of his faith; to which also Stapleton flyeth, though vnwillingly. Others thinke, that wee beleeue by the sole and absolute commaund of the will, either finding nothing, or nothing of sufficient force to perswade vs. Both these conceipts are to be examined by vs.

Concerning the first, wee are to obserue, that the Schoolemen make two kindes of faith, calling the one fidem infusam, an infused faith, wrought in vs by the inlightning spirit of God, and staying it selfe vpon the truth of God: the other fidem acquisitam, a humane and naturall faith, grounding it selfe vpon humane authoritie, and wrought by humane motiues and perswasions. So that according to the opinion of these men, we beleeue the Articles of our Christian faith, and whatsoeuer is contayned in the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles, because wee are perswaded, that they were revealed by Almighty God; and this pertaineth to infused faith, as they thinke: but that they were reuealed, there is nothing that perswadeth vs, Greg. A •… iminensis l. 1. d. 1. q. 1 fol. 7. but the authority of the Church, and because wee haue so learned, & receiued of our forefathers: and this pertaineth to humane faith, and is meerely a naturall and humane perswasion, like that the Saracens haue, touching the superstition of Mahomet, who therefore beleeue them, because their Auncestors haue deliuered them vnto them.

If this opinion were true, (as Melchior Canus rightly noteth, the finall stay of our infused faith, and the first reason moouing vs so to beleeue, should not be the truth of God, but humane authority. For wee should beleeue the Articles of our faith, because they were revealed, and beleeue they were revealed, because our Auncestours so deliuered vnto vs, and the Church so beleeueth. And from hence it would farther follow, that seeing the assent yeelded to the conclusion, can be no greater, nor more certaine, then that which is yeelded to the premisses, whence it is deduced & inferred, we should haue no greater certainty of things Diuine and revealed, then such as humane meanes and causes can yeeld. Canus l. 1. c. 8. And so, seeing wee can neuer bee so well perswaded of any man, or multitude of men, but that we may justly feare, either they are deceiued, or will deceiue: if our faith depend vpon such grounds, we cannot firmely & vndoubtedly beleeue. Nay it is consequent vpon this absurd opinion, that the Children of the Church, and they of the houshold of faith, haue no infused or Diuine faith at all: for that, whatsoeuer is revealed by the God of truth, is true, the Heathens make no doubt, but doubt whether any thing were so revealed: and that any thing was so revealed, if these men say true, we haue no assurance but by humane meanes and causes.

But the absurdity hereof, the same Canus out of Calvin, doth very learnedly demonstrate, reasoning in this sort. If all they that haue beene our teachers, nay, if all the Angels in Heauen, shall teach vs any other, or contrary doctrine to that we haue receiued, we must holde them accursed, and not suffer our faith to bee shaken by them, as the Apostle chargeth vs in the Epistle to the Galatians: therefore our faith doth not rely vpon humane causes or grounds of assurance. Calv. instit. l. 1. c. 7. 4. Ne mens nostra vacillet, altius petenda, quàm ab hominum vel ratione, vel auctoritate, scripturae authoritas. Besides, our faith, and that of the Apostles and Prophets, being the same, it must needes haue the same object, & the same ground and stay to rest vpon, in both: but they builded themselues vpon the sure and vnmooueable rocke of Diuine truth, and authority: therefore we must doe so likewise. If any man desire farther satisfaction herein, let him reade Canus, and Calvin, to whom in these things Canus is much beholding.

Others therefore, to avoide this absurdity, run into that other before mentioned, that we beleeue the things that are diuine, by the meere and absolute command of our will, not finding any sufficient motiues & reasons of perswasion: & hereupon they define faith in this sort: Fides est assensus firmus ineuidēs, that is, faith is a firme, certaine, & ful assent of the mind, beleeuing those things, the truth whereof no way appeareth vnto vs. For father explication, and better clearing of this definition of faith, they make two kindes of certainty; for there is, as they say, certitudo evidentiae, and certitudo adhaerentiae; that is, there is a certainty of evidence, which is of those things, the truth whereof appeareth vnto vs; and another of adherence and firme cleauing to that, the trueth whereof appeareth not vnto vs. This later they suppose to bee the certainty that is found in fayth, and there vpon they hold, that a man may beleeue a thing meerely because hee will, without any motiues or reason of perswasion at all: the contrary whereof when Picus Mirandula proposed, among other his conclusions to bee disputed in Rome, hee was charged with heresie for it. But hee sufficiently cleared himselfe from all such imputation, and improued their fantasie that so thinke, by vnanswerable reasons, which I haue thought good to lay downe in this place.

It Apologia qu. 8. de liberta te credendi. is not, sayth hee, in the power of a man, to thinke a thing to bee, or not to bee, meerely because hee will; therefore much lesse firmely to beleeue it. The trueth of the antecedent wee finde by experience, and it evidently appeareth vnto vs, because if a doubtfull proposition bee proposed, concerning which the vnderstanding and minde of man resolueth nothing, seeing no reason to leade to resolue one way or other, the minde thus doubtfull cannot incline any way, till there bee some inducement, either of reason, sight of the eye, or testimony or authority of them wee are well conceipted of, to settle our perswasion. Secondly, a man cannot assent to any thing, or judge it to bee true, vnlesse it so appeare vnto him; but the sole acte of a mans will, cannot make a thing to appeare and seeme true or false, but either the euidence of the thing, or the testimony and authority of some one, of whose judgement he is well perswaded. Thirdly, though the action of vnderstanding quoad exercitium, as to consider of a thing, and thinke vpon it, or to turne away such consideration from it, depend on the will; yet not quoad specificationem, as to assent or dissent: for these opposite and contrary kinds of the vnderstandings actions, are from the contrary and different appearing of things vnto vs. Fourthly, the sole command of the will cannot make a man to beleeue that, which being demanded why hee beleeueth, he giueth reasons and alledgeth inducements: but so it is, that in matters of our Christian faith, we alledge sundry reasons, mouing vs to beleeue as Christians doe, as appeareth by the course Scotus prol. sententiarum qu. 2. of all Diuines, who lay downe eight principall reasons moouing men to beleeue the Gospell; namely the light of propheticall prediction, the harmony and agreement of the Scriptures, the diligence of them that receiued them, carefully seeking to discerne betweene truth and errour, the authority & grauitie of the writers, the reasonablenesse of the things written, & the vnreasonablenes of all contrary errours, the stability of the Church, and the miracles that haue beene done for the confirmation of the faith it professeth. Fiftly, if there be two, whereof one beleeueth precisely, because he will, and another, onely because hee will not beleeue, refuseth to beleeue the same thing, the acte of neither of these is more reasonable then the other, being like vnto the will of a Tyrant, that is not guided at all by reason, but makes his owne liking, the rule of his actions. Now, who is so impious to say, The Christians, that beleeue the Gospell, haue no more reason to leade them so to doe, then the Infidels that refuse to beleeue?

With Picus, in the confutation of this senselesse conceipt, wee may joyne Sententiarum quaest. 1. art. 2. sicut impossibile est assentiri sine ratione, ita videtur impossibile assentiri plus quàm ratio probat, vel vi detur probare. Cardinall Cameracensis, who farther sheweth, that as a man cannot perswade himselfe of a thing, meerely because hee will, without any reason at all; so, hauing reason, hee cannot perswade himselfe more strongly and assuredly of it, then the reason hee hath, will afforde; for if hee doe, it is so farre an vnreasonable acte, like that of a Tyrant before mentioned. Durandus 3. •… nt. distinct. 24 quaest 3. Durandus likewise is of the same opinion. Assentiri nullus potest, nisi ei quod apparet verum: igitur oport •… t quèd illud quòd creditur, appareat rationi verum, vel in se, vel ratione m •… dij per quod assentitur; & si non in se, sed tantùm ratione medij, illud medium apparebit verum, vel in se, vel per aliud medium; & si non est processus in infinitum, oportet quòd deueniatur ad primum, quod apparet rationi esse verum in se, & secundum se: That is, No man can yeeld assent to any thing, but that which appeareth to him to be true: therefore whatsoeuer a man beleeueth, must seeme and appeare vnto him to bee true, either immediatly and by it selfe, or in respect of that medium, by force whereof he is perswaded to beleeue; and if it doe not appeare vnto him to be true in and by it selfe, but onely in respect of the medium, that medium must appeare true, either in respect of it selfe, or by another medium; and because there is no infinite proceeding in these things, wee must at last come to some first thing, which in and by it selfe, must appeare to be true.

CHAP. 8.

Of the last resolution of true faith, and wherevpon it stayeth it selfe.

IN naturall and humane knowledge, there are two sortes of thinges: some that are evident vnto vs immediatly in, and by themselues; and some, that are not. The former of these, are likewise of two sorts: for there are some knowen onely by intuitiue knowledge, as contingent things: so that wee cannot apprehend the trueth of any proposition framed of such things, vnlesse wee intuitiuely apprehend the things, whereof such propositions are framed; (as, that Peter & Iohn now walke, now leape for ioy, or tremble for feare, wee cannot know, vnlesse wee intuitiuely behold, both these men, and these things to agree vnto them.) Other things there are vniuersall, necessary, and alwayes of one sort: these may bee evidently knowen by abstractiue knowledge. Of these, there may be framed two sorts of propositions: for there are some propositions per se notae, originally cleare and euident, the termini or single wordes whereof, being rightly conceiued by vs, wee cannot but know the trueth of the whole propositions: (as, that euery whole and entire thing, is greater and better then any part of it.) Aliacensis 1. sent, citat. Lincoln. 1. poster. cap. 1. And other propositions there are, which are not thus originally cleare and evident, vpon the right vnderstanding of the termini or single wordes whereof they are composed, but a man doubteth of them, till hee see them deduced by cleare and evident consequence from the former; these things a man is properly sayd to learne.

Thus hauing spoken of things euident in themselues, let vs come to the things that in themselues are neuer evident vnto vs, either that they are or what they are: but that they are, and what they are, appeareth vnto vs by a forraine medium, without the compasse of the things themselues. Of this sort are those things wee are perswaded of, vpon the report of others; this is the certainty wee haue of things beleeued: the trueth of them in themselues appeareth not vnto vs, nor is seene of vs; in which sense faith may rightly be named a firme assent without evidence; and there may bee a certainty of adherence, as the Schoolemen call it, without evidence; yet must the credite of him that speaketh, bee knowen vnto vs, and wee must euidently discerne, that he doth speake vnto vs, vpon whose testimony wee rely.

The Schoolemen make three sorts of things; some that are beleeued because they are first knowen, as the first principles originally cleare and euident vnto vs, and the conclusions demonstratiuely prooued out of those principles: other thinges, that are beleeued and neuer knowen, as all the matters of fact that are reported in the Scripture, which wee canne neuer know by the immediate euidence of the things themselues, but mediately, in that wee know they are deliuered vnto vs by him that cannot lie. And a third sort of things that are first beleeued, and afterwards the vnderstanding being inlightned, and the heart cleansed, they are discerned of vs to be true.

The opinion of the ordinary Papists is, that the things pertayning to our faith, are beleeued, because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so, as wee are required to beleeue; but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing, but by humane conjectures and probabilities: so weakely doe they make our faith to bee grounded. Wee confesse, that faith may rightly bee sayde to bee a firme assent, without evidence of many of the things beleeued, in themselues: but the Medium, by force whereof wee are drawen to beleeue, must bee evident vnto vs, as Durandus doeth rightly demonstrate.

De vtilit credendiad Honoratum c. 1 •… . Augustine noteth, that there are three things found in the soule of man; Opinion, Beleefe or Faith, and Science; the first of these is necessarily and euer joyned with imperfection and defect, to wit, danger and feare of erring: the third is euer perfect, excluding both: the second, standing in the middest, is of a middle nature, and dependeth vpon the third. For otherwise, to beleeue their reports, whose credite is not knowne vnto vs, is levitie and rashnesse. Faith therefore, that is commendable, and without fault, presupposeth knowledge, & right beleeuing groweth out of it. We hold therefore, that euery true Christian doth most evidently discerne and know, that it is God that speaketh in the Scriptures; which Calvin excellently expresseth. Lib. 1. instit. c 7. 5. Illius virtute (saith he) illuminati, iam non aut nostro, aut aliorum iudicio credimus â Deo esse Scripturam, sed supra humanum iudicium certo certius constituimus, non secus, ac si ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur, hominum ministerio ab ipsissimo. Dei ore fluxisse. After we are enlightned by the spirit, we doe no longer trust, either our owne iudgement, or the iudgement of other men, that the Scriptures are of God; but aboue all certainety of humane iudgement, we most certainely resolue, as if in them we saw the Maiesty and glory of God, as Moses saw it in the Mount, that by the ministery of men, they came vnto vs from Gods owne most sacred mouth

Heereunto doth S. Augustine fully agree, shewing that the authority of the Church, is but an introduction to the spirituall discerning of diuine things, and that men rest not in it. Wherevpon he sayth, De vtil. credendi adHonoratum c. 16. Homini non valenti verum intueri, vt ad id fiat idoneus, purgarique se sinat, praesto est auctoritas, quam partim miraculis, partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit: that is, Men that are not yet able to discerne the heauenly truth, that they may be fitted to it, and suffer themselues to be purged from their impurity, hindring them from it, haue the benefite of the direction of authority, which standeth vpon two things: the one, the greatnesse of miracles, and wondrous workes done; the other, multitude. Christ Cap. 14. 15 16 sayth Augustine) being to bring a salving medicine into the World, and to reforme the most corrupt and wicked manners of the sonnes of men, by miracles got himselfe authority, by authority wonne credit, by the credit he had gotten; drew multitudes after him, which cotinuing long in one course of profession, in tract and continuance of time, gained the reverent estimation of antiquity, and so strengthened the opinion of Religion professed by them. These things (saith In sententiis. Augustine) are not necessary to men of spirituall & heauenly vnderstanding: but we are now to shew how men may become wise, & attaine the knowledge of spirituall things, This they cannot attayne to, vnlesse they bee purged from their soules vncleannesse: from which they cannot be purged, vnlesse they listen to them, that are already wise and exercised in things that are diuine, and therfore they must begin with authority.

Hugo de Sancto Victore maketh three sorts of beleeuers: for there are (sayth he) qui solâ pietate credere eligunt, qui vtrùm credendum sit, vel non credendum, ratione non comprehendunt, alii ratione approbant quod fide credunt, alii puritate cordis, & mundâ conscientiâ, interius iam gustare incipiunt, quod fide crediderunt. The first are moued to beleeue out of piety, finding the Maiesty of God to present it selfe vnto them in the word of truth, and happy communion of the people professing the same, challenging their attention and readinesse to bee taught by him: In the second the light of diuine reason causeth approbation of that they belieue: In the third sort, the purity of diuine vnderstanding, apprehendeth most certainely, the things belieued, and causeth a foretasting of those things, that hereafter more fully shall be enjoied. They that are thus established in the faith, do now already begin to foretast that, which they long in heauē distinctly to know and enjoy, and begin already to haue God present with them, by force of diuine contemplation; so that if all the world should be turned into miracles, they could not remoue them from the certainety of their perswasion. Hence it is, that Pycus sayth in his Conclusions, that as faith which is but a bare credulity, is in degree of perfection lesse then Science, soe true faith is greater and more certaine, then any science gotten by demonstration.

Thus then we may easily discerue, what is the formall reason of our faith, or inducing vs to beleeue. In things that are therefore belieued, because knowne, as in the principles & conclusions of naturall knowledge, the euidence of things appearing to vs, is the formall reason of our beleefe and perswasion. In things first belieued, and afterwards known, the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs, being inlightned by the light of grace. In things only belieued, and not knowne, the authority of God himselfe whom wee do most certainly discerne, to speake in the worde of Faith, which is preached vnto vs. Si Caluin. instit: lib. 1. cap. 7. 4. puros oculos, & integros sensus, illuc afferamus (sayth Caluin) statim occurret Dei majestas quae subactâ reclamandi audaciâ, nos sibi parere cogat. If we bring pure eyes, and perfect senses, the Majesty of God presently presenteth it selfe vnto us, in the diuine Scripture, and beating down al thoughts of contradicting or doubting of things so heauenly, forceth vs to obey. Lib, 1. 7. 5. For Non dubium vim numinis illic vigere & spirare sentimus, quâ ad parendum scientes quidem, ac volentes, viuidiùs tamen & efficaciùs, quàm pro humana, aut voluntate, aut scientia, trahimur ac accendimur. We find a greater light of vnderstanding, shining vnto vs in this doctrine of faith, then is found within the compasse of nature: a satisfaction touching many things, in which humane reason could not satisfie vs in: a joy & exultation of the heart, such and so great, as groweth not out of nature. This maketh vs assure our selues, the doctrine which thus affecteth vs, is reuealed from God: that they are the only people of God, and haue the meanes of happinesse, where this treasure of heauenly wisdome is found: that those bookes are the richest jewell, that the world possesseth, and ought to be the Canon of our faith, which this people deliuereth unto vs, as receiued from them, to whom these things were first of all made knowne, and reuealed.

So then that God speaketh in the Scripture, and is the Author of it, we know more certainely, than any thing that is knowne by naturall light of reason: and thereupon wee beleeue all things therein contained, though many of them are such, as can neuer be knowne of vs, as those that are historicall and other such as are not knowne at first, though after we haue belieued, we begin to vnderstand and know them. Herevnto agree the best learned, and most deuout and religious amongst the Schoole-men. For the greater part of them were giuen to curious disputes, but voyd of all deuotion, as Gers. de examinatione doctrinarum. Gerson complaineth. Lib. 1. qu. 1. summ: theologicae memb. 4. art. 2. Alexander of Hales sayth, there is a certainty of speculation, and a certainetie of experience: a certainty in respect of the vnderstanding, and a certainetie in respect of the affection: a certainty in respect of the spirituall man, and a certainety in respect of the naturall man: and pronounceth that the things apprehended by vs in diuine knowledge, are more certainely discerned by such as are spirituall, in the certainty of experience, in the certainety which is in respect of affection, and by way of spirituall taste and feeling, than anie thing is discerned in the light of naturall vnderstanding. Quàm dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua! Psalm. 118. (sayth the Prophet Dauid) How sweete are thy wordes (O Lord) vnto my mouth! They are sweeter than the hony, and the hony combe. And again, I haue knowne long since, that thou hast established them for euer. Thus then it is true, that the authority of Gods Church, prepareth vs vnto the faith, and serueth as an introduction, to bring vs to the discerning and perfect apprehension of diuine things, but is not the ground of our faith, and reason of beleeuing. And that doubtlesse is the meaning of those wordes Contra ep. fundamenti, c. 5. of Augustine, that hee would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authority of the Church did not moue him thereunto.

CHAP. 9.

Of the meaning of those wordes of Augustine, that he would not beleeue th •… Gospell, if the authority of the Church did not moue him.

THe Diuines giue two explications of these wordes of Augustine. For Dialog. l. 1. part. 1. c. 4. vbi ait totam multitudinem viuentium non esse ma •… oris auctoritatis quàm evangelium sanctum, quia debet illud defendere vsque ad sanguinem. Occam and some others say, the Church, whereof hee speaketh, is not the multitude of beleeuers, that now are in the World, but the whole number of them, that are, and haue beene, since Christ appeared in the flesh; so including the Apostles: in which sense, they confesse the Church comprehending in it the Apostles, and writers of the whole Scripture of the new Testament, is of greater authority, then the bookes of the Gospell written by them, and deliuered to posterities. Others, taking the name of the Church, to signifie onely the beleeuers that now presently are in the world, say the meaning of Augustine is, that he had neuer beleeued the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church had not beene an introduction vnto him: Not that, his faith rested vpon it, as a finall stay, but that it caused him so farre to respect the word of the Gospell, to listen vnto it, and with a kinde of acquisite and humane faith, to beleeue it, that hee was thereby fitted to a better illumination, by force whereof hee might more certainely know, and beleeue it to be of God. To which purpose Doctrinal. fidei li. 2. art. 2. cap. 21. vbi ad. fert exemplum Nathanielis, quem Philippus induxit ad credendum in Christum, quemadmodū nos inducunt parentes & paedagogi: nec tamen sunt maioris auctoritatis quam Christus. Waldensis out of Thomas Aquinas obserueth, that as the Samaritans beleeued that Christ was the promised Sauiour, vpon the report of the woman, that talked with him, made vnto them; but afterwardes hauing seene him, and talked with him, they professed that they beleeved, not for her saying any longer: for themselues had heard him speake, and did know that hee was the Saviour of the world indeed. So men at the first beginne to beleeue moued so to doe, by the authority of the Church; but rest not in it, but in the infallible assurance of diuine trueth. Vpon the mistaking of this saying of S. Augustine, and an erroneous conceit, that our faith stayeth wholly vpon the authority and testimony of the Church, hath growne that opinion, that the authority of the Church is greater, than the authority of the Scriptures.

CHAP. 10.

Of the Papistes preferring the Churches authority before the Scripture.

TOuching which odious comparison, I find some shew of difference amongst the Papistes, but none indeede. Some affirme, that the authorities of the Church, and of the Scripture, being in divers kindes, may in diverse sorts, and respects, either of them be sayd to be greater, then the other: to wit, the one in nature of an euidence, the other of a Iudge; and that therefore the comparing of them in authority is vnfit and superfluous. Others say, that the Church is greater then Scriptures. Annotat. in 2. ad Galat. The Rhemists seeme to be of the first sort, seeking to conceale that, which indeede they thinke, because they would not incurre the dislike and ill opinion of men, naturally abhorring from so odious a comparison. Yet in the same place they doe make the comparison, and preferre the Church before the Scriptures. 1. In respect of antiquity, in that it was before them. 2. In excellencie of nature, in that the Church is the spouse of Christ, the Temple of God, the proper subject of God, and his graces, for which the Scriptures were, and not the Church for the Scriptures. 3. In power of judging of doubts and controversies, the Church hauing judiciall power, the Scripture not being capable of it. 4. In euidence, the definition of the Church being more cleare and evident, then those of the Scriptures.

Relect. contro. 4. de potestate ecclesiae in se. q. 5. in explicatione q. Stapleton sayth, the comparison may be made, and the Church preferred before the Scriptures, foure wayes. 1. So, as if the Church might define contrary to the Scriptures, as shee may contrary to the writings of particular men, how great soeuer. In this sense, they of the Church of Rome make not the comparison, neither doe we charge them with any such thing, though Stapleton be pleased to say so of vs. 2. So, as the Church may define, though not contrary to, yet beside the Scripture or written Word of God. This comparison is not made properly, touching the preheminence of one aboue another in authority, but the extent of one beyond the other, as Stapleton rightly noteth. In this sense the Romanists make the Church greater in authority than the Scriptures, that is, the extent of the Churches authority, larger than of the Scriptures, to bring in their traditions: but this wee deny, and will in due place improue their errour herein. Thirdly, in the obedience they both challenge of vs, where they all say, that we are bound with as great affection of piety, to obey and submit our selues vnto the determinations of the Church, as of the Scriptures: both being infallible, of diuine and heauenly authority, against which no man may resist, and that it is a matter of faith so to thinke. Yea, some of them, as Stapleton in the same place, are not ashamed to say, that wee are bound with greater certaintie of faith, to subscribe vnto the determinations of the Church, than of the Scriptures; and that it is the authority of the Church, that maketh vs accept, embrace, and beleeue the Scriptures. Fourthly, in the nature of the things themselues, in which respect, they preferre the Church before the Scriptures; as being in it selfe more excellent then the Scriptures: as the subject by which the spirit worketh, is more excellent then the thing hee worketh by it.

CHAP. 11.

Of the refutation of their errour, who preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture.

THat wee may the better discerne, what is to bee resolued, touching these two latter comparisons betweene the Church and the Scriptures; wee must remember that which I haue before noted, touching them both. For first, the name of the Church sometimes comprehendeth onely the beleeuers, that now presently are liuing in the world. Sometimes not onely these, but all them also, that haue beene since the Apostles times. Sometimes all that are, and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh.

If the comparison bee made betweene the Church, consisting onely of the faithfull that now are and the Scripture, wee absolutely deny the equality of their authority; and say it is impiety to thinke, that both may challenge an equall degree of obedience, and faith to bee yeelded to them: for it cannot bee proued, that the Church, thus taken, is free from errour; nay themselues with one consent confesse, Canual. 5. c. 〈◊〉 p. 170. that generall Councels, representing this Church, may erre, though not in matters of substance, which they purposely meete to determine, yet in other passages, and in the reasons, and motiues, leading to such determinations: and consequently the whole Church may erre in the same things: the one, in their opinion, being no more infallible, than the other. Yea, some of them feare not to pronounce, Multi opinannantur concilium generale errare posse, quia non innititur praecise diuinae reuclationi, led procedit secundum sensum proprium assistente sibi influentia generali &c. Occam lib. 3. tract: 1. part. 3. cap: 8. that Popes and generall Councells may erre damnably, and that the Church itselfe may erre in matters not fundamentall, though without pertinacy, as Picus in his theoremes, and Waldensis, who freeth only the vniuersall Church, consisting of the faithfull that are, and haue beene, from errour, and not the present Church, as I shewed before. We are so farre then, from preferring the Church thus taken, (as Stapleton in the place aboue mentioned, professeth he taketh it) in authority before the Scripture, that we thinke it impiety, to imagine it to be equall.

That the authority of the Church maketh vs to beleeue, with an humane, and acquisite faith, we deny not, but that it maketh vs to beleeue with a diuine faith, we deny, as before. If the comparison be made, between the Church consisting of all the faithfull that haue bin since, & besides the Apostles, & writers of the holy Scriptures, though we think the Church thus taken to be free from any error; yet dare we not make it equall to the Scripture: For that the Scripture is infallibly true, as inspired immediatly frō the spirit of truth, securing the writers of it from errour; The Church not in respect of the condition of the men, of whom it consisteth, or the manner of the guiding of the spirit, (each particular man being subject vnto errour) but in respect of the generality and vniversality of it, in euery part whereof, in every time, no errour could possibly be found: And for that, whatsoeuer is vniuersally deliuered by it, is thereby prooued to be from the Apostles, of whose faith wee are secure. Thus then the whole Church thus taken, is subiect to the Scripture, in all her parts, and hath her infallibility from it: and therefore in her manner of hauing the truth, is inferiour vnto it, neither are we bound to receiue her doctrines as the sacred Scriptures. Besides, though the Church taken in this sort be free from errour, yet not from ignorance of many things, wherein we may be instructed by the scripture. So that it is possible for a man to vnderstand the naturall & literall sense of some parts of Scripture, and from thence some things, that were not in such sort knowne and deliuered by any, that went before: as Andradius, and Caietanus, do proue at large.

If the comparison be made betweene the Church, consisting of all the belieuers, that are and haue beene, since Christ appeared in the flesh, so including the Apostles, and their blessed assistants the Euangelists: we deny not, but that the Church is of greater authority, antiquity, and excellencie than the Scripture of the new Testament, as the witnesse is better then his testimonie, and the Lawgiuer greater then the Lawes made by him, as Stapleton alleageth. But he is to proue the present Church greater in authority than the Scripture: which hee vndertaketh, but performeth not. His reason, that the Scripture was giuen for the good of the Church, and that therefore the Church is better than the Scripture, proueth not the thing intended. For, as the people are more excellent in degree of being, and nature of things, than the lawes that be made for their good, yet are the lawes of more authority, and must ouer-rule and direct the people: so though the Scriptures, being but significations, declarations, and manifestations of diuine truth, be not better in degree of things, than the Church, yet in power of prescribing, directing, and ouer-ruling our faith, they are incomparably greater. That which the Rhemists adde, to shew the greatnesse of the Church aboue the Scripture, because the Church hath judiciall power, to determine doubts and controuersies, whereof as they suppose, the Scripture is not capable, I will examine in the next part, when I come to speake of the power of judging, which the Church hath.

This errour of the Romanists imagining the authority of the Church to bee greater than the Scripture, all the best learned in the Church of Rome euer resisted, as Waldens. doct. fidei lib. 2. art. 2. cap. 21. Waldensis, Occam lib. 1. part. 1. c. 4. Occam, Gers. de vita spiritual. animae. lect. co •… ollario. 7. Gerson, and sundry others.

CHAP. 12.

Of their errour who thinke the Church may make new articles of faith.

VNto this errour is joyned, and out of this hath growne another not vnlike, that the Church may make new articles of faith; which though Stapleton and some other of our time seeme to disclaime, yet do they indeede fall into it. For the better vnderstanding whereof we must obserue, as Dialog. 1. part. l. 2. c. 14. Occam fitly noteth, that an Article of faith is sometimes strictly taken, onely for one of those diuine verities, which are contained in the creede of the Apostles: sometimes generally for any Catholike verity. This question is not meant of articles of faith in the first sense, but in the second; and so the meaning of the question is, whether the Church that now is, may by her approbation make those assertions and propositions to be Catholike verities, that were not before, or those hereticall that were not. A Catholike vetity is a diuine truth, which euery Christian is bound to beleeue. The things which Christian men are bound to beleeue, are of two sorts, and consequently there are two sorts of Catholike verities; to wit, some so neerely touching the matter of eternall saluation, that a man cannot be saued, vnlesse hee expressely knowe and beleeue them; others farther remooued, which if a man beleeue implicitè, and in praeparatione animi, it sufficeth; These must bee beleeued expressely and distinctly, if their coherence with, or dependance on the former, do appeare vnto vs, so that the manifest deduction of them from the former, will make them such, as must be expressely beleeued.

Our aduersaries confesse, that the approbation and determination of the Church, cannot make that a truth which was not, nor that a Diuine or Catholike truth, that was not so before: but they thinke, that the Church by her bare and sole determination, may make that verity to be in such sort Catholike, that euery one, vnderstanding of such determination, must expressely beleeue it, that was not so, and in such degree Catholike before. But wee thinke, that it is not the authority of the Church, but the cleare deduction from the things which we are bound expressely to beleeue, that maketh things of that sort, that they must be particularly and distinctly known & beleeued, that were not necessarily so to bee beleeued before: Diceret fortè aliquis quod simplices non debent credere nisi ea quae Papae & Cardinales tradunt credere explicitè, nec debent inuestigare secreta scripturae, sed communibus contenti de intellectu praeoprio non debent prsumere, vt aliquid credant explicitè nisi quòd ijs Papa & Cardinales tradiderint: dicendum est quod simplices non debent praesumere, sed sacrae scripturae firmiter inhaerere, vt quod euidenter conspexerint ex sacris scripturis inferri, hoc explicitè credant, siue fuerit siue non fuerit à Papa & Cardinalibus declaratum: & ratio hujus est, quoniam Papa & Cardinales non sunt regula fidei nostrae: sed si contra regulam fidej, quam scriptura docet, definire praesumpserint, non sequendi, sed ā Catholicis arguendi sunt. Occam tractat. 2. part. 2. cap. 10. Quidam moderni dicunt multas esse veritates consonas scripturae, quae non sunt Catholicae, quia non definitae á Papa: & multos errores non habendos pro haeresibus, quia non damnati à Papa: sed si aliqua sit veritas scripturae consona, & definiatur à Papa, dicunt quod sit Catholica. Occam li. 2. part. 1. cap. 11. 12. improbat hanc opinionem: & cap. 14. ostendit Papam non sacere nouam Catholicam veritatem, sed tantum vt nec asserendo nec opinando dicatur contrarium illius quod antè fuit Catholica veritas: & quod dicentes contrarium, excommunicationis sententiae subdantur. Waldens. doctrinal. fidei: lib: 2. art. 2. c. 22. ait, ecclesiam non posse condere nouum articulum fidei. cum iam creuerit in perfectum &c. and therefore before, and without such determination, men seeing cleerely the deduction of things of this nature from the former, and refusing to beleeue them, are condemned of hereticall pertinacy; and men not seeing that deduction, after the decree of a Councell hath passed vpon them, may still doubt and refuse to beleeue, without hereticall pertinacy.

We cannot therefore condemne the Grecians as heretickes, as the Romanists doe, because wee cannot perswade our selues of them generally, that they see that, which they deny touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, deduced from the indubitate principles of our Christian faith, or that they impiously neglect the search of the trueth. What is it then (will some men say) that the decree of a Councell doth effect? Surely nothing else, but the rejecting of such as are otherwise minded, from the societies of those men and Churches, with whom the decree of the Councell doth prevaile; and with all wise men, the more wary and fearefull pronouncing any thing of those matters, concerning which so graue authority hath passed her sentence. The Papists proceed further, and thinke it hereticall pertinacie, to gainsay the decrees of a Councell, though they finde the reasons, by which they of the Councell were mooued so to thinke and determine, to bee too weake, and not to conclude the thing intended, Scotus in 4. dist. •… 1. q. 3. soluti omnes rationes adductas pro confirmatione dogmatis transsubstantiationis, et tamen tenet, quia definitum ab ecclesia. Biel in Canonum missae. lect. 41. ostendit rationes probantes transubstantiationem non esse efficaces, tenendam tamen hanc veritatem propter Ecclesiae determinationem. as, in the matter of Transubstantiation, they thinke it heresie to gainesay the decrees of those Councels that haue defined it, and yet many of them judge all the reasons, alleaged to proue it, too weake to proue it. In deed if it were certaine, as they suppose, that a generall Councell could not erre, this were a sufficient deduction, These things are decreede in a generall Councell: Therefore ture; because it is consequent, that that is true, which is affirmed by him that cannot erre.

Thus wee see what it is to bee thought, touching this question, whether the Church may make new Articles of faith: onely one thing must be added for the further clearing hereof. The Papistes thinke, that the Church may adde to the Canon of the Scripture bookes not yet admitted, as the bookes of Hermas the Scholler of Paul, intituled Pastor, and the constitutions of Clement; which if it should doe, we were to receiue them with no lesse respect, then the Epistle of Iames, and other bookes of the New Testament. Qui adhuc credunt Scripturarum canonem imperfectum, et posse adhuc augeri per authoritatem Ecclesiae, cum Iudaeis plenitudinem temporis expectant sub Iudaico forsitan Messiâ. Wald. doctr. fidei l. 2. art. 2. cap. 20. This we thinke to be a most grosse heresie, and contrrry to their owne principles, who making the number of Canonicall bookes a tradition, must necessarily receiue it from a certaine and constant report of the ancient. But hereof no more in this place, because the exact handling of it pertaineth to another place, to wit, touching the Scriptures.

CHAP. 13

Of the Churches authority to iudge of the differences that arise, touching matters of faith.

THus hauing spoken of the Churches assured possession of diuine truth, and her office of teaching, testifying, and proposing the same, the next thing that followeth, is her authority to judge of the differences that may arise, touching matters of the faith taught by her, or any part thereof, and more specially touching the interpretation of the Scriptures and word of God. Iudgement is an acte of reason, discerning whether a thing be or not, and whether it be that it seemeth to be, and is thought or said to be.

This judgment is of two sortes: The first, of definitiue and authenticall power. The second of Recognition. The judgement of authenticall power, defining what is to bee thought of each thing, and prescribing to mens consciences so to thinke, is proper to God: being originally found in the father, who by his sonne as by the immediate and prime messenger, and Angell of his secret Counsell, and by the holy Ghost as the spirit of illumination, maketh knowne vnto men what they must thinke, and perswadeth them so to thinke. So that the supreame judgement wherein the conscience of men doeth rest, in the things of GOD, is proper to GOD, who onely by his spirit teacheth the conscience, and giueth vnto it assurance of truth. Neither is God the supreme Iudge, onely inrespect of the godly, who stay not, till they resolue their perswasions into the certainty of his diuine testimony and vndoubted authority, but also in respect of the wicked, who in their erronious conceipts are judged by him, and of whose sinister and vile courses he sitteth in judgement, while he confoundeth their tongues, diuideth them one from another, maketh them crosse themselues, and bringeth all they doe to nothing. This judgement all are forced to stand vnto, and this is that, that maketh a finall end of all controversies, according to that of Acts. 3. 34. Gamaliel; If this thing be of God it will prosper and prevaile, and wee inresisting it, shall be found fighters against God, if not it will come to naught. Thus then the judgement of God the father as supreme, the judgement of the sonne as the eternall word of God, of the spirit as the fountaine of all illumination, making vs discerne what is true, is that, in which wee finally rest. The judgement or determination of the word of God is that, wherein wee rest as the rule of our faith: and the light of Diuine vnderstanding, as that, whereby we iudge of all things.

The judgement of Recognition is of three sorts. For there is a judgement of discretion, common to all Christian men, a judgement of direction proper to the guides of the Church, and a judgement of jurisdiction proper to them, that are in cheife places of authority. The first of these is nothing else, but an acte of vnderstanding, discerning whether things be or not, and whether also they bee that which they seeme to bee. The second endeuoureth to make others discerne likewise: and the third by authority suppresseth all those, that shall thinke and pronounce otherwise, then they judge that haue the judgement of Iurisdiction.

Touching the judgement of Recognition, wee acknowledge, the judgement of the vniuersall Church, comprehending the faithfull that are and haue beene, to be infallible. In the Church that comprehendeth onely the beleeuers that liue at one time in the world, Est iudicium certa & veridi-, ca cognitionis quo vnusquisque bene iudicat de ijs quae noscit, & illud iudicium pertinetad quemlibet in qualibet arte peritum. est aliud iudicium authoritatis seu iudicialis sententiae: 1 Modo loquendo de iudicio in ecclesia militante est certum iudicium de ijs quae necesse est credere explicitè: & semper erunt aliqui Catholici, qui tali modo in vera fide explicite permane bunt: sed circa illa quae non sunt necesaria explicitè crededere, non semper erit tale iudicium: quia de multis, licet piè dubitare, nunquam tamen omnes circa lista pertinaciter errabunt vel dubitabunt: iudicium verò authoritatis non est semper certum in ecclesia, sicut patuit tempore Liberii. Occam. dial. l. 5. part. 1. c. 28. there is alwayes found a right judgement of discretion, and right pronouncing of each thing necessary, all neuer falling into damnable errour, nor into any error pertinaciously; but a right judgement of men by their power of jurisdiction mantayning the truth, and suppressing errour, is not alwayes found.

So that sometimes almost all, may conspire aga •… nst the truth, or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession, as they did in the Councells of Ariminium & Seleucia, in which case as Occam aptly obserueth out of Hierome, men haue nothing left vnto them, but with sorrowfull hearts to referre all vnto God. If (sayth Hierome) iniquity prevaile in the Church which is the house of God, if iustice be oppressed, if the madnes of them, that should teach & guide others, proceed so farre, as to pervert all the straight wayes of God, to receiue rewards, to doe wrong, to treade downe the poore in the gates, and to refuse to heare their complaynts, let good men in such times hold their peace, let them not giue that which is holy vnto dogges, let them not cast pearles before swine, least they turne againe and trample them vnder •… eete, let them imitate Ieremie the Prophet, who speaketh of himselfe in this sort, I sate alone, because I was full of bitternesse. Euen so (sayth Occam) when heresies prevaile in the Christian world, when truth is trampled vnder feete in the streetes, and Prelates, & Princes being enemies to it, endevour with all their power to destroy it, when they shall condemne the doctrine of the Fathers, molest, disquiet, and murder the true professours, let good men in such times, hold their peace, keepe silence, and be still, let them not giue holy things to dogges, nor cast pearles before swine, least they turne and tread them vnder feete, least they wrest and abuse the Scriptures to their owne perdition, and the scandall of others: but let them with the Prophet sit alone, and complaine that their soules are full of bitter heavinesse.

CHAP. 14.

Of the rule of the Churches judgment.

THus hauing set downe the diuerse kinds of iudgment, which must determine and end all controuersies in matter of faith and religion, it remaineth to shewe what is the rule of that iudgment, whereby the Church discerneth betweene truth and falsehood, the faith and heresie, and to whom it properly pertaineth to interpret those things which touching this rule are doubtfull.

As the measure of each thing is that, by vertue whereof wee know what it is, and the quantity of it; so the rule is that, by application whereof, wee know whether it be that which it should be, and be so, as it should be. The rule of action is that whereby we know whether it be right, and performed as it should be, or not. The rule of doctrine is that, whereby wee know whether it be true or false.

Theologorum sententiam de foelicitate supernaturali altissimis philosophiae radicibus nixam & stabilitam stare dilucidè comprobabo: foelicitas est possessio at que adeptio primi boni: bonum adipisci dupliciter possunt res creatae aut in seipsis, aut in ipso, nam & in seipso hoc bonum est super omnia exaltatum, suae inhabitans diuinitatis abyssos, & per omnia diffusum in omnibus inuenitur: vmb •… a potius foelicitatis quàm vera foelicitas est attingere Deum in creatura, non in ipso Deo quemadmod •… creatura non summabonitas, sed summae bonitatis, id est diuinae, tenuis vmbra est: Vnde vera & consummata foelicitas ad De •… faciem contuendam quae est omne bonum, vt ipse dixit, & ad perfectam cum illo principio, à quo emanauimus, v •… em, nos reu •… 〈◊〉 •… dducit: ad hanc •… licitatem sola religio Christiana nos dirigit, & impellit Pi cus Heptapl •… , l •… . 7. in prooemio. The rule of our faith in generall, whereby we know it to be true, is the infinite excellencie of God; (who in eminent sort possesseth all those perfections, which in the creatures are diuided, and found in an inferiour sort:) in the full & perfect vnion with whom, and inioying of whom, consisteth all happinesse.

For by this rule we know, that the doctrine of faith, which only professeth to bring vs backe to God, to possesse and enioy him, (not as he is participated of vs, but as he is in himselfe) and maketh vs, already, to beginne to tast the sweetnesse of so great and happy an vnion, is not only true, but Diuine and Heauenly, such as nature could not teach vs, but is to be learned onely of God himselfe.

It being presupposed in the generalily, that the doctrine of the Christian faith is of God and containeth nothing but heauenly truth; in the next place we are to inquire, by what rule wee are to iudge of particular things contained within the compasse of it. This rule is first, the summary comprehension of such principall articles of this diuine knowledge, as are the principles whence all other things are concluded, and inferred. These are contained in the creed of the Apostles. Secondly, all such things as every Christian is bound expressely to beleeue, by the light & direction whereof he iudgeth of other things, which are not absolutely necessary, soe particularly to be knowne. These are rightly sayd to bee the rule of our faith, because the principles of euery science are the rule whereby wee iudge of the truth of all things, as being better and more generally knowne, then any other thing, and the cause of knowing them.

Thirdly, the Analogie, due proportion, and correspondence, that one thing in this diuiue knowledge hath with another, soe that men cannot erre in one of them, without erring in another; nor rightly vnderstand one, but they must likewise rightly conceiue the rest. Fourthly, whatsoeuer bookes were deliuered vnto vs, as written by them, to whom the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made. Fiftly, whatsoeuer hath been deliuered by all the Saints with one consent, which haue left their iudgment and opinion in writing. Sixtly, whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformely delivered, as a matter of faith, no man contradicting, though many other Ecclesiasticall writers be silent, and say nothing of it. Seuenthly, that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered, as matter of faith, and as receiued of them that went before them, in such sort that the contradictors and gainsayers w •… re in their beginnings noted for singularity, nouelty and diuision, and afterwards in processe of time (if they persisted in such contradiction) charged with heresie.

These three latter rules of our faith we admit, not because they are equall with the former, & originally in themselues containe the direction of our faith, but because nothing can be deliuered, with such and so full consent of the people of God, as in them is expressed, but it must needes bee, from those first Authors and founders of our Christian profession. The Romanists adde vnto these the decrees of Councels, and determinations of Popes, making these also to bee the rules of faith: but because we haue no proofe of their infallibility, we number them not with the rest.

Thus then we see, how many things, in seuerall degrees and sorts, are said to be rules of our faith. The infinite excellency of God, as that whereby the truth of the heauenly doctrine is proued. The articles of faith, and other verities euer expressely knowne in the Church, as the first principles, are the canon, by which we judge of conclusions from thence inferred. The Scripture, as containing in it all that doctrine of faith, which Christ the Sonne of GOD deliuered. The vnifor •… e practice, and consenting judgement of them that went before vs, as a 〈◊〉 and vndoubted explication, of the things contayned in the Scripture.

The Scripture (saith Contra profanas haeret: novitates. Vincentius Lirinensis,) is full and sufficient to all purposes: but because of the manifold turnings of heretiques, it is necessary that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation, be drawn •… •… owne, and directed vnto vs, according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholique sense. So then, we doe not so make the Scripture the rule of our faith, but that other things, in their kinde, are rules likewise, in such sort, that it is not safe, without respect had vnto them, to judge of things by the Scripture alone. For without the first rule, we cannot know the Scripture to be of God. Without the second and third, we haue no forme of Christian doctrine, by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions: without the other rules, wee cannot know the authors, and number of the Bookes of Scripture, nor the meaning of the things therein written. The Apostles wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large: neither can the scriptures be vnderstood now, but onely by such as will •… ee taught by the successors of the Apostles and guides of the Church, though being so taught, they may finde assuredly by the scriptures themselues, that they doe vnderstand them aright. For who shalbe able to vnderstand them, but hee that is settledin these things, which the Apostles presupposed, in their deliuery of the Scripture.

We doe not therefore, so make the Scripture the rule of our faith, as to neglect the other, nor so admit the other, as to detract any thing from the plenitude of the Scripture, in which all things are contained that must bee beleeued.

CHAP. 15.

Of the challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture, charging it with obscurity, and imperfection.

THis rule our adversaries least esteeme of, charging it with obscurity and imperfection, and thereupon rely vpon humane interpretations, and vncertaine traditions. Touching their first challenge made against this rule of the scripture, as being obscure and darke, and so not fit to giue direction to our faith, vnlesse it borrow light from some thing else: wee aunswere, there is no question, but there are manifold difficulties in the scripture, proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the things therein contained, which are without the compasse of naturall vnderstanding, and so are wholly hidden from naturall men, and not knowne of them that are spirituall, without much trauaile, and studious meditation; partly out of the ignorance of tongues, and of the nature of such things, by the cō parison whereof, the matters of divine knowledge are manifested vnto vs. But the difference betweene their opinion and ours, concerning this difficultie is, first in that they thinke the scripture so obscure and hard to be vnderstood, that Heretiques may wrest and abuse it at their pleasures, and no man be able to convince their folly, by the evidence of the Scripture it selfe. Secondly, in that they thinke, that wee cannot by any helpes bee assured out of the Scripture it selfe, and the nature of the things therein contayned, that that is the true meaning of it, which wee thinke to be, but that we rest in it, onely for the authority of the Church. But wee say, that men, not neglecting that light of direction, which the Church yeeldeth, nor other helpes and meanes, may be assured out of the nature of the things themselues, the conference of places, the knowledge of tongues, and the sutable correspondence, that one part of diuine truth hath with another, that they haue found out the true meaning of it, and so be able to convince the adversaries and gainesayers.

CHAP. 16.

Of the interpretation of Scripture, and to whom it pertayneth.

TOuching this poynt, there are two questions vsually proposed; the one to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth: the other by what rules and meanes, men may finde out t •… e true meaning of it. T •… ching the first, our Adversaries jangle m •… ch, with many declamations, against priuate interpretations, and interpretations of private spirits, and make the world beleeue, that wee follow no other rule of interpretation, but each mans private fancie.

For answere herevnto, we say with Cont. 5. q. 4. art. 2. explicat. 〈◊〉 . Stapleton, that interpretations of Scripture may be sayd to be private, and the spirits whence they proceede, named priuate, either Ratione personae, modi, or finis: That is, in respect of the person who interpreteth, the manner of his proceeding in interpreting, or the end of his interpretation. A priuate interpretation, proceeding from a priuate spirit in the first sense, is euery interpretation deliuered by men of priuate condition. In the second sense, is that, which men of what condition soeuer, deliuer, contemning and neglecting those publike meanes which are knowen to all, and are to be vsed by all that desire to finde the trueth.

In the third sense that, which proceeding from men of priuate condition, is not so proposed and vrged by them, as if they would binde all other to receiue and imbrace it, but is intended onely to their owne satisfaction. The first kind of interpretation, proceeding from a private spirit, is not to be disliked, if the parties so interpreting neither neglect the common rules & meanes, of attayning the right sense of that they interpret, contemne the judgement of other men, nor presumptuously take vpon them, to teach others, and enforce them to beleeue that, which they apprehend for trueth, without any authority so to doe.

But priuate spirits in the second sense, that is men of such dispositions, as will follow their owne fancies, and neglect the common rules of direction, as Enthusiasts, and trust to their owne sense, without conference and due respect to other mens judgements, wee accurse. This is all we say touching this matter: wherein I would faine know, what our aduersaries dislike. Surely nothing at all, as it will appeare to euery one, that shall but looke into the place aboue alledged out of Stapleton. But say they, there must bee some authenticall interpretation of Scripture, which euery one must bee bound to stand vnto, or else there will be no end of quarrels and contentions, The interpretation of Scripture is nothing else, but the explication and clearing of the meaning of it. This is either true or false. The true interpretation of the Scripture, is of two sorts. For there is an interpretation, which deliuereth that which is true, and contayned in the Scripture, or from thence to bee concluded, though not meant in that place which is expounded.

This is not absolutely and perfectly a true interpretation, because though it truely deliuereth such doctrine as is contayned in the Scripture, and nothing contrarie to the place interpreted, yet it doth not expresse that, that is particularly meant, in the place expounded. There is therefore another kind of true interpretations, when not onely that is deliuered which is contayned in the Scripture, but that which is meant in the particular places expounded.

Likewise false interpretations are of two sorts: some deliuering that which is vtterly false, and contrary to the Scripture; some others onely fayling in this, that they attaine not the true sense, of the particular places expounded. An example of the former, is that interpretation of that place of Genesis 6. 2. Genesis, The sonnes of God saw the daughters of men, &c. Tertul. de ivelandis Virg nibus. Debet adumbrari facies tam periculosa, quae vsque ad coelum scandola i •… culata est &c. Iustinus Martyr & Clemens, Gen. 6. Dei filios qui hominum filias conspexerunt Angelos interpretan •… Andrad: de script. & traditionum authoritate. l. 2. fol. 262. which some of the Fathers haue deliuered, vnderstanding by the sonnes of God, the Angels of Heauen, whose fall they suppose proceeded from the loue of women. Which errour they confirme by that of the Apostle, that women must come vayled into the Church for the Angels: that is as they interpret, least the Angels should fall in loue with them. A false interpretation of the later kind; Andrad: ib: fol. 257. Andradius sheweth, some thinke that exposition of the wordes of the Prophet Esaie, Esay. 53. Quis enarrabit generationem eius? Who shall declare his generation, deliuered by many of the Fathers, vnderstanding thereby the eternall generation of the son of God, which no man shall declare. Whereas, by the name of generation, the Prophet meaneth that multitude, that shall beleeue in Christ, which shall be so great, as cannot be expressed.

An authenticall interpretation, is that, which is not only true, but so clearely and in such sort, that euery one is bound to imbrace and to receiue it. As before we made 3 kinds of judgment, the one of discretion common to all, the other of direction common to the Pastors of the Church, and a third of jurisdiction, proper to them that haue supreame power in the Church: so likewise wee make three kindes of interpretation; the first private, and so euery one may interpret the Scripture, that is, privately with himselfe conceiue, or deliuer to other, what hee thinketh the meaning of it to bee; the second of publike direction, and so the Pastors of the Church may publikely propose what they conceiue of it; and the third of jurisdiction, and so they that haue supreme power, that is the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell, may interpret the Scripture, and by their authority suppresse all them that shall gainesay such interpretations, and subject euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vpon, to excommunication and censures of like nature.

But for authenticall interpretation of Scriptures, which every mans conscience is bound to yeeld vnto, it is of an higher nature: neither doe wee thinke any of these to be such, as proceeding from any of those before named & specified; to whom wee graunt a power of interpretation. Touching the interpretations which the Fathers haue deliuered, we receiue them as vndoubtedly true, in the generall doctrine they consent in, and so farre forth esteeme them as authenticall: yet doe wee thinke that holding the faith of the Fathers, it is lawfull to dissent from that interpretation of some particular places, which the greater part of them haue deliuered, or perhaps all that haue written of them, and to find out some other not mentioned by any of the Auncient.

CHAP. 17.

Of the interpretation of the Fathers, and how farre wee are bound to admit it.

THe Fathers, (Andradius defens. &c. l. 2. fol. 257. et 260. sayth Andradius) especially they of the Greeke Church, being ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, following Origen, did rather striue, with all their wit and learning, to devise Allegories; and to frame the manners of men, then to cleare the hard places of the law and the Prophets. Nay, euen Hierome himselfe, who more diligently then any of the rest, sought out the meaning and sense of the Propheticall and diuine Oracles, yet often to avoyde the obscurities of their words, betaketh himselfe to Allegories. In this sense it is that Caietan prooemio comment. in Gen. Cardinall Caietan saith, hee will not feare to goe against the torrent of all the Doctors; for which saying Andradius sheweth, that Canus and others doe vnjustly blame him. For though wee may not goe from the faith of the Fathers, nor from the maine trueth of doctrine, which they deliuer in different interpretations, yet may wee interpret some parts of the Scripture otherwise, then any of the Auncient euer did, weighing the circumstances of places, the nature and force of words in the Originall, and hauing other helpes necessary.

Neither is this to contemne the vniforme and maine consent of the Fathers, but rather more exactly to illustrate and explaine those things, which they did allegorically vnderstand, or not so diligently trauaile in, as is fit for them that come after, to doe. It is not then so strange a thing to say, that there are many places of Scripture, the true literall, and natural sense whereof, we cannot finde in any of the Ancient. Neither is this to charge them with error in faith: seeing the sense they giue, tendeth to the furtherance of the true faith, and the better forming of mens manners to godlinesse. Wherefore, wee feare not to pronounce with Andradius, that whosoeuer denyeth, that the true and literall sense of sundry texts of Scripture hath beene found out in this last age (wherein I •… praefat. in Novi Testamenti Syriaci Latinam interpret. as Guido Fabritius rightly noteth, all things seeme to bee renewed, and all learning to be newly borne into the world, that so Christ might bee newly fashioned in vs, and wee new borne in him) is most vnthankefull vnto God, that hath so richly shed out his benefites vpon the children of this generation, & vngratefull towards those men, who with so great paines, so happy successe, and so much benefit to Gods Church, haue travailed therein.

Neither is Andradius only of this opinion, but Iansenius, & Maldonatus also, who both of them do in sundry places professe, they rest not satisfied in any interpretation giuen by the Fathers, but preferre other found out in this age. For example, in the explication of that place of Iohn, Of his fulnesse, we haue all receiued, grace for grace; Comment. in Ioh. c. 1. Maldonatus, refuseth all the interpretations of the Fathers, and giueth this of his owne, We haue receiued, of Christs fulnesse, most excellent gifts of grace, yet no man hath receiued al, but euery one is defectiue, yea, euery one lacketh something, that another hath. But he may acknowledge the goodnesse of God towards him, in that hee hath some other in stead of it, which the other hath not, and so may rightly bee saide to haue receiued grace for grace, because in stead of that grace he wanteth, and another hath, hee hath receiued some other, which the other wanteth. Many other instances might bee giuen out of Caietane, Andradius, Iansenius, Maldonatus, and other worthy Divines of the Church of Rome: but this may suffice.

CHAP: 18.

Of the diuers senses of Scripture.

THus hauing set downe to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth, it remaineth, that wee speake of the rules, directions, and helpes, that men haue to leade thē to the finding out of the right meaning of it. But, because some suppose the Scripture hath many & vncertain senses, before we enter into the discourse of the rules, which must direct vs in interpreting, wee must speake something of the multiplicity of senses, supposed to be in the words of Scripture, which may seeme to contrary all certainety of interpretation. There is therefore a double sense of the sacred words and sentences of Scripture, for there is a literall sense, and a spirituall or mysticall sense. The literall sense is either proper, or natiue, when the words are to be taken, as originally in their proper signification they import, or figuratiue, when the words are translated from their naturall and proper signification, to signifie something resembled by those things, they do primarily import. Iohn 10. 16. As when Christ sayth, hee hath other sheepe, which are not of this fould.

The spirituall or mysticall sense of the Scripture is, when the words either properly, or figuratiuely, signifie somethings, which are figures and significations of other things. This is Threefoold: Allegoricall, Tropologicall, Anagogicall. The first is, when things spoken of in the old Testament, are figures of somethings in the Newe. So it was literally true, that Galat. 4. 22. Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-woman, the other by a free: but these two sonnes of Abraham imported some other thing in the state of the newe Testament, to wit, two different sorts of men. Illyrycus in claue Ser pturae, de multiplici sacra •… um literarum sensu, haec doctissimè tradit collecta ex varijs authoribus. And here wee may obserue the difference, betweene an Allegory and a Type. A Type is, when some perticular person, or fact, in the old Testament, demonstrateth, and shadoweth out vnto vs some particular person, or fact in the newe. An allegory, when something in the old Testament, in a spirituall, and mysticall sort, shadoweth out vnto vs in a generality, things in some proportion answering in the newe. So 1. Sam. 17. 50. Dauid, ouercomming Goliah, was a Type of Christ, and allegorically did shadow out that victory, which wee obtaine in the state of the newe Testament, ouer those ghostly enemies that rise vp against vs.

The Tropologicall sense of Scripture is, when one thing deliuered and reported in the Scripture, signifieth some other thing, pertaining to the behauiour and conuersation of men: as when God forbade to Deut: 25 4. 1 Cor. 9. 9. muzzle the mouth of the oxe, that treadeth out the corne. This prohibition did literally signifie, that God would not haue labouring oxen restrained from feeding, while they were treading out the corne. But this respect, which God had vnto these his creatures of inferiour cōdition, did signifie, that much lesse they which labour for our soules good, are to be denied the things of this life.

Anagogicall, when the things literally expressed vnto vs, do signifie something in the state of heauen happinesse. Psal. 95, 8. Hebr: 4. 1. God sware in his wrath, to the Israelites, that they should not enter into his rest, meaning the land of Canaan: but the Apostle from thence concludeth, that vnbeleeuers shall not enter into that eternall rest of the Saints in heauen; because the rest of the Israelites in the land of Canaan, after their manyfold dangers, vexations and trauels, was a figure of the eternall rest in heauen. This diuision of the manifold senses of Scripture is taken out of Eucherius.

Hierom maketh three kinds of exposition of Scripture, Historicall, Tropologicall, and Spirituall: that which he nameth spiritual comprehendeth both those before expressed by Eucherius, to wit, Allegoricall & Anagogicall. Augustine maketh the expositiō of the Scripture to be twofold, Historical, & Allegorical. The former he maketh to be twofold, to wit, Analogicall, & Aetiologicall: and the later he maketh to comprehend that, which properly is called Allegoricall, and the other two, to wit, Tropologicall, and Anagogicall.

The reason of this diuersity of mysticall senses is, because the old Testament was a figure of the new; and the new, of future glory. This multiplicity of senses breedeth no vncertainety in the Scripture, nor Aequivocation, because the words of the Scripture do not doubtfully signifie so diuers and different things, but the things certainly signified by the words, are signes & significations of diuers things. All these are founded vpon one literall & certain sense, from which onely in matter of question and doubt an argument may be drawen. The thing wherein Origen offended, was not, that hee found out spirituall and mysticall senses of the diuine Scripture, but because hee thought there is no literall true sense of them, but mysticall onely, so ouerthrowing the trueth of the sacred history of the booke of God. And the fault of many others in former times was, that following him too much, they neglected the literall sense, and ouercuriously sought out allegories, and mysticall senses; whereas yet the literall sense alone hath force and power to establish trueth, and improue error. Sixtus Sennens Bibliothecae l. 3. de vsu & vtilitate historicae & mysticae expopositionis. And this doubtlesse is the first and chiefest vse and necessity of following the literall sense. Another is, for that, being the foundation of the mysticall, if wee finde it not out, wee may runne into many errours. The Manichees out of those wordes of the Psalmist, where hee sayth, that God hath made a Tabernacle for the Sunne in heaven, out of which, it commeth in the morning, as a Bridegroome out of his chamber, to shew the brightnesse of his countenance to the sonnes of men; reading, Posuit tabernaculum suum in sole, God placed his Tabernacle, or appointed and made himselfe a Tabernacle in the Sunne, inferred, that Christ ascended into the highest heauens, without our flesh, leauing his body behind him, within the compasse of the globe of the Sunne, so that his flesh is to be adored in the Sunne, as in a Tabernacle wherein it resteth and remayneth. Intellectus sacri eloquij, inter textum & mysterium, magna est libratione pensandus. Multae enim eius sententiae tantâ allegoriarum conceptione sunt gravidae, vt quisquis eas adsolam tenere historiam nititur, earum noticiá per suam incuriam priuetur nonnulli verò ita exterioribus inseruiunt, •… t si quis eas subtilius penetrare desiderat, intus quidem nihil inueniat, sed etiam sibi quod foris loquuntur abscondat. Greg. moral. l 21. in cap. 31. cap. 1. Now as their course is not to bee excused, which follow the mysticall sense onely, & neglect the literall: so they are no lesse faulty, that follow the literall sense onely, and doe not at all consider the mysteries of spirituall vnderstanding, and information of Christian and godly conversation, which in the word of God, doe offer themselues vnto them. For they make the Scriptures, especially of the old testament, where so many things of outward observation, ceremonie, and purification were prescribed, vnsauorie, and to seeme lesse diuine, than the lawes and prescriptions of the Gentiles, as the Athenians, Lacedaemonians, and other, and the manifold histories of former times, to serue little to edification.

Betweene both these extreames, a meane is to be kept, that neither the one, nor the other be neglected: so that we must neither be like them, that reiecting the literall exposition, seeke out fond and childish Allegories, and so ouerthrow the trueth of the diuine historie, as Origen did, or neglect the knowledge of it, publishing their owne idle and ridiculous conceits, as if they were the great & hidden mysteries of the Christian faith and religion; nor like those, which rest in the bare and naked wordes, and syllables, without collecting from thence, such instructions as are fit. The former (sayth Sixtus Senensis) are to know, that howsoeuer they imagine, the literall exposition of the Scripture to bee easie, obvious, and triuiall, yet it is indeed the hardest of all other. Whereupon, both Hierome and Augustine confesse, that at first, to decline the obscurities and difficulties of the text of Scripture, they followed mysticall senses, as being more easie; but afterward when they grew in age, & so in ripenesse of iudgment they sought out the other, which is literall.

Thus we see the difference betweene the literall and mysticall sense of Scripture, and how and in what sort the one is the ground of the other. Which that wee misconceiue not, nor take one for another, wee must remember, that by the literall sense of Scripture, wee vnderstand not that onely, which the words doe properly afford, but which they primarily affoord, according to the intention of him that vseth them, and the construction of them that heare them. The mysticall sense opposite hereunto, is that which is not primarily intended by him that speaketh words, hauing such mysticall sense. All the allegories therefore, parables, and Aenigmaticall speaches which are vsed in Scripture, not being verified either in the intention of the speaker, or construction of the hearer, in sort as the words properly import, but as signifying things resembled by the things they properly import, doe literally signifie that, which by comparison of such things, they make vs vnderstand.

Here it is not out of place, to obserue the difference betweene a proverbe, parable, allegory, and aenigmaticall speech or riddle. A proverbe is a sententious saying, much in vse, and famous, for the most part somewhat obscure, by metaphoricall wordes expressing something to vs, and alluding to something not distinctly expressed. Though sometimes any famous and common saying, bee named a Proverbe. A Parable is, when one thing is compared and resembled to another; so Christ compared the kingdome of Heauen to leauen, to a graine of mustard seede, to ten virgins, to a net cast into the sea. Though sometimes the similitude of a thing, and not any such speach, wherein comparison is made betweene one thing, and another, is named a Parable.

Iansenius in concordiam Evangel. c. 52. fol. 402. Abraham recepit filium suum in parabola, that is, Abraham receiued his son from such an estate, as was most like to the state of the dead. An allegorie is, when he that speaketh intendeth to signifie, and insinuate some other thing, than his words in their primary vse, and signification doe import. Math. •… 7. 3. Behold, saith Christ, the sower went out to sow, &c. A Riddle, or Aenigmaticall speach, is an obscure allegorie. Iudicum c. 9. The trees went forth to anoint them a King: and againe: Cap. 14. Out of the eater came meate, & out of the strong came sweetnesse. The Scripture is full of these Allegories, Parables, Proverbiall and Aenigmaticall speaches; GOD in teaching vs, taking that course, he knoweth fittest for vs, and making vs vnderstand things heauenly, and invisible, by those that are earthly and visible.

And as God doth thus speake vnto vs in parables, Allegories, and Riddles, so did he shew the Prophets of old, in dreames and visions, the things that are heauenly, by those that are earthly, and the things that are invisible, by those that are visible: as in the Revelation, Revel. 〈◊〉 . Saint Iohn saw seuen golden Candlesticks, and one like the Sonne of man walking in the middest of them. Occam l. 3. 〈◊〉 . tract. part. 3. c. 19. There is none of these Aenigmaticall, Allegoricall, or Parabolicall speaches, nor none of these visions, but either by some things knowne to them, to whom they were proposed, or by speciall explication added to them, or per novi facti exhibitionem, by seeming the thing performed, that was so obscurely shadowed onely, may bee vnderstood. Not from ehe mysticall or spirituall senses aboue mentioned. From these without these helpes of vnderstanding; wee can conclude nothing that is doubtfull. An example of vnderstanding Aenigmaticall and hard speaches, by force of some things knowne vnto vs, giuing light vnto them, is the riddle of Samson, Out of the eater came meate, &c. which sny one, knowing that out of a Lyon hee had taken hony, would vnderstand, but another could not. By explication added, Revel. 1. 20. as the mysterie of the seuen starres, and seuen golden Candlestickes, is expounded to Iohn, that saw the vision of them. By evidence of the thing exhibited and performed, Iohn 2. 19. 22. Destroy this Temple, (sayth Christ) and in three dayes I will build it, and raise it vp againe. The disciples after they saw him risen from the dead, remembred these words, & vnderstood that they were spoken of our Sauiour, of the Temple of his body, and the resurrection of it. Math. 24. 15 So likewise, when they saw the miserable and abhominable overthrow of Ierusalem, and the Temple, they could not but vnderstand what was meant by the prophecie of Daniel, touching the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place.

Thus hauing cleared that doubt, which some make, touching the multiplicitie of senses of the words of Scripture, as if there were no certaine meaning of them, and hauing shewed which is that sense, we must principally seek after, as being the foūdation of the rest, it remaineth that we come to speak of the rules of direction, & the helpes we haue, to attaine to the vnderstanding of the true meaning of the Scripture. For as Hierome fitly noteth, In epist. ad Gal. in cap. 1. Non putemus in verbis scripturarum esse euangelium, sed in sensu, non in superficie, sed in medulla, non in sermonum folijs, sed in radice rationis. We must not thinke that the Gospell consisteth in the words of Scripture, but in the sense and meaning, not in the outward rinde and skinne, but in the inward pith and marrow, not in the leaues of the words, but in the roote and ground of reason.

CHAP: 19.

Of the rules we are to follow, and the helpes we are to trust to, in interpreting the Scriptures.

TOuching the rules wee are to follow, the helpes wee are to trust vnto, and the things required in the interpretation of Scripture, I thinke we may thus resolue. First there is required an illumination of the vnderstanding: for the naturall man perceiueth not the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned, but the spirituall man iudgeth all things, and himselfe is iudged of none. Secondly a minde free from the thought of other things depending on God, as the fountaine of illumination, desirous of the truth, with resolution to imbrace it, though contrary to the conceits of naturall men. Thirdly, the knowledge of the rule of faith, formerly set downe, and the practice of the Saints according to the same. Fourthly, a due consideration, what will follow vpon our interpretation, agreeing with, or contrary to, the things generally receiued, and beleeued among Christians: in which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture, and the things there deliuered is necessary. For the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted, the occasion of the words the things going before, and following after. Sixtly, the knowledge of all those Histories, Artes, and Sciences which may helpe vs. For, seeing grace presupposeth nature, and the Scripture doth not teach vs, but presupposeth wee know already, the things that may be discerned by the light of nature, many doe not vnderstand sundry passages of Scripture, because they bring not with them, to the study of it, that degree of naturall knowledge, which is requisite. Seuenthly, the knowledge of the originall tongues, and the phrases and Idiotismes of them. Soe that to resolue this matter yet more distinctly and fully, there are some things required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of Scripture, as making vs capable of such vnderstanding, of which sort is the illumination of the minde: some things as meanes, whereby wee attaine vnto it. These are of two sorts, either disposing and preparing only, as often reading, meditating, and praying, or else guiding vs in the very search it selfe. Thēse are either generall and most infallible, as the rule of faith, which if wee follow, wee are sure not to depart from the generall verity of the Christian faith: or more proper and speciall, directing vs to the true finding out of the meaning of particular places of Scripture. There is therefore betweene our aduersaries, and vs, no difference in this matter, if they wil vnderstand themselues. For we confesse, that neither conference of places, nor consideration of the antecedentia & consequentia, nor looking into the originals, are of any force, vnlesse we finde the things, which wee conceiue to bee vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of faith. Stapl. cont. 6. q. 7. exp. art. And they confesse, that though alone, and without respect had to the rule of faith, they be but probable meanes of direction, and not absolutely certaine, yet that being joyned with the rule of faith, they helpe and are exceedingly necessary.

De causis difficultatis scripturae & remedijs. remed. 2. Illyricus in his Clauis scripturae, speaking of the difficulties that are found in Scripture, and how they may be cleared, sheweth that nothing is more necessary for the vnderstanding of the Scripture, than to be rightly taught the generall principles, and axiomes of Diuinity, out of which doe flowe, and on which do depend, whatsoeuer things are contained in the Scripture; and then commeth to the other media assigned before. Neither is there any of our Diuines, that euer thought otherwise.

CHAP: 20.

Of the supposed imperfection of Scriptures, and the supply of Traditions.

THus hauing shewed what that difficulty and obscurity is, which is found in Scripture, who must interpret it, and by what rules they must be guided in the interpretatiō of it; it remaineth, that in the next place, we cleare the scriptures, from the other imputation of our adversaries, which is imperfection, which they indeauour to supply by addition of traditions. The necessity of writing, for the preseruation and safe keeping of those treasures of learning, and wisdome, which wee desire should remaine and be knowne to posterities, appeareth, in that fewe things remaine, of Socrates, Pythagoras, & others, renowned, in the times wherein they liued for wisdome and learning, because they left nothing in writing, as also by that Iob. 19. 24. of blessed Iob, Oh that my wordes were written &c. as if there were no other meanes to preserue the remembrance of things, that they should neuer be forgotten, but writing only. The Auncients had the knowledge of God without writing, but how soone it decayed, it easily appeareth. Surely it failed in euery family, in one at the least, till the time of Iacob father of the 12. Patriarkes. And therefore, after God took the whole posterity of Iacob to be his peculiar people, (a fauour which he shewed not to any of his fathers before) hee gaue them his lawes in writing: which Scripture or writing was so full and perfect, Bellar. l. 4. c. 8. de verbo non scripto. Non de •… unt inquit, aliqui Catholicorum, qui negant vllam fuisse traditionem non scriptam apud Iudaeos. that the Iewes had nothing deliuered vnto them, pertaining to the knowledge or seruice of God, that was not written.

The instance that our adversaries giue to the contrary, is concerning the females, and males dying before the eighth day, who not being circumcised, they presume they were sanctified to God, and found remission of their Originall and birth sinne, by some other sacred rite, and Sacramentall meanes appointed by God, though not written. Andrad. defen. l. 2. fo. 125. This instance is clearely refuted, by Andradius. If (sayth he) we shall more diligently looke into the thing itselfe, wee shall finde, that the Iewes had no set, or certaine rite of religion, wherewith to sanctifie & cleanse their women children, or males that died before circumcision, from the pollution of originall sin: and if perhaps any did sometimes vse any forme, or rite, it was rather a matter of priuate, & voluntary deuotion, than of necessitie. For whereas parents stand bound, by the generall law of God and nature, with all thankefull acknowledgment, to receiue their children, as a great and speciall benefit from God, this their faith, pietie, and thankefullnesse joyned with desire of, and prayer for their Good, prosperous, and happy estate, was accepted, and found fauour with God, on the behalfe of their children. Whereupon Moral. l. 4. c. 2. Gregory pronounceth, that the faith of the parents, was of the same force with them of the old time, that the Baptisme of water is with vs. And whereas Augustine sayth, it is not likely that the people of God, before the institution of Circumcision, had noe Sacrament wherewith to present their children to GOD, though the Scripture haue not expressed it, it is not to bee vnderstood, (sayth Andradius) of any outward ceremonies necessary for the sanctification of those Infants, but of any rite, & offering them to GOD, whether mentall onely, or outwardly object to the eye, and sense.

That which Andradius addeth, that it could not be knowne, but by tradition onely, that the faith of the parents was in stead of circumcision, before circumcision was instituted, and after the institution of it to them that might not lawfully, or could not possibly be circumcised, is frivolous; for men knew it, & concluded it out of the generall, and common rules of reason, and equity.

Touching the state of the people of God, since the comming of Christ, our adversaries make no doubt, but they can easily proue, that the writings, which the Church that now is, hath, are defectiue and imperfect. This they endeauour to proue: First, because the Scriptures of the New Testament, were written vpon particular occasions offered, and not of purpose to containe a perfect rule of faith. Secondly, because they were written by the Apostles and other Apostolique men, out of their owne motions, and not by commandement from Christ the Sonne of GOD. But vnto both these Arguments alleadged by our Adversaries, we answere, that they containe matter of very grosse errour.

For first, who seeth not plainly, that the Evangelistes writing the historie of Christs life and death, Saint Luke in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles, describing the comming of the Holy Ghost; the admirable gifts of grace powred vpon the Apostles, and the Churches established, and ordered by them: and the blessed Apostle Saint Iohn, writing the Revelations which hee saw, concerning the future state of things, to the end of the world; meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine, and direction of Christian faith. It is true indeed, that the Epistles of the Apostles, directed to the Christian Churches that then were, were occasionally written, yet so, as by the providence of God, all such things as the Church beleeueth, not being found in the other parts of Scripture purposely writtē, are most clearely, & at large deliuered in these Epistles.

Secondly, touching the other part of their Argument, which they bring to convince the Scripture of imperfection, because they that wrote it, had no commaundement to write, wee thinke it needeth no refutation, for Aug. lib. 1. de consensu Evangelista •… um cap. ult. quicquid il le de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit. the absurditie of it is evident and cleare of it selfe. 2 Pet. 1. 20. 21. For who knoweth not, that the Scriptures are not of any priuate motion, but that the holy men of God, were moued, impelled, and carried by the spirit of truth to the performance of this worke, doing nothing without the instinct of the Spirit, which was vnto them a Commandement.

The imperfection & defect supposed to be foundin the Scripture, our adversaries endeavour to supply, by addition of traditions. The name of Tradition, sometimes signifieth euery Christian doctrine, deliuered frō one, to another, either by liuely voyce only, or by writing, as Exod. 17. Scribe hoc ob monumentum in libro, & trade in auribus Iosuae: Write this for a remembrance in a Booke, and deliuer it in the eares of Iosuah, Act. 6. 14. The written Law of Moses, is called a Tradition. Audivimus eum dicentem, quoniam Iesus destruet locum istum, & mutabit traditiones quas tradidit nobis Moses. We heard him say, that Iesus shall destroy this place, and change the traditions, which Moses deliuered vnto vs. Sometimes the name of tradition signifieth that which is deliuered by liuely voyce onely, and not written. 1 Cor. 11. 23 That which I receiued of the Lord, saith the Apostle, that I deliuered vnto you. In this question, by tradition, we vnderstand such parts of Christian doctrine or discipline, as were not written by them, by whom they were first deliuered.

For thus our Adversaries vnderstand Traditions, which they diuide into divers kindes. First, in respect of the Authors, so making them of three sorts, Divine, Apostolicall & Ecclesiasticall. Secondly, in respect of the matter they concerne, in which respect they make them to be of tvvo sorts: for either they cō cerne matters of faith, or matters of manners: and these latter againe either temporall or perpetuall, vniuersall or particular. All these in their seuerall kindes they make equall with the wordes, precepts, and doctrines of Christ, the Apostles & Pastors of the Church left vnto vs in writing. Neither is there any reason why they should not so doe, if they could proue any such vnwritten verities. For it is not the writing, that giueth things their authoritie, but the worth & credite of him that deliuereth them, though but by word and liuely voyce onely.

The only doubt is, whether there be any such vnwritten traditions or not.

Much contention there hath beene, about Traditions, some vrging the necessity of them, and other rejecting them. For the clearing whereof we must obserue, that though we reiect the vncertaine and vaine traditions of the Papists, yet wee reiect not all. For first wee receiue the number and names of the authors of bookes Diuine & Canonicall, as deliuered by tradition. This tradition we admitte, for that, though the bookes of Scripture haue not their authority from the Approbation of the Church, but winne credite of themselues, and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to all men, of their Diuine truth, whence wee judge the Church that receiueth them, to bee led by the spirit of God; yet the number, Authors, and integrity of the parts of these bookes, wee receiue as deliuered by tradition.

The second kinde of tradition which wee admitte, is that summarie comprehension, of the cheefe heads of Christian doctrine, contayned in the Creed of the Apostles, which was deliuered to the Church, as a rule of her faith. Illa verba quae audiuisti •… per diuinas Scripturas sparsa sunt inde collecta & ad vnum redacta &c. Aug. ad catechumenos lib. 1. de symbolo cap. 1. For though euery part thereof be contayned in the Scripture, yet the orderly connexion, & distinct explication of these principall articles gathered into an Epitome, wherein are implyed, and whence are inferred, all conclusions theologicall, is rightly named a tradition. The 3d is that forme of Christian doctrine, and explication of the seuerall parts thereof, which the first Christians receiuing of the same Apostles, that deliuered to them the Scriptures, commended to posterities. This may rightly be named a tradition, not as if we were to beleeue any thing, without the warrant and authority of the Scripture, but for that wee neede a plaine and distinct explication of many things, which are somewhat obscurely contayned in the Scripture: which being explicated, the Scriptures which otherwise we should not so easily haue vnderstood, yeeld vs satisfaction that they are so indeede, as the Church deliuereth them vnto vs.

The fourth kind of tradition, is the continued practise of such things, as neither are contayned in the Scripture expressely, nor the examples of such practise expressely there deliuered, though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practise, be there contayned, and the benefit, or good that followeth of it. Of this sort is the Baptisme of Infantes, which is therefore named a tradition, because it is not expressely deliuered in Scripture, That the Apostles did baptize infants, nor any expresse precept there found, that they should so doe. Yet is not this so receiued by bare and naked tradition, but that wee find the Scripture to deliuer vnto vs the grounds of it. The fift kind of traditions, comprehendeth such observations, as in particular, are not commanded in Scripture, nor the necessity of them from thence concluded, though in generall without limitation of times, and other circumstances, such things be there commanded. Of this sort, many thinke the observation of the lent fast to be, the fast of the fourth and the sixt dayes of the weeke, and some other.

That the Apostles deliuered by liuely voyce, many obseruations, dispensable, and alterable, according to the circumstances of times, and persons, we make no question. Onely this we say, Waldensi •… tom. 3. titulo 7. cap. 63. traditiones apostolicas à purè ecclesiasticis iam temporis vastitate nescimus discernere. that they are confounded with Ecclesiasticall traditions; so that which they are, doth hardly appeare, and that they doe not necessarily binde posterities. The custome of standing at prayer on the Lords day, and betweene Easter and Whitsontinde, was generally receiued, as deliuered by Apostolique tradition, and when some beganne to breake it, is was confirmed by the Concilium Nicen. can: 20. The custome of ministring baptisme only at Easter and Whitsontide except in case of necessity was very general. whereupon Leo reprehendeth the Bishops •… f Sicilia for that contemning this tradition of the auncient they did baptise on the day of Epiphany. Councell of Nice, yet is it not thought necessary to be obserued in our time.

Out of this which hath beene sayd, wee may easily resolue what is to bee thought touching traditions. For first the Canon of scripture being admitted as deliuered by Tradition, (though the diuine truth of it, be in it selfe cleare and euident vnto vs, not depending of the Churches authority,) there is noe matter of faith deliuered by bare and onely tradition, as the Romanists seeme to Imagine. Yea this is so cleare, that therein they contrary themselues, indeauouring to proue by scripture the same things they pretend to hold by tradition as wee shall finde, if wee run through the things questioned betweene them and vs. The onely cleare instance they seeme to giue, is touching the perpetuall virginity of Mary, which they say cannot be proued by scripture, and yet is necessary to be beleeued.

But they should know, that this is no point of Christian faith. That shee was a Virgin before, in, and after the birth of Christ, wee are bound to beleeue as an article of our faith, and so much is deliuered in scripture and in the Apostles Creede: but that shee continued so euer after, is a seemely truth, deliuered vnto vs by the Church of God, fitting the sanctity of the blessed Virgin, and the honour due to soe sanctified a vessell of Christs incarnation, as her body was: and soe is de pietate, but not de necessitate fidei, as the Schoole-men vse to speake. Neither was Heluidius condemned of Heresie, for the deniall hereof, but because pertinaciously hee vrged the deniall of it, vpon misconstruction of scripture, as if the deniall of it had beene a matter of faith. Touching this Allegation of our Aduersaries, concerning Maries perpetuall Virginity, wee must know, that howsoeuer they pretend to hold it onely by tradition, They proued it out of the 44. of Ezechiel 2. as Hiero. sheweth in his comment vpon this place. Index biblicus in regijs biblijs vacabulo Maria multis scripturae locis significari perpetuam virginitatem Mariae ostendit yet the Fathers, that defend it against Heluidius, endeauour to proue it by the Scripture. Their instance of Childrens Baptisme, is most apparantly against themselues, for they confesse it may be proued by scripture. Bellar. de sacra. baptis. lib. 1. cap. 8. Bellarmine proueth it by three reasons, taken from the scripture. The first is, from the proportion betweene Baptisme and Circumcision, the Circumcision of Children then, and the Baptisme of them now. This argument he saith as they propose it, cannot be auoyded. The second from these two places Iohn. 3. Except a man be borne a new, of water and of the spirit, hee cannot enter into the kingdome of Heauen. And that other, Suffer little children to come vnto mee, for vnto such belongeth the Kingdome of Heauen.

This Argument he sayth is strong, effectuall, and pregnant, to proue the necessity of the Baptisme of Infants. The third is taken from the Baptizing of whole families by the Apostles, in which by all likelihood, there were infants.

Surely in this point of traditions, our aduersaries bewray their great folly & inconstancie, making it euident to the whole world, they know not what they say. Bellarmine sayth, that many things, touching the matter and forme of sacraments, are holden by tradition, as not being contained in scripture: and yet in the particulars, We shall finde an vncertaintie touching the forme and words of forme of all those pretended Sacraments of mariage, penance vnction and confirmation: which in scripture are not 〈◊〉 vnto vs as sacraments. there is nothing defined in the Church of Rome touching these things, which he indeauoureth not to proue by scripture. Some alleage, for proofe of tradition, the consubstantiality of the sonne of God with the Father, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost from them both. Others constantly affirme, that these things are proued by scripture. Some of them say Pugatory is holden by tradition, others thinke it may bee proued by scripture, g Melchior Canus endeauouring to proue the necessity of traditions, produceth sundry things as not written, as inuocation of Saints, worshipping of images, the Priests consecrating, and partaking in both parts of the sacrament. That ordination and confirmation, are to bee conferred, and giuen, but onely once: which when hee hath alleaged, hee dareth not say, the scripture doth not deliuer them for feare of gainesaying the truth in some of them, and his owne o Canus lib. 3. c. 3. fundamentum. 3. fellowes in other. And therefore hee sayth, These things perhaps, the scripture hath not deliuered. L. 1. de sanct. beatit. & l. 2. c. 12. de sanctorum imaginibus probat testimoniis scripturae imagines esse colendas. For Bellarmine thinketh, the Scripture doeth strongly proue the Invocation and worship of Saints and Angels: and who is so impudent to deny, that the Ministers of the Church, are bound by the commaundement of Christ, contayned in the Scripture, to consecrate and participate in both parts of the Sacrament? That confirmation, and ordination, once conferred, are not to be reiterated, may be concluded out of the nature of them, described vnto vs in the Scripture. So that for matters of faith, wee may conclude according to the judgement of the best and most learned, of our adversaries themselues, that there is nothing to be beleeued, which is not either expressely contayned in Scripture, or at least by necessary consequence from thence, and other things evident in the light of nature, or in the matter of fact, to bee concluded. That there were many speeches and diuine sayings of our Sauiour Christ, which though they were neuer written by the Evangelists, the Apostles, and others conversant with him in the dayes of his flesh, knew and faithfully preserued and kept, Lucae 2. 19. as Mary did all things, which she heard him speake, and saw him doe, (of which sort was that, alleadged by the Apostle, Acts 20. 35 It is more blessed to giue then to receiue) wee make no question: but that there are any of those vnwritten speeches, or Actions, necessary to bee knowne for our salvation, or containing any other matter of diuine knowledge, then is written, or that are certainely knowne vnto the Church now, we vtterly deny. All the historicall things (Panopl. l. 4. c. 20. saith Bishop Lindan) which are reported concerning Christ, not contained in Scripture, are fabulous, or vncertaine. Which doubtlesse was the reason, why more errours were found in the writings of the first Tertul. Iraen. Arnobius, Papias, Lactantius, &c. Fathers of the Primitiue Church, then in those that were further remoued from those first beginnings, because they were abused by the false and vncertaine reports of traditions, which in those times men greedily hearkened after, as liuing with thē, which had beene conversant with the Apostles or their Schollers, as wee shall finde by that is reported of Euseb. l. 3. c. 35. Pererius in Genesin l. 3. q. 5. ait errorem Chiliastarum quo multi veterum fuerunt implicati ab Asiae presbyteris esse proseminatum. Iraeneus l. 3: advers. haereses c. 39. persuadere studet Christum dominum annos prope 50 in terris vixisse, idque probat vel eo potissimum argumento quod presbyteri Asiae Apostolorum discipuli id sibi ab Apostolis traditum docuerunt. Papias, and it appeareth by the writings of others.

Thus hauing made it cleare and evident, that it is not safe to relye vpon traditions in things concerning the faith, let vs come to those traditions, which concerne the manners and conversation of men.

That the Apostles deliuered many things of this nature to the Churches, some by way of precept, some by way of Councell and advice onely, some to particular Churches, and some to all, some to continue but for a time, and some to continue for euer, we make no doubt. Of this sort is the observation of the Lords day, the precept whereof is not found in Scripture, though the practice be, and so may be named a tradition. And sundry other things there are, which doubtlesse the Apostles deliuered by tradition, but they are confounded with Ecclesiasticall traditions, as Tom. 3. tit. 7. c. 63. Waldensis aptly noteth, that wee might the more reuerence the constitutions of the Church, and are dispensable by the guides of the Church: because the Apostles, and Apostolike men that deliuered them, did not deliuer them as reporting the immediate precepts of Christ himselfe, but by vertue of their Pastorall power and office; and so it little concerneth vs, exactly to know, whether they were deliuered by the Apostles themselues, or their next after-commers: For if they were deliuered by the Apostles, yet are they dispensable by the authority of the Church: and if not by them, but by others, they may not be dispensed with, nor altered, but by the same authority.

CHAP. 21.

Of the rules, whereby true Traditions may be knowen from counterfaite.

THus hauing set downe the kindes and sorts of traditions, it remaineth to examine, by what meanes wee may come to discerne, and by what rules wee may judge, which are true and indubitate traditions. The first rule is deliuered by Lib. 4. contra Donatistas, c. 23. Augustine; Quod vniuersa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolicâ traditum, rectissimè creditur. Whatsoeuer the whole Church holdeth, not being decreed by the authority of Councelles, but hauing been euer holden, may rightly be thought, to haue proceeded from Apostolike authority. The second rule is, whatsoeuer all, or the most famous, and renowmed, in all ages, or at the least in diuerse ages, haue constantly deliuered, as receiued from them that went before them, no man contradicting or doubting of it, may bee thought to be an Apostolicall tradition. The third rule, is the constant Testimony, of the Pastors of an Apostolike Church, successiuely deliuered: to which some adde, the present testimony of any Apostolike Church, whose declinings when they beganne, we cannot precisely tell. But none of the Fathers admitte this rule. For when they vrge the authority and testimony of Apostolike Churches, for the proofe, or reproofe of true or pretended traditions, they stand vpon the consenting voyce, or silence, of the Pastors of such Churches, successiuely in diverse ages concerning such things. Some adde the testimony of the present Church: but we enquire after the rule, whereby the present Church may know true traditions from false: and besides, though the whole multitude of beleeuers, at one time in the world, cannot erre pertinaciously, and damnably, in embracing false traditions, in stead of true; yet they that most sway things in the Church may, yea euen the greater part of a generall councell; so that this can be no sure rule for men to iudge of traditions by. And therefore De traditionibus, l. 3. c. 4. Canus reasoneth foolishly, that whatsoeuer the Church of Rome practiceth, which shee may not doe without speciall warrant from God, and yet hath no warrant in Scripture so to doe, the same things and the practise of them shee hath receiued by tradition. Hee giueth example in the present practice of the Romish Church, in dispensing with, & remitting vowes and oathes, and in dissoluing marriages, (not consummate by carnall knowledge,) by admitting men into orders of Religion. But this practice of the Romish Church, wee condemne, as wicked, and Antichristian.

CHAP. 22.

Of the difference of bookes Canonicall and Apocriphall.

THus hauing answered our aduersaries obiections, touching the obscuritie, and imperfections, of the scripture, which wee affirme to be the rule of our faith; it remayneth, that in particular wee consider, which are the bookes of this Scripture, contayning the rule of our faith, and where the indubitate, and certaine verity of them, is to be found, whether in the originals, or in the Translations. The bookes which Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles deliuered to the world, containe the Canon, that is the rule of piety, faith, and religion, which the sonnes of men receiued by Reuelation from heauen, and therefore are rightly named Canonicall. The matter of these bookes, wee beleeue to haue beene inspired from the holy Ghost, for our instruction; whose authoritie is so great, that no man may doubt of them. The writers of these bookes, were in such sort guided, and directed by the spirit of trueth, in composing of them, that not to beleeue them, were impious. Wherevpon Aug Hieronym. Augustine writing to Hierome, saith, Ego solis eis scriptoribus, qui Canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem, honoremque deferre, vt nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissimè teneam; at si quod in iis invenero, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud existimem, quàm mendosum esse codicem, vel non esse assecutum interpretem, quod dictum est, vel me minimè intellexisse non ambigam: alios autem ita lego, vt quantalibet sanctitate, doctrinâve polleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ita senserunt, sed quia mihi per illos auctores canonicos vel probabiles rationes, quod à vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. That is, I haue learned to yeelde that reuerence and honour to those writers onely that are called Canonicall, to thinke that none of them could erre in writing; but if in them I find any thing that may seeme contrary to the trueth, I perswade my selfe that either the Copie is corrupt, or the interpreter defectiue and faultie, or that the fault is in my not vnderstanding of it: but other authors I so read, that how great soeuer their learning & sanctitie bee, I doe not therefore thinke any thing to bee true, because they haue so thought, but because they perswade me that it is true, by the authority of the Canonicall authors,, or the probability of Reason.

Besides the indubitate writings of those Canonicall Authours, there are other bookes written of the same argument, which because the credite and authority of the authors of them is not knowen, are named Apocryphall.

Bookes are named Apocryphall, first because the authour of them is not knowen: and in this sense some of the Bookes of Canonicall Scripture, as the bookes of Chronicles, of Hester, and a great part of the Psalmes may be named Apocryphall, though vnproperly, and vnfitly: (The authority of the authors of them, not being doubted of, though their names, and other personall conditions be not knowen.) De lib. canonicis, l. 3. fo. 287 And therefore Andradius reprehendeth the Glosse, which defineth those things to be Apocryphall, quae incerto authore prodita sunt, the author and publisher whereof is not knowen.

Secondly, bookes are therefore named Apocryphall, because the authority and credite of them is called in question, it being doubted, whether they proceeded from the inspiration of the holy spirit; so that they cannot serue for the confirmation of any thing that is called in question. In this seuse In prologo Galiato. Hierome calleth the bookes of the Macchabees, and the rest of that kinde, Apocryphall, though they were read privately and publikely, for the edification of the people, and the information of manners.

Lib. Apocryphi appellantur, non quòd habendi sint in aliqua auctoritate secreta, sed quia nulla testificationis luce de nescio quo secreto, nescio quorum praesumptione prolati sunt Aug. contra Faustum Manichaeum. l. 11. cap. 2. Thirdly, such bookes are named Apocryphall, as are meerely fabulous and full of impiety, and therefore interdicted, and forbidden to bee read, or regarded at all. The auncientest of the Fathers, name these onely Apocryphall, and so doth Hierome sometimes, calling those of the second ranke, Hagiographall: Andrad. de lib. canonicis fol. 286. though this name be sometimes giuen to those Canonicall bookes which pertaine not to the Lawe nor the Prophets, as the booke of Iob, the Psalmes, the bookes of Salomon, Esdras, the Chronicles, &c. so diuiding the whole Canon of the Scripture, of the old Testament, into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographall bookes, that is, those, which not hauing any proper name of difference, retaine and are knowen, by the common name of holy writ.

CHAP. 23.

Of the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes of Scripture.

THe bookes of the old Testament were committed to the Church of the Iewes: wherevpon that is one of the things in respect whereof, the Rom. 3. 1, 2. Apostle preferreth them before the Gentiles, that to them were committed the Oracles of God. This Church of the Iewes, admitted but onely 22 bookes, as deliuered vnto them from God, to bee the Canon of their faith, according to the nūber of the letters of their Alphabet, as Cont. Appianum l. 1. Eusebius l. 3. c. 10 Iosephus sheweth. For though they sometimes reckon foure and twenty, and somtimes seuen and twenty, yet they adde no more in one of these accounts, than in the other. For, repeating Iod thrice, for honour of the Name of GOD, and so the number of the letters rising to foure and twenty, they number the bookes of Canonicall Scripture to be foure and twenty, dividing the booke of Ruth from the Iudges, and the Lamentations from the Prophecies of Ieremy, and reckoning them by themselues, which in the former account they joyned with them. These bookes thus numbred Prefat. in lib. Reg. Hierome fitly compareth to the foure and twenty Elders mentioned in the Revelation, Qui adorabant, & prostratis vultibus, offerebant coronas suas, Which prostrating themselues, adored and worshipped the Lambe, acknowledging that they receiued their Crownes of him: Stantibus coram quatuor animalibus, oculatis antè, & retrò, in praeteritum & futurum respicientibus. Those foure admirable liuing creatures, hauing eyes before, and behind, looking to things past, and to come, standing before him. And because fiue of the Hebrew letters are double, Damascen l. 4 orthodoxae fid. c. 18 they sometimes reckon the bookes of the holy Canon so, as that they make them rise to the number of seuen and twenty, reckoning the first and second of Samuel, of Kings, of Chronicles, and of Esdras, by themselues seuerally, which in the first accompt were numbred together, two of euery of these being accompted, but as one booke, and dividing Ruth from the Iudges. These onely did the auncient Church of the Iewes receiue, as Divine and Canonicall.

That other bookes were added vnto these, whose authority not being certain and knowne, are named Apocryphall, fell out on this sort. Acts, 6. 1. The Iewes in their latter times, Glossa ordinatia & before, and at the comming of Christ, were of two Lyrani in eundem locum. sorts; some properly and for distinctions sake named Hebrewes, commorant at Hierusalem, and in the holy Land; others named Helenists, that is, Iewes of the dispersion, mingled with the Grecians. These had written sundry bookes in Greeke, which they made vse of, together with other parts of the Old Testament, which they had of the Translation of the Septuagint: but the Hebrewes receiued onely the two and twenty bookes before mentioned. Hence it came, that the Iewes deliuered a double Canon of the Scripture, to the Christian Churches: the one pure, indubitate, and divine, which is the Hebrew Canon; the other in Greeke, enriched with, or rather adulterated by the addition of certain bookes written in those times, when God raised vp no more Prophets among his people. This volume thus mixed of diuers sorts of bookes, the Christians receiued of the Iewes. These bookes joyned in one volume, were translated out of Greeke into Latine, and read by them of the Latine Church, in that Translation: Iudaeus, Aquila, Symachus, & Theodosion, Iudaizantes haeretici sunt recepti Hier. praef. in lib. Iobi. for there was no Catholique Christian, that euer translated the Scriptures of the old Testament, out of Hebrew into Latine, before Hieromes time, nor none after him, till our age.

Hence it came, that the Fathers of the Greeke Church, hauing Origen, and sundry other learned in the Hebrew tongue, and making search into the antiquities and originals of the Iewes, receiued as Canonicall, onely the two and twenty bookes, written in the Hebrew, and did account all those books, which were added in the Greeke to bee Apocryphall. The Latines receiuing them both in one Translation, and bound vp in one volume, vsed sundry parts of the Apocryphall bookes, in their prayers, and readings, together with the other, and cited them in their writings: yet did none of them make any Catalogue of Canonicall, and Apocryphall bookes, and number them amongst the Canonicall, before the Concilium Carth. 3. can. 47 third Councell of Carthage, wherein Augustine was present, at which time also Innocentius E •… uperio ep. 5. cap. ult. Innocentius liued; which Fathers seeme to adde to the Canon diuers bookes which the Hebrewes receiue not. Hierome translating the Scriptures out of the Hebrew, and most exactly learning what was the Hebrew Canon, rejected all besides the two and twenty Hebrew bookes, as the Grecians did before, and as after him, all men of note in the Latine Church did.

There was great exception taken to Hierome, for aduenturing to translate the scripture out of Hebrew, and among others Aug: Hieron. epist. 10. Augustine and the Africans, seemed not much to like it. They therefore reckon the bookes of Scripture, according as they found them in vse in the Latine Church, not exactly noting the difference of the one, from the other: yet not denying, but that the Hebrew Canon consisted only of two and twenty bookes, and that many tooke exceptions to them, when they alleaged any testimonies out of those bookes, the Hebrewes admit not. Against which exceptions, De praedestinatione Sanctorum. c. 14. Augustine no otherwise iustifieth himselfe but by the vse of the Church in reading them. Which proofe is too weake to proue them Canonicall, seeing the prayer of Manasses, confessed by our aduersaries to be Apocryphall, the third and fourth of Esdras, the booke called Pastor, and some other, were likewise read by them of the Church, cited by them in their writings, and many things translated out of them, into the publike prayers, and Liturgies of the Church.

Thus then these Fathers not looking carefully into the originals, name all those bookes Canonicall, which the vse of Gods Church approoued as profitable, and containing matter of good instruction, and so numbred the bookes of Wisdome, & the rest with the Canonicall. Whose opinion yet, as Caietane thinketh, was not that they were absolutely Canonicall, but in a sort, in that they containe a good direction of mens manners. These the Greeke Fathers rejected from the Canon, admitting only those which the reformed Churches at this day admitte, as also almost all the diuines of the Latine Church, after Hierome, doe.

That some of the Greeke Fathers rejected the booke of Hester, it was, (as Bibliothecae sanctae. l. 1. pag. 20. Sixtus Senensis rightly noteth) by reason of those Apocryphall additions, which they not being skilfull in the Hebrew tongue, did not discerne from the true parts of it, which errour made them to reject the whole booke as Apocryphall, This was also the reason, why they admitted those Apochryphall additaments, joyned to the booke of Daniel.

Howsoeuer, it appeareth that all they, which diligently looked into these things, did admit all those bookes which we admitte and reject all those which we reject. Neither is there any one amongst all the auncient, before the third Councell of Carthage, that clearely, and of set purpose, numbreth the bookes q In Synopsi. controuersed betweene vs and our aduersaries, with the bookes of the Canon. Eusebius l. 4. cap. 25. Melito, then Bishop of Sardis, going purposely into the East parts of the world, that he might diligently search out the monuments and sacred bookes of diuine knowledge, reckoneth those only Canonicall, which we do, saue that he addeth the booke of Wisdome. Eusebius 6. c. 24. Origen admitteth and acknowledgeth onely two and twenty bookes of the old Testament. Athanasius likewise numbreth the books of the Canon in the same sort, and addeth, There are also certaine other bookes which are read only to the Catechumens, and nouices. In prolog. explanat. Psalmorum. Hilarius sayth, the law of the old Couenant, is contained in two and twenty bookes, answerable to the number of the Hebrew letters. De genuinis scripturae libris, & cygneorum carminum. lib: ad Seleucum de recta educatione. Nazianzene also, is of the same opinion, and 4. Catechesision. Cyrillus Bishop of Hierusalem, onely he addeth the booke of Baruch, thinking it to be a part of Ieremies Prophecies: but suffereth not any others to be added, saying, The Apostles and first Bishops which deliuered these only, were wiser, and much more to be esteemed, than such as now goe about to adde others. Of the same judgment are Contra Epicur. haeres. 8. & de mensuris, & ponderibus. Epiphanius, In expositione Symboli. Ruffinus, In prolog. Galiato. Hierome, and In Iob. li. 19. cap. 17. Gregory. And Eusebius. li. 3. cap. 10. Iosephus confirmeth the opinion of these Fathers saying, that from the time of Artaxerxes, till the age wherein he liued, all things were cōmitted to writing, which concerned the state of Gods people and Religion: but that they were not of equall authority, with those, which were formerly written, because after that time, the indubitate succession of the Prophets ceased.

Vnto these authorities of the Fathers, some of our aduersaries (as De lib. Canonicis, l. 3. pap: 289. Andradius and others) doe answere, that they speake of the Canon of the Hebrewes, and not of the Canon of the Church; so not denying absolutely these bookes to bee canonicall, but that they are not so esteemed by the Iewes: but this aunswere Praefatio in lib. Solom. Ep. Chromatium & Heliodorum. the wordes of Hierome doe most clearely refute. As (sayth hee) the Church, not the Synagogue of the Iewes, readeth the bookes of Iudeth, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but receiueth them not as Canonicall Scriptures: so likewise it may reade these two bookes of Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, but not for confirmation of doubtfull poynts of doctrine. And therefore Bellarmine, Sixtus Senensis, and others, clearely confesse, that this answere of Andradius is insufficient.

They therefore adde another, to wit, that the Canon was not perfectly knowen, and confirmed, in the time of those Fathers. Wee aske them when it was confirmed. If they say, in the Councell of Nice, which (as In praefat. in lib. Iudeth, Hierome sayth some report) receiued the booke of Iudeth, as Canonicall, though Ponopliae li: 3. cap. 3. Si Nicena Synodus olim hunc ludeth libr. cum alijs, in Canonem redegerat, cur annis 80. post cam non recenset Laodicena? cur Nazianz: eius non meminit? sed legitur computasse ait Hier. quod mihi dubitantis suspicionem subindica •… e videtur. Lindan say it is not likely it did, and that Hierome did not say it did so, but that some reported so; wee aske how it came to passe, that so many Catholike Diuines, after the Nicene Councell, reiected these bookes as they did before. If they say, they were confirmed in the Councell of Cartharge, that was but a prouinciall Councell, as was that of Laodicea, in which they are not mentioned. If they say the Councell of Carthage was confirmed in the sixt generall Councell holden at Trullo; wee answere, first, that it was no more confirmed there, Laodicense Conc lium manifestè confirmatum est à Synodo Trullan •… : Canus lib. 2. cap: 9. than that of Laodicea: and as Lib. 2. cap. 9. Canus noteth, the sixt Councell doeth not expressely name the third Councell of Carthage, but onely speaketh of Canons agreed vpon in new Carthage. Quod acta 6, Synodi parengrapha sint Alberti Pighij Diatribae. Secondly, wee say, that those Canons of the sixt Councell, wherein this pretended confirmation is found, are of no credit with the Romanists; so that it is cleare, that neither the Nicene Councell, nor this other, did confirme the authoritie of the bookes questioned, as appeareth by the consent of almost all the worthiest Diuines in the Church, after those Councells till our age, as Moral. lib. 19. in cap 29. Iobi 1. 17. Gregory, Lib. 4. cap. 18, Orthodoxae fidei. Damascenus, Eruditionis Didascalicae, lib. 4. cap. 2. Hugo de Sancto Victore, Exceptionum lib. 2. cap. 9. Ricardus de sancto Victore, De auctoritate veteris Testamenti, folio 25. Petrus Cluniacensis, In praefat. in lib. Tobiae. Lyranus, Prolog. in Ecclesiasticum. Dionysius Carthusianus, In prolog. in Ecclesiasticum. Hugo Cardinalis, In summa theologica. 1, part. quaest. 89, art. 8. ad. 2. Thomas Aquinas, Dialog. lib. 3. 1. tractatus part. 3. cap. 16. Occam, Theoremat: 5. Picus Mirandula, Doctrinal. fidei, lib. 2. art. 2, cap. 22. Waldensis, Lib. 19. cap. 19. in quaest. Armeniorum. Armacanus, De Eccles. dog. lib. 1. cap. vlt. Driedo, Caietane, and others.

CHAP. 24.

Of the vncertainty and contrariety found amongst Papists touching bookes Canonicall and Apocryphall now controversed.

BVt let vs come particularly to the bookes controversed, and see how sweetely our aduersaries agree with themselues, in admitting or reiecting them. First, touching the booke of Baruch, though the Councell of Florence and Trent, haue confirmed it to be Canonicall: yet Li. 2. c 9. Melchior Canus sayth, it is doubtfull, whether it be or not; and yet sayth, if it bee not Canonicall, the Councels of Florence & Trent haue erred, and the people of God beene long abused, and the Church in greevous errour. Lib. 12. cap. 6. And elswhere againe he sayth, the Church hath not certainely resolued, that it is Canonicall, and that it yeeldeth no certaine, cleare, and indubitate proofe in matters of faith. In catal. scriptur. l. r. c, 4. Driedo denyeth it to be canonicall, & saith, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others of the Fathers cited the Booke of Baruch, as also the third and fourth of Esdras, not as Canonicall, but as containing matter of good instruction, not contrary, but consonant to the faith. The additions of the booke of Hester, Biblioth. l. 〈◊〉 . p. 19 Sixtus absolutely rejecteth, as vaine and foolish, contrary to the judgements of the Papists; yet admitteth the additions to Daniel. These also In cat. scriptur. lib. r. c. ult. Driedo rejecteth, notwithstanding the decree of the Tridentine Councell, Lib. 2. cap. 32. as the author of the booke De mirabilibus Scripturae did long before, calling the story of Bell and the Dragon a fable. Lib. 2. cap. 9. Melchior Canus professeth he dareth not pronounce it hereticall, to deny any, or all of the controversed bookes of the Old Testament, and yet confidently pronounceth it hereticall to deny any of the bookes of the New Testament, which were sometimes doubted of; so that it seemeth a man may dissent from a generall Councell, and not be an Hereticke, and that the Councell of Trent proceeded not vpon so good grounds of reason, in approouing the one, as the other, contrary to their judgment, who say, we may as well doubt of the Bookes of the New Testament, whereof some doubted in former times, as of these of the Olde.

But it is easie to shew their errour who so thinke, and to confirme the opinion of Canus, that there is not so great reason, why we should doubt of the one, as the other. For first, the Bookes of the New Testament were neuer doubted of, but by some few, in comparison of them that receiued and approued them: the most and most renowned for piety, learning, and right judgement, euer receiuing them. For, to begin with those, of which there hath beene most doubt, The Epistle to the Hebrewes, and the booke of the Revelation of S Iohn. In epist. ad Dardanum de terra promissionis. Hierome witnesseth, that they neuer wanted the approbation of the worthiest and greatest parts of Gods Church. Illud (sayth he) nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab Ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retrò Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli Epistolam suscipi, licèt eam plerique vel Barnabae, vel Clementis, arbitrentur esse, &c. Let our men know, that the Epistle to the Hebrewes, is not onely receiued, and approued, by all the Churches of the East, that now presently are, but by all Ecclesiasticall writers of the Greeke Churches, that haue beene heretofore, as the Epistle of Paul: though many thinke it rather to haue beene written by Barnabas or Clemens: and that it skilleth not who wrote it, seeing it was written by an Authour approued in the Church ofGod, and is dayly read in the same. If the custome of the Latines receiue it not among the Canonicall Scriptures, no more doe the Greeke Churches admit the Revelation of Saint Iohn: and yet we following the authority of the Auncient, receiue them both. Secondly, the Churches of the Gentiles, to which the Bookes of the New Testament were deliuered, were in parts of the world farre remote one from another, and did not immediatly all of them receiue all the parts of these diuine bookes, from the Authors of them, but from those particular Churches, to which they were specially directed, or in the middest whereof the writers of them remained, at the time of the writing of them. And therefore it is not to bee marvailed at, if being deliuered and transmitted from one to another, some receiued them sooner, and some later. But the Bookes of the Olde Testament were deliuered to one nationall Church only, and yet these now controversed were neuer receiued by it. Thirdly, these Bookes of the New Testament, whereof some informer times did doubt, were written in the Apostles times, whom GOD honoured with the first, immediate, and vndoubted revelation of Divine trueth: these, after the succession of the Prophets were ceased. Fourthly, the bookes of the Olde Testament now controversed, were not written in the Hebrew, but in Greeke, by such of the Iewes as were of the dispersion, and therefore neuer receiued by the Hebrewes, nor counted amongst the sacred Bookes of the Canon; which they diuided Aug. li 2. cont epist. Gaudentij, c. 23. scripturam quam appellant Maccabaeorum, non habent Iudaei, sicut Legem, & Prophetas & Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet ta •… quam testibus suis, Lucae 24. 4 •… . Sixtus Bibliothecae Sanctae li. 1. de varia partitione librorum canonicorum. into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalmes; to which Christ giueth testimony in the Gospell. Lastly, the reason mouing some, to doubt of the bookes of the new Testament, was the vncertainty of the names of the authors, or something mistaken, misconstrued, or not understood in the bookes, which in time was cleared, and they afterward generally receiued. But the Apochryphall bookes of the old Testament, were rejected, as being written, when there was no more vndoubted succession of Prophets, by the whole Church of the Hebrewes, and euer after by the best and worthiest guides of the Christian Churches.

That the bookes of the newe Testament, called in question by some, were doubted of vpon such weake reasons, as hath beene sayd, will easily appeare. The Epistle to the Hebrewes was therefore doubted of by some, because the difference, and diuersity of the style, made them thinke it not to be Pauls, whose name it carried, and by others, because the author of it seemed to them, to fauour the errour of the Nouatians, in denying the reconciliation of such, as fall after baptisme. The second Epistle of Peter some doubted of, because of the diuersity of the style, which Hierome rejecteth. The Epistle of Iames, because of the vncertainty of the author, it being doubtfull, which Iames was the author of it. The Epistle of Iude, because the author of it, alleageth the authoritie of an Apochryphall booke of Enoch, as they imagined. The second and third of Iohn, because they are sayd to haue beene written by Iohn the elder, some denyed to bee the Epistles of Iohn the Apostle, ascribing them to another Iohn. The Reuelation was doubted of, first, because of the doubtfullnesse of the Title of Iohn the Diuine; secondly, because of the difficultie, and obscuritie, of the words of this Prophecie, or Reuelation; and lastly, because the author of this booke, seemeth to fauour the heresie of the Millenaries. But the Latine Church receiued this booke, as Canonicall, as also the best and most learned of the Greekes, Euseb l. 7. c: 24 as Dionysius Alexandrinus, though hee deny it to haue beene written by Iohn the Euangelist: Heresi 51, 75. Epiphanius condemneth the Alogi, as heretickes, because they denie the Gospell, and Reuelation of Saint Iohn. De praescriptionibus. Tertullian reckoneth it among the errours of Cerdon, that hee rejected the bookes of the Actes, and the Reuelation: and writing against Lib. 4. Marcion, hee sheweth, that hee also did denie the same booke. Lib. 1. cap. vlt. Irenaeus sayth, this Reuelation was manifested vnto Iohn, and seene of him, but a little before his time. Dialog. cum Triphone. Iustinus Martyr doth attribute this booke to Iohn, and doth account it a Diuine Reuelation. Origen in his Preface before the Gospell of Iohn, sayth, that Iohn the sonne of Zebedee, saw in the Reuelation, an Angell flying thorow the middest of heauen, hauing the eternall Gospell. The Councell of Conc. Anci ran. cap vlt. Ancyra pronounceth it to bee sacred, and that Iohn was the author of it. Graecos qui Hier. teste, Apocalypsin non recipiebant, & paucos & obscuros fuisse necesse est. Bellar: de vet bo Dei l 1. c. 19. Thus then I hope it doth appeare, that there is not so much reason to doubt of the bookes of the newe Testament, called sometimes in question, as of those of the old: seeing the former were neuer doubted of, but by some fewe, vpon reasons friuolous, the weakenesse whereof being discouered, all Catholike Christians, with one consent receiued them, accounting them no better than Heretickes, which either doubted of them, or denied them; whereas the later were rejected by the whole Church of the Iewes, by all antiquity, and the whole current of Gods Church, some fewe onely excepted, being ignorant of the tongues, and not exactly looking into the monuments of antiquity, Canones Apostolorum, can. 84. Tobiam, Iudeth, & E •… clesiasticum inter canonicos non numerant. Gelasius Papa cum concilio 70, Episcoporum nullam 2. Maccabaeo •… um mentionem facit. Genebrard. in Chronolog. pag. 9 4. Esdrae ad canonem pertinere vult. Bellar. de verbo Dei, lib. 1. c. 20. vbi ostendit dubium esse qui •… multi sen •… erint de;, Es •… rae. and diuided amongst themselues, some admitting more, and some not all those, which our aduersaries now receiue.

Wherefore as wee cannot but condemne the inconsiderate rashnesse, of such either Caiet •… n: Luther. of the Romish, or reformed Churches, as in our time make question of any of the bookes of the newe Testament, that are, and haue beene, long read in the Churches of GOD, as Canonicall, throughout the whole world; so likewise wee thinke their boldnesse inexcusable, who in these last ages make those bookes Canonicall, which neuer were so esteemed by Gods Church before; and goe about to binde all mens consciences soe to receiue them, against the current of antiquity and the iudgement of the best learned, in euery age, euen to our times.

CHAP: 25.

Of the diuers editions of the Scripture, and in what tongue it was originally written.

THus hauing shewed, that the Scripture containeth a perfect rule of our faith, and hauing likewise made it appeare, what bookes they are, which are canonicall, and containe this rule of our Christian faith and Religion; it remaineth that wee search out, what editions there are of these Scriptures, and which are authenticall, and of indubitate authority and credit. The whole Scripture of the old Testament, was written in Hebrewe, Iunius in Bellar. contro: 1. li. 2. art. 9. saue that some fewe things, were translated into the bookes of Esdras, and Daniel, out of the publike recordes, and monuments of the Chaldees in that tongue, as the copies of letters, and publike actes and proceedings, all things which the spirit of God did absolutely deliuer, being expressed vnto vs in the same bookes in Hebrewe.

The opinion of some hath beene, that the whole Scripture of the old Testament perished, and was lost in the time of the captiuity of Babylon, and that it was newly composed by Esdras. To which purpose they alleage the authority of In epist: ad Chilonem, ep. 181. in monte Carmelo secessu facto, Esdras omnes diuinos libros ex mandato Dei eructauit. Basil who seemeth to say some such thing: and likewise the testimony of the author of the fourth booke of Esdras, where it is sayd, that the bookes of the lawe being burnt, God sent the holy Ghost into Esdras, separated him from the people, for the space of fortie daies, caused him to prouide boxe tables, and men writing swiftly, and that in forty dayes they wrote twoe hundred and foure bookes; but this booke being Apochryphall, & full of Cabalisticall vanity, doth rather weaken, then strengthen this opinion. That which is alledged out of the second of Esdras, and the eight, doth not proue, that Esdras did newely compose the bookes of Scripture, but only that he brought them Bellar. l. 2. c. 1. de verbo dei. forth: which implyeth, that they were not vtterly lost, nor did wholly perish. Neither indeed is it likely, though that Scripture which was kept in the Temple was burnt, that Ezechiell, Daniell, Ieremie, Haggai, Zacharie, Mardocheus, and Esdras himselfe, were so negligent, as not to preserue the bookes of the Scripture. So that all that Esdras did, was nothing else, but the bringing together, and putting into order the scattered partes of this scripture, and the correcting of such faults, as in time by the negligence of the writers, were crept into the seuerall Copies of it. This point is handled at large by Bellarmine, and excellently cleared by him, and therefore it is needlesse to insist vpon it longer. So then the same scripture, which Moses and the Prophets deliuered, Esdras sought out and religiously commended vnto the people.

Onely In prolog. Galeato. Hierome is of opinion, that hee found out newe Hebrewe letters, and left the old to the Samaritans, which Bellarmine out of In 9. Ezechiclis. Hierome confirmeth, because the last letter of the Hebrewe Alphabet, was like the Greeke T, and had a similitude of the Crosse, as that of the Samaritanes now hath, but that now, hath no similitude with it. Epist. ignoto amico. 5. d. Picus Mirandula professeth, that hauing conferred with sundry Iewes, about this matter, they all constantly denyed this alteration of letters. And to what purpose should Esdras alter the forme of letters, which MOSES and the Prophets had vsed? Neither doth Hierome, in the place cited by Bellarmine, speake of the Greeke T, but sayth onely, that the last of the auncient Hebrew letters, had a similitude of the Crosse, as now that of the Samaritans hath.

But this being a matter of no great moment, let euery man judge as he thinketh best. This then we constantly hold, that as the whole Scripture of the Olde Testament, was written in Hebrew, so the same neuer perished wholly, in any of the captiuities of the Iewes, but was religiously preserued, euen the same which Moses and the Prophets deliuered to the people of God.

After the returne of the people from Babylon, their tongue & language was mixed of the Hebrew, & Chaldee, and named the Syriacke tongue, from the Region or Countrey vvhere it was vsed; in which Christ made all his Sermons to the people, as being best vnderstood of them. Yet were not the bookes of the New Testament written in this Language, but in Greeke, because they were to be made common to the Churches of the Gentiles, among which, the Greeke tongue was most generally vnderstood.

Hugo de S. Victore erudit: theologicae in speculum ecclesiae de celebratione missae cap. 7. There are three tongues most famous in the world, as Hugo de Sancto Victore noteth: the Latine, Greeke, and Hebrew, propter regnum, sapientiam, legem: the first, because of the Monarchy of the Romanes, who, as they subjected the people, which they did conquere, to their lawes & customes, so they did force them to learne their language: the second, because in it, the great Philosophers and Wise men of the world, left the monuments of their wisedome, & learning to posterities: the third, because in it, God deliuered his Law, & the interpretation of it, by Moses, and the Prophets, to the people of Israell, his chosen. Amongst all these, the Greeke was most generally vnderstood by the learned of all Nations, because in it, all the renowned wise men of the world, had written, & all that were studious, learned it, that they might vnderstand their writings.

Hence it came, that the books of the New testament were written in Greek, because God would not honour one Nation of the world more then another, nor force his people to borrow the bookes of Scripture one from another.

Onely some doubt there is, touching the Gospel of Mathew, & the Epistle to the Hebrewes, which are supposed to haue been written in Hebrew, and the Gospell of Marke, written, as some say, in Latine. That the Gospell of Mathew was written in Hebrew, In Catal. Script. Eccles. de Matthaeo verba faciens. Hierome, & others affirme. In praef. Novi Test. Syriaci Trans. Guido Fabritius sayth, it was written in Hebrew, but in vulgar Hebrew, which is the Syriacke, that they of Hierusalem did speake: which opinion Bellarm. l. 2. de verbo dei c. 4. Andrad. de lib. canon. l. 3. fol 320. others seeme to incline vnto, the Gospell in Hebrew, which some bring forth, being of no credit. The Epistle to the Hebrewes, Euseb. l. 6. c. 13 l. 3. c, 33. some say was written in Hebrew, & translated by Luke, or Barnab as into Greeke. Guido Fabritius in praef. praedicta. The originall latine text of Marke is said to be kept at Venice till this day. The Syrians say, the Gospell of Marke was first written in Latine, & that afterward hee translated both it, and the whole New Testament beside into Syriacke, which they say, they haue preserued to this day. This Syriacke Translation of the New Testament, was not knowne in these parts of the world, till our age, as Eadem praef. Fabritius Boderianus noteth who thereupon breaketh out into the praises of our times, if the men of this generation either knew the happinesse thereof, or how to vse it. Howbeit that Marke was Authour of this Syriacke translation, which the Syrians in this age haue deliuered vnto vs, Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei c. 4. wee cannot perswade our selues, because none of the Fathers that liued in Syria, and Egypt, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Theophilus, Epiphanius, Hierome, Cyrill, Theodoret, and Damascen, make any mention of it: & besides, it is apparantly defectiue in diuerse things: as the learned note. So then, the indubitate originals of these parts of the New Testament in Hebrew or Syriacke, if they were written at first in these tongues, being lost, and the Church depriued of them, the Greeke is holden to bee Originall, in respect of all the bookes of the New Testament. For that, either they were all written in it, or translated into it, by the Apostles, or Apostolike men.

CHAP. 26.

Of the translations of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke.

THus hauing deliuered, in what tongues the Scriptures, and bookes of God were written, it remayneth that we enquire, what the principall translations of them haue beene, and whether the indubitate verity of them, be in the originals, or in the translations. Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 5: ostendit aliquos ita sensisse. There was, as some suppose, a translation of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke, before the time of Alexander the great: but the first that was in note, and remayned long in esteeme in the world, was that of the Septuagint, in the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus; Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus. Who, intending to furnish a Librarie at Alexandria, with all the choisest bookes the world would affoord, amongst other places, sent to Hierusalem, to the rulers & guides of the people there, who sent vnto him, the bookes of Moses and the Prophets, written in Hebrewe, in letters of gold. Which hee not vnderstanding, sent the second time, for interpreters, and they f De doctrina Christiana, l. 2. c. 15. sent vnto him 72, in imitation of Moses, who when hee went vp to the Mount to receiue the Law, being commaunded to take with him 70, of the Elders of Israell: added two to the number prescribed, lest taking six out of some Tribes, and but fiue out of other, some dislike might haue grown amongst them. These in 70, dayes translated the whole old Testament, out of Hebrew into Greeke. For though Iosephus and the Iewes say, they translated onely the bookes of Moses, Bellar: de verbo Dei, l. 2. c. 6. yet the consenting voyce of all the Fathers, affirming that they translated the whole, mooueth vs rather to thinke, the whole was translated by them, then onely the bookes of Moses; vnlesse wee say with Iunius in Bellar: contro: 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. Iunius, for the reconciling of this difference, that onely the bookes of Moses, were translated by the first 72. sent to Ptolomee, and the rest afterwards, by 72 also, though not the same.

That which some report, that they were shutte vp in severall celles, which long after were to be seene at Alexandria, Hiero: in Pentateuchum Mosis praefat. Hierome rejecteth as a fable; shewing, that no such thing is reported by Aristaeus, that was present at the businesse, h Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus. and that no remaynder of any such celles, was to bee found at Alexandria, but that they met in one place, and conferring together euery day, till the ninth houre, in 70 dayes, perfected the whole worke; and Augustine leaueth it doubtfull. This fable is vrged by some to proue, that these translatours were Aug. saepe ac saepius 72 prophetas appellat, et eodem quo prophetae, spiritu incitatos illa etiam scripsisse, in quibus ab Hebraea oratione dissentiunt, confirmat, Andrad. de vulgatae editionis auctoritate l. 4. fol. 355. guided by a propheticall spirite, and so could not erre: which false and absurd conceite, Hierome condemneth likewise.

The second translation of the old Testament, out of Hebrew into Greeke, was that of Aquila, in the time of Adrian the Emperour: the 3. of Theodotion, in the time of Commodus. The fourth, of Symachus, in the time of Seuerus. The fift, without name of author, was found in the City of Hiericho, in the time of Antonius Caracalla. The sixt, in Nicopolis, in the dayes of Alexander the son of Mammca. The Hiero: ad Aug. ep. & praefat. lib. Iob. seaventh, of Origen, who translated not, but corrected the translation of the Septuagint, adding some things out of Theodotions translation, which additions he noted with the marke of a shining starre, detracting other thinges, which he pearced through with a spitte. Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus. The eight, of Lucian the Martyr, was not a translation, but a correction only of such faults, as were crept into the translation of the Septuagint. This was found at Nicomedia, in the time of Constantine, Eusebius lib. 9. cap: 6: Hiero: in li. 16. comment. Esaiae ad Eustochium prooem: de illis verbis, sepulchrum pate •… s est gu •… ur eorum, ait non haberi in Hebraico, nec esse in 70 interpretibus, sed in editione vulgata, quae communis dicitur, & in toto orbe diuersa est. Lucian being martyred long before, in the dayes of Dioclesian the Emperour.

The ninth, of Hesichius, was likewise but a correction of such things as were amisse in the vulgar editions of the Septuagint. It appeareth by Hierome, in his preface before the bookes of Chronicles, that they of Alexandria & Egypt, vsed that edition of the Septuagint, which Hesichius corrected: they of Constantinople, that of Lucian the Martyr: and they of the Prouinces, and Countries lying betweene these, that which Origen corrected.

The Greeke translation found to neede correction, and corrected by these, as it seemeth, was called by the name of the common edition, not as being a different translation, from that of the Septuagint, but as being that, which was common in all mens hands, and much altered, and corrupted, from the originall purity which these worthy men endeauoured to restore it to againe. Hiero. in Epist. ad Suniam & Fretellam. And was so named because there was another, preserued in greater purity, in that worthy worke of Origen, that filled all the famous libraries in the world, in those times; Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus. Eusebius lib. 6. cap, 16. in which first diuiding euery page into sixe columnes, or pillars, in the first, he put the Hebrewe in the Hebrewe Characters; in the second, in Greeke; in the third, the interpretation of Aquila; in the fourth, of Symmachus; in the fift, of the Septuagint; in the sixt, of Theodotion, and named the volumes thus disposed, in respect of the foure translations, Tetrapla, a foure fould worke; in respect of these translations, and the Hebrewe in two kind of Characters, placed in two seuerall pillars or Columnes, Hexapla, a sixefould worke; to which afterwards adding in two other pillars, or columnes, the fift and sixt translations, before mentioned, found in Hiericho, and Nicopolis, he named the whole Octapla, an eightfould worke.

CHAP. 27.

Of the Latine Translations, and of the authority of the vulgar Latine.

THus hauing deliuered what translations there are, and haue beene of the old testament out of Hebrewe into Greeke, let vs see, what translations there are, and haue beene of the old, and newe Testament, into Latine. They, sayth De doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 11. Augustine, that translated the old Testament, out of Hebrewe into Greeke, may easily be numbred; but they that translated the old and newe Testament out of Greeke into Latine, cannot be numbred. Yet amongst soe many and diuerse translations, it seemeth there was one more common then the rest called by Ad Leandrum episcopum in expositionem beati Iob. epist. cap. 5. nouam translationem dissero, sed vt comprobationis causa exigit, nunc nouam nunc veterem per testimonia assumo: Sedes apostolica vtraque vtitur. Gregory, the old translation, and by Hierome vpon In Esaiae cap. 49. Esay, the vulgar; who disliketh it, & preferreth the translation of Symmachus, and Theodotion, before it, in the interpretation of the place of the Prophet he there expoundeth. The first that translated the old Testament out of Hebrewe into Latine was Hierome, and the last, till our age; whereupon great exception was taken to him for it, as appeareth by his seuerall Epistles, wherein he excuseth and defendeth himselfe. Yet notwithstanding all these dislikes, and exceptions, it appeareth by In a place aboue cited. Gregory, that a newe translation beganne to be in vse in the Church, not long after Hieromes time: which is thought to be that, we now call the vulgar. Bellar. li. 2. ca. 9. de verbo dei. Whether this translation be Hieromes, or not, there is great variety of iudgment. Some, as Pagnine, and Paule Bishop of Forosempronium, deny it to be Hieromes: others, as Augustinus Eugubinus, and Picus Mirandula, affirme it to be his: Other, as Driedo, and Sixtus Senensis, thinke it to be mixed of the old and newe.

Bellarmine deliuereth his opinion in certaine propositions, whereof the first is, that we haue the Latine text of the newe Testament, not of Hieromes translation, but of his correction only: the second, that we haue the Psalmes of the old trāslatiō, formerly in vse: the reasō whereof is thought to be, because the Church fearfull to giue any offence to the weake, would not admitte any alteration in them, being dayly read, and sung in the assemblies of the faithfull: the third, that wee haue the bookes of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, and the Maccabees, of the old translation, the author whereof is not knowne: the fourth, that we haue all the rest of Hieromes translation.

This translation, some thinke so perfect, as that it is not to bee corrected according to the Originals, if in any thing it dissent from them, but that rather, they are to be holden corrupt, in all such places of difference. Now because this Translation in many places, and sundry things, is found to dissent from the Originals, therefore they inferre a great corruption of the originalls. This is the erroneous conceit of Lindan, L. 2. c. 13. Canus, and others of that sort, against whom in the just defence of the trueth of the originals, the best learned in the Church of Rome oppose themselues, as Iohn Isaacke, Arrias Montanus de varia in Hebraicis lib. lectione, ac de Mazzoreth ratione et usu in Regiis Bibliis. Arrias Montanus, Driedo, Andrad. in his 4. booke intreating of the authority of the vulgar translation, sheweth his owne opinion, as also the iudgement of Iohn Isaack, and Driedo for the iu •… ification of the originalls. Andradius, Sixtus Senensis, and many moe. The chiefest argument of the adverse part is, for that if this translation be not pure and faultlesse, the Church had not the word of God, so long as it vsed this translation onely. For answere hereunto, Andradius demaundeth, if the Church were not as perfect, and as assuredly possessed of the truth, before this translation of Hierome, as since; if it were, he demandeth if they that liued in those times, did not as much admire the Translation of the Septuagint, and the Latine translations out of it, as they doe the vulgar. Now, that they did, he proueth at large, out of sundry of the auncient, who held that the Septuagint were ledde in translating, with a propheticall spirit, freeing them from danger of errour, so far forth, that Hierome was greatly disliked, for adventuring to translate after them, as if he could correct any thing that they had done. Yea so great opposition did he find, Praefat. in Paralip. &c. scribit: Si versio 70, integra haberetur ut ab iis edita fuit, se frustra laboraturum in Bibliis transferendis. that he was forced to giue way to the clamours, and out-cryes of his adversaries, to attribute much vnto them, and to make shew that he would neuer haue begun this worke of a new translation, if that of the Septuagint had remained, & been preserued in originall purity; In 2. & 8. cap. Esaiae, & 17: Ieremiae, aliaquia ante Christi adventum interpretati sunt nequaquam percepisse, alia, ne gentis suae gloriam obscurarent, noluisse sub Egyptiorum oculos subiicere. Andrad. l. 4. defens. fid. Trid. Ibidem. though sometimes hee feare not to pronounce, that they passed by many things of purpose, mistook many things of ignorance, and suppressed other, because they would not make knowne the dishonour of their nation to strangers. Now (saith Andradius) I would know, whether in all the places, wherein the translations then in vse, differed frō the originals; the originals were corrupted. If they were, then our translation, which cōmeth neerer to the originals, & leaueth the former translatiō sis corrupt, & so while these men endeavour to defend, they ouerthrow the authority of the vulgar translation. But some perhaps will demand, whether the Church of God in those times, had not the true Scriptures of God, & whether the Church of God at any time haue beene without an approued translation. Hereunto Andradius answereth, that the Church doth approue translations, not pronouncing that there is nothing amisse in them, or that they depart not from the true sense, and right meaning of any particular place, but that the Diuine Mysteries are therein truely deliuered, and nothing that concerneth faith, religion, or good manners, ignorantly, or fraudulently suppressed.

The Councell of Trent defined, that the vulgar Latine translation shall bee holden as authenticall; but hee sayth, Andreas Vega who was present at the Councell, reported that the Fathers of the Councell meant not to determine, that it is not defectiue, or faulty, but that it is not erroneous, and faulty, in such sort, as that any hurtfull, or pernicious opinion in matters of faith, or manners, may necessarily be deduced from it. And that this was the meaning of the Councell, he saith, Andreas Vega alleadged the authority of the Cardinall of Saint Crosse, afterwards Pope, who deliuered so much vnto him. So that the Church of God doth not receiue any translation, as free from all errour, and in that sense authenticall, but thinketh that to bee the peculiar excellencie of the originals, which are by some vnjustly disgraced, and called in question, as if they were so corrupted, that translations should be preferred before them.

CHAP. 28.

Of the trueth of the Hebrew text of Scripture.

FOr first, touching the Hebrew text, which some suppose hath beene corrupted by the Iewes, it is not likely that of purpose they would corrupt it: for then they would specially haue corrupted those places, which make most clearely against them, and for the Christians; but those places are not corrupted, as Andradius sheweth, and proueth by the testimony of Iohn Isaake, who was wonne to Christianity, by the pregnancy of a Chapter of Esayes prophecie in Hebrew.

Neither is it likely, Aug. lib. 15. de ciuitate Dei cap: 13. dum aliis inuiderent authoritatem, sibi abstulisse veritatem; that while they were vnwilling that we should haue any authoritie, for confirmation of our faith in their Scriptures, they would depriue themselues, of the truth of them, which they euer held the richest treasure in the world. Ipsa prophetia quid aliud nisi â nostris putaretur conficta, si non inimicorum codicibus probaretur. I deo ne occideris eos, ne ipsius entis nomen extinxeris, ne quando obliuiscantur legis tuae; disperge illos in virtute tua: Si enim in vno loco essent terrarum, non adiuvarent testimon o praedicationem evangelij quae fructificat in toto orbe terrarum: ideo disperge illos in virtute tua, vt eius ipsius, cuius fuerunt negatores, persecutores, interfectores, vbique sint testes per legem, &c. Aug. Paulino epist. 59. Especially seeing it hath euer beene thought by the wisest in Gods Church, that God in his prouidence, hath therefore preserued these forlorne, and forsaken Creatures, and dispersed them into the seuerall Nations, and kingdomes of the World, that they might giue testimony to the truth of our faith, by those monuments of Moses, and the Prophets, which they honour and embrace, as receiued from God himselfe.

Thus then, we are perswaded, that there is no great nor generall corruption of the Hebrew text of Scripture, and that the faults which by negligence, in time crept into it, are but few, and such as by helpe of the Mazzoreth, may easily be amended. But because Lib. 4. desensionis fidei Tridentinae. Andradius, Lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 2. Bellarmine, and other of our aduersaries, haue vndertaken the defence of the truth, and confutation of their fellowes error in this poynt, I will no longer insist vpon it: let vs come therefore to the new Testament.

CHAP. 29:

Of the supposed Corruptions of the Greeke text of Scripture.

IN the new testament, sayth, Bibliothecae li: 7. haeres. 1. Sixtus Senensis, out of Ad Suniam & Fritellam. Hierome, if any question arise amongst them that reade the Scriptures, in Latine, and there appeare difference & variety amongst the translations, we must haue recourse to the Greeke as to the fountaine, assuring our selues, that there were euer some incorrupt and true Copies of the new Testament, found amongst them, that read the same in Greeke, out of which the Latine might be corrected; and that if some faults be found in the Greeke Copies, by the negligence, or mistaking of them that wrote them out, they may easily be discerned, by laying together sundry Copies, casually corrupted, it so falling out, that what in one booke is depraued, by the fault of the writers, in another is found right. Now sayth he, whereas certaine heretikes did say, that either Hierome did not translate the same Greeke that now is, or that he translated it very ill, it is to be aunswered, that the Greeke is the same, which all Christians read & translated, before and after Hierome; but that he translated it not, but onely in some things corrected the old translation, he found in vse before, and that yet notwithstanding, that vulgar and old translation, is not wholly to bee abandoned and reiected: for that, though it doe not exactly agree with the Greeke, which is the originall, yet it omitteth nothing in matter of faith, or truth of story, nor hath any thing contrary to the trueth of religion.

The Romanists, to proue that the Greeke text of the new Testament is corrupted, and consequently that it is not safe to correct the Latine translations by it, alledge certaine places, which they presume, they can easily demonstrate to bee corrupted. Lib. 2. cap. 7. de verbo dei. Bellarmine giueth instance in these that follow. In the 1 Cor: 15. the Greeke that now is, hath in all Copies, The first man was of the earth, earthly, the second man is the Lord from heaven: the later part of this sentence, Lib. 5. contra Marcionem. Tertullian supposeth to haue beene corrupted, and altered by the Marcionites, instead of that the Latine text hath, The second man was from heauen, heauenly, as In 1. Cor. 15. Ambrose, In eundem locum. Hierome, and many of the Fathers read also. Touching this place wee aunswere, that not onely the Greeke Copies now extant haue it, as we read and translate, but the Syriacke & Arabicke also, and that De Orthodoxa fide l. 3. c. 12 Damascene de Orthodoxa fide readeth in the same sort.

Contra Iudaeos lib. 2. c. 8. Notwithstanding because many of the Fathers both Greeke and Latine, follow the other reading, we thinke it very doubtfull which is the originall verity. This difference of the reading of the Apostles words, is a matter of no great moment, seeing neither of them contayne any thing contrary to the rule of faith, or verity of Christian religion, The second place they produce, is 1 Iohn: 4. 3. Where the Greeke hath, Euery spirit that confesseth not &c. but the Latine, euery spirit that dissolueth Iesus. It is true, that Socrates in his history, Li. 7. 32: sayth, that the auncient Greeke Copies had as the Latine now hath, and that these words were put out, by such as diuided the person of Christ: yet seeing not onely all copies of the Greeke text, but the Syriacke translation also hath, Euery spirit that confesseth not &c. and Cyprian so citeth the place, and Exposi. in ep: Iohan: tractatu, 6. Augustine readeth and interpreteth both; wee thinke it likewise very doubtfull, which is the originall verity.

The next place is the 1. Cor: 7. where in the vulgar Latine wee reade in this sort. He, that is with a wife, is carefull for the things of the World, how hee may please his wife, and is diuided, that is, distracted with many cares: but in the Greeke it is thus, Hee that hath a wife, is carefull for the thinges of the world, how to please his wife; there is a difference betweene a wife and a virgine, or they are divided one from another. That the former is the true reading of the Apostles words, Bellarmine proueth, because Hierome against Lib. 1: loquitur de latinis codicibus & in illis ait legi, divisa est mulier & virgo: quod quanquam habeat suum sensum, & à se quoque pro qualitate loci sic edissertum sit, tamen non esse apostolicae veritatis pronunciat. Iouinian affirmeth it to be so, and some other of the Fathers follow the same.

But he should know, that not onely the most part of all the Greeke Copies haue as wee translate, but the Syriacke, and Arabicke translations also. Besides, Basil, the Greeke Scholiast, Theophylact, and Hierome himselfe against Heluidius, and to Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis. So that this proofe of the corruption of the Originalls, prooueth too weake. The next allegation concerning the 12. to the Romanes, of serving the Lord, and seruing the time, is much weaker. For Beza sheweth that some Greeke Copies haue, as the vulgar hath, and as Bellarmine sayth, the truth is, seruing the Lord. That the story of the Adulteresse in the 8 of Iohn, is not found in many Greeke Copies, doth not proue the generall corruption of the Greeke text, which is the thing our aduersaries vndertake to proue. For if it did, the Latine also should bee reiected, as corrupted and false. For as Lib: 2. contra Pelagianos. Hierome witnesseth, many of the Latine Copies wanted this story, as well as the Greeke. Sixtus bibliothecae li. 1. de 2. ordine librorum novi testamenti. Some of the auncient, were of opinion, that this story was first found, in the Apocryphall Gospell, according to the Hebrewes. But whatsoeuer wee thinke of it, it maketh nothing against the authority of the Greeke text, seeing it was euer found in some Greeke Copies though not in all.

In their preface before the new testament translated by them. The Rhemists, to disgrace the Greeke, alledge sundry places, where they say, our translators choose rather to follow the vulgar Latine, then the Greeke, thereby acknowledging, that it is corrupt. But if wee examine the particulars, wee shall finde, that this their allegation, is nothing else, but a lying and false report. For they euer follow some, and those the best and most incorrupt Greeke Copies, as In his annotations vpon the seuerall places obiected by the R •… emists. Beza sheweth. Wherefore fayling in this allegation, they betake themselues to another, not of falsehood, but of superfluitie: the first instance whereof that they giue, is the sixt of Mathew, where the Lords prayer in the vulgar Latine, endeth with that petition, deliuer vs from euill, leauing out for thine is the Kingdome, the power, and the glory, which they suppose to bee superfluously added in the Greeke. But these men should know, that though it were granted, that these words were superfluous, yet nothing is thereby derogated from the Greeke, seeing some Greeke Copies, and they very auncient, omit them, as Beza sheweth. Their next instance, is Rom. 11. where the vulgar Latine hath, If of grace, not of workes: otherwise grace should be no more grace: to which is added by way of Antithesis, and opposition, in the Greeke, If of workes, not of grace, otherwise workes, should be no more workes. It will be very hard for our adversaries to proue, that these latter words are superfluously added, being found not onely in the most Greeke Copies, but in the Syriacke translation. But if it were granted, yet there is one Greeke Copie of great antiquity, that omitteth these words, as well as the vulgar Latine. The next instance is the sixt of Marke, and the 11. Verily I say vnto you, it shall be easier for Sodome and Gomorrha, &c. If it were granted, that these wordes were superfluously added, which yet there is no reason to doe, seeing besides very many Greeke Copies, the Syriacke translation hath them also, yet would this make nothing for the improuing of the credite of the Greeke, seeing as Beza professeth, there are three Greeke Copies that omit them. The like may bee said, touching the next allegation of Mathew, the 20, 22, 23. where these wordes, and bee baptised with the baptisme, that I am baptised with, are supposed to bee superfluous; for there are some Greeke Copies that omit them, as well as the vulgar.

Thus hauing examined the seuerall allegations of our adversaries, against the authoritie, and credite, of the Greeke Text of the New Testament, wee see that they faile in them, neither being able to convince it of falsehood, nor superfluitie. Wherefore to conclude this matter, wee say with Hierome, that the Latine editions are to be corrected by the Greeke; & that by the providence of GOD, the verity of the Scriptures of the New Testament, hath euer beene preserued in the originall: That those faults and errours which are crept into some Copies, may easily by the helpe of others, be corrected, and that there is no difference in matter of substance, in so great variety of Copies, as are found in the world. If any man say, the Greeke hath beene corrupted since the dayes of Hierome, and that therefore, though hee in his time, thought the translations might bee corrected by the originals, yet now wee may not take the same course; we answere, it may easily be proued, that all those supposed corruptions, which they now finde in the Greeke, were found in it, in Hieromes time. For there are but two places, to wit, 1. Corinth. 15. and 1. Iohn 4. 3. where all Greeke Copies, haue otherwise then they say the truth is, and these places were corrupted, (if there bee any errour in the present reading,) before Hieromes time. Thus much touching the sufficiencie of the Scriptures, and the editions, wherein the authenticall veritie of the same is to bee sought.

CHAP. 30.

Of the Power of the Church in making Lawes.

NOw it remaineth that wee come to the next part of our diuision touching the power of the Church, in making lawes. Cameracensis in principio in primum sententiarum. As the will of God, willing and purposing the being of each thing, is the first, and highest cause, of things: so the same will of God, determining what is fitte to bee, what, of what kinde, in what sort, each thing must bee, that it may attaine, and possesse, the vttermost degree of perfection, the orderly disposition of things, requireth, to bee communicated to it, is the first and highest lawe to the whole world. And as the will of God determining what is fitte, defining what ought to bee, and what must bee, if the Creatures attaine their highest perfection, is a generall lawe to all Creatures: soe when he maketh knowne to creatures rationall, and of an vnderstanding nature, which haue power to doe or omitte thinges thus fitte to bee done, that though hee leaue it in their power, and freedome of choise, to doe, or omitte them, yet they shall be tyed, either to doe them, or to loose the good they desire to enjoy, & incurre the euils they would avoyd: It is more specially named a lawe of commandement, precept, or direction, binding them vpon whom it is imposed, to the performance of that it requireth.

The Precepts and Commandements of Almighty God, are of two sorts: for either they are such, as in respect of the nature and condition of the things themselues, are good, and soe binde all men, at all times: or else they are positiue, prescribing things variable according to the diuersities of times, and the different condition of men liuing in them, The former kinde of lawes, God imposed vpon men, in the day of their creation, or redemption, and restauration, together with the very nature, and being, which hee gaue them: the later prescribing things not naturally and perpetually good, but good onely at some time, to some men, and to some purposes and vses, to which they serue, were not imposed at first, together with the institution of nature, or the restauration of the same by grace, but are then imposed, when the things they prescribe are iudged good, and beneficiall, Soe God prescribed, before the comming of Christ his sonne, those sacrifices, and offerings, which now hee regardeth not: and hath now instituted those Sacraments, Ceremonies, and rites of Religion, which before were not knowne in the world.

Thus wee see, that the originall of all lawes is the will of God: who, as hee reserueth for himselfe, the honor of being the supreame, first, and highest cause of all thinges, and yet communicateth part of his Diuine power, to subordinate and inferiour causes: so though he alone be the great lawegiuer to euery creature, yet hee communicateth part of his authority, to such among the sonnes of men, as he is pleased to make greater than others, giuing them power to command, and prescribe lawes vnto them.

Touching this matter thus generally deliuered, there is noe difference betweene vs, and our aduersaries. For it is confessed on both sides, that God who is the great lawgiuer to the whole world, hath chosen out some from amongst the rest of the sonnes of men, whom hee hath beene pleased to honour with his owne name, to set vpon his owne seat, and to make rulers and lawgiuers vnto his people: but the question is, within what bounds this power is contained, and how farre the band of lawes, made by such authority extendeth.

CHAP. 31.

Of the boundes, within which, the power of the Church in making lawes is contayned, and whether shee may make lawes concerning the worshippe of God.

TOuching the first, the question is vsually proposed, whether the Rulers of Gods Church, and people, may make lawes concerning Gods worshippe, and service. For the clearing whereof, Contro 5. de potestate ecclesiae circa cultum religionis quaest. 6. art. 1. in explicatione articuli. Stapleton distinguisheth the things pertayning to the worshippe and service of God, into three sorts. The first, such as are seales, assurances, and in their sort, and kinde, causes of grace; as the sacrifices in old time, and the sacraments now: the second, such as remooue the impediments of grace, dispose to the receipt of it, and worke other spirituall and supernaturall effectes, though they giue not grace in so high degree as the first; as the signing with the signe of the Crosse, sprinkling with holy water, and the like: the third, such as are vsed onely for order, and comelinesse, in the performance of the principall, and essentiall duties of Gods worshippe, and seruice. These being the diuerse sorts of things, pertayning to the worshippe and seruice of God, the question and controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries, is onely touching thinges of the second ranke. For they confesse, the Church hath no power, to institute things of the first sort, and wee willingly grant vnto it, a most ample power, in things of the third sort. Let vs first therefore lay downe their opinion, and then examine the trueth, or falshood of it.

Their opinion is, that the Church hath power to institute Ceremonies, and obseruations, though not to iustifie, and giue grace, as doe the sacraments, yet to cure diseases, driue away deuils, purge out veniall sinnes, and to worke other the like spirituall, and supernaturall effects; and that not onely by way of imp •… tration, and by force of the prayers of the Church, which hath prayed, that they that vse such things may enjoy such happy benefites, but ex opere operato, by the very worke wrought, the vse of these things, applying the merits of Christ, to the effecting of these inferiour effects, as the Sacraments doe, to the effects of Iustification and remission of sinnes.

The signe of the Crosse, sayth De ima •… inib. Sanctorum l 2. cap. •… 0. Bellarmine, driueth away Diuels, three wayes; first, by the deuotion of them that vse it, it being a kinde of invocation of his name, that was crucified for the redemption of the world, expressed not by words, but by this signe: Secondly, by the impression of feare, which the verie sight and apprehension of it worketh in the diuell, as being the thing whereby Christ wrought his overthrow: Thirdly, ex opere operato; in which sort Infidells vsing this signe, haue wrought these effects.

The Rhemists vpon 1. Tim, 4. 5. Euery Creature is good, &c. haue these obseruations: First, that euery creature is by nature, and condition of creation good: Secondly, that Sathan vniustly vsurpeth vpon these creatures, in, & by them, seeking to hurt the bodies, and soules of men: Thirdly, that by prayer, and inuocation of Gods name, notwithstanding the curse vpon all creatures, & Sathans readinesse to doe vs harme, they are good and comfortable to vs, so that in them wee taste the sweetenesse of Diuine goodnesse: Fourthly, that the blessings of Gods Church, and her Ministers, doe not onely stay and hinder Sathans working, remoue the curse, and make the creatures serue for our good, accordingly as at the first they were appointed, but apply them also to so sacred vses, as to be instruments of remission of sinnes, iustification, and infusion of grace; as appeareth in the sacraments instituted by Christ: Fiftly, that besides, and out of the vse of Sacraments, the prayers and blessings of the Church, doe sanctifie diuers creatures, to the working of spirituall, and supernaturall effects, as to expell Diuells, cure diseases, and remitte veniall sinnes; and that not only, as sanctified things are wont to doe, in that they stirre vp, and increase devotion, and the fervour of piety, but in that the Ministers of the Church, by their soueraigne authority, haue annexed to the vse of them, power to worke such effects. This last proposition containeth the whole matter of difference betweene them and vs; for touching all the former, wee consent and agree with them.

For clearing of this point, wee lay downe these propositions: First, that by ordinary prayers, the Creatures of God are sanctified to ordinary vses. Secondly, that the presenting them, or some part of them, in holy places, and to holy persons, to be blessed of them, maketh the vse of them more comfortable, then the former blessing, but addeth no supernaturall force, efficacie or grace vnto them. Thirdly, that Christ appointed, and the Church daylie sanctifieth, the Creatures of God, and elements of this world, to bee the matter of his Sacraments. Fourthly, that bread being appointed to bee the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ, and water of Baptisme, the Christians in ancient time, held that bread, which had beene offered and presented at the Lords Table, (out of which a part was consecrated for the vse of the Sacrament,) more holy then other bread: And this is that bread, Lib. 2. de peccatorum merit. & remiss. c. 26. Augustine saith, was giuen to the Catechumens: as also they religiously kept of that water, which had beene hallowed for the vse of Baptisme, and by the vse of it, strengthened their assurance, of enjoying the benefites, which are bestowed on men, in Baptisme. Neither can our adversaries clearely proue, any separate sanctifying of water to haue beene vsed in the Primitiue Church. If they could, it were nothing else but the bringing of some part of this element, into holy places, with humble desire, that they which in memory of Baptisme, should vse it, and so have their faith strengthened, might more and more receiue the effects of sauing grace, as the Christians of Russia, and Damianus Agoes de moribus Aethiop. Aethiopia, vnto this day, on the Epiphany, on which day they remember the Baptisme of Christ, goe into the water, praying vnto God, that the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme, may more & more be seene and appeare in them. Fiftly, that the Church consecrateth sundry outward things, to the vse of Gods seruice, not giuing them any new quality, force, or efficacie, but onely praying, that God will bee pleased to accept that, which is done in, or with them, and to worke in vs, that, the vse of them importeth. Sixtly, holy men hauing the gift of miracles, did vse sometimes water, sometimes oyle, sometimes other things, and gaue them to bee vsed by other, for the working of miraculous effects, after the example of Elizeus, and Christ himselfe: of which sort is that of Ioseph mentioned by Haeresi 30 Epiphanius, who filling a vessell with water, signing it with the signe of the Crosse, and casting it into a certaine fire, caused it to burne, though Sathan hindered it before, that it could not burne; as likewise that of Hier. in Hilar. vit. Hilarion, who gaue a kind of hallowed oyle to certaine, who, by vsing it, were cured of their diseases. But the consecrating of oyle, salt, water, and the like things, by men not hauing the gift of miracles, to driue away deuils, cure diseases, remit veniall sinnes, and worke other spirituall and supernaturall effects ex opere operato, by application of the merites of Christ, was neuer knowne in the Primitiue Church, nor any such forme of exorcising or blessing as they now vse.

That which the Rhemists alleadge, touching the Liuer of a fish vsed by Tob. 11. Tobie, the piece of the holy earth where Christ was buried, preseruing a mans chamber from the infestation of diuels, and the force of holy reliques, tormenting them, maketh nothing to this purpose, all these examples being miraculous. 〈◊〉 Sam. 16. 23. Touching the harpe of Dauid, quieting Saul, there is a reason for it in Nature, though the repressing of Sathans rage, were miraculous. That Infidels haue sometimes driuen away diuels by the signe of the Crosse, it was by the speciall dispensation of Almighty God, who would thereby glorifie his Sonne; whose Crosse the world despised; and not as if this Ceremonie had force, ex opere operato, to worke such effects. That the name of Iesus, did miraculously cast out Diuels, in the Primitiue Church (which is the next allegation) who euer made doubt? but what maketh this to the purpose? That which they alledge, that Saint Gregory did vsually send his benediction, and remission of sins, in, and with such tokens, as were sanctified by his blessing, and touch of the Martyrs reliques, as now his successours doe the like hallowed remembrances of religion, is very vaine. Epist. lib. 3. indict: 12. cap. 30. l. 7. indict. 1. cap. 34. For Gregory did not send any such blessing of of his owne, or remission of sinnes, by force of it, as nowe his successours do, but onely certaine things, that had pertained to Christ or his Apostles: These were often accompanyed with miracvlous effects in those times, as appeareth by Gregory in the places cited. as part of the wood of the crosse of Christ, or of the chaines wherewith the Apostles were bound, and with them the blessing of Christ and those Apostles, to such as should conforme themselues, to his sufferinges, or their faith. That which they alledge out of the Canon. 24. third Councell of Carthage, touching the blessing of milke, honey, grapes and corne, bewrayeth their ignorance. For that Canon speaketh not of any such blessing; but forbiddeth any thing, besides bread and wine mingled with water for the matter of the Sacrament, and grapes and corne to bee presented on the Altar. Canon. 3. The Canon of the Apostles is to the same effect, forbidding any thing, but newe grapes, and corne in their season, and oyle for the lights, & incense to be vsed, in the time of the oblation, to be presented on the Altar, willing the first fruites, to be carried to the Bishops house, and prescribing what shall be done with such presents. The Can: 28. sixt generall Councell, finding that some did giue to the people, with the Sacrament, these grapes &c: forbad it, and prescribed that being blessed, they should be deliuered priuately to the Catechumens, and others, that they might praise God, who hath giuen so good, and pleasing things, for the nourishment of mens bodies; but speaketh nothing of blessing of them, to be instruments of remission of sinnes, and of the like spirituall and supernaturall effects.

Thus wee see, our aduersaries cannot proue, that the Church hath power to annexe vnto such Ceremonies, and obseruations, as shee deuiseth, the remission of sinnes, and the working of other spirituall, and supernaturall effects, which is the only thing questioned betweene them, and vs, touching the power of the Church. So that all the power the Church hath, more then by her authority, to publish the Commaundements of Christ the sonne of God, and by her censures, to punish the offenders against the same, is onely in prescribing things that pertaine to comelinesse and order.

Comelinesse requireth, that not only that grauity, and modesty, doe appeare in the performance of the workes of Gods seruice, that beseemeth actions of that nature, but also that such rites, and ceremonies, be vsed, as may cause a due respect vnto, and regard of the things performed, and thereby stirre men vppe, to greater feruour and deuotion. Caeremoniae, Ceremonies, are so named, as Lib. 5. & Valerius Maximus lib. 1. ca. 1. Liuie thinketh, from a Towne called Caere, in the which the Romans did hide their sacred thinges, when the Gaules inuaded Rome. Other thinke, Ceremonies are so named a Carendo, of abstaining from certaine things, as the Iewes abstained from swines slesh, and sundrie other things, forbidden by God as vncleane.

Ceremonies are outward acts of religion, hauing institution either from the instinct of nature, as the lifting vp of the hands and eyes to heauen, the bowing of the knee, the striking of the breast, and such like: or immediately from God, as the sacraments, or from the Churches prescription, and either onely serue to expresse such spirituall and heauenly affections, dispositions, motions, and desires, as are or should be in men; or else to signifie, assure, and conuey vnto them, such benefits of sauing grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestowe on them. To the former purpose, and end, the Church hath power to ordaine Ceremonies; to the later God onely.

Order requireth, that there be sette howres for prayer, preaching and ministring the sacraments, that there be silence, and attention, when the things are performed, that womē be silent in the Church, that all things be administred according to the rules of discipline. Thus we see within what bounds, the power of the Church is contained, and how farre it hath authority to command, and prescribe, in things pertaining to the worship and seruice of God.

CHAP. 32.

Of the nature of Lawes, and how they binde.

Now it remaineth that wee examine, how farre the band of such lawes extendeth, as the Church maketh, and whether they binde the conscience, or onely the outward man. For the clearing whereof, first wee must obserue, in what sense it is, that lawes are sayde to binde; and secondly, what it is, to binde the conscience. Lawgiuers are sayd to binde them, to whome they giue lawes, when they determine and sette downe, what is fitte to be done, what things they are, the doing whereof they approoue, and the omission whereof they dislike, and then signifie to them whom they command, that though they haue power and liberty of choyse, to doe, or omitte, the things prescribed, yet that they will soe, and in such sort, limitte them, in the vse of their libertie, as that either they shall doe that they are commanded, or be depriued of the good they desire, and incurre the euils they would auoyd. None can thus tye and limit men, but they that haue power to depriue them of the good they desire, and bring vpon them the contrary euils. So that no man knowing what hee doth, prescribeth, or commandeth any thing, vnder greater penalties, then he hath power to inflict, nor any thing but that whereof hee canne take notice, whether it be done or not, that so hee may accordingly reward or punish, the doing, or omission of it.

Hence it followeth, that mortall men forget themselues, and keepe not within their owne boundes, when either they commaund, vnder paine of eternall damnation, which none but God can inflict, (according to that of our Sauiour, Math. 10. 28. Feare not them, that can kill the body: but feare him rather, that hath power, to cast both body and soule into hell fire.) Gers. de vita spirituali animae lect. 4. Corollar. 1. 2. or take vpon them to prescribe inward actions, of the soule or spirit, or the performance of outward actions, with inward affections; whereas none but God that searcheth the heart, canne either take knowledge of things of this kind, or conuent the offenders, and judge and trye them. Thus then wee see, what it is to binde, and that none can binde men to the performance of any thing, but by the feare of such punishments, as they haue power to inflict.

CHAP. 33.

Of the nature of Conscience, and how the Conscience is bound.

IN the next place wee are to see, what the nature of Conscience is, and how the Conscience is bound. Conscience is the priuity, the soule hath, to things known to none, but to God & her selfe. Hence it is, that conscience hath a fearefull apprehension of punishments for euills done, though neither knowne, nor possible to be knowne, to any, but God, and the offendour alone. The punishments that men can inflict, wee neuer feare, vnlesse our euill doings be known to them. For, though we haue conscience of them, & be priuy to them, yet if they bee hidden from them, vve knovv they neither vvill, nor can punish vs. To binde the conscience then, is to bind the soule and spirit of man, with the feare of such punishments (to bee inflicted by him that so bindeth) as the conscience feareth, that is as men feare, though none but God & themselues be privie to their doings. Now these are onely such as God alone inflicteth: & therefore seeing none haue power to binde but by feare of such punishments, as they haue power to inflict, none can binde the conscience, but God alone. Quamvis peccet quis transgrediendo leges humanas, non tamen ligant conscientiam: patet per simile de praeceptis medicorum, quae despicere quis non potest sine peccato, & tamen non ligant conscientiam. Gers. de vita spirituali anim. lect. 4. corol. 5. ubi reprehendit eos qui fulminant et tot condunt leges, quot nunquam legere possumus. Neither should the question be proposed, whether humane lawes binde the conscience, but whether binding the outward man, to the performance of outward things, by force, & feare of outward punishments, to be inflicted by men, the not performance of such things, or the not performance of them with such affections as were fit, be not a sinne against God, of which the conscience will accuse vs, hee hauing commaunded vs to obey the Magistrates and Rulers hee hath set ouer vs. For answere whereunto wee say, there are three sorts of things commaunded by Magistrates. First, euill, and against God. Secondly, injurious in respect of them to whom they are prescribed, or at least vnprofitable to the Common-wealth in which they are prescribed. Thirdly, such as are profitable, and beneficiall to the societie of men, to whom they are prescribed. Touching the first sort of things, God hath not commaunded vs to obey, neither must we obey, but rather say to them that cōmand vs such things, with the Acts 4. 19. Apostles, whether it be fit to obey God, or men, judge you. Yet wee must so refuse to obey, that we shew no contempt of their office, and authoritie, which is of God, though they abuse it. Touching the second sort of things, all that God requireth of vs, is that we shew no contempt of sacred authoritie, though not rightly vsed, that we scandalize not others, and that wee be subject to such penalties, and punishments, as they that commaund such things, doe lay vpon vs; so that God requireth our willing, and ready obedience, onely in things of the third sort. The breach & violation of this kinde of lawes, is sin, not for that humane lawes haue power to binde the conscience, or that it is simply, and absolutely sinfull to breake them, but because the things they commaund, are of that nature, that not to performe them, is contrary to justice, charitie, and the desire wee should haue, to procure the common good of them, with whom wee liue. Wee are bound then sometimes to the performance of things prescribed by humane lawes, in such sort that the not performance of them is sinne; Stapleton contro. 5. de potest. eccles. circa leges mor. quaest. 7. art. 2. in explic. art. not ex sola legislatoris voluntate, sed ex ipsa legum vtilitate, as Stapleton rightly obserued. But some man will say, What doe the lawes then effect? seeing it is the Law of Iustice, and charitie that doth binde vs, and not the particularitie of Lawes, newly made. To this wee answere, that many things are good and profitable, if they be generally obserued, vvhich vvithout such generall obseruation, vvill doe no good: as for one man to pay tribute, or for one man to stay his goods from transportation, is no vvay beneficiall to the Common-vvealth; vvhich vvould bee very profitable, if all did so. Novv the Lavv procureth a generall obseruation: vvhence it commeth that a man is bound by the Lavv of charity, and justice, to that, after the making of a Lavv, vvhich before he vvas not bound vnto.

And this is it that Stapleton meaneth, vvhen hee sayth, that humane Lavves doe binde the conscience, not ex voluntate legislatoris, sed ex ipsa legum vtilitate, & ratione. Not because they prescribe such things, but because the things so prescribed, if they bee generally obserued, are profitable to the Common-vvealth.

By this vvhich hath been said, it appeareth, that they doe impiously vsurpe, and assume to themselues that vvhich is proper to God, Gers. de auferribilitate Papae considerat. 8. aequali tenore quaeritur observari lex humana, sive sit illa canonica, secularis, vel ciuilis, quemadmodum custodiri divinam absq: ulla variatione necesse est: inde venit illa Christi quaestio Math. 5. Irrit •… fecistis mandatum Dei propter •… aditiones vestras. vvho vvill haue all their Lavves taken for diuine Lavves, and such as binde the conscience no lesse then the Lavves of GOD, vvho publish all their Canons and constitutions in such sorte, that they threaten damnation to all offenders: Whereas no creature hath power, to prescribe, commaund or prohibite any thing, vnder paine of sinne, and eternall punishment, vnlesse the partie so commaunded, were formerly either expressely, or by implication, either formally, or by force and vertue of some generall dutie, bounde vnto it by Gods lawe before; because God onely, hath power of eternall life or death.

The soule of man, as it receiueth from GOD onely, the life of grace, so it loseth the same, when hee for the transgression of his lawes, and precepts, forsaketh it. For as none but hee, can giue this life, so none but hee, canne take it away: hee onely hath the keyes of DAVID, hee openeth, and no man shutteth, hee shutteth and no man openeth. Hence it followeth, that no lawgiver may commaund any thing, vnder paine of eternall punishment, but God onely, because he onely hath power to inflict this kinde of punishment. And that no man incurreth the guilt of eternall condemnation, but by violating the lawes of God. Wherevpon Augustine defineth sinnes, to be thoughts, words, and deedes, against the law of God.

That men doe sinne, in not keeping, and obseruing the lawes of men, it is because, being generally bound by Gods lawe to doe those things, which set forward the common good, many things being commaunded, and so generally obserued, grow to bee beneficiall, which without such generall observation, flowing from the prescript of law, were not so: and so though not formally, yet by vertue of generall duety, men are tyed to the doing of them, vnder paine of sinne, and the punishments that deseruedly follow it.

CHAP. 34:

Of their reasons, who thinke, that humane Law es doe binde the Conscience.

THe reasons which Bellar. 1. tom. contro. 5. l. 3. de laicis c. 11. Bellarmine and other of that faction bring, to proue that humane lawes doe binde the conscience, are so vaine and friuolous, that they deserue no answere: yet least our aduersaries should thinke, wee therefore passe them ouer without examination, because wee feare the force and weight of them, I will breefely take a view of them, and let the Reader see their weakenesse. To binde, sayth Bellarmine, is either the essence or essentiall property of a lawe; therefore all lawes, whether they bee of God, or of men, doe binde in the same sort. Hee should haue sayd, therefore all lawes doc binde, whether they bee of God, or of men. For to say. It is the essentiall property of a lawe to binde, therefore all lawes doe binde in the same sorte, is as if a man should thus reason, It is essentiall to all naturall bodies to haue motion, therefore the same kinde of motion; whereas yet the fire goeth vpward, and the earth downewards, thinges without life mooue but one way, either towards, or from the center of the worlde; thinges liuing euery way. His next reason is more childish then this: for hee reasoneth thus, If lawes doe binde onely in that they are diuine, then all diuine lawes should equally binde. This reason concludeth nothing against vs. For first, no man sayth, that lawes binde onely, because diuine, (for it is essentiall to euery lawe to binde) but that they binde the conscience, because they are diuine. And secondly, wee adde, that all diuine lawes, doe equally binde the conscience. For the conscience doth as much feare Gods displeasure, and eternall punishment, for one sinne, as for another, though not so great displeasure, nor so greiuous punishment. And so they equally binde the conscience; though there bee no equality, either of the sinnes, or of the punishment, the conscience feareth, and seeketh, to decline.

His third reason, that Gods commandement maketh those actions that were before indifferent, to be actions of vertue, therefore men by their precepts, doe so likewise, is very strange, and therefore hee endeauoureth to confirme it. The reason (sayth hee) why Gods precepts, and commandements, make actions that were indifferent, as to eate swines flesh, or not to eate it, to be actions of vertue, is because they are rules of mens manners and conuersation, but mens lawes likewise are rules of mens liues, manners and conuersation, therefore they in like sort make those actions that were before indifferent to be actions of vertue. To this wee answere, that there are many great differences, betweene these two rules. First, for that, the one containeth, a certaine, and infallible direction; the other oftentimes leadeth out of the way. Secondly, that the lawes of God, are rules in such sort, that the very thoughts of the heart, diuerting from that, which they prescribe, are sinfull; but mens lawes are kept and fullfilled, with how bad affections soeuer, the things bee done, that are prescribed. Thirdly, because the vse of nothing being lawfull vnto vs, in respect of conscience, longer, nor farther, then God the supreme Lord of all, alloweth the same; it is an action of vertue, to abstaine from things, denyed vnto vs by GOD, either in the first institution of nature or by his positiue lawe: but men hauing no such power, no such thing is consequent vpon their commaundements, or prohibitions. Lastly, Gods lawe, both that which is naturall, that is, giuen when nature was first instituted, and that which is positiue, is the rule of mens liues absolutely: which if they bee conformed vnto, they are morally good; if they varie from, they are euill and wicked: but the lawes of men, are rules onely in respect of outward conuersation, framing it to the good of the commonwealth. Soe that a man, euen according to the rules of Philosophy, may bee a good Cittizen, that is not a good man. His next reason is taken, from the comparison of a King and his Viceroy, the Pope, and his Legate, and the lawes, and edicts of these, binding in the same sort.

To this wee answere, that the comparison holdeth not: first, because the King and his Viceroy, command the same things, and to the same ends; but if wee compare God, and men, the lawes of God, and the lawes of men, wee shall finde a great difference betweene them, both in the things they commaund, and the ends for which they command; the one requiring inward actions, and the performance of outward with inward affections; the other outward onely. Secondly, because both the King, and his viceroy, haue power to take notice of all kind of offences, committed against both the one and the other, and to punish them with the same kind of punishment; but there are many offences committed against God, by every man, whereof men can take no notice; and if they could, yet haue no power to inflict such punishments, as God doth. That which Bellarmine h •… th, that faultes and punish ments are relatiues, and that therefore none can subiect a man to punishment but he that can binde him to the doing of that vnder paine of sin against God, for the no •… doing whereof he is punishable, is too childish a parologisme. For it is true, that faultes and punishments are relatiues, but proportionably: faultes against God and punishments inflicted by him: and faultes against men and the punishments, men are wont to inflict: Wee may therefore conclude; that wheresoeuer there is any punishment some fault w •… nt before: the reproofe that an vnskillfull Paynter is subiect v •… to is a punishment of his fault in paynting ill: but not of his sinne against God: for defects, in this kind are not breaches of his lawe. His last reason is taken from that place of the Apostle, where he requireth vs to bee subject, to power and authority, for conscience sake. To this wee answere, first that it is a matter of conscience, to be subject in all things: for subjection is required generally, and absolutely, where obedience is not. Secondly, we say, that it is a matter of conscience, to seeke and procure, the good of the commonwealth; and that therefore, it is a matter of conscience to obey good, and profitable lawes, so farre, as we are perswaded, our obedience is profitable. Thus haue we breefely examined their reasons, who thinke, that humane lawes binde the conscience, the weakenesse whereof, I hope all men of any judgment will easily discerne.

Wherefore to conclude this matter, touching the Churches power in making lawes, there are three things which we dislike in the doctrine, & practise of the Romane Church. First, that they take vpon them to prescribe Ceremonies, and observations, hauing power to conferre grace, for the remission of veniall sinnes, and the working of other spirituall & supernaturall effects. Secondly, that they assume vnto themselues that which is proper vnto God, & seeke to rule in the conscience. Thirdly, that by the multiplicitie of lawes, they dangerously insnare the consciences of men, and oppresse them with heauy burdens. To this purpose, is the complaint that De vita spirituali animae: & in eodem loco ait hanc fuisse querelam quam olim ad beatum Bernardum detulerunt quidam ex Monachis, & propter quam compescendam scripsit volumen pulcherrimum de praecepto & dispensatione: et idem de Vibano 5. inquit, quod gloriabatur se Papa esse ob hanc causam praecipue quod nullis poenis excommunicationum et irregularitatum esset obnoxius, qui si dilexisset proximos sicut seipsum et hoc adver tisset, relaxasset fortassis tot laqueos, tot onera, tot pe •… icula. Gerson long since made, that the Lawes of the Church were too many, and in a great part childish and vnprofitable, bringing vs into a worse estate then that of the Iewes, as Scotus l. 〈◊〉 . d. 40 q. 1. Quantum ad caeremonialia, lex nova est longè facilior quàm vetus, in quantum à Christo data est: et in margine, Pondera hoc contraprae sumptuosos Praelatos, slatuta in laqueum damnationis subditorum quotidiè multiplicantes. Augustine to Ianuarius complained, when things were much better than in latter times they haue beene. Neither sayth Gerson, are they content to burden vs with the multiplicitie of their lawes; but as if they preferred their owne inventions before the Lawes of God, they most rigorously exact the performance of the things their owne lawes prescribe, & neglect the Lawes of God, as Christ told the Pharisees, and hypocrites of his time, pronouncing against them, that by their vaine traditions, they made the lawes of God of none effect. To shew how vnjust and vnreasonable the Romane Lawgiuers are, in burdening men with so many traditions, De vita spirit. animae lect. 2. the same Gerson fitly obserueth, that Adam in the time of his innocencie, had but one commaundement, which yet vnhappily he brake: and that therefore, they seeme to haue no sense of mans miserable & wretched condition, nor any way to compassionate his infirmitie, that charge him with so many precepts, besides those of God and Nature. Whereupon he grauely and wisely concludeth, that he supposeth, that the wisest, and best, amongst the guides of Gods Church, had not so ill a meaning, as to haue all their constitutions, & ordinances taken for lawes, properly so named, much lesse strictly binding the conscience; but for threatnings, admonitions, counsailes, and directions onely. And that, when there groweth a generall neglect, they seeme to consent to the abolishing of them againe. For seeing, lex instituitur, cùm promulgatur, vigorem habet, cum moribus vtentium approbatur, Lawes are made, when they are published by such as haue authoritie, but haue life, force, and vigour. when the manners of men receiuing, and obeying them, giue them allowance. Generall, & long continued disuse, is, and justly may be thought, an abolishing, and abrogating of humane lawes: Whereas contrarywise, against the Lawes of God, and Nature, no prescription, or contrary vse, doth euer prevaile; but euery such contrary custome, or practise, is rightly judged a corruption, and fault.

THE FIFTH BOOKE OF THE CHVRCH TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING A DEFENCE OF SVCH PARTES AND PASSAGES OF THE FORMER BOOKES, AS HAVE BEENE EITHER EXCEPTED AGAINST. OR WRESTED, TO THE MAINtenance of Romish errours.

By RICHARD FIELD, Doctour of Diuinity.

OXFORD, Printed by WILLIAM TVRNER, Printer to the famous Vniuersitie, Ann. Dom. 1628.

The Epistle to the Reader,

AS in the dayes of Noe they all perished in the waters, that entred not into the Arke prepared by Gods owne appointment, for the preseruation of such as should escape that fearefull and almost vniversall destruction: So is it a most certaine and vndoubted truth, good Christian Reader, that none can flie from the wrath to come, and attaine desired happinesse, but such as enter into that society of men which we call the Church, which is the chosen multitude of them whom God hath seperated from the rest of the world, and to whom he hath in more speciall sort manifested himselfe by the knowledge of reuealed truth, then to any other. So that nothing is more necessary to be sought out and knowne, then which, and where this happy society of holy ones is, that so wee may joyne our selues to the same, and inherit the promises made vnto it: according to that of the holy Patriarch Noe: Blessed be the God of Sem, and let Chanaan be his seruant: the Lord perswade Iaphet to dwell in the tents of Sem. The consideration whereof moued me, when I was to enter into the controuersies of these times, first and before all other things, carefully to seeke out the nature and being of this Church, the notes whereby it may be knowne, which it is amongst all the societies of men in the world, and what the priuiledges are that doe belong vnto it: of all which things I haue treated in those foure Bookes of that argument, which not long since I offered to thy viewe and censure. Now it remaineth that in this insueing Booke then promised, I shew in what sort almighty God, who sitteth betweene the Cherubins in this his holy Temple, reuealeth himselfe from off the mercy seate, to such as by the calling of grace he hath caused to approach & draw neare vnto himselfe, and how he guideth, and directeth them, to the attaining of eternall felicity. Many & sundry waies did God reueale himselfe in ancient times, as it is in the Epistle to the Hebrewes. For sometimes he manifested himselfe to men waking, by visions: sometimes to men sleeping, by dreames: sometimes he appeared in a piller of a cloud: sometimes in flaming fire: sometimes he came walking a soft pace among the trees of the garden, in the coole of the day: sometimes he rent the rockes, and claue the mountaines in sunder: sometimes he spake with a still and soft voyce: sometimes his thunders shooke the pillars of heauen, and made the earth to tremble, as in the giuing of the lawe, when he came downe vpon Mount Sinai; what time the people by Moses direction went forth to meete him: but when they heard the thunders, and the sound of the trumpet, and saw the lightnings, and the mountaine smoaking, they fled & stood a farre off, & sayd vnto Moses, Talke thou with vs, and we will heare thee, but let not God talke with us, lest we die.

This their petition Almighty God mercifully granted, and knowing whereof they were made, resolued no more to speake vnto them in soe terrible and fearefull manner, but rather to put heauenly treasures into earthen vessels, that is, to enlighten the vnderstandings, and to sanctifie the mouthes & tongues of some amongst themselues, and by them to make knowen his will & pleasure to the rest. In this sort after the giuing of the law he imployed the Priests & Levites in a set and ordinary course, appoynting that the people should seeke the knowledge of the same at their mouthes; and in case of great confusion, and generall defects of these ordinary guides, raised vp Prophets, as well to denounce his judgements against offenders, and to reforme abuses; as also to foreshew the future state of things, and more & more to raise in men, a desire, hope, and expectation of the comming of the promised Messias, whom in the fulnesse of time he sent into the world as the happiest Messenger of glad tidings, that euer came vnto the sonnes of men, and the Angell of the great couenant of peace, causing this proclamation to be made before him, This is my welbeloued Sonne, in whom I am well pleased; heare him. In him were hid all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge, so that as it was sayd of him, Hee hath done all things well, so likewise, that Neuer man spake, as he spake. But because he came not into this lower world, to make his abode here perpetually, but to cary vp with him into heaven, our desires first, and then our selues: after he had wrought all righteousnesse, and performed the worke for which hee came, he returned backe to God that sent him; Choosing out some of them that had been conuersant with him in the dayes of his flesh, that had heard the words of his diuine wisedom, & were eye-witnesses of all the things he did & suffered; & sending them as his father sent him, who were therefore named Apostles. These had many excellent preeminences, proper to those beginnings, and fit for the founding of Christian Churches: as immediate calling, infallibility of judgement, generall commission, the vnderstanding and knowledge of all tongues, power to confirme their doctrine by signes and wonders, and to conferre the miraculous gifts of the spirit vpon other also, by the imposition of their hands. In which things, when they had finished their course, they left none to succeede them; yet out of their more large, ample, and immediate commissions, they authorized others to preach the Gospell, administer Sacraments, to binde and loose, and to performe other like pastorall duties, sanctifying and ordayning them to this worke, by the imposition of hands. These they honoured with the glorious title of Presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of Gods Church and people; and knowing the weight of the burden they layd on their shoulders, added vnto them as assistantes, other of an inferiour degree and rancke, whom they named Deacons or Ministers. Amongst these fatherly guides of Gods Church and people, for the preuenting of dissention, the avoyding of confusion, and the more orderly managing of the important affaires of Almighty God, they established a most excellent, diuine, and heavenly order, giuing vnto one amongst the Presbyters of each Church, an eminent & fatherly power, so that the rest might doe nothing without him: whom for distinctions sake, and to expresse the honour of his degree and place, afore and aboue other, wee name a Bishoppe. And farther, by a most wise disposition provided, that amongst Bishoppes all should not challenge all things vnto themselues, but that there should be in seuerall provinces, seuerall Bishops, who should be first and chiefe amongst the brethren: and againe constituted and placed certaine other, in greater cities, who might take care of more then the former. The former of these were named Metropolitanes, the later were knowen by the name of Patriarchs, or chiefe Fathers, who also in order and honour were one before and after another, By meanes of this order established by the Apostles of Christ among the guides of Gods people, and receiued and allowed by the first and Primitiue Christians, vnity was preserued, the parts of the Church holden fast together, in a band of concordant agreement; questions determined, doubtes cleared, differences composed, and causes aduisedly & deliberately heard, with all indifferencie and equity. Fow how could there bee any breach in the Christian Churches, when none were ordained Presbyters in any Church, but by the Bishop, the rest of the Presbyters imposing their hands on them, together with him? None admitted to the degree and order of a Bishop, but by the Metropolitane, and other Bishops of the Prouince, sufficiently approuing that they did, to the people ouer which they set him? None receiued as a Metropolitane, vnlesse being ordained by the Bishops of the Province, vpon notice giuen of their orderly proceeding, & the sincerity of his faith and profession, he were confirmed by the Patriarch? Nor none taken for a Patriarch, though ordained by many neighbour Bishops, till making knowne the soundnesse of his profession, and the lawfulnesse of his election and ordination, to the rest of the Patriarches, hee were allowed & receiued by them as one of their ranke and order? Or what feare could there be of any wrong, injustice, or sinister proceedings in the hearing of causes, and determining of controversies, vnlesse there were in a sort a generall failing? When if there grew a diffence betweene a Bishop and his Presbyters, or if either Presbyter, Deacon, or inferiour Cleargy-man, disliked the proceedings of his Bishop, there lay an appeale to the Metropolitane, who had power to re-examine the matter in a Synode, and to see they were not wronged? And if either Clearke or Bishop had ought against the Metropolitane, it was lawfull for them to appeale to the Primate, or Patriarch, who in a greater and more honourable Synode, was to heare the matter, and to make a finall end? When if any variance rose between any of the Patriarchs and their Bishops, or amongst themselues, it was lawfull for the Patriarchs that were aboue and before them, in order and honour, to interpose themselues, and with their Synods to judge of such differences; and in such cases as could not so be ended, or that cōcerned the faith, & the state of the whole vniuersall Church, there remained the judgment and resolution of a generall Councell; wherein the Bishop of the first See was to sit as President, and Moderatour; and the other Bishops of the Christian world, as his fellow Iudges, and in the same commission with him. This order continued in the Church from the Apostles times, and wrought excellent effects, till the Bishop of Constantinople first sought, and after him the Bishop of Rome obtained, to be not only in order and honour before the rest, as anciently he had beene, but to haue an absolute and vniuersall commaunding power ouer all, that either by fraud, or violence, he could bring into subjection. Whence followed horrible confusion in the Christian Church, and almost the vtter ruine and desolation of the same. For after that this childe of pride, had in this Lucifer-like sort advanced himselfe aboue his brethren, hee thrust his sickle into other mens haruests, hee encroached vpon their bounds and limits; hee pretended a right to confer all dignities, whether electiue or presentatiue, to receiue appeales of all sorts of men, out of all parts of the world; nay, without appeale or complaint, immediatly to take notice of all causes, in the Diocesses of all other Bishops: so ouerthrowing their jurisdiction, and seizing it in his owne hands. Hee exempted Presbyters from the jurisdiction of their Bishops, Bishops of their Metropolitans, and Metropolitanes of their Primates and Patriarches; and leauing vnto the rest nothing but a naked and empty title, tooke vpon him to determine all doubts and questions of himselfe alone, as out of the infallibility of his judgment: to excommunicate, degrade, & depose, & againe, to absolue, reconcile, and restore, & to heare and judge of all causes, as out of the fulnesse of his power. Neither did he there stay, but hauing subjected vnto him, as much as in him lay, all the members of Christs body, and trampled vnderneath his feete, the honour & dignity of all his brethren and collegues, hee went forward, and challenged a right to dispose of all the kingdomes of the world, as being Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. To this height he raised himselfe by innumerable sleights and cunning devices, taking the advantage of the ignorance, superstition, negligence, and base disposition which hee found to be in many of the guides of the Church in those dayes, and by their helpe and concurrence, preuailing against the rest that were of another spirit. Neither did he demeane himselfe any better after he had attained to this his desired greatnesse; for such was his pride, insolencie, and tyrannie, and such, soe many, and vnsupportable were the burthens he layd on the shoulders of them that were noe way able to beare them, that the voyces of complaint and murmuring were euery where heard, and the mindes of all men filled with discontentment, and desire of alteration, which after many longing desires of our ancestours, hath beene effected in our time. God, at the last, hearing the cryes of his people, and stirring vp the heroicall spirits of his chosen seruants, to worke our deliuerance, to take the burthens from our shoulders, the yoake from our necke, and to bring vs out of that Babylon, wherein we were captiues, and that spirituall Egypt, wherein we were formerly holden in miserable bondage. But as there were some of the children of the captiuity, that after long continuance abroad forgat Hierusalem, and preferred Babylon before Sion, neuer desiring to returne into their owne country any more: And as many of the Israelites brought out of the house of Pharoahs bondage by God himselfe, and conducted by Moses and Aaron to take possession of Canaan, the land of promise, a land that flowed with milke and honey, in their hearts returned backe: so are there many that would neuer be induced to come out of the spirituall Babylon: and other that are easily perswaded to looke backe, and in their hearts to returne into Egypt againe. For the winning and gaining of the former, and the staying of the latter, I haue indeauoured by the true discription of them out of the Scripture, & the authenticall recordsof antiquity, to make it appeare, how farre Canaan exceedeth Egypt, and Sion Babylon, how different the gouernement of Christ is from that of Antichrist: how happy the people are that liue vnder the one, and how miserable their condition is that are subiect to the other.

Beseeching God for his mercies sake, to enlighten them that sit in darkenes, to bring backe them that are gone astray, to raise vp them that are fallen, to strengthen them that stand, to confirme them that are doubtfull, to rebuke Sathan, to put an end to the manyfold vnhappy contentions of these times, to make vp the breaches of Sion, to build the walles of Hierusalem, and to loue it still.

R. F.
THE FIFT BOOKE, OF THE DIVERSE DEGREES, ORDERS AND CALLINGS OF THOSE men to vvhom the gouernement of the Church is committed.
CHAP. 1.

Of the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the liuing, and the gouernement of the same.

ALMIGHTIE GOD, the fountaine of all being, who to manifest the glory of his power, and the riches of his goodnesse made all things of nothing, disposed and sorted the things hee made into three seuerall rankes. For to some hee gaue being without any apprehension or discerning of it. Others hee made to feele, and sensibly discerne that particular good hee was pleased to doe vnto them: And to a third sort of a more eminent degree and qualitie, made after his owne image, hee gaue generality of knowledge of all things, and extent of desire answerable thereunto; causing them without all restraint or limitation, to take view of all the variety of things that are in the world, and neuer to rest satisfied till they come to see, inioy, and possesse him that made them all.

These hee seperated from the rest of his creatures, causing them to approach and drawe neere vnto himselfe; and to compasse about his sacred throne, and called them forth to be a joyfull company of blessed ones, praising and worshiping him in the glorious Temple of the world; & to bee vnto him an holy Church, in the midst whereof his greatnesse should be knowne, and his name called vpon. These are of twoe sorts: Angells, dwelling in heauenly palaces: and Men, made out of the earth, dwelling in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust. The Angels are immortall, immateriall, and spirituall substances, made all at once: and immediately after their creation, soe many as turned not from God their Creator, corfirmed in grace, and perfectly established in the full possession of their vttermest good, soe that they neede noe guide to leade them to the attaining of the same: howsoeuer in the degrees of their naturall or supernaturall perfections, and in the actions of their ministery wherein GOD employeth them, they are more great and excellent one then another, and are not without their order and gouernement. But concerning men made out of the earth, and compounded of body and spirit, it is farre otherwise: For God did not create them all at one time, but made onely one man, and one woman immediatly with his owne hands; appointing that the rest should descend and come of them by naturall generation. Whereupon wee shall finde, that as in the Creation the tree was first, and then the seede, but in the naturall propagation of things the seed is first, and then the tree. So the first man whom God made out of the earth, and the first woman whom he made of man, were perfect at the first, as well in stature of body, as in qualities of the minde, (both because whatsoeuer is immediatly from God is perfect, as also for that the Prima omnia perfecta sunt: caetera autem omnia, quae ex ipsis oriuntur, & post ipsa sequuntur, nisi per inter valla temporum crescendo ad perfectionem venire non possunt. Hugo citat. ab Alex. de Hales. part. 2. quaest. 89. memb. 2. first things whence all other haue their being, must be perfect) but afterwards the beginnings of all the sonnes of men are weake, and they grow by degrees to perfection of body and minde, hauing need to receiue nourishment, support, guidance, and direction from them, from whom they receiue their being. So that nothing is more naturall then for children to expect these things from their parents, nor for parents then to nourish, guide, and direct their children. This care pertaineth as well to the mother that bare them, & in whose wombe they were conceiued; as to the father that begate them, and out of whose loynes they came. Yet because the man was not of the woman, but the woman of the man: the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man: the originall disposition and soveraigne direction of all doth naturally rest in the man, who is the glory of God, the womans head, and euery way fittest to be chiefe commaunder in the whole Family and houshold. Heereupon Adam the father of all the liuing, was appointed by that God that made him, to instruct, guide, and direct those that should come of him, euen in the state of natures integritie, though without any forcing with terrours, or recalling with punishments while there was yet no pronenesse to euill, nor difficultie to doe good. And when he had broken the Law of his Creator, was called to an account, made know his sinne, and recomforted with the promise, that the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head: he was to teach his children the same things, & sanctified to be both a King to rule in the litle World of his owne Family: and a Priest, as well to manifest the will of God to them of the same, as to present their desires, vowes, and sacrifices vnto him: then which course, what could be devised more fitting? For when there were no more in the World but the first man whom GOD made out of the earth, the first woman that was made of man, and the children which GOD had giuen them, who could bee fitter to rule and direct, then the man for whose sake the woman was created, and out of whose loynes the children came?

CHAP. 2.

Of the dignity of the first-borne amongst the sonnes of Adam, and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest.

AND seeing nothing is more naturall, then that as the Father is to instruct, direct, and set forward the children that GOD hath giuen him in the way of vertue and well-doing, so amongst the children the elder should help the yonger: the stronger, and more excellent the weaker, and more meane; none could be fitter to assist him in the Kingly, and Priestly office, while he liued, and to succeed him in the same when he died, then the first-borne, Gen. 49. 3. the beginning of strength, the excellencie of dignity, and the excellencie of power. And heereupon we shall finde, that from the beginning the first borne excelled the rest in three things. For first he was Lord ouer his brethren, according to that of Isaac, blessing Iacob the yonger in steed of the elder, and thereby preferring him to the dignity of the first-borne: Gen. 27. 29. Be Lord ouer thy brethren, and let thy mothers children bow downe vnto thee. Secondly, he had a double portion; & thirdly he was holy vnto God, which dignity as it belonged formerly euen frō the beginning to the first-borne, as being most worthy & excellent: so was it confirmed Num. 3. 13. when God striking all the first borne in Egypt, spared the first born of the Israelites. This praeeminence of the first borne continued, the eldest euer succeeding in the Kingly and Priestly office, vnlesse for impiety, or cause best knowen to God he were reiected by him, till the time that Israel came out of Aegypt, and the Church of God became nationall. For then according to the tenor of Iacobs Gen. 49. & 49 blessing, these priuiledges were diuided. Iudah had the Scepter, Leui the Priesthood, and Ioseph the double portion, in that two of his Sonnes Ephraim and Manasses became Patriarches and Heads of tribes, and had equall inheritance in the land of promise with the sonnes of Iacob. So that in the societies of faithfull and holy ones, from the first man that God made, till Aaron was sanctified to bee a Priest vnto God in steed of the first borne, the eldest alwayes (vnlesse for impiety, or other cause best knowen to God, hee were reiected by him) had the Kingly, and Priestly direction of the rest. So when Cain the eldest Sonne of Adam, and first that was borne of a woman, to whom the dignity of the first borne did pertaine, was for his impiety reiected from that honour, and Abel who by fayth offered a better sacrifice then hee, was slaine by him, God raysed vp Gen: 4. 25. Seth, who being taught by Adam his father touching the Creation, the fall, the punishments of sinne, and the promised Sauiour, assisted him while hee lived in guiding the people and Church of God, and succeeded him in the same gouernment after his death. In like sorte Chap: 5. Enosh assisted and succeeded Seth, and dying left that honour to Kenan: Kenan to Mahalaleel: Mahalaleel to Iered; Iered suruiuing Enoch his son, whom God translated, left it to Methusalem, Methusalem to Lamech the father of Noe, in whose time the children of God, that is, the posterity of Seth, marying with the daughters of men, that is, such as came of wicked Cain, highly displeased almighty God, who therevpon appoynted Chap. 6: et 7. him to bee a preacher of repentance vnto them; whom when they contemned and despised, hee brought in the floud, and destroyed both them, and all the inhabitants of the world, Noe and his family onely excepted. Noe gouerned the Church before and after the floud, and left the same office and dignity to Sem his eldest sonne, saying, Chap: 9. ver. 26. 27. Blessed bee the God of Sem, and let Canaan be his servant: The Lord perswade Iaphet to dwell in the tents of Sem. Chap: 10. 11. Sem begat Arphaxad: Arphaxad, Sale: Sale, Heber: Heber, Phaleg: Phaleg, Rehu: Rehu, Serug: Serug, Nachor: Nachor, Thare: Thare, Abraham, and Abraham, Isaac. All these, onely Heber, and Isaac excepted, he suruiued: so that dying, he left the right of his office & dignity to Isaac, Heber hauing corrupted his wayes. This Hieronym. in epist. ad Euagrium. Sem the Iewes thinke to haue beene Melchizedek that Gen: 14. 18. met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, that brought out bread and wine, to refresh his wearied troupes, and blessed him in the name of the Lord, as being a Priest of the high God. Thus then Sem gouerned the Church in his time, and dying, in part left his honour to Isaac, soiourning as a stranger in Canaan: Isaac to Iacob: Iacob to Iudah and his sonnes; who liuing in Aegypt in bondage with the rest of their brethren, could not freely exercise the Kingly and Priestly office, nor performe the things pertayning therevnto. So that none of these succeeded Sem in the fulnesse as well of Kingly as Priestly power.

CHAP. 3.

Of the diuision of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Iacob when they came out of Aegypt, and the Church of God became Nationall.

BVt when it pleased Almighty God, who chose vnto himselfe the posteritie of Israel and sonnes of Iacob as his peculiar portion and inheritance, aboue all the nations of the world, to bring them with a mighty hand, and out stretched arme out of the land of Aegypt and the house of bondage to the land which he promised to their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, & to make of them a mighty people; then the former kinde of gouernment, which was domesticall, not so well fitting a people as a houshold, he setled another; & in steed of the first borne which formerly in each family and kindred was both a King and Priest, he chose the tribe of Iudah to sway the scepter, and to be a lawgiuer to the rest of of his people: and the tribe of Numb: 3. Leui to attend his Tabernacle and seruice: and out of all the families of that tribe, tooke Exod. 28. Aaron and his sonnes to serue in the Priests office, appointing the rest to meaner seruices about the Sanctuary, or to bee assistants to the Priests, and rulers in the gouernment of the people.

CHAP: 4.

Of the separation of Aaron and his sonnes from the rest of the sonnes of Leui, to serue in the Priests office, and of the head or chiefe of that company.

THE Priests, the sonnes of Aaron, whom God separated from the rest of their brethren the sonnes of Leui, were of two sorts. For there was an high Prieste: and there were others of an inferiour condition. Sigonius de Rep. Hebraeor: lib. 5. c. 2. Touching the high Priest, foure things are to obserued. First, his consecration. Secondly, the things that were required in him that was to be consecrated to so sacred a function. Thirdly, his imployment, and Fourthly, his attire. The consecration of the high Priest was seauen daies in performing, in this sort: 1. He that was to be consecrated, was brought before the Altar. 2. Then he was washed with water, and clothed with those sacred garments which God had prescribed; holy oyle was poured on his heade, sacrifice was offered on the Altar for his sanctification, and his garments were sprinkled with the blood of it. The things that were required in him that was to serue in the high Priests office, were these. Hee might not be defectiue nor deformed in body; His wife must be a virgin, not a widdow, not one that had beene diuorced, nor that had beene infamous, but of good parentage, and of his owne people. Hee might not vncouer his heade, rent his garments, nor goe in to mourne ouer any that was dead, noe though it were his father or mother. His imployment was to goe dayly into the Sanctuary, to light the Lampes, to burne incense, and euery weeke to prouide the shew-bread or breade of proposition: on the feast daies to offer the peoples sacrifices together with the other Priests: and once in the yeare, on the day of expiation, to enter into the holiest of all, to cleanse, and hallow it from the sinnes of the people, and to make prayer for himselfe, and them. The holy vestiments, in which hee was to performe this seruice of God, are discribed to haue beene a Breast-plate, an Ephod, a Robe, a broidered Coate, a Mitre, and a Girdle. The Ephod was of gold, blue silke, purple, skarlet, and fine twined linnen of broidred worke: In the shoulders of the Ephod were two Onyx-stones, and vpon them the names of the children of Israel grauen; sixe names vpon the one stone, and sixe other names vpon the other stone according to their generations. These were stones of remembrance of the children of Israel before the Lord. Of these Iosephus citatus à Sigonio ibid. Iosephus writeth, that they shewed when God was present with his people, when hee accepted the Sacrifices they offered vnto him, and was pleased with them, and likewise when hee was displeased with them and rejected them: in that when God was pleased with his people and accepted their sacrifices, the stone which was on the right shoulder shined in such sort, that it might be seen a farre off, whereas otherwise no such shining brightnesse appeared in it. The Breast-plate of judgment was of broydered worke, like the worke of the •… phod: of gold, blewe silke, purple and skarlet, and fine twined linnen. It was set full of places for stones, euen foure rowes of stones. The stones that were set in these rowes were twelue, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, and in them the names of the twelue tribes were grauen. In this Breast-plate likewise were put Vrim and Thummim which were vpon the heart of the high Priest, when he went in before the Lord. By these twelue stones that were in the Breast-plate of the high Priest, God did shew vnto his people the successe of their battles when they intended to make warre. For if hee meant to prosper their enterprise, these stones did so shine, that they were thereby vvell assured God vvould goe forth vvith their armies; and fight their battels for them, otherwise they were discouraged from attēpting any thing. The Arias Mo •… tanus in apparatu, & Sigonius de Repub. Heb. l. 5. c. 9. Vrim and Thummim likewise some of the Iewes thinke to haue beene two stones, by which the high Priest vnderstood what things were to come, & revealed the same vnto the people: For if nothing new & strange were to fall out, they held their colour: but if any great & extraordinary mutation were to follow, the bright shinings of these stones did foreshew it. Rabbi Salom. citatus à Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. Others suppose that they were the Name of God, Iehovah in letters of gold, by the shining brightnesse whereof they vnderstood the answer of God when they sought vnto him, but Aug. quaest. •… 17. in Exod. Augustine is of opinion, that these very wordes were written in letters of golde in the middle of the breast-plate that did hang before the breast of the high Priest.

CHAP. 5.

Of the Priests of the second ranke or order.

TOuching the Priests of the inferiour Ranke, they had the same kinde of consecration which the high Priest had: in sacrificing they were like vnto him, & in the seruice of the Sanctuarie, in burning incense, prouiding the Shewbread, and preparing, & looking to the lampes & lights: neither was there any other difference betweene him and them in the performance of these things: but that hee was chiefe, and they assistants vnto him. The onely thing that was peculiar vnto him, was the Exod. 28. 30. consulting of God by Vrim & Thummim, and the Leuit. 16. 30. entring into the Holiest to make an Atonement. Their vestiments were the same, Sigon. de Rep. Heb. l. 5. c. 3. exHier. & Eucherio. saue that the high Priest onely had the Breast-plate, & an Ephod of gold: for the rest did also sometimes weare a linnen Ephod. The things required in them that were to serue in the Priestly office were these. They might not bee Levit. 21. 18. deformed nor defectiue in body: they might Levit. 10. 9. drinke no wine nor strong drinke, when they were to enter into the Sanctuary: they Levit. 11. 1. might not defile themselues by the dead, nor come neare vnto any that was dead, except it were their father, or mother, sonne, or daughter, or sister vnmarried: they Ibid. vers. 5. might not shaue their heads, nor beards, nor cut their flesh: they might Ibid. vers 7 marry no harlot, nor woman divorced: The Levit 8. first that were consecrated Priests, were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar the sonnes of Aaron, 1 Chron. 24. vers. 2. Nadab, and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: they both perished, because they Levit. 10. offered strange fire vpon the Altar, so that Eleazar & Ithamar onely remained, of whom the whole number of Priests that were afterwardes, did come. 1 Chr. 14. 4. From Eleazar in Dauids time were issued sixteene Families, and from Ithamar eight. These Dauid sorted into twenty foure Classes or Courses, and named euery Classis or Course after the name of him who was then chiefe of each Family: and for the ordering of them, and setting one before another, they cast lots. The reason of the sorting of them into these rankes was, for that hee would not haue all the Priests to attend euery day, but that they should haue some intermission, and times of vacation, one Classis performing the seruice one weeke, & another, another. Though, sayth Ioseph. l. 2 contra Appionem citat. à Sigon. ubi suprá. Iosephus, there bee twenty foure Classes or Courses of Priests amongst vs, whereof euery one hath more then fiue thousand, yet they waite not all at once, but on certaine dayes appointed & assigned vnto them, which being past, others succeede, who are called into the Temple at Noone, & haue the keyes thereof deliuered vnto them, and the sacred vessels by tale. In this sense it is saide in the booke of Chronicles, that 2 Chr. 23. 8. Iehoiada the Priest dismissed not the Courses, that is, sent not away the Troupes and Companies of Priests, that attended the seruice of the Temple, when their time was expired, and according to order they should haue departed, and others succeeded them: for that he meant to make vse of them in the deposing of wicked Athaliah, and the establishing, and setling of the true and lawfull King in the Royall Throne of Iudah. In these Courses they were wont to cast lotts what kinde of seruice euery one should doe in the weeke of his attendance, as for example: Who should sacrifice, and who should burne Incense: wherevpon it is sayd in the Gospell of Luke, that Luk. 1. 5. in the time of Herod King of Iudaea, there was a certaine priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abiah; Ibid: ver. 8. & 9. and it came to passe as he executed the Priests office before God, as his course came in order, according to the custome of the Priests office, that his lot was to burne incense when hee went into the house and Temple of the Lord. Sigon. de rep. Hebr. l. 5. c. 3. Over euery of these companies of Priests in their courses attending, there were certaine priests set, that were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Principes Sacerdotum, that is chiefe Priests, or rulers of the Priests. Of these the Evangelist S. Marke speaketh when he sayth, Mark. 14. 53. They brought Iesus to the High Priest, and the Chiefe Priests sought false witnesse against him: that is, the Heads of the Companies of Priests, who came to consult with the high priest about the putting of Iesus to death. For while the policie appointed by almighty God continued, there was but one that properly was named the high Priest.

CHAP. 6.

Of the Levites.

HAving spoken of Aaron and his sonnes, whom God chose out of all the families of the tribe of Leui, it remaineth that we speake of the employment of the rest of that tribe, called by the common name of Leuites. Sigonius de rep. Hebraeor. li. 5. c. 4. 5. 6, & 7. These were sorted by Dauid into foure rankes: for some he appointed to bee ministers of the Priests and Temple, who were most specially named Leuites: some Singers: some Porters: and others Scribes and Iudges. Touching the Leuites more specially so named, that attended the seruice of the Sanctuarie, their office was to carie the Tabernacle, and the Arke of the Couenant in the Remoues of the people, till God fixed the same in one place; and then they were to take care of it, and the sacred vessels that were in it appoynted to be vsed about the service of God. In later times also they flayed the Beasts appointed for the Sacrifices. according to that in the second of Chronicles: 2 Chron. 35. ver. 10. & 11. The service was prepared, and the Priests stood in their places; also the Leuites in their orders according to the Kings commaundement, and they slue the Passeouer, and the Priests sprinkled the bloud with their hands, and the Leuites flayed them. Of the singers we reade in the first of Chronicles, how they were appoynted 1. Chron: 25. 1: by Dauid to sing prophesies with Harpes, with Viols, and with Cymbals. The 1. Chron. 2 6. Porters were appointed to see that no vncircumcised, polluted, or vncleane person should enter into the house of the Lord; and to guard the same that all thinges therein might bee in safety, as the sacred vessels, the treasure of the house, and the treasure of the dedicated things. To these were added as assistants the 1 Chron. 9. 2. Ez •… a 2. 70. Nethinims or Gibeonites, who serued as Iosuah. 9. 23. hewers of wood, and drawers of water: The Scribes were such as read, and interpreted the Law of God in the Temple at Hierusalem, and in the Synagogues that were in other parts of the land, and are also called Doctors of the Law, that is, Interpreters of the Law of God.

CHAP. 7.

Of the Sects, and factions in Religion, found amongst the Iewes in later times.

ANd here because we haue made mention of such Leuites as were Scribes, that is, Doctors and Interpreters of the Law of God, it is not out of place to speake of the doctrine of the Iewes in later times, and the seuerall sects into which their teachers and guides were diuided. Epiphanius sheweth that there were Epiphan. contra haeres. lib. 1. seauen principall sects amongst them; the first whereof was that of the Haeres. 15. Scribes, who were Interpreters of the Law, but such as deliuered many traditions as from their Elders, that were not contayned in the Law, and sought to bring in a more exact kinde of worship of God, then Moses and the Prophets taught, consisting in many voluntary observations and customes deuised by men.

The second, Haeres. 14. Sadduces, which were of the race of the Samaritanes; these had their name from one Sadoc a Priest; they denyed the resurrection, and beleeued not that there is any Angell or Spirit, and consequently ouerthrew all Religion.

The third sort were Haeres. 16. Pharisees; these were the strictest of all other, and most esteemed: they beleeued the resurrection of the dead, that there are Angels and Spirits, as the Scribes also did, and that all shall come into judgement to receiue according to the things they doe in this body, whether they be good or euill: they much honoured virginity and single life: they payed tithes of the smallest things they possessed: they washed cups, platters, and all kinde of vessels they vsed: they fasted twice euery weeke: they brought in the doctrine of fatall necessity: and differed in their habit from other men.

The fourth sort were the Haeres 17. Hemerobaptists, who did thinke that no man could bee saued, if he were not washed euery day, that so he might be cleansed from the impuritie of sinne; but, as Epiphanius rightly noteth in refutation of the errour of these men, it is not the whole floud Iordan wherein Christ was baptized, nor the sea, nor any fountaine abounding with water, that can wash away the impurity of sinne by any naturall force thereof or voluntarie vse; but repentance, and the vse of such sacred ceremonies, and sacramentall elements, as God appoynteth to signifie, expresse, and communicate vnto vs the vertue of Christ Iesus, and the sanctifying grace of the Spirit of God.

Next vnto the Hemerobaptists were the Haeres. 19. Essenes. These withdrew themselues from the society of other men. They despised mariage, and liued without the company of women, hauing no children of their owne, they adopted such as voluntarily came vnto them, Plinius nat. hist. l. 5. c. 17. Quos vita fessos (sayth Plinie) ad mores eorum fortunae fluctus agitat: Ita per saeculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens aeterna est, in quâ nemo nascitur; tam faecunda illis aliorum vitae poenitentia est. That is, Such as wearied with the turmoils of this life, were by the experience of fortunes vncertainties, forced to like their retired manner of liuing; so that for many ages (which is a thing not credible) there hath bin a neuer-failing nation, in which no man is borne. So many doth other mens dislike of their owne manner of liuing send vnto them. These were something like the Monkes and Religious men, that are, and haue beene amongst Christians.

The sixt sorte were the Epiphan li: 1. haeres. 18. Nazaraei, who in all other things were Iewes, but held it vnlawfull to kill any liuing thing, or to eate the flesh of any thing wherein the Spirit of life had beene; they condemned the bloody sacrifices prescribed in Moses law, and therefore could not bee induced to thinke, that Moses was author of those bookes that goe vnder his name; yet did they honour Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and other holy men mentioned in them.

The seauenth and last sort were the Haeres. 20. Herodians, who were of the Iewes Religion in all other things, but thought Herod to bee the Christ; because the scepter departed from Iudah, and the Law-giuer from betweene his feete, when Herod who was a stranger obtayned the title and power of a king, and ruled ouer the people of God.

These were the sects and Heresies, that prevayled in the Church of the Iewes before the comming of Christ, amongst whom the Pharisees and Sadduces were chiefe; so that the whole state seemed to be diuided into these two factions, Sigon. de rep. Hebr. lib. 5. cap. 11. ex Iosepho. the nobles and great ones enclining for the most part to the Sadduces, and the common people to the Pharisees; whereupon wee reade in the acts of the Apostles, that Paul standing before Ananias the high Priest, and the rest of the chiefe Priests and Rulers of the people to be judged, knowing that the one part of them were Sadduces, and the other part Pharisees, cried aloud; Act. 23. 6. I am a Pharisee, and the sonne of a Pharisee, I am accused of the hope and resurrection of the dead: and that vpon the hearing of these words, there was a dissention betweene the Pharisees and Sadduces, so that the whole multitude was diuided; that there was a great cry; and that the Scribes of the Pharisees part arose vp, and stroue, saying, Ibid, ve •… Wee finde no euill in the man: But if a Spirit or an Angell hath spoken vnto him, let vs not fight against God.

CHAP. 8.

Of Prophets and Nazarites.

BEsides the Priests and Levites, whom God chose to attend his Seruice & Sanctuary, rent and divided in latter times into the manifold factions and Heresies aboue-mentioned, there were other who medled not with the Ministery of holy things, and yet were specially dedicated and sanctified vnto God. These were either such as dedicated their bodies and persons vnto God, as the Nazarites; or such as God raised vp extraordinarily to fore-shew future things, and to reforme abuses and errours, as were the Prophets.

The vow of the Nazarits is described in the book of Numbers, where the Lord God spake vnto Moses, saying, Numb. 6. 2. Speake vnto the children of Israel, and say vnto them, When a man or woman doth separate themselues to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate himselfe vnto the Lord, he shall abstaine from wine and strong drinke, no razorshall come vpon his head, but he shall let the lockes of the haire of hishead to grow, during the time that he separateth himselfe vnto the Lord: He shall come at no dead body, hee shall not make himselfe vncleane at the death of his father or mother, brother or sister: for the consecration of the Lord is vpon his head.

The Nazarites were of two sorts: for some did separate themselues vnto the Lord but for a time, and others perpetually. Nazarites of the former sort they were, of whō Iames, and the Elders doe speake in the Acts, saying vnto Paul, Act. 21. 23. Wee haue foure men which haue made a vow: them take, and purifie thy selfe with them, and contribute with them, that they may shaue their heads, and all shall know that those things whereof they haue beene informed concerning thee, are nothing, but that thou thy selfe also walkest and keepest the Law. Of the latter sort the Scripture mentioneth onely two: Sampson and Samuel. Concerning Sampson we reade, that the Angell of God appeared vnto the wife of Manoah his mother, and said vnto her; Iudges 13. 7. Behold now thou art barren, and bearest not, but thou shalt conceiue, and beare a sonne; and now therefore beware that thou drinke no wine nor strong drinke, neither eate any vncleane thing. For loe thou shalt conceiue, and beare a sonne, and no razor shall come on his head; For the Childe shall be a Nazarite vnto God from his birth, and he shall begin to saue Israel out of the hands of the Philistines. And of Samuel, his mother sayd before he was borne: 1 Sam. 1. 11. I will giue him to the Lord all the dayes of his life, and no razor shall come vpon his head. To these Hier. Catal. Script. Eccles. in lacobo. Hierome addeth out of Egesippus, Iames the just, the brother of our Lord.

Prophets properly are such as fore-know and fore-tell things that are to come: but because, as Greg. hom. l. sup. Ezekielem. Gregory fitly noteth, it is as hard to know the things that are past, whereof there is no report, and the things that are done a farre off, or in secret, or that are but contriued, and resolued on in the purposes of the heart, as to fore-see what shall come to passe hereafter; the knowledge of all these things pertaineth to propheticall grace and illumination; and it was no lesse a propheticall spirit that directed Moses in writing the storie of the Creation, fall, and propagation of mankind, nor no lesse a Propheticall illumination that made Elizeus know what was done in the King of Arams privie chamber, then it was in Esay and the rest, that enabled them to foretell and fore-shew the things that were to come. And therefore the Diuines make diuerse sorts of Prophets; some to whom principally things past were reuealed, or hidden things then being: and some to whom things that were after to come to passe, were more specially manifested or made knowne: Hugo de S. Vict. Erudit. Theol de Sacr. fidei lib. 1. part. 1 prolog. c. 17. Some that were Prophets both in grace and mission, some in grace onely: In grace and mission, as they that were specially sent to foreshew the people of God what was to come to passe, to tell them of their transgressions, and the judgments that were to follow: In grace onely, as were all such as were not specially imployed to this purpose, and yet had the knowledge of secret things, as Daniel and some other.

CHAP. 9.

Of Assemblies vpon extraordinary occasions.

THVS hauing spoken sufficiently of the persons that God sanctified to serue him in the Temple, and to teach, direct, and instruct his people; as also of such as voluntarily dedicated themselues vnto him, or were extraordinarily raised vp by him: Let us see what the gouernement of the Church, and people of God was vnder them during the time of the law, vntill the comming of Christ.

The Scriptures shew vs, that God appointed for the gouernement of his people, extraordinary Assemblies; and set judgments: Whereunto the Prophet Dauid seemeth to allude, when he sayth, The Psal. 1. vers. 5. wicked shall not rise vp in judgment, nor Sinners in the assembly of the righteous. In assemblies were handled things concerning the state of the whole common-wealth: In the set Courts, things concerning particular parts of it. Assemblies were of two sorts: either of the whole people, or of the Elders and Rulers only. Assemblies of the whole people were gathered together to heare the commandements of God: to make publike praiers vnto him, or to performe and doe some extraordinary thing: as to appoint a King, a Iudge, or a Prince, to proclaime or wage warre, or the like.

These Assemblies were either of the whole people of Israel, or onely of the whole people of one tribe or citie. For the calling of these assemblies God commanded Numb. 10 2. two trumpets of siluer to be made and to be in the custodie of Moses and his successours: with this direction, that when they blowed with them both, all the congregation should assemble vnto them: but when they blowed but with one, the Princes or Heads ouer the thousands of Israel onely should come.

The set Courts and Tribunals were of two sorts, the one in the gates of euery Citty, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Iudgment; the other at Hierusalem, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Councell: wherevnto Christ seemeth to haue alluded, when he sayd, Math. 5. 22. Whosoeuer is angry with his brother vnaduisedly, shall be guilty of judgment: but whosoeuer sayth, Racha, shall be guiltie of a Councell: and he that saith, Thou foole, shall be worthy to be punished with Gehenna of fire, or the fierie Gehenna. Thereby shewing vs, that one of these offences and faults, is more grieuous and worthy of greater punishment then the other: for the Councell or Sanedrim did handle weightier causes, and might inflict more grieuous punishments, thē the set Courts of Iustice in the gates of euery city. So that this is it he meant to say. He that is angry with his brother vnaduisedly shall be guilty of judgment, that is, of some lighter punishment; and he that sayth, Racha, shall be subject to the councell, that is, punished more grieuously: but he that sayth, Thou foole, shall be punished with all extremity, answering in proportion to the cruell and mercilesse burning of of men in the 2. Chron. 33. vers. 6. valley of Hinnon, or the fiery Gehenna.

S. Augustine in his first booke Cap. 19. Apparet Augustinum iudicialis rationis Hebraicae notionemnon habuisse. Sigonius de rep. Hebr. l b. 6. cap. 7. De Sermone Domini in monte, doth somewhat otherwise, but very excellently, expresse the meaning of Christs words in this sort. There are sayth he, degrees of sinne in this kind mentioned by Christ: itaque in primo vnum est, id est, ira sola: in secundo, duo:: & ira, & vox quae iram significat: in tertio, tria: & ira, & vox quae iram significat, & in voce ipsa certae vituperationis expressio. Vide nunc etiam tres reatus, Iudicij, Concilij, & Gehennae ignis. Nam in Iudicio adhuc defensioni datur locus: ad Concilium pertinet sententiae prolatio, quando non jam cum reo agitur, vtrum damnandus sit, sed inter se qui iudicant, conferunt, quo supplicio damnari oporteat, quem constat esse damnandum. Gehenna vero ignis nec damnationem habet dubiā, sicut Iudicium, nec damnati poenam sicut Conciliū: in Gehenná quippe ignis certa est & dā natio, & poena damnati. That is: In the first degree there is but one thing, that is, anger only: In the 2d two: anger & a voyce expressing anger: In the third three: anger, the voyce that giueth signification of it, and in the voyce it selfe an expressing of some certaine reproach. See now also three guilts, of judgment, of Councell, and the Gehenna of fire: For in Iudgment there is yet place left for defence; to Councell pertaineth the pronouncing of the sentence, when there is no more to bee done with the partie guilty, nor no further doubt whether he be to be condemned or not, but they that iudge take counsell and conferre amongst themselues, to what punishment they shall condemne him, of whose condemnation they are already resolued: but in the Gehenna of fire, there is neither doubtfulnesse of condemnation, as in Iudgement, nor of the punishment of the condemned, as in Councell: For there both the condemnation is certaine, and the punishment also.

The Papists alledge the words of Christ for proofe of veniall sinnes, because onely the last degree of vnaduised and causelesse anger, is pronounced worthy to be punished with Gehenna of fire, or hell fire. Whence they thinke it may be concluded, that other degrees of causelesse anger, though sinfull, yet do not subiect men to any punishment in hell, and consequently are by nature veniall. But if we vnderstand that Christ alluded to the different courts of justice amongst the Iewes, their proceedings in the same, and the diuersity of punishments which they inflicted more or lesse grieuous, as Sigonius in his booke Loco suprà citato. Derepub. Hebraeorum, and other excellently learned doe; then by Gehenna of fire, is not simply meant hell fire, which is the generall punishment of damned sinners: but the greatest extremity of punishment in hell, expressed by comparison with the cruell torments, which they indured that were consumed in fire in Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnon, farre more intollerable then were the punishments inflicted by the Iudgement or Councell, to which the lighter and lesser punishments in hell, due to lesser and lighter sinnes, may be resembled. And though wee vnderstand the words as Augustine doth, yet is not their errour confirmed by this place: for as he fitly noteth, whereas to kill is more greeuous then to wrong by contumelious and railing speeches, amongst the Pharisees onely killing was thought to make a man guilty of judgement; But heere anger, the least of all the sinnes mentioned by Christ, is by him pronounced guilty of judgement; and whereas amongst them, the question of murther was brought before the iudgement seate of men, here all things are left to the judgement of God, where the end of the condemned and guilty is hell fire. And for farther cleering of this point he addeth, that if any man shall say, that murther, as more greiuous, is to be punished more grieuously, according to the rule of iustice, then with hell fire, if rayling speeches be punishable with hell fire, hee will force vs to acknowledge diuerse hells, or kindes and degrees of punishments in hell. So farre was Augustine from imagining any such difference of sinnes, whereof some should be worthy to be punished in hell, and some not, to be proued out of this place, as our aduersaries would enforce and vrge.

CHAP. 10.

Of the s •… t Courts amongst the Iewes, their authority and continuance.

TOuching the Tribunals and iudgements that were in euery city, God sayd vnto Moses: Thou shalt appoint thee Iudges and Magistrates in all thy cityes; a Deut: •… 6. •… 8. and againe: They shall goe vp to the Iudges that sit in the gates of the city. But the Sanedrim or great Councell of State, consisted of the King, the twelue Princes of the people, the seaventy Elders, the high Priest, the chiefe Priests, and the b Si gon. de rep: Hebr. l. 6: c. 7. Scribes. And this Councell was first in Siloh, afterwards at Hierusalem; first in the tribe of Ephraim, and after in the tribe of Iudah: and after the rent of the tenne tribes, none but the elders of Iudah, and Beniamin, and the Priests and Leuites entred into this Councell.

This Councell either the King or high Priest called, according as the matter to bee heard, touched Religion or the common-wealth: But after the returne from Babylon, the high Priest was alwayes chiefe, and gouerned with the Elders and chiefe Priests: For there were no more kings of Iudah after that time, but the kings of Persia, Aegypt, and Syria had the command ouer Iudaea, and made the Iewes pay tribute vnto them. Of this Councell almighty God did speake when he said: D •… . 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in iudgement between bloud and bloud, between plea & plea, betweene plague and plague, in matters of controversie within thy gates, then shalt thou arise & goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse; and thou shalt come vnto the Priests of the Leuites, & vnto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes, & aske, & they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgment: & thou shalt doe according vnto that thing which they of that place which the Lord hath chosen, shew thee: & thou shalt obserue to doe according to all that they informe thee, according to the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee, shalt thou doe; thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left: And that man that will doe presumptuously not hearkning to the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there, or vnto the Iudge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away euill from Israel.

This was the highest Court amongst the Iewes, & from this there was no appeale: and this Court some thinke to haue enjoyed so great and ample priviledges, as that it could not erre: and thereupon inferre, that Popes in their Consistories cannot erre, to whom Christ hath made as large promises of assistance and direction, as euer he did to the high Priests and Rulers in the time of Moses Law.

That the Priests and Rulers in the time of the Law could not erre, they indeavour to proue, because he was to answer it with hisbloud whosoeuer disobeyed the sentence & decree of those Iudges; & God required euery man without declining to the right hand or the left, to doe that they commanded.

If it be objected that the words of Almighty God, requiring all men so strictly to obey the sentence and decree of those Rulers, are not to bee vnderstood concerning matters of faith, but Causes Ciuill and Criminall; and that therefore this place maketh not any proofe of the infallibilitie of their judgment in matters of faith; it will bee answered, that there is no reason to doubt of their judgment in matters of faith, of whose right judgment in matters Ciuill and Criminall wee are assured.

Surely, it is true, that if those Iudges in the time of the Law, could not erre in matters Ciuill and Criminall; they were vndoubtedly much more freed from danger of erring in matters of faith: but it is one of the strangest paradoxes, as I thinke, that euer yet was heard of, that the Priests and Iudges in the time of the Law were priviledged from danger of erring in matters of fact, and that they were so assisted in their proceedings, as that they could not bee mis-led by any passions or sinister affections, to pervert judgement and doe wrong. For besides that it is refuted by sundry instances, of sinister and wicked judgments passed by those Iudges, against the Seruants and Prophets of Almighty God, it maketh the Ministery and government vnder the Law, incomparably more glorious and excellent then the Ministerie of the Gospell. For it is by all confessed, that the Popes and Councels may erre in things of this nature. But that the Priests in the time of the Law did sometimes erre in judgment, condemning them whō God would not haue had condemned, appeareth evidently by that we read in the booke of the Prophesies of Ieremy, where Ierem. 26. 8 when Ieremy had made an end of speaking all that the Lord commanded him to speake, then the Priests and the Prophets, and al •… the people took him, and said, Thou shalt dye the death. Ibid. ver. 10 And when the Princes of Iudah heard of these things, they came vp from the Kings house into the house of the Lord, & sate down in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House. Then spake the Priests & the Prophets vnto the Princes & to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to dye, Ver. 16. but the Princes said, This man is not worthy to dye: for he hath spoken vnto vs in the Name of the Lord our God. Here we see the Priests erred, and were resisted by the Princes of the Land: but elsewhere we reade, that Ierem. 37. 15. the Princes also were angry with Ieremy, & smote him, and layde him in prison in the house of Iehonathan the Scribe, and saide unto the King: Ier. 38. 4. Wee beseech thee, let this man be put to death, for he weakneth the hands of the men of war that are in the Citie, and the hands of all the people. So that both Priests and Princes, might, & did sometimes erre in judgment. But some man perhaps will say, that howsoeuer they might erre in matters of fact, yet they could not erre in any matter of substance pertaining to the worship & seruice of God. This also is clearely demonstrated to be false, & their errours in things pertaining to the worship and seruice of God proued by sundry examples.

In the second booke of Kings wee reade, that 2. Kings 16. 3. Ahaz k •… ng of Iudah walked in the waies of the kings of Israel, made his sonnes goe through the fire, after the abominations of the heathen, and offered burnt incense in the high places, and on the hils, and vnder euerie greene tree. This wicked Ahaz Ibid. ver. 10. 11. sent from Damascus to Vrias the Priest, the patterne of the Altar he saw at Damascus, and the fashion of it, and all the workemanship thereof; and Vrias the Priest made an Altar, in all points like to that which King Ahaz sent from Damascus. So did Vrias the Priest before King Ahaz came from Damascus; Ver. 15. and the King commanded Vrias to offer sacrifice on the Altar, and Ver. 16. Vrias did whatsoeuer the King commanded him. Yea we reade of many Priests, especially about the time of the Maccabees, that forsooke the law of God, and followed the abominations of the heathen Idolaters; and many Iudges and Kings likewise; so that, Dauid, Hezekiah, & Iosias only excepted, there was none of the Kings that did not decline more or lesse to Idolatry.

Lyra in Deuteron, 17. & alij. The meaning therefore of Almighty God according to the iudgment of the best Diuines was not, that Priests and Iudges in the the time of the law should be obayed in all things without exception, but when they commanded and iudged according to the diuine law and verity: and in the same sort must wee vnderstand the words of Christ, when he sayth, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on the Chaire of Moses; and commandeth the people to obserue and doe whatsoeuer they prescribe to be obserued and done. For otherwise o Math. 23. 2. Christ should be contrary to himselfe, who elsewhere willeth men to Math. 16. 6. beware of the leauen of the Pharisees, (which S. Mathew interpreteth to bee their Ibid ver. 12. doctrine) & teacheth men by his own example to cōtemn their traditiōs. Yea, it is most r Math. 15. certaine, that the Pharisees erred dangerously and damnably in many things, notwithstanding their sitting on Moses chaire: and therefore Christ doth oftentimes sharpely reproue them for mis-interpreting the law of God.

Some man perhaps will say: they taught lesse then is implied in the Law, in that they condemned murther, adultery, and the like crimes, but not lust, hatred and such other sinister affections of the heart: and that therefore Christ did not reproue them as teaching any thing contrary to the Law, but as teaching lesse then is contained in it, and comming short of it. This euasion will not serue: for it appeareth euidently, that they did not only come short of that the Law requireth; but were also contrary vnto it, and that Christ taxeth them for the same. Au •… ust. cont. Faust. Manichaeum Lib. •… 9. cap. 2 •… . Quia non intelligebant, (sayth Saint Augustine,) homicidium nisi per interemptionem corporis humani per quam vitâ priuaretur, aperuit Dominus omnem iniquum motum ad nocendum fratri in homicidij genere deputari: vnde & Iohannes dicit, Qui odit fratrem suum, homicida est: & quoniam putabant tantummodo corporalem cumfoeminâ illicitam commixtionem vocari moechiam, demonstrauit Magister etiam talem concupiscentiam nihil esse aliud: That is, they vnderstood no other Kind of murther, but that which is the sundring of soule and body, and the taking away of life, therefore our Lord shewed, that euery vnrighteous motion to hurt our brother is to be accompted murther, Whence also S. Iohn sayth, He that hateth his brother, is a man-slayer: and because they thought the vnlawfull conjunction of man and woman only to be adulterie, our Maister shewed, that euen the desire is no lesse. Now I thinke, that to say, that is not murther nor adultery which Christ pronounceth to be murther and adultery, is not onely to teach lesse then is in the Law, but to teach contrary to it.

But to make this point more cleare and euident, and that there may bee noe doubt, but that their doctrine was contrary to the Law, the Scripture reporteth, nay our Sauiour Christ telleth vs in the Scripture (whose report wee may not doubt of) that they taught a man Math. 〈◊〉 . •… 3. to loue his friend, and to hate his enimy: whereas by the Law of God we are bound to loue our enemies, to blesse them that curse vs, to do good to them that hate vs, and to pray for them that hurt vs, and persecute us. It is true indeed, that Aug. d •… Se •… : Do •… . in monte l •… b. 1. c. 41. S. Augustine not obseruing this glosse of hating our enemies, to bee the lewd tradition of the Pharises, but thinking it to be written in the Law, doth in one place say, that that which is sayd in the Law, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, is not to be taken as the voyce of him that commandeth and prescribeth what the just should doe, but permitteth what the infirmity of the weake requireth; and in another place writing against the Manichees sayth, Contra Faustum Manichaeum. li. 19. c. 24. that that which is in the old Scripture, Hate thine enemie, and that which is in the Gospell, Loue your enemies, do agree together very well. For euery vnrighteous man in quantum iniquus est, odio habendus est, & in quantum homo, diligendus, in that he is vnrighteous, is to be hated, and in that he is a man, is to be loued. This saying hee sayth the Pharisees did not rightly vnderstand, and that therefore Christ laboured to teach and instruct them better, and to let them know, that they were so to hate their enemies, that they should also loue them.

This which S. Augustine deliuereth is most Catholike and true: For we are to hate the vices, and loue the persons of our enimies; but neither is there any mandate in the Scriptures that we should hate our enemies, neither had that precept of the Pharisees that sense wherein S. Augustine cōceiueth a man may lawfully hate his enemies: but as himselfe cōfesseth, they thought they were so to hate their enemies, that they were not bound to loue thē; against which erroneous conceipt Christ opposeth himselfe, saying, But I say vnto you, loue your enemies. Neither doth he oppose an Euangelicall coūsell of greater perfection then the Law requireth, to that imperfect thing the Law prescribeth, as some men haue ignorantly fancied; but the true meaning of the Law, to the false construction of the same made by the Pharisees, as likewise he doth in all other his oppositions to that which had bin sayd to them of old time.

But let vs let this passe, and come to the other errours of the Pharisees taxed by our Sauiour Christ in such sort as no man can excuse them, Math. 15. 3. Why doe ye transgresse, sayth he, the commandement of God by your traditions? for God hath commanded; saying, Honour thy Father, and thy Mother; and he that curseth Father or Mother, let him die the death: but ye say, Whosoeuer shall say to Father or Mother, By the gift that is offered by me thou maist haue profit, though he honour not his Father or Mother, shall be free: Thus haue you made the commandement of God of none effect, by your owne tradition. Againe, they taught that it is Math. 23. 18. nothing if a man sweare by the Altar, but that he that sweareth by the gift or offering that is on the Altar is a Debtor, that is, bound to do that he sweareth. Many other like fond & wicked glosses of the Pharisees we read of, whereby they made the cōmandemēts of God of none effect, whereupon our Sauiour sayth: Math. 5. 20. Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen. Thus then I hope it appeareth to all that are not wilfully blinded, that Christ meant not, when hee sayd, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses chaire, therefore whatsoeuer they bid you, that obserue and doe, that they could speake nothing but truth, and that whatsoeuer they sayd was to be receiued without any examination; but that whatsoeuer things they spake pertinentia ad Cathedram (as the author of the In illum locum. interlineall Glosse interpreteth the words) and whatsoeuer things they deliuered as sitting in Moses chaire, that is, doing the duty of Teachers, they should bee listned vnto, howsoeuer otherwise they were wicked, and godlesse men.

They that teach, iudge, and rule the people of God, are described to performe those things sitting, to put them in minde that they must doe all things with setled, composed, and well aduised resolution, and not rashly, hastily, and inconsiderately: whereupon Princes haue their thrones, Iudges their Tribunalls and iudgment seates, and Teachers their chaires. Hence Moses office of teaching the people the lawes of God and the performance of the same, is metaphorically named Moses chaire; and the succeeding of Moses in this office and duty of deliuering the lawes of God to the people, & the performance of the same, is rightly expressed by the sitting on the chaire of Moses: & in this sense the Scribes & Pharisees are rightly sayd to haue sitte on Moses chaire, because they succeeded him in the office and duty of teaching the people the lawes of God, and in the performance of the same duety in some part, though not wholly. And therefore our Sauiour Christ requireth all men, notwithstanding their wicked conuersation and manifold errours in matters of doctrine, to do whatsoeuer they commanded while they sate on Moses chaire, that is, performed the duty belonging to Moses office and place.

It is strange that any man should seeke to extend the words of Christ any farther, as if they meant to cleare the Scribes & Pharisees from all possibilitie and danger of erring, in that they possessed the roome of Moses, and had the places of Teachers in the Church; when it is Bell. de auth. Concil. l. 2. c. 8. confessed by the best learned of all sides, that the Priests of the Law had no priuiledge of not erring in teaching the people of GOD after Christ appeared, and began to teach in his owne person, whatsoeuer they had before; and Idem de Eccl. milit. l. 3. c. •… 7 that this was fore-told by Ieremy the Prophetwhen he said, Peribit lex à Sacerdote, verbū à Propheta, consilium à Sapiente; The Law shall perish frō the Priest, the word frō the Prophet, and counsell from the wise. But such is the impudencie of some Vt refert Bell. de author. concil. l. 2, c. 8. of the friends & louers of the Church of Rome, that they feare not to defend & cleare the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees from errour, wherewith Christ so often chargeth them, & to justifie the proceedings of the high Priest, and the rest of the Priests and Rulers assembled in Councell against Christ himselfe, affirming, that the sentence pronounced against him was true and just: for that he was truly guilty of death, in that hee had taken vpon him our sinnes to purge them in himselfe, and that it was indeede expedient that he should dye for the people, according to the Ioh. 18. 14. saying of Caiphas, who in so saying is saide to haue prophesied, as being the high Priest that yeare. But Bellarmine ingenuously acknowledgeth the ouer-sight of his friends and companions, and saith, that howsoeuer those words of Caiphas admit a good sense (though not intended by him) for he meant it was better that Christ being but one should die, then that the whole people (whose destruction he thought vnavoidable, if Christ were suffered to liue) should perish & come to nothing: Yet there are other wordes of Caiphas, that in no sense are justifiable, as when he said, Math. 26. 65 He hath blasphemed, what need we any more witnesses? Touching his former speech, it was the will of God, for the honour of the Priesthood, that he should vtter that he meant ill, in such wordes as might haue a good sense, though not meant nor intended by him, whereupon he is said to haue prophesied: but the latter words are words of cursed blasphemy, & without horrible impiety cannot be excused in any sense. Therefore there are others, who confesse that Caiphas and his assistants erred when they cōdemned Christ, but that it was but a matter of fact wherein they erred, in mistaking the quality of Christs Person, & in being mis-informed of him, in which kinde of things Councels may erre. This conceipt the Cardinall likewise rejecteth & explodeth as absurd: for that howsoeuer it was a question of fact, & concerning the Person of him that stood to be judged, yet it inwrapped in it a most important question concerning the Faith, to wit, whether IESVS the Son of Mary vvere the true Messias & Son of God: & therefore Caiphas with his whole Councell resoluing that he was not, erred damnably in a matter of Faith, & pertinaciously, in that they rejected him as a blasphemer of God, whom the Angels from Heauen testified to be the Son of God: the Starre designed to be that light, that lightneth euery one that commeth into the World: the Sages from a farre adored, as being that King of the Iewes, that is to sit vpon the Throne of Dauid for euer, whose Dominion is from Sea to sea, & from the Riuer to the end of the Land: whom the seas & windes obeyed, & at whose rebuke the Diuels went out of those they had formerly possessed. But if this defence of the hellish sentence of wicked Caiphas be too weake, as indeed it is, our adversaries last refuge is, that this Councel erred, because Caiphas & his fellowes proceeded in it tumultuously, & not in due sort: vvhich is a most silly shift. For how are Councels priviledged from erring, vvhich is the thing these men seek so carefully to defend (though it be vvith excusing of the Fact of those men vvho shalbe found vnexcusable in the day of Iudgment) if Councels may proceed tumultuously, & so define against the truth.

Thus we see that the great Councell of state amongst the Iewes, to vvhich all matters of difficultie vvere brought, & from vvhich there vvas no appeale, might and did erre sometimes dangerously, & damnably. This Councell continued in some sort as vvell after the captivity of Babylon, & the returne from the same, as before: Sigon. de rep. Hebr. l. 7. c. 4 though vvith this difference, that vvheras before, the king had a principal interest in the same, aftervvards the High Priest alvvayes vvas chief, there being no more Kings of Iudah, but the kings of Persia, Aegypt, and Syria, commaunding ouer the Iewes, and making them tributaries vnto them. In this sort were they gouerned, till some differences growing amongst them for the place of the high Priest, they were by Antiochus Epiphanes king of Syria depriued both of their liberty and exercise of religion, and brought into miserable bondage; the indignity whereof the Assamonaei of the tribe of Leui could not indure, but by force and policie in a sort freed the state of the Iewes againe, and tooke vnto themselues first the name of Princes, and then of Kings. In the booke of Maccabees we reade, that Mattathias was constituted Priest, Prince, and Ruler, and that many came downe to him to seeke judgement and iustice. Iudas Maccabaeus succeeded Mattathias, and joyned the dignity of the high Priest to the princely power. Ionathas succeeded Macchabaeus, of whom we reade, 1 Maccab, 9. 30. Now this day doe we chuse thee to be vnto vs a Prince instead of Iudas, and a captaine to fight our battels. Simon succeeded Ionathas, and in his time Demetrius king of Syria and Antiochus his son remitted all tributes; so that then the Iewes recouered their ancient liberty in as ample manner as they had formerly enjoyed it vnder their kings. Iohn succeeded Simon, and Aristobulus Iohn, who put vpon himselfe a Diademe, and assumed the name of a King. After Aristobulus succeeded Alexander his brother, marrying Solina his wife. Alexander being dead, Alexandra obtayned the kingdome, & after her Hircanus, whom Aristobulus his brother expulsed. Pompey tooke this Aristobulus prisoner, subdued Iudaea, brought it into the forme of a prouince, and appointed Antipater Ascalonita to be Procurator of it; but not long after, Antigonus the son of Aristobulus recouered the citie of Hierusalem, & inuaded the kingdome; against whom the Romans set vp Herod the son of Antipater and gaue him the name of a King.

Thus the direction and gouernment of the Iewes rested principally in the Sanedrim, as well before as after their returne from Babylon; and the Sanedrim, which was the highest Court, and swayed all, consisted for the most part of men taken out of the house of Dauid, and therefore the Scepter did not depart from Iudah so long as that Court continued, and retayned the authority belonging to it; though there were no king of the posterity of Dauid and tribe of Iudah, but the high Priests first, and then other of the tribe of Leui, assuming to themselues Priestly, and Princely dignity, had the chiefest place and highest roome in this court of state. But when Herod swaied the Scepter, flue all those that he found to be of the bloud royall of Iudah, and tooke away all power and authority that the Sanedrim formerly had, then the Scepter departed from Iudah, and the Law-giuer from betweene his feete; so that then was the time for the Shiloh to come.

CHAP. 11.

Of the manifestation of God in the flesh, the causes thereof, and the reason why the second Person in the Trinitie rather tooke flesh, then either of the other.

GOd therefore in that fulnesse of time sent his Sonne in our flesh to sit vpon the throne of Dauid, and to bee both a King and Priest ouer his house for euer; concerning whom, three things are to bee considered. First, his humiliation, abasing himselfe to take our nature, and become man. Secondly, the gifts and graces he bestowed on the nature of man, when he assumed it into the vnitie of his Person. Thirdly, the things hee did and suffered in it for our good.

In the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, we consider first, the necessity, that God should become man; secondly, the fitnesse and conuenience, that the second Person rather then any other: Thirdly, the manner, how this strange thing was wrought & brought to passe. Touching the necessity that God should become man, there are two opinions in the Romane schooles.

For some thinke, that though Adam had neuer sinned, yet it had beene necessary for the exaltation of humane nature, that God should haue sent his Sonne to become man; but others are of opinion, that had it not beene for the deliuering of man out of sinne and misery, the Sonne of God had neuer appeared in our flesh. Bonauent. in 3 Sent. dist: 1. quaest. 2. Both these opinions, sayth Bonauentura, are Catholique, and defended by Catholiques: whereof the former seemeth more consonant to reason, but the later to the piety of faith, because neither Scripture nor Fathers doe euer mention the Incarnation, but when they speake of the redemption of mankind: soe that seeing nothing is to be beleeued, but what is proued out of these, it sorteth better with the nature of right beliefe, to thinke the Sonne of God had neuer become the Sonne of man, if man had not sinned, then to thinke the contrary. Aug. de verb. Apostoli. Serm. 70. tractans illud Lucae, Venit filius hominis saluum facere quod perie •… at: & illud 1. ad Timoth: 1. Venit in hunc mundum peccatores saluos facere. Venit filius hominis, sayth Augustine, saluum facere quod perierat: Si homo non perijsset, filius hominis non venisset: nulla causa fuit Christo veniendi, nisi peccatores saluos facere. Tolle morbos, tolle vuluera; & nulla est medicinae causa: that is, The Sonne of man came to saue that which was lost; If man had not perished, the sonne of man had not come, there was no other cause of Christs comming, but the saluation of sinners: Take away diseases, wounds and hurts, and what neede is there of the Phisition or Surgeon? Wherefore resoluing with the Scriptures and Fathers, that there was no other cause of the incarnation of the Sonne of God, but mans redemption, let vs see whether so great an abasing of the sonne of God, were necessary for the effecting hereof.

Surely there is no doubt, but that Almighty God, whose wisdome is incomprehensible, and power infinite, could haue effected this worke by other meanes, but not soe well beseeming his truth and justice; whereupon the Diuines doe shew, that in many respects it was fit and necessary for this purpose, that God should become man.

Thomas Sum. Theol part. 3. quaest. 1. art. 2. First, ad fidem firmandam; to settle men in a certaine and vndoubted perswasion of the truth of such things as are necessary to be beleeued: vt homo fidentiùs ambularet ad veritatem, sayth August. de Ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 2. Augustine, ipsa veritas, Dei filius homine assumpto, constituit & fundauit fidem: that is, That man might more assuredly, and without danger of erring, approach vnto the presence of sacred truth it selfe, the sonne of God, assuming the nature of man, setled and founded the faith, and shewed what things are to be beleeued.

Secondly, ad rectam operationem, to direct mens actions; for whereas man, that might be seene, might not safely be followed, and God, that was to bee imitated and followed could not be seene, it was necessary that God should become man, that hee, whom man was to follow, might shew himselfe vnto man, and be seene of him.

Thirdly, ad ostendendam dignitatem humanae Naturae, to shew the dignitie and excellencie of humane nature, that no man should any more soe much forget himselfe, as to defile the same with finfull impurities. Aug. de ver. 〈◊〉 Religione c. 16. Demonstrauit nobis Deus, sayth Augustine, quàm excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura, in hoc quòd hominibus in vero homine apparuit; that is, God shewed vs how high a place the nature of man hath amongst his creatures, in that he appeared vnto men in the nature, and true being of a man. Leo Serm. 1. in na •… u. Dom. Agnosce (sayth Leo) O Christiane dignitatem tuam, & diuinae consors factus naturae noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conuersatione redire: that is, Take knowledge ô Christian man of thine owne worth and dignity: and being made partaker of the diuine nature returne not to thy former basenesse by an vnfitting kind of life & conuersation. Lastly, it was necessary the Sonne of God should become man, ad liberandum hominem à seruitute peccati, to deliuer man from the slauery and bondage of sinne. For the performance whereof, two things were to be done: For first, the justice of God displeased with sinne committed against him, was to bee satisfied: and secondly the breach was to be made vp that was made vpon the whole nature of man by the same: neither of which things could possibly be perforned by man or Angell, or by any creature. For touching the first, the wrath of God displeased with sinne, and the punishments which in iustice he was to inflict vpon sinners for the same, were both infinite: because the offence was infinite, and therefore none but a person of infinite worth, value, and vertue, was able to endure the one, and satisfie the other.

If any man shall say, it was possible for a meere man stayed by diuine power and assistance, to feele smart and paine in proportion answering to the pleasure of sin, which is but finite, and to indure for a time the losse of all that infinite comfort & solace that is to be found in God, answering to that aversion from God that is in sinne, which is infinite, and so to satisfie his justice; he considereth not, that though such a man might satisfie for his owne sinne, yet not for the sinnes of all other, who are in number infinite, vnlesse his owne person were eminently as good as all theirs, and vertually infinite. Secondly, that though he might satisfie for his owne actuall sin, yet he could not for his originall sin, which being the sin of nature, cannot be satisfied for but by him, in whom the whole nature of man in some principall sort is found. Thirdly, he considereth not, that it is impossible that any sinner should of himselfe euer cease from sinning; and that therefore, seeing so long as sinne remaineth, the guilt of punishment remaineth, he must be euerlastingly punished, if he suffer the punishment due to his euerlasting sinne: and consequently, that he cannot so suffer the punishments due to his actuall sinnes, as hauing satisfied the vvrath and justice of God to free himselfe from the same If it be said, that by grace he may cease from sinning, and so suffer the punishment due to sin so ceasing, and not eternall; it vvill be replyed, that God giueth not his grace to any till his justice be first satisfied, and a reconciliation procured: for hee giueth it to his friends, not to his enemies.

Touching the second thing that vvas to be done for mans deliuerance, vvhich vvas the making vp of the breach made vpon the nature of man, & the freeing him from the impuritie of inherent sinne, that so the punishment due to sinne past being felt and suffered, he might be reconciled to God; it could not bee performed by any meere creature vvhatsoeuer. For as all fell in Adam, the roote and beginning of naturall being, vvho receiued the treasures of righteousnesse and holinesse for himselfe, and those that by propagation vvere to come of him: so their restauration could not bee vvrought, but by him that should be the roote, fountaine, and beginning of supernaturall and spirituall being, in whom the whole nature of mankind should be found in a more eminent sort then it was in Adam: as indeed it was in the second Adam, Ioh 1. 16. of whose fulnesse we all receiue, grace for grace. And this surely was the reason, why it was no injustice in God to lay vpon him the punishments due to our sinnes, and why his sufferings doe free vs from the same. It is no way just, that one man hauing no speciall communion with another, should suffer punishment for another mans fault; but the whole nature of man being found in him in a more eminent sort, then either in Adam, or any one of them that came of him, & he hauing vndertaken to free & deliuer it, it was just & right he should feele the miseries it was subiect vnto: & that being felt, and sustained by him in such sort as was sufficient to satisfie diuine justice, they should not be imposed or laid on vs.

Hereupon some haue said, that Christ was made sin, not by acting or cōtracting sin (for so to say were horrible blasphemy) but by taking on him the guilt of all mens sinnes: which yet is wisely to be vnderstood, lest we run into errour. For whereas the guilt of sin implieth two things; a worthines to be punished, & a destination vnto punishment; the former implieth demerite naturall or personall in him that is so worthy to bee punished, & this could not be in Christ: the other, which is obligatio ad poenam, a being subject vnto punishment, may grow from some cōmunion with him or them that are worthy to be punished. And in this sense some say, Christ took the guilt of our sins, not by acting or contracting sin, but by communion with sinners, though not in sin, yet in that nature, which in them is sinfull & guilty, as those good men that are parts of a sinfull City, are justly subject to the punishments due to that City, not in that they haue fellowship with it in euill, but in that they are parts of it being euill: as the son of a traitor is justly subject, to the grievous punishment of forfeiting the inheritance, that should haue descended vpon him from his father, though hee no way concurred with him in his treason, in respect of his nearenesse & cōmunion with him, of whom he is as it were a part. Wherupon all Divines resolue, that men altogether innocent, yet liuing as parts of the societies of wicked men, are justly subiect to those temporal punishments those societies are worthy of: & that the reason why one man cannot bee subject to those spirituall punishments which others deserue, is, for that in respect of the spirit & inward man, they haue no such derivation frō, dependance on, or cōmuniō with others, as in respect of the outward man they haue.

Wherefore to conclude this point, we may safely resolue, that no other could satisfie diuine justice, and suffer the punishments due to sinne in such sort as to free vs from the same, but Christ the Sonne of God, in whom our nature by personall vnion was found in an excellent sort; and that it was right and just, that hauing taken our nature vpon him, & vndertaken to free and deliuer the same, hee should suffer & endure whatsoeuer punishments it was subject vnto. For the illustration of this point the learned obserue, that Cameracensis in principio in 3. lib. sent. when God created Adam, he gaue him all excellent & precious vertues, as Truth to instruct him, Iustice to direct him, Mercy to preserue him, and Peace to delight him with all pleasing correspondence; but that when he fell away, & forgate all the good which God had done for him, these vertues left their lower dwellings, and speedily returned backe to him that gaue them, making report what was fallen out on earth, and earnestly mouing the Almighty concerning this his wretched and forlorne creature; yet in very different sort and maner. For Iustice pleaded for the condemnation of sinfull man, and called for the punishment hee had worthily deserued; and Truth required the performance of that which God had threatned; but Mercy intreated for miserable man made out of the dust of the earth, seduced by Satan, and beguiled with the shewes of seeming good; & Peace no lesse carefully sought to pacifie the wrath of the displeased God, and to reconcile the Creature to the Creator. When God had heard the contrary pleas and desires of these most excellent Orators, and there was no other meanes to giue them all satisfaction, it was resolued on in the high Councell of the blessed Trinity, that one of those sacred Persons should become man, that by taking to him the nature of man he might partake in his miseries, and be subject to his punishments, and by conjoyning his diuine nature and perfection with the same, might fill it with all grace and heavenly excellencie. Thus were the desires of these so contrary Petitioners satisfied: for man was punished as Gods Iustice vrged; that was performed which God had threatned, as Truth required: the offender was pittied, as Mercy intreated; and God & man reconciled, as Peace desired; and so was fulfilled that of the Psalmist: Psal. 85. 10. Mercy and Truth are met together, Righteousnesse and Peace haue kissed each other.

Wherefore now let vs proceede, to see which of the Persons of the blessed Trinity was thought fittest to be sent into the world to performe this worke. Not the Father; for being of none, he could not be sent: Not the holy Ghost; for though he proceede, yet he is not the first proceeding Person; and therefore, whereas a double mission was necessary, the one to reconcile, the other to giue gifts to reconciled friends; the first proceeding Person was fittest for the first mission, and the second for the second. Secondly, who was fitter to be cast out into the Sea, to stay the tempest, then that Ionas for whose sake it arose? Almighty God was displeased for the wrong offred to his Sonne, in desiring to be like vnto God, and to know all things in such sort as is proper to the onely begotten Sonne of the Father, therefore was he the fittest to pacifie all againe. Thirdly, who was fitter to become the Son of man, then he that was by nature the Sonne of God? Bernard de aduent. Domini, Serm. 1. Patrem habuit in coelis, Matrem quaesiuit in terris: Hee had a Father in heauen, he sought onely a mother on earth. Who could bee fitter to make vs the Sonnes of God by adoption & grace, then he that was the Sonne of God by nature? who fitter to repaire the Image of God decayed in vs, then hee that was the brightnesse of glory, and the engrauen forme of his Fathers Person? Lastly, who was fitter to bee a Mediator, then the middle Person, who was in a sorte a Mediator in the state of creation, and before the fall?

Wherevpon Hugo de Sancto victore bringeth in Almighty God speaking to the Sonnes of men concerning Christ his Sonne in this sort: Hugo. erudit. Theol. de Trinit, sum. per visib. agnition. lib. 7. c, 24. Nolite putare, quòd ipse tantùm sit Mediator in reconciliatione hominum, quia per ipsum etiam commendabilis & placita fit aspectui meo conditio omnium creaturarum: that is, thinke not that he is a Mediator onely in the reconciliation of men, for by him the condition of all creatures is gratefull vnto me, and pleasing in my sight. Magni consilii Angelus, sayth Hugo, nobis mittitur, vt, qui conditis datus fuit ad gloriam, idem perditis veniat ad medelam: that is, the Angell of the great Counsell is sent vnto vs, that hee who was giuen vnto vs, when we were made, to bee the crowne of our glory, and Prince of our excellency, might relieue, helpe, and restore vs when we were lost.

Yet our aduersaries take I knowe not what exceptions against Caluin for saying, that Christ was a Mediator in the state of creation; but they should know, that there is a Mediator of reconciliation of parties at variance, and a Mediator of coniunction of them that are farre asunder, and remote one from another: and that in this later sort, betweene the Father, that no way receiueth any thing from another, and the creatures, that so receiue their being from another, that they are made out of nothing, hee may rightly be sayd to mediate, that receiueth being from another, but the same that is in him from whom he receiueth it. If any man shall say, that the holy Ghost also in this sort commeth betweene him, in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found, and the creatures that are made of nothing, as well as the Sonne, and that therefore in this sence, he also may be said to be a Mediator, it is easily answered, that the Sonne onely commeth betweene the Father, in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found, & the creatures made of nothing, as he by whom all things were made; the holy Ghost, as he in whom all things doe consist and stand; and that therefore he hath not the condition of a Mediator being not considered as he by whom all things are bestowed vpon vs, but as that gift in which all other things are giuen vnto vs: so that the Sonne onely is the Mediator, because by him, from the Father, in the holy Ghost, we receiue all that which we haue and enjoy.

Neither needeth there any Mediator to conjoyne him to vs, and vs to him: for the medium conjoyneth both the extremes, first with it selfe, and then within themselues, in that it hath something of one of them, and something of another, in something agreeing with, and in something differing from either of the extremes: So the Sonne of God agreeth with vs, in that hee receiueth the beeing and Essence he hath from another, in which respect he is distinguished, though not diuided from the Father, but in that the nature he receiueth from the Father is not another, but the same which the Father hath, he is vnlike vnto vs, but agreeth with the Father. And here we may see the malice and ignorance of Genebrard. l, 1 de Trinitate Lindanus in 2. Dialogo qui inscribitur Dubitantius Petrus Canisius praefat. lib. de Sancto Iohanne Baptista. citat. à Bellar. them that charge Caluine with heresie, for affirming that Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God of himselfe, as if hee denyed the eternall generation of the Sonne of God, and were contrary to the decree of the sacred Nicene Councell, which defineth that he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine: for these men should know, that Christ may be sayd to be from another in two sortes; either by production of Essence, or by communication of Essence: the Nicene Councell defined that Christ the Sonne of God who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, consubstantiall with the Father, is notwithstanding God of God, that is, hath his Essence & Deitie communicated vnto him by eternall generation from the Father, euen the same the Father had originally in himselfe. All which Caluine most willingly acknowledgeth to be true, and therefore denyeth not, but that it may bee truely sayd according to the sacred decree and definition of that worthy Councell, that Christ the Sonne of God is God of God, and light of light: but to imagine, as Valentinus Gentilis, and other damnable heretickes did, that he is from the Father by production of Essence, whence it will follow, that he hath not the same essence with the Father, but another different from it, inferior to it, and dependant on it, is impious and hereticall: and in opposition to this impious conceit of these Hereticks, and in the sense intended by them, Caluine rightly denied Christ to bee God of God. For this their conceipt was euer detested by all Catholiques, as wicked & blasphemous, yea so farre are they from approuing any such impiety, that no axiome is more common in all their Schooles, then that Essentia nec generat, nec generatur, that is, the diuine Essence neither generateth, nor is generated: and surely, howsoeuer Booke 3, Chap. 1. Kellison in his Suruey saith the contrary, and opposeth his affirmatiue against the negatiue of all the most famous and renowned Schoole-men, yet I am perswaded he did so rather out of ignorance, then any reason leading him so to doe, & do thinke it more then improper and hard to say, that the diuine Essence doth either generate or is generated.

Thus then Christ is truly sayd by Caluine to be God of himselfe, by way of opposition to that kinde of being from another, which is by production of Essence, and yet is rightly acknowledged by him with the Nicene Fathers to be from another, to wit, the Father, and to be God of God, in that he receiueth the eternall Essence by communication from him.

This Bellarm. de Christo lib. 2. c. 19. Bellarmine saw, and acknowledged to bee true, pronouncing that touching this point Calvin erred not in judgment, & that his opinion is rather an error in forme of words, & expressing ill that he meant well, then in the thing it self. That Caluin erred not in the thing it selfe he deliuered, he proueth at large, specially out of the doctrin of Caluins followers: for Beza in axiom. de trin. & in the 14 axiom, affirmeth, that the Son is frō the Father by ineffable cōmunication of the whole diuine Essence: & Iosias Simlerus in his epistle to the Polonians, defendeth the opinion of Calvine, and expresseth his owne opinion & Calvins in this sort: Non negamus filium habere essentiam à patre, sed essentiam genitam negamus: that is, we doe not deny the Son to haue receiued his Essence from the Father, but that his Essence is generated. This doctrine of Simlerus, why it should not be Catholique, Bellarmine professeth, he cannot see: yet his fellowes in all their Pamphlets traduce Calvins Autotheisme as an execrable heresie: and muster the Autotheani, as they call them, amongst the damned Heretickes of this time: which is not to bee marvailed at; for the manner of these men is, odiously to object things againe and againe, that haue beene often cleared both by themselues and vs, litle regarding whether it bee true or false they say, so they may fasten some note of disgrace vpon them whose persons and professions they hate.

One memorable example of hellish impudencie in this kinde, worthy neuer to bee forgotten, but to be remembred and recorded to the shame and reproofe of the slaundering Sect of Papists, we haue in Mathew Booke 1. ch. 4 p. 47. Kellison his late Survey of the new Religion: who, to proue that the Protestants contemne the Fathers, affirmeth that Beza called Athanasius (that worthy Champion of the Catholique faith) Sathanasius, and judged the Fathers of the Nicene Councell to haue beene blinde Sophisters, ministers of the Beast, and slaues of Antichrist: whereas Beza esteemeth of Athanasius as one of the worthiest Divines that the World for many ages had, in whose lap and bosome our wearied Mother the Church, in her greatest distresses, forsaken of her owne children, was forced to repose and lay her head in those restlesse and confused turmoyles during the time of the Arrian heresie: For proofe hereof see Stapleton in his triplication against Whith •… ker. pag. 210. and 211. And the Author the treatise of of the grounds of the old religion. part. 1. c. 〈◊〉 . 9. pag. 102. and professeth, that he thinketh the Sunne in Heauen neuer beheld a more sacred and diuine assembly or meeting then that of the Nicene Fathers, since the Apostles times: yea he pronounceth, that there was neuer any found to resist against the proceedings and decrees of that Councell, but their wofull and vnhappy ends made it appeare to all the World, they were fighters against God: and condemneth the Arrians as execrable miscreants, to the pit of hell, for vsing those words wherewith this Surveyour chargeth him. Wherefore let the Reader beware, how without due examination he giue credite to the sinister reports of these lewde companions, who haue sold themselues not onely to speake lies, but to write them, and leaue them vpon record to all posterity.

But let vs see whether Caluin haue not erred at least in the forme of words, and ill expressed that he meant well, as Bellarmine chargeth him. Surely we shall finde, if wee take a view of that which Caluin hath written, that the Cardinals reprehension of him in this behalfe is most vnjust: for Epiphanius a worthy Bishop, and great Diuine, writing against heresies, and therefore endeavouring to be most exact in his formes of speech, calleth the Sonne of God Epiphanius contr •… Haeres. haeres. 69. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as well as Caluine doth. It is true, saith Bellarmine, he doth so: but when he saith, Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he meaneth onely, that hee is truely God: whereas Caluin affirmeth, that he is so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that hee is God of himselfe, which is false: for neither the Father, nor the Son is God of himselfe, the Sonne being of the Father, and the Father of none, because he receiueth being from none: as if it were so strange a thing to say, God is of himselfe, or as if it were all one for a thing to be of it selfe, and to be produced, or to receiue being of, or from it selfe, Scalig. exerc. 6 sect. 3. Omne ens (saith Scaliger) aut est à se, aut ab alio; that is, euery thing that hath being, either is of it selfe, or of another. Scotus 1. sent. dist. 2. quaest. 2. Cuius rationi (saith Scotus) simpliciter repugnat esse ab alio, illud si potest esse, potest esse â se; sed rationi primi effectiui repugnat esse ab alio: ergo potest esse à se, ergo est à se, quia quod non est à se, non potest esse à se: quia tunc non ens produceret aliquid ad esse, & idem causaret se, & ita non erit incausabile omnino. That thing, with the nature and condition whereof it cannot stand, to be of, or from another, if it may be at all, it may be of it selfe: but it standeth not with the nature and condition of the first efficient cause, to be of or from another; therefore it may be, nay therefore it is of it selfe; because that which is not of it selfe, cannot afterwards be of it selfe: For then a thing not being might cause a thing to be, yea the same might be the cause of it selfe, and soe the highest and first cause of all things might haue a cause giuing beeing vnto it, which is impossible. These men feared not to speake, as Caluine speaketh, and yet I thinke Bellarmine dareth not reprehend them also as he doth Caluine; but if hee do, I suppose the world will thinke they knewe how to speake as properly as hee.

Thus then we see the Son of God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, God of himselfe, & that yet he receiued his essence frō the Father but the same that was in the Father, not another caused, made, or produced by him: and that soe he was a Mediator in the state of creation between God and his Creatures, in that hee was of a middle condition betweene him that no way was of any other, and those things that by another were made and produced out of nothing, knitting and ioyning them together in an indissoluble band: and that in this respect he was fittest to become Man, and to be a Mediator of reconciliation, when betweene God and his creatures there was not onely a great distance as before, but a great diuision, difference, and breach also.

CHAP. 12.

Of the manner of the vnion that is betweene the Person of the Sonne of God, and our nature in Christ, and the similitudes brought to expresse the same.

WHerefore let vs proceede to see how the natures of God and Man were vnited in Christ, and what kinde of vnion it was, that made God to become Man, & Man God. For the clearing hereofthe Alex: de Ales Sum Theolog. part. 3, quaest. 7. memb. 1. art. 1. Diuines do note, that there is Vnum per vnitatē, & Vnū per vnionē, that is, that sometimes a thing is said to be one by vnity or Onenes, & sometimes by vniō. Vnum per vnitatē est illud in quo non est multitudo, quod scilicet nō est in multis, nec ex multis; that is, That thing is one by vnity, wherein there are not many things foūd, which neither cōsisteth in many things, nor of many things: in which sort God only is most properly sayd to be One, in whom there is neither diuersity of natures, nor multiplicity of parts, nor composition of perfection and imperfection, being and not being, as in all creatures. One by vnion, is that, which either consisteth in many things, or of many things: and is either in a sort only, or simply One. In a sort onely a thing consisting in or of many things, is sayd to be one three waies. First, when neither the one of the things whereof it consisteth hath denomination from the other, nor the property of it, as when stones are layd together to make one heape. 2ly When the one hath the property of the other, but no denomination from it, as is the vnion betweene the hand and those sweete spices it holdeth in it. Thirdly, when the one hath denomination from the other, but no property of the other, as a man is sayd to be apparelled from his apparell, but noe property thereof passeth from it vnto him, as the sauour of the sweete spices doth into the hand. Vnion simply is of diuerse sorts. First when one of the things vnited is turned into the other: this falleth out soe often as there is a repugnance betweene the things vnited, and one is predominant, and preuailing, as when a drop of water is poured into a whole vessell of wine. Secondly, when both the things vnited are changed in nature and essence; and that commeth to passe so often as the the things vnited haue a repugnance betweene themselues, and yet no preuailing of one ouer the other: In this sort the elements are vnited to make mixt or compound bodies. Thirdly, when there is no transmutation of the things vnited, but the constitution of a third nature out of them, because they haue no repugnance, but mutuall dependance. Of this sort is the vnion of the soule and body. Fourthly when there is neither transmutation of the natures vnited, nor constitution of a third out of them, but onely the founding, setling, and staying of the one of the things vnited in the other, and the drawing of it into the vnity of the personall being or subsistence of the other: this commeth to passe, when there is neither repugnance nor mutuall dependance of one of the things vnited vpon the other, but a dependance of another kinde; so the braunch of a tree being put vpon the stocke of another tree, is drawne into the vnitie of the subsistence of that tree into which it is put; and whereas if it had beene set in the ground, it would haue growne as a separate tree in it selfe, now it groweth •… n the tree into which it is grafted, and pertayneth to the vnitie of it. Here is neither mixture of the natures of these trees, nor constitution of a third out of them, but only the drawing of one of them into the vnity of the subsistence of the other: so that here is not Compositio huius ex his, but Huius ad hoc, that is, not a composition Dutand. in 3. Sentent. dist. 6. quaest. 3. of a third thing out of the things vnited, but an adioyning of one of the things vnited to the other. And this kinde of vnion doth of all other most perfectly resemble the personall vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ; wherein the nature of man, that would haue beene a person in it selfe, if it had been left to it selfe, is drawen into the vnity of the diuine person, and subsisteth in it, being preuented from subsisting in it selfe by this personall vnion and assumption.

This that wee may the better conceiue, we must consider what the difference is betweene nature and person, and what maketh an indiuiduall nature to bee a person. Some thinke that nature and person differ, as that Quod est, and Quo est, that is, as the thing that is, and that whereby it is. Other, that the condition of personall being, addeth to an indiuiduall nature a negation of dependance or beeing susteined by another: but to leaue all vncertainty of opinions, to bee this or that, is indiuiduall; to bee this or that in and for it selfe, is personall being; to be this or that in and for another, is to pertaine to the person or subsistence of another: so that euery thing that is in or for it selfe, is a subsistence or thing subsisting, and euery such rationall indiuiduall nature is a person. Amongst those created things which naturally are apt to make a subsistence, or to subsist in and for themselues, there is very great difference: for some naturally may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kinde, as wee see in all those things wherein euery part hath the same nature and name that the whole hath, as euery droppe of water is water, and, being left to it selfe, is a subsistence in it selfe, and hath that beeing, quality, and nature that is in it, in and for it selfe; but being joyned to a greater quantity of water, it hath now no beeing, quality or operation, but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is powred. Other things there be, that cannot naturally or by the working of naturall causes, put themselues into the vnity of any other thing, but by the helpe of some forreine cause, they may be made to pertaine to the vnity of another thing different in nature & kind: So the braunch of a tree of one kinde, which put into the ground would bee an entire distinct tree in it selfe, growing, mouing, and bearing fruite in and for it selfe, may by the hand of man be put into the vnity of the subsistence of a tree of another kind and sort, and so grow, moue, and beare fruite, not distinctly in and for it selfe, but joyntly in and for that tree into which it is implanted. A third sort of things there are, which being left to themselues become subsistences; and cannot by force of naturall causes, nor the helpe of any forreine thing, euer become parts of any other created thing, or pertaine to the vnity of the subsistence of any such thing: such is the nature of all liuing things; and such is the nature of man, which cannot be brought by force of any cause to pertaine to the vnity of any created subsistence; because it cannot haue such dependance on any created thing as is required to make it pertaine to the subsistence thereof; yet by diuine and supernaturall working, it may bee drawen into the vnitie of the subsistence of any of the Persons of the blessed Trinitie, wherein the fulnesse of all being, and the perfection of all created things is in a more eminent sort then in themselues. For though all created things haue their owne being, yet seeing God is nearer to them then they are to themselues, and they are in a better sort in him then in themselues, there is no question, but that they may be preuented, and stayed, from being in & for themselues, & caused to bee in & for one of the diuine Persons of the blessed Trinity. So that as one drop of water, that formerly subsisted in it selfe, powred into a vessell containing a greater quantity of water, by continuitie becommeth one in subsistence with that greater quantity of water: & as a braunch of a tree, which being set in the ground, & left to itselfe, would bee an entire & independent tree, becommeth one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graffed; they both lose their own bounds, within which contayned, they were distinctly seuered from other things, & the relation of being totall things; so the individuall nature of man assumed into the vnity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, loseth that kinde of being, that naturally left to it selfe, it would haue had, which is, to bee in & for it selfe, & not to depend of any other, & getteth a new relation of dependance & being in another. And as it is continuitie that maketh the former things one with them to which they are joyned: so here a kinde of spirituall contact betweene the Diuine Person, & the nature of man, maketh GOD to be Man. For as situation and position is in things corporall, so is order and dependance in things spirituall.

There are many similitudes brought by Diuines, to expresse this vnion of the Natures of God, & Man, in the same Christ, as of the soule & body; of a flaming & fierie sword; of one man hauing two accidentall formes: & lastly, of a tree, & a braunch or bough that is graffed into it. The similitude of the soule & body making but one man, is very apt, & vsed by the Athanasius in Symbolo. Ancient, yet is it defectiue & imperfect: first, for that the soule & body being imperfect natures, concurre to make one full & perfect nature of a man: secondly, for that the one of them is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of the other: but both depend of a third subsistence: which is, that of the whole: whereas in Christ, both natures are perfect, so that they cannot concurre to make a third nature or subsistence; but the Eternall Word subsisting perfectly in it selfe, draweth vnto it, & personally sustaineth in it, the nature of man, which hath no subsistence of it owne, but that of the Son of God communicated vnto it. Touching the similitude Basil. in orat. Sanct. nativit. & Damas. l. 3 de orthod. fid. c. 11. of a fiery & flaming sword, it most liuely expresseth the vnion of the two Natures in Christ, in that the substances of fire, & of the sword, are so nearely cō joyned, that the operations of thē for the most part concurre, & there is in a sort, a cō munication of properties from the one of them to the other. For a fiery sword in cutting & dividing, wasteth & burneth; & in wasting and burning, cutteth and diuideth; and we may rightly say of this whole thing wherein the nature of the fire, and the nature of the Steele, or Iron (whereof the sword is made) doe concurre & meete, that it is fire, & that it is steele, or Iron: that this fiery thing is a sharpe piercing sword, and that this sharpe piercing sword is a fiery & devouring thing. But this similitude is defectiue, because the nature of Iron is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of fire, nor the fire of Iron, so that we cannot say, this fire is steele or Iron, or this steele or Iron is fire. The third similitude of one man hauing two qualities, or accidentall formes, (as the skill of Physicke and Law) hath many things in it most aptly expressing the personall vnion of the two Natures of God & Man in Christ. For first, in such a man there is but one person: and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in the same: the qualities are different, and the things had, not the same: But hee that hath and possesseth them, is the same. Secondly, the person being but one, is denominated from either, or both of these different formes, qualities, or accidentall natures, and doth the workes of them both: and there is a communication of properties consequent vpon the concurring of two such formes in one man. For wee may rightly say of such a one: This Physitian is a Lawyer; and, this Lawyer is a Physitian. This Lawyer is happy in curing diseases: and, this Physitian is carefull in following his Clients causes. Scotus in 3. sent. d. 1. q. 1. Scotus especially approueth the similitude of the subject, and accident; first taking away that which is of imperfection in the subject, as that it is potentiall in respect of the accident to be informed of it, and in a sort perfected by it: Secondly, that which is of imperfection in the accident, as that it must be inherent: for otherwise the Durand. in 3. sent. d. 6. q. 4. nature of man is joyned to the Person of the Son of God per modum accidentis, for that advenit enti in actu completo, that is, it commeth to a thing already complete and perfect in it selfe. In which sort, one thing may bee added and come to another, either so, as not to pertaine to the same subsistence, as the garments that one putteth on; or so, as to pertaine to the same subsistence, but by inherence; or thirdly, so, as to pertaine to the same subsistence, without the inherence of the one in the other, by a kind of inexistence, as the branch is in the tree into which it is graffed: which is the Alex. de Ales. Sum. Theolog. part 3. quaest. 7. Memb. 1. art. 1. fourth similitude, and of all other most perfect. For there are but two things wherein it faileth and commeth too short: whereof the first is, for that the branch hath first a seperate subsistence in it selfe, and after looseth it, and then is drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted: the second, for that it hath no roote of it owne, and soe wanteth one part pertaining to the integrity of the nature of each tree. But if a branch of one tree should by diuine power bee created and made in the stocke of another, this comparison would faile but onely in one circumstance, and that not very important; seeing, though the humane nature want noe part pertaining to the integrity and perfection of it, (as the implanted branch doth of that pertaineth to the integrity of the nature of a tree, in that it hath no roote of it owne) yet the humane nature in Christ, hath no subsistence of it owne, but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it; and therefore in that respect it is, in some sort, like to the branch that hath noe roote of it owne, but that of the tree, into which it is implanted, communicated vnto it. This comparison is vsed by Alexander of Hales, and diuers other of the Schoole-men, and, in my opinion, is the aptest and fullest of all other. For as betweene the tree and the branch there is a composition, not Huius ex his, but huius ad hoc, that is, not making a tree of a compound or middle nature, and quality, but causing the branch, though retaining it owne nature, and bearing it owne fruite, to pertaine to the vnity of the tree into which it is implanted, and to beare fruite in and for it, and not for it selfe: soe the Person of Christ is sayd to bee compounded of the nature of God and Man, not as if there were in him a mixt nature arising out of these, but as hauing the one of these added vnto the other in the vnity of the same person. And as this tree is one, and yet hath two different natures in it, and beareth two kinds of fruite: soe Christ is one, and yet hath two different natures, and in them performeth the distinct actions pertaining to either of them. Lastly as a man may truly say, after such implanting, this Vine is an Oliue tree, and this Oliue tree is a Vine; and consequently, this Vine beareth Oliues, and this Oliue tree beareth Grapes: so a man may say, this Sonne of Mary is the Sonne of God: and on the other side, this Sonne of God, and first borne of euery creature, is the Sonne of Mary, borne in time: the Sonne of God, and Lord of life was crucified, and the Sonne of Mary layd the foundations of the earth, & stretched out the Heauens like a curtaine.

CHAP. 13.

Of the Communication of the properties of either nature in Christ, consequent vppon the vnion of them in his Person, and the two first kindes thereof.

HAuing spoken of the assuming of our nature by the Sonne of God into the vnity of his diuine Person, it remaineth, that we speake of the consequents of this vnion, and the gifts and graces bestowed vpon the nature of Man when it was assumed. The first and principall consequent of the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ, is, the Communication of their properties: of which there are three kindes or degrees. The first is, when the properties of either nature considered singly and apart, as the properties of this or that nature, are attributed to the person from whichsoeuer of the natures it be denominated. The second is, when the different actions of two natures in Christ concurre in the same works and things done. The third, when the diuine attributes are cōmunicated vnto the humane nature, and bestowed vpon it. Vsually in the Schooles, only the first degree or kinde of communication, is named the communication of properties. Which that wee may the better vnderstand, we must obserue, that there are abstractiue & concretiue words: the former whereof do precisely note the forme or nature of each thing, the latter imply also the person that hath the same nature or forme; as, Humanitas and Homo, Sanctitas, and Sanctus. Manhood and Man: Holinesse & Holy. 2ly Wee must obserue that abstractiue words, noting precisely the distinct natures, cannot be affirmed one of the other, nor the properties of one nature attributed to the other abstractiuely expressed. For neither can we truly say, that Deity is Humanity, or Humanity, Deity; nor that the Deity suffered, or the Humanity created the world; but we may truly say God is Man, and Man is God: God died vpon the Crosse, and Maries babe made the world; Because the person which these concretiue words imply, is one: & all actions, passions, and qualities, agree really to the Person, though in, and in respect sometimes of one nature, and sometimes of another. When wee say, God is Man, and Man is God, wee note the conjunction that is between the natures meeting in one person: and therefore this mutuall & conuersiue predication cannot properly be named communication of properties; but the communication of properties is, when the properties of one nature are attributed to the Person, whether denominated from the other, as some restraine it, or from the same also, as others enlarge it. This communication of properties is of diuers sorts: first when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the whole Person of Christ subsisting in two natures, but denominated from the diuine nature, as when it is sayd: Iohn 5. 19. Those things which the Father doth, the Sonne doth also. Secondly, when the properties of the humane nature are attributed to the person denominated from the diuine nature, as when it is sayd, 1 Cor: 2. 8. They crucified the Lord of glory. Acts. 3. 15. They killed the Lord of life. Thirdly, when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the person denominated from the nature of man, as when it is sayd: Iohn 3. 13. No man ascendeth into Heauen, but the Son of man that came downe from Heauen, euen that Son of man that is in Heauen. 4ly, When those things that agree to both natures are attributed to the person denominated from one of them, as when the Apostle sayth: 1 Tim: 2. 5. There is one God, & one Mediatour betweene God & man, which is the man Christ Iesus. Fiftly, when the properties of one nature are attributed to the person, neither denominated precisely from the one nature, nor from the other, but noted by a word indifferently expressing both; as when we say, Christ was borne of Mary. If any man list to striue about words not admitting any communication of properties, but when the properties of one nature, are attributed to the person denominated from the other, as when wee say, the Son of God died on the Crosse, the Son of Man made the world: besides that he is contrary to the ordinary opinion, he seemeth not to consider, that it is a person consisting in two natures that is noted, by what appellation soeuer we expresse the same; and that therefore the attributing of the properties of any one of the natures unto it, may rightly be named a communication of properties, as being the attributing of the properties of this or that nature to a person subsisting in both, though denominated from one. For the better vnderstanding of that hath bin said touching this first kind of communication of properties, & the diuers sorts thereof, there are certaine obseruations necessary, which I will here adde. The first is, that the cōmunication of properties wherein the properties of the one nature, are affirmed of the person denominated of the other, is reall, and not verball onely. The second, that the properties of the humane nature are not really communicated to the diuine nature. The third is, that the properties of the diuine nature, are in a sort really communicated to the humane nature, whereof wee shall see more in the third kind of communication of properties. The fourth obseruation is, that in the sacred and blessed Trinity, there is Alius & Alius but not Aliud & Aliud, diuersity of persons, but not of being & nature: but that in Christ there is aliud & aliud, and not alius & alius, that is, diuersity of natures, but so that he that hath them is the same: whence it cōmeth that the properties of either nature may be affirmed of the person, from which soeuer of them it be denominated: yet so that more fully to expresse our meaning, it is necessary sometimes to adde for distinction sake that they are verified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 secundum aliud; that is, according vnto the other nature, and not according vnto that whence the person is denominated. This explication, or limitatiō is thē specially to be added, whē such properties of one nature, are attributed to the persō denominated from the other, as seeme to exclude the properties of the other: so when we say, Christ the Son of God, is a creature, we must adde, that wee neither scandalize them that heare vs, nor giue any occasion of errour, that hee is a creature in that hee is man. Now it followeth that wee speake of the second kinde or degree of communication of properties, which is in that the actions of Christ are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Deiuiriles, Divinely-humane, & Humanely-diuine, & each Nature so worketh it owne worke, according to the naturall propertie thereof, that it hath a kinde of communion with the other. But lest we fall into errour touching this point, we must obserue, that the actions of Christ may bee said to bee Theandricall, that is, Diuinely-humane, three wayes. First so, as if there were one action of both Natures, and so we must not vnderstand the actions of Christ to be Diuinely-humane, for this is to confound the Natures; whereas we must vndoubtedly beleeue, that Epist. Agathonis recitata & approbata in 6. Synodo. act. 4. Omnia in Christo sunt duplicia, naturae, proprietates, voluntates, & operationes, solâ exceptâ subsistentiâ, quae est una: that is, that all things in Christ are twofold, or double, as his Natures, properties, wils, & actions: his subsistence only or Person excepted, which is but one. Secondly, the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandricall, that is, Diuinely-humane, for that both the actions of Deitie, & Humanity, though distinct, yet concurre in one work: to which purpose Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his, which we read in the •… 6t generall Councell, doth distinguish g Actione 11. 3 kinds of the works of Christ, making the first meerely diuine, as to create all things: the second meerely humane, as to eate, drink, & sleep: the third, partly diuine, & partly humane, as to walke vpō the waters: in which worke, vvalking vvas so humane, that the giuing of firmnes & soliditie to the vvaters to beare the vveight of his Body, vvas an action of Deitie. Thirdly, the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandrical, that is, Diuinely-humane, in respect of the Person that produceth & bringeth thē forth, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God-man. In either of these two latter senses, the actions of Christ may rightly be vnderstood to be Theandricall: & that of Leo is most true cōcerning Christ. Leo ep. 10. c. 4. In Christo utra que forma operatur cum alterius cōmunione quod propriū est: that is, in Christ both natures do work that which is proper vnto them, with a kind of cōmuniō the one hath with the other: for this saying is true, first in respect of the Person, & the cōmunion which either nature hath with other therein. Secondly, in respect of the work & effect, wherunto by their seuerall proper actions they cōcurre, though in different sort, as in healing of the sick, not only the force of Deity appeared, & shewed it self, but the humane nature also did cōcurre, in respect of the body, in that he touched those that were to be healed, laid his hands vpon thē, & spake vnto thē: in respect of the soul, in that he desired, applauded, & rejoiced in that, which by diuine power he brought to passe: thirdly, in that the actions of humane nature in Christ haue in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions of any meere man, from the assistance of the Deity, that dwelleth bodily in him.

CHAP. 14.

Of the third kind of communication of properties, and the first degree thereof.

NOw let vs come to the third kind of cōmunicatiō of properties, which is that whereby diuine & precious things are really bestowed on the nature of man. The things which are thus cōmunicated & bestowed, are of 2 sorts. The first finite, & created: as qualities or habites, formally, habitually, & subjectiuely inherent in the humane nature: the 2, the essentiall attributes of the diuinity it self, cō municated to the humane nature, not formally by physicall effusion, or essentiall confusiō, but by dispensatiō of personal vniō. Touching the things of the first sort, there is no questiō but that they vvere bestovved vpon the nature of man, in all perfectiō, vvhen it vvas vnited to the Person of the Sonne of God: so that in it vvas found the fulnesse both of grace & vertue, according to that of S. Iohn, Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh, & dwelt amōgst vs. & we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace & truth. Thom. Sum. Thcol. part. 3. q. 7. art. 9. The fulnes of grace (as the Schoolemen excellently note) is of tvvo sorts; first in respect of grace it selfe: and secondly, in respect of him that hath it: The fulnesse of grace in respect of grace it selfe, is then, vvhen one attaineth to the highest and vttermost of grace, both quoad essentiam, & virtutem, intensiuè, & extensiuè: in the Essence and vertue of it, intensiuely, and extensiuely, that is, vvhen he hath it as farre forth as it may be had, and vnto all effects and purposes wherevnto grace doth or can extend it selfe; as he is said, to haue life perfectly, or the fulnesse of life, that hath it not onely in the essence, but according to all the operations and acts of life, sensible, rationall, intellectuall, spirituall, and naturall; in which sort, man onely hath the perfection and fulnesse of life in him, and no other thing of inferior condition. This kinde of fulnesse of grace is proper to Christ onely, Ioh. 1. 16. Of whose fulnesse wee all receiue. The fulnesse of grace in respect of the subiect or him that hath it, is then when one hath grace fully and perfectly, according to his estate and condition, both intensiuely to the vttermost bound that God hath prefixed to them of such a condition; and extensiuely in the vertue of it, in that it extendeth to the doing and performing of all those things that may any way pertaine to the condition, office, or estate of such as are of his place and Ranke. In this sort Stephen is said to Acts. 7. 55. haue beene full of the holy Ghost, who is the fountaine of grace; and Marie the blessed Virgine, the mother of our Lord, is by the Angell, pronounced: Luke, 1. 28. Blessed amongst women, and full of grace: for that shee had grace in respect of the Essence of it, intensiuely, in as perfect sort as any mortall creature might haue it, and in respect of the vertue of it, extending to all thinges that might any way pertaine to her that was chosen to bee the sacred vessell of the incarnation of the Sonne of God: So that there was neuer any but Christ, whose graces were no way stinted, and to whom the spirit was not giuen in measure, that was absolutely full of grace; which fulnesse of grace in Christ, the Diuines doe declare and cleare vnto vs, wherein it consisted, by distinguishing a double grace in Christ, the one of vnion, the other of vnction, or habituall; and doe teach, that the grace of vnion, in respect of the thing giuen, which is the personall subsistence of the Sonne of God, bestowed on the nature of man formed in Maries wombe (whence that which was borne of her, was the Sonne of God) is infinite, howsoeuer the relation of dependance found in the humane nature, whereby it is vnited to the person of the Sonne of God, is a finite, & created thing. Likewise touching the grace of vnction, they teach, that it is in a sort infinite also: for that howsoeuer it be but a finite, and created thing, yet in the nature of grace it hath no limitation, no bounds, no stint, but includeth in it selfe whatsoeuer any way pertayneth to grace, or commeth within the compasse of it. The reason of this illimited donation of grace, thus without all stint bestowed on the nature of man in Christ, was, for that it was giuen vnto it, as to the vniuersall cause, whence it was to be deriued vnto others. Frō the fulnesse of grace in Christ, let vs proceed to speake of the perfection of his vertues also. Alex. de Ales. part. 3. qu: 61. memb. 2. art. 4. Vertue differeth from grace, as the beame of light frō light: for as light indifferently scattereth it self into the whole aire, & all those things vpon which it may come, but the beame is the same light as it is directed, specially to some one place or thing: so grace replenisheth, filleth, & perfecteth the whole soule, & spirit of man; but vertue more specially this or that faculty or power of the soule, to this or that purpose or effect. In respect of both these the soule of Christ was perfect, being full of vertue as wel as grace; wherevpon the Prophet Esay saith: Esay, 15. 1. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest vpon the flowre of Ishai, the Spirit of wisedome and vnderstanding, the Spirit of counsell & strength, the Spirit of knowledge & of the feare of the Lord. Wisedome is in respect of things diuine: vnderstanding of the first principles; science of conclusions; counsell of things to be done: feare maketh men decline from that which is ill, and strength confirmeth them to ouercome the difficulties wherewith weldoing is beset. So that seeing the spirit, that is the giuer of all these vertues (within the compasse whereof all vertue is confined) is promised to rest on our Sauiour Christ, we may vndoubtedly resolue, that there is no vertue pertayning to man (Paludanus in 3 Sentent. dist. 14. qu. 2. neither including in it imperfection, as Faith, & Hope, nor presupposing imperfection in him that hath it, as Repentance, which presupposeth the penitent to bee a sinner) but it was found in Christs humane nature, & reasonable soule, & that euen from the very moment of his incarnation. How is it then, will some man say, that the Scripture pronounceth, that he Luke 2. 25. increased in the perfections of the mind, to wit, both in grace & wisedome, as hee grew in stature of body. And here that question is vsually proposed & handled, whether Christ did truly and indeede profit, and growe in knowledge, as not knowing all things at the first, as he grew in stature of body from weake beginnings; or only in the farther manifestation of that knowledge hee had in like degree of perfection from the beginning. For the clearing whereof, wee must note, that there were in Christ two kinds of knowledge: the one diuine, and increate: the other humane and created. Touching the first, there is no doubt but that being the eternall Wisdome of the Father, by whom all things were made, hee knew eternally all things that afterwards should come to passe; and therefore the Arrians impiously abused those places of Scripture which they brought to proue, that Christ grew in knowledge, and learned something in processe of time, which he knew not before; in that they vnderstood them of his diuine knowledge which he had in that he was God: and thereby went about to proue, that he was not truly and properly God, nor consubstantiall with the Father, but soe only, and in such a sense, as that wherein the Apostle sayth, 1. Cor. 8. 5. There are many Lords, and many Gods. The later kind of knowlege found in Christ, which is humane, the Schoolemen diuide into two kinds; the one, in verbo, the other in genere proprio, that is, the one in the eternall Word, wherein he seeth all things; the other, that whereby he seeth things in themselues: for he hath an immediate and cleare vision of the Godhead, and in it of all things, and hee hath also the knowledge and sight of things in themselues. Durand. in 3. Sentent. dist. 14. qu. 2. By vertve of the first of these two kinds of humane knowledge, the soule of Christ beholding the diuine Essence, in it seeth all things in respect of that they are, and taketh a perfect view of the Essence and nature of euery thing that is, may be, or is possible to be, as in that sampler, according to which God worketh all things: but the actuall being of things it cannot know by the vision and sight of Gods Essence, but meerely by his voluntary reuelation, and manifestation of the same; seeing though the Essence of God be naturally a sampler of all things that are or may be, according to which all things are wrought, yet he produceth things voluntarily, and according to the good pleasure of his will, & not naturally & necessarily: so that that kind of knowledge, which consisteth in the vision of God, is more perfect then any other, & onely maketh men happie, because it is in respect of the best and most noble object. Yet Ibid. quaest: 3. the other kind of knowledge, that maketh vs take a view of things in themselues, is more perfect, in that it maketh knowne vnto vs the actuall being of things, and particular facts, which that happie kind of knowledg of things seen in the glasse of the diuine Essence doth not.

These things thus distinguished, it is easie to conceiue how, and in what sort Christ grew and increased in grace and wisdome, and how hee was full of the same from the moment of his incarnation, soe that nothing could bee afterwards added vnto him. For, concerning his diuine knowledge, the perfection of it was such, and so infinite from all eternitie, that it is impious once to thinke that hee grew and increased in the same.

Vide apud Scotum li. 3. d. 14. q •… . opinionem Henrici quol. 5. q. 14. &c. Touching the humane knowledge he had of things seene in the eternall word, and in the cleare glasse of the diuine Essence, it is most probably thought by some of excellent learning, that though the soule of Crist had at the first, and brought with it into the world a potentiall hability and aptnesse to see all things in God, soe soone as it should conuert it selfe to a distinct view of them: that yet it did not actually see all things in the Essence of God at once from the beginning, but afterwards in processe of time: and for the Ibid. quaest. 4. other kind of knowledge and apprehension of things, which he had as beholding them in themselues, they thinke it was perfect in habit from the first moment of his incarnation, but not in actuall apprehension, wherein he did truly increase and and grow: as also in experimentall knowledge. For the humane knowledge that was in Christ, was by conuersion to those Phantasmata & sensible representations of things, that from without are by the senses presented vnto the Soule: & was discursiue, though not proceeding from things known, to find out things altogether vnknowne, yet from things actually known, to such as he knew but habitually only, and not actually before. That the humane knowledge Christ had of things in thēselues, was discursiue, & by conuersion to the sensible representations of them from without, it is euident, in that all perfectiōs are receiued according to the condition & capacitie of the receiuer. Now the condition of the Soule of man in the state of this life is, to know nothing but by conversion to the sensible appearances of the same, & that not onely in respect of things naturall, but mysticall also and supernaturall; Dionys. eitat. ab eodem, Dutand. 〈◊〉 . q. 3. Quia impossibile est (saith Dionysius Areopagita) nobis aliter superlucere radium diuinum, nisi sacrorū velaminū varietate circumuelatū: that is, because it is impossible the beame of divine light should shine on vs, vnlesse it be vailed on euery side with the variety of sacred vailes.

Thus then wee see, how it may be truely said, that Christ grew in wisedome and knowledge, as he did in stature of body, non quoad habitus essentiam & extensionem, sed quoad actualem cognitionem & experimentum: that is, not in respect of the essence or extension of the habit, but of actuall knowledge & experience. That which Thomas & others haue, that Christ knew all things at first by an infused knowledge, & afterwards attained another kinde of knowledge of the same things, which they named acquisite, is not so fit: for two formes or qualities of one kinde cannot bee in the same subject. Now as the sight which is in men naturally, & that which once lost is restored againe by miracle, is of the same nature, & condition: so is that knowledge of things that is by infusion, & that which is acquisite: howsoeuer these men seeme to make them of two kindes. Wherefore passing by this conceipt as not probable, to conclude this point, Alex. de Ales part. 2. quaest. 89 memb. 2. euen as touching the condition of children, which should haue been borne in the state of innocency, there are diuerse opinions, some thinking they should haue had the vse of reason, & perfection of knowledge at the very first, so that they should haue grown & encreased afterwards only in experimētal knowledge: others, that they should haue had no vse of reason at the first: & a third sort, that so soon as they had bin borne, they should haue had the vse of reason, so farre forth as to discerne outward things good or euill (seeing euen the little lambes by natures instinct, doe know the Wolfe, & fly frō him, & seeke the dugges of their dammes) but not to discerne things concerning morall vertue, & the worship of God. So likewise, some thinke that the Babe IESVS, euen in his humane soule, had the actuall knowledge of all things euen frō the beginning, & that he grew only in experimentall knowledge: but there are other of as good judgment, & as great learning, who think, that howsoeuer he had the habit of al knowledge frō the beginning, & brought it with him out of the womb, yet not the act & vse of it: & this is all that either Luther or Calvine say: & yet we know how clamorously some inveigh against them, as if they had broached some damnable heresie. But some man will say, if we grant that Christ in his Humane Soule knew not all things frō the beginning, but in processe of time learned that which before he actually knew not, wee fasten on him the disgracefull note of ignorance, & consequently bring him within the confines & cōpasse of sin. Hereunto Hugo de S. Vict. answereth, & sheweth the folly of this silly objection, peremptorily resoluing, that Hugo de S. Victore de Sac. fid. l. 1. part. 6. c. 26. non omnis qui aliquid nescit, aut minus perfectè scit, statim ignorantiam habere, seu in ignorantiâ esse dicendus est; quia ignorantia non dicitur, nisi tunc solùm, cum id quod ignorari non debuisset, nescitur: that is, we must not say, that euery one that knoweth not a thing, or doth lesse perfectly know it, is ignorant, or in ignorance; because ignorance is only the not knowing of such things as should haue beene knowne Neither is there any distinction more triuiall or ordinary in the Schooles then that of nescience, & ignorance: and therefore howsoeuer some in the heat of their distempered passions, lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety vpō Luther, Caluin, and others, for that they say, there were some things which Christ in his humane soule did not actually know from the beginning: yet Maldonatus, a man as ill conceited of them as any other, Maldon. in 2. Luc. ver. 40. confesseth, that though some say Christ profited in wisdome and knowledge, not in his owne person, but in his mysticall body, which is the Church: others, that his growing and increasing was onely in the manifestation of that, which in all perfection was found in him from the beginning: or in experimental knowledge of those things which in generall contemplation he knew before: yet many of the ancient Fathers, answering the objections of the Arrians, and other like heretiques, and rejecting as impious their conceit, who thought Christ was absolutely ignorant of any thing, denied not but that there were some things which Christ in his humane nature did not actually alwaies know. This (saith Maldonat.) I suppose Luther, Caluin, and the rest knew not; for had they known, that the Fathers taught, that Christ did truly grow in humane knowledge and wisdome, and that he knew not all things actually frō the beginning, to be contrary to the Fathers, they would haue been of another mind. How charitable this his surmise and conjecture is, let the Reader judge. Howsoeuer, we haue his cleare confession, that many of the Fathers were of opinion, that Christ in his humane nature did not alwayes actually know all things. Yea, vpon the 24 of Matthew hee testifieth, that Idem in 24. Matth. ver. 36. many of them sayd plainely, that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement of the quicke and dead, when he said, That day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Angels, nor the Son himselfe, but the Father onely. It is true indeede, that he goeth about, notwithstanding this his cleare confession of the truth, to construe the words of some of the Fathers in such sort, as if they had not meant simply, that Christ in his humane soule knew not that houre and time, but onely that he knew it not by force of his humane nature; but this commentarie (I feare) will not agree with their texts. For Origen in his third tract vpon Matthew saith, that Christ knew not the time and day of judgement, when he sayd, Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Sonne; but that afterwards he knew it, when he was risen, and appointed of his Father, King and Iudge; which words of his admitte no such glosse. Wherefore Iansenius saith, there are Iansenius comm. in Evang. concord. cap. 123. two principall interpretations of those words of Christ, when he saith, Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Sonne; the one, that he sayd hee knew it not, because he knew it not to reueale it, and because his body the Church knew it not; the other, that he knew it not, as man; and this interpretation hee sheweth to bee likewise two-fold: For, saith he, if we follow the common opinion, that Christ had the perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first, then we must vnderstand that Christ sayd, hee knew not the day of judgement, because hee knew it not by naturall and acquisite knowledge, but by vertue of that knowledge, that was infused into him: but if wee follow the other opinion, that Christ had not perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first, but grew in it, then, as Origen among other senses deliuereth, the meaning of the words is, that hee knew it not, till after his resurrection.

And surely Cyrill. lib. 9. thesauri cap. 4. cirat. à Iansenio, ibid. Cyrill a worthy Bishop, and one that had many conflicts with the Nestorian heretiques, who diuided the person of Christ, feareth not directly to say, that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement, when he vsed the words before mentioned. Neither is this the heresie of the Agnoêtae, as some ignorantly affirme: for their errour was, that the Deitie of Christ was ignorant of some thing, or that Christ in his humane nature was properly ignorant, that is, knew not such things, and at such time, as he should haue knowen; and that he is still ignorant of sundry things in the state of his glorification, as it appeareth by that Gregor. lib. 8. epist. 42. Nice. phor. lib. 18. c. 50. de Agnoetis Epistle of Gregorie, in which one of them alledgeth, that as Christ tooke our nature, so hee tooke our ignorance, to free vs from the same: and therefore Maldonatus vpon the 24. of Matthew saith; that the Themistians, called also Agnoetae, were accounted heretiques, not for saying Christ knew not the day of iudgement, as Damascene de haeresibus testifieth; but that, as may be gathered out of the same Damascene, they simply, without all distinction of the diuine or humane nature, said, Christ was ignorant thereof, because they thought the Diuinitie was turned into the Humanitie.

CHAP. 15.

Of the third kind of Communication of properties, and the second degree thereof.

THus hauing spoken of those finite and created things, that were bestowed on the nature of man, when it was assumed into the vnitie of the diuine person, let vs come to those things that are infinite. Where first, we are certainely to resolue, that as the nature of man was truely giuen and communicated to the Person of the Sonne of God, so that he is indeede and really Man; so the Persont of the Sonne of God was as truly communicated to the nature of man, that it migh subsist in it, and that that which was fashioned in the wombe of the blessed virgine, & borne of her, might not onely be holy, but the holiest of all, euen the Sonne of God. Secondly, that in this sense, the fulnesse of all perfection, and all the properties of the diuine Essence, are communicated to the nature of man in the Person of the Sonne. For as the Father communicated his Essence to the Sonne by eternall generation, who therefore is the second Person in Trinitie, and God of God; so in the Person of the Sonne, hee really communicated the same to the nature of man formed in Maries wombe, in such sort, that that Man, that was borne of her, is truely God. And in this sense the Germane Diuines affirme, that there is a reall Communication of the diuine properties to the nature of man, in the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ; not by physicall communication, or effusion, as if the like & equall properties to those that are in God; were put inherently into the nature of man, in such sort, as the heate transfused from the fire into the water is inherent in it, (whence would follow a confusion, conuersion, and equalling of the natures, and naturall properties) but personall, in the Person of the Son of God. For as the Person of the Son of God, in whom the nature and Essence of God is found, is so communicated to the nature of Man, that the Man Christ is not onely in phrase of speech named God, but is indeede, and really God: so he is as really omnipotent, hauing all power both in heauen & in earth. Luther. de verb. nouiss. Dauidis, tom. 3. fol. 9 •… . There is one Christ (saith Luther) who is both the Son of God, and of the Virgine. By the right of his first birth, not in time, but from all eternity he receiued all power, that is, the Deitie it selfe, which the Father communicated to him eternally: but touching the other nature of Christ, which began in time, euen so also the eternall power of God was giuen vnto him; so that the Son of the Virgine is truely & really eternall God, hauing eternall power, according to that in the last of Matthew, Matth. 28. 18. All power is giuen vnto me both in heauen, and in earth. And of this power, a litle after he bringeth in Christ speaking in this sorte; Although this power was mine eternally, before I assumed the nature of man, notwithstanding after I began to be man, euen according to the nature of man, I receiued the same power in time, though I shewed it not during the time of my infirmitie, and crosse. Bonauent. in 3. Sentent. dist. 22. quaest. 2. Bonauentura saith the very same in effect that Luther doth: when it is sayd, saith he, speaking of the Man Christ, This Man is euery where, this may either note out the Person of Christ, or the singular and indiuiduall nature of a man: if the Person of Christ, there is no doubt but the proposition is true: if the indiuiduall nature of a Man, yet still it is true, not by proprietie of nature, but by communication of properties; because that which agreeth to the Sonne of God by nature, agreeth vnto this Man by grace. Cardinall Camerac. lib. 3. quaest. 1 in Sententias. Cameracensis agreeth with Bonauentura, affirming, that the diuine attributes and properties are more really communicated to the Man Christ, then the humane are to the Sonne of God: and that therefore a man may most truely and properly say, speaking of the Man Christ, This Man is immortall, almighty, and of infinite power, and maiestie; because he is properly the diuine Person, & so consequently, truely & really immortall, and omnipotent. Yea Bellarm. de Incarnatione, lib. 3. cap. 16. Bellarmine, though he impugne the errours of the Lutherans, (as he calleth them) with all bitternesse, yet confesseth all that hitherto hath beene sayd to be most true. I say, saith he, as before, that the glorie of God the Father was giuen to the humanitie of Christ, non in ipsa, not to be formally or subiectiuely inherent in it, but in the diuine Person; that is, that by grace of vnion the humane nature of Christ obtained to bee in such sort the nature of the Sonne of God, that the Man Christ should be truely and really in the glory of God the Father, filling both heauen and earth. Againe he saith, those places, Matth: 11. 27. All things are giuen me of my Father; and Matth. 23. 18. All power is giuen me both in heauen and earth, may bee vnderstood, first, of diuine power which the Sonne of God receiued of the Father by eternall generation; and secondly, of diuine power which the nature of Man receiued by personall vnion: and in another place speaking of sundry things proper to God, he saith, Ibid. cap. 25. All those things may be sayd to be communicated and giuen to the humane nature, not formally in it selfe, but in the Person of the Sonne of God by the grace of vnion.

The Diuines distinguish the properties of God, and make them to be of two sorts; communicable, and incommunicable: Communicable properties they define to be those perfections, that are called perfectiones simpliciter, which are found without mixture of imperfection in God, and in a more imperfect sort in the creatures. These they name perfectiones simplicitèr, that is, simply and absolutely perfections, because it is better for any thing to haue them, then not to haue them: and because those things are better that haue them, then those that haue them not: as likewise, for that they imply in them no imperfection, though they bee mingled with imperfection & defect in the creatures. Of this sort is life, which it is betrer to haue, then not to haue; and it includeth in it no imperfection, though it bee accompanied with defect & imperfection in many of the things wherein it is found: for that life that is in trees, is an imperfect life, & the life of men, who in truth then begin to die, when they begin to liue, is imperfect; yea, the life of Angels is imperfect, because if they be not continually sustained, they returne to that nothing out of which they were made. Of the same kinde, are Truth, Goodnesse, Iustice, Mercie, Wisdome, Knowledge, & Vnderstanding. And therefore all these separated from that imperfection that cleaueth vnto them elsewhere, are found in God, & may truely bee attributed vnto him. Incommunicable properties are nothing else but the negation and remouing of all that imperfection that is in the Creatures, of which sort are Immortality, Eternity, Immensitie, Infinitie, & the like, all importing a negation of imperfection. The former of these two sorts of diuine properties which are named Communicable, are communicated to meere creatures in some degree and sort, though in highest degree they are no where found but in God, & with the addition of words expressing such eminency, they may bee attributed to none but to God: for hee onely is Almighty, most wise, most just, and most mercifull. But both these with addition of highest degree, and the other, which are named Incommunicable, are by all Diuines confessed, to bee in such sort communicated in the Person of the Son of GOD to the nature of man assumed into the vnity of the same, that the Man CHRIST, and the Son of Mary, is not in title onely, but really, & indeede most wise, most just, omnipotent, incomprehensible, eternall, and infinite.

And this is all, as I thinke, that the Diuines of Germany, the followers of Luther meane, when they speake of the reall communication of divine properties to the humane nature in Christ. If any man say, that they may justly bee thought to proceede farther, & to vnderstand some other communication of properties, then that by vs expressed, in that they doe not onely say concretiuely, that the Man Christ is omni-present, but the Humanity also: It may be answered, that when we speake of the Humanity of Christ, sometimes we vnderstand onely that humane created essence of a man that was in him, sometimes all that, that is implyed in the being of a Man, as well subsistence as essence. In the former sort, it is absurd and impious to thinke, that the Humanity of Christ, that is, the created Essence of a Man in him, is omnipotent, omni-present, or infinite; neither doe they so thinke; but they affirme, that the subsistence of the Man Christ implyed in his being a Man, is infinite, and omni-present, as being the subsistence of the Sonne of GOD communicated to the nature of Man, in steade of that finite subsistence, which, left to it selfe, it would haue had of it owne.

Much contention there hath beene betweene them & other, touching the vbiquitary presence of the humanity of Christ; but I verily thinke, it hath beene in a great part vpon mistaking, & because they vnderstood not one another. For the followers of Luther confesse, that the Body of Christ is onely in one place locally, & doe not thinke it to bee euery-where in Extent of Essence diffused into all places, but say onely, that it is euery-where in the infinitenesse of the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to it. Zanchius in iudic, de dissidio coenae Domin. in fine Miscellan. If we aske them (saith Zanchius) whether Christs Body be euery-where, they answere, that locally it is but in one place, but that personally it is euery-where: If they meane, saith he, that in respect of the being of Essence it is finite, and confined to one certaine place, but that the being of subsistence which it hath is infinite, & contained within the straites of no one place, they say the truth, & contradict not them whom they seeme to doe. Now that this is their meaning, which this worthy learned Diuine acknowledgeth to bee true & Catholique, & not contradicted by them that seeme to bee their opposites, they constantly professe: and therefore I am perswaded, that howsoeuer some of them haue vsed harsh, doubtfull, dangerous, and vnfitting formes of speech, yet they differ not in meaning and judgment from the Orthodoxe, and right beleeuers. For they do not imagine, if wee may beleeue their most constant protestations, any essentiall or naturall communication of diuine properties, but personall onely, in that the Person of the sonne of God is really communicated to the nature of man, in which Person they are. Neither do they define the personall vniō by the communication of properties, but say onely, that it is implied in it: & touching the co-operation of the two natures of God and Man in Christ, they teach noe other, but that which wee described, when wee spake of the Theandricall actions of Christ. The infinite obiections that are made on either side, to the multiplying of needles, & fruitlesse contentions, may easily be cleared, and the seeming contradictions reconciled by the right vnderstanding of the point, about which the difference hath growne.

CHAP. 16.

Of the worke of Mediation performed by Christ in our nature.

THus hauing spoken of the abasing of the Sonne of God to take our nature, and of the gifts and graces he bestowed on it, when he assumed it into the vnity of his Person; it remaineth, that we speake of the things hee did and suffered for vs in the same. The thing in generall which he did for vs in our nature thus assumed, was, the mediating betweene God and vs, that hee might reconcile vs vnto God. For the better vnderstanding whereof wee must obserue, what it is to mediate, and the diuerse kindes of mediation. Mediation is by all sayd then to be performed, when one interposeth himselfe betweene such as are at variance, to reconcile them, or at least, betweene such as haue no friendly intercourse, to joyne them in a league of friendship and amitie, The mediation that is betweene them at variance, (the end whereof is reconciliation) is performed foure wayes. First by discerning and iudging the matters of quarrell and dislike, that diuide and estrange them one from another. Secondly, by reporting from one of the parties to the other, the conditions vpon which either of them may come to an agreement with the other; in which sense Moses sayth vnto the children of Israel, Deut. 5. 5. I was a mediator at that time betweene God and you; and the Apostle sayth in the Epistle to the Galathians, Gal. 3. 19. The Law was giuen by Angels in the hand of a mediatour. Thirdly by intreating one party for another: and fourthly by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other. All these wayes Christ may be sayd to haue bin a Mediatour between God & vs. For first, he interposed hi •… selfe as an Arbitrator betweene God and vs, soe ordering the matters of difference betweene vs, that God should accept our repentance, faith, and purpose of amendment: and that we should not only repent vs of the euils past, and prostrate at the feete of his Majesty, intreate for mercy; but make a Couenant also with our selues, and bind our selues by a solemne vowe, neuer to cast his lawes behinde our backe any more. Secondly he put himselfe betweene God and us, by reporting Gods pleasure vnto vs, and what he requireth of vs, and by reporting vnto God our submissiue yeelding of our selues to do that he requireth. Thirdly, hee performed the worke of a Mediator, by intreating the one party to be reconciled to the other, in that Rom. 8. 34. He makath request for vs, as it is in the Epistle to the Romanes, and 1. Iohn 2. 1. is our Aduocate, as it is in the Epistle of S. Iohn. Lastly, hee mediated by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other: and this kind of mediation was proper to Christ alone, according to that of the Apostle, He was made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him. 2 Cor. 〈◊〉 . 21. These being the diuerse kinds wherein Christ mediateth betweene God and vs, for the better vnderstanding of the nature and force of his mediation, two things are to be obserued: First, what the nature of Medium, that is, a meane betweene two extreames is; and secondly, how, and according to which nature Christ was a Mediatour between God and vs.

A medium or meane betweene two extrreames, is of three sorts: The first, when two extremes or contraries concurre and meete in a third nature, arising and growing out of the mixture of them both; as white & blacke, being contrary colours, do meet and concurre in the middle colours, & in this sort there can be no meane betweene God & vs. The second, when some qualities or properties of either of the extremes or opposites are found in a third thing; and so Christ, as Man, was a meane between God and Men: For in his humane nature was found righteousnes, wherein he was like to God; & miserie, wherein he was like to mē. To which purpose that is, that S. Aug. hath whē he saith, August. in P. 39. Christus est Mediator inter Deum & homines. Quid est Deus? Pater, Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus. Quid sunt homines? Peccatores, impii, mortales. Inter illam Trinitatem, & hominum infirmitatem, & iniquitatem, Mediator factus est homo non iniquus, sed tamen infirmus: vt, ex eo quòd non iniquus, iungeret te Deo, in eo quòd infirmus, propinquaret tibi; that is, Christ is a Mediator between God & Men, What is God, but the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost? What are Men, but sinners, wicked ones, & subiect vnto death? Betweene that Trinitie therefore, and the infirmitie, and iniquitie of men, that Man became a Mediatour, that was not sinfull, but infirme; that, in that he was not sinfull, he might joyne thee to God; and in that he was infirme, hee might draw neare vnto thee. The third, when both extremes concurre & meete in the same person; and in this sort Christ is most properly a meane, or of a middle condition betweene God and vs, in that both the natures of God & man do concurre, and are conjoyned in his Person. And to this purpose excellent is that of Hugo de S. Victore. Hugo erudit. Theol. de Sacramentis fidei, lib. 2 part. 1. cap: 12. The Apostle (saith he) saith, A Mediatour is not a Mediatour of one. Duo enim erant Deus & Homo; Diuersi, & Aduersi: Deus erat iustus, Homo iniustus; in hoc nota aduersos: Homo erat miser, Deus beatus; in hoc nota diuersos. Sic igitur Homo & aduersus Deo erat, per iniquitatem; & diuersus á Deo, per miseriam: That is, For God & man were two; diuerse and different; aduerse & contrary one to the other. God was just, man vniust; in this obserue their contrariety: Man was miserable, God blessed; in this note their diuersity and difference: So therefore man was both aduerse, and contrary vnto God, in respect of iniquitie; and diuerse and different from God, in respect of misery. And therefore in this behalfe needed a Mediator vnto God, that hee might be reconciled, and brought backe vnto him; but the dispatch of this businesse of reconciling them that were so greatly at variance, no man could conueniently and fitly vndertake, who was not nearely conioyned by the bands of friendly Societie, & peaceable agreement with both the parties. For this cause therefore the Sonne of God became Man, that he might be a Mediatour of reconciliation, and peace between man & God. Suscepit humanitatem, per quam hominibus appropinquaret; & retinuit Diuinitatem, per quam á Deo non recederet: factus homo, sustinuit poenam, vt demonstraret affectum: seruauit iustitiam, vt conferret remedium: that is, hee tooke vnto him the nature of a Man, that therein he might draw neare vnto men, and retained the nature of God, that so he might not depart from God: Being made Man, hee suffered punishment, to shew his affection: but kept himselfe just, and vnworthy of punishment, that he might helpe and relieue others. Againe, the same Hugo proceedeth & goeth forward, excellently expressing the concurrence of the natures of God & man in the vnity of Christs person, in this sort: Verbum quod cum Patre Deo vnum erat per ineffabilem vnitatem, cum homine assumpto vnum factum est per admirabilem vnionem: Vnitas in naturâ, Vnio in personâ: Cum Patre Deo vnum in naturâ, non in Personâ: Cum homine assumpto vnum in personâ, non in naturâ. Assumpsit ex nobis nostram naturam, vt eam sibi sociaret per vnionem in personâ, quae sociata non erat per vnitatem in naturâ: vt per id quod de nostro vnum secum fecerat, nos sibi vniret, vt cum ipso vnum essemus, per id quod nostrum sibi vnitum erat; & per ipsum vnum essemu •… cum patre, qui cum ipsa vnum erat. That is, The Word which was one with God the Father by ineffable vnity, became one with man assumed by admirable vnion. The vnity was in nature: the vnion in Person. With God the Father it was one in Nature, not in Person, with man assumed it was one in Person, not in nature. It tooke of vs our nature to joyne it to it selfe by vnion in Person, which had no societie with it by vnity of nature, that by that, which taken from us, it made one with it selfe, it might unite vs to it selfe, that wee might bee one with it, by that of ours which was vnited to it: & by it wee might be one with the Father, who is one with it.

Thus hauing shewed in what sort Christ is a meane betweene the two extreames God & Man, it remaineth that we seeke out, how, & according to which nature he is a Mediatour. That he is a Mediatour according to the concurrence of both Natures in the vnitie of his Person, it is confessed by all, for if he were not both God & Man, hee could not mediate betweene God & Men. But whether hee be a Mediatour according to both Natures concurring in the worke of Mediation, there be some that make question. For the clearing whereof, the Diuines distinguish the workes of Mediation, making them to be of two sorts: Of Ministery, & of Authority. Of Ministery, as to pray, to pay the price of Redemption, & by dying to satisfie for sin. Of Authority, as to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the Holy Ghost. Touching the workes of Ministery, it is agreed on by all, that the Person of the Son of God performed them in the nature of Man: for we must distinguish Principium quod, & Principium quo; that is, the Person which doth and suffereth, and that wherein it doth and suffereth such things as are necessary to procure our reconciliation with God. It was the Son of God, & Lord of Life, that died for vs on the Crosse, but it was the nature of Man, not of God, wherein he died: & it was the nature of God, and infinite excellencie of the same, whence the price, value, & worth of his passion grew. The workes of Authority and Power, as to giue life, to giue the Spirit, to raise the dead, to make the blinde see, & the dumbe to speake, were all performed by the Diuine Nature; yet not without an instrumentall concurrence of the Nature of Man, in sort as hath beene before expressed, when I shewed how the Actions of Christ were diuinely-humane. If it be alledged, that Opera Trinitatis ad extra are indivisa, that is, that there is nothing that one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity doth towards the Creatures, but they all doe it, and consequently, that those things which Christ did in his Diuine Nature, pertained not to the office of a Mediatour, being common to all the Persons: we answer, that as the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, though they be one & the same God, yet differ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in subsistence, & the manner of hauing & possessing the Deitie, & Diuine Nature; so though their action be the same, & the worke done by them, yet they differ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the manner of doing it: for the Father doth all things authoritatiuè, and the Son subauthoritatiuè, as the Schoolemen speake; that is, the Father, as he from whom, & of whom all things are; the Son, as he by whom all things are, not as if hee were an instrument, but as Principium à Principio, that is, a cause & beginning of things, that hath receiued the Essence it hath, and power of working from another, though the very same that is in the other. And in this sort to quicken, giue life, and to impart the spirit of sanctification to whom he pleaseth, especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature, meriting, desiring, and instrumentally assisting, is proper to the Son of God manifested in our flesh, & not common to the whole Trinity; and therefore, notwithstanding the objection taken from the vnity of the Workes of the Diuine Persons, may be a worke of mediation. Bellarmine the Iesuite bringeth many reasons to proue, that Christ is not a Mediatour according to both Natures: but that which aboue all other he most vrgeth, is this, Bellarm de Christo Mediatore l. 5. c. 5 If Christ, saith he, be a Mediatour according to both Natures, then either according to both jointly, or seuerally; not seuerally, because not according to his Diuine Nature seuerally considered, being the party offended. Not according to both jointly, because though in that sort he differ from the Father & the Holy Ghost, neither of which is both God & Man; and from the sonnes of men, who are meerely men; yet hee differeth not from the Son of God, (who was to be pacified by the Mediatour, as well as the Father, & the Holy Ghost) neither in nature, nor in person. This surely is is a silly kind of reasoning: for it is not necessary that a thing should differ from both the extreames according to all that in respect whereof it is of a middle condition, but it is sufficient, if it differ in some thing from one, and in some thing from another. The middle colour differeth from the extreames, not in the whole nature of it, but from white, in that it hath of blacknesse, and from blacke, in that it hath of whitenesse: but it is medium, in that it hath something of either of them. Soe the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not onely from the Father and the holy Ghost, but from himselfe as God, in that he is Man: and from Men, and himselfe as man, in that hee is GOD: and therefore may mediate not onely betweene the Father and vs men, but also betweene himselfe as God, and vs miserable, and sinnefull men. Wherefore to conclude this point wee say, that some of the workes of Christ the mediatour, were the workes of his Humanity in respect of the thing done, and had their efficacie, dignity and value from his Diuinity, in that they were the workes of him that had the Diuinity dwelling bodily in him: and some the workes of his Diuinitie, the humane nature concurring only instrumentally, as the giuing sight to the blinde, raising the dead, remitting of sinnes, and the like. Neither doe wee imagine one action of both natures, nor say that Christ died, offered himselfe on the Altar of the Crosse, or payed for vs in his Diuinity, as some slanderously report of vs: and therefore all the objections that are mustered against vs, proceeding from the voluntary mistaking of our sense and meaning (which some will not conceiue, that they may haue something to say against vs) are all easily cleared and answered by this explication of the same.

By that which hath beene sayd touching Christs being a Mediatour according to both natures, wee may easily vnderstand, how, and according to what nature hee is Head of the Church. In a naturall Head Bonauent: in 〈◊〉 . Sentent. dist. 13. quaest: 1. Bonauentura obserueth three things: the first, that it is Conforme caeteris membris: the second, that it is Principium membrorum: and the third, that it is Influxiuum sensus & motus: that is, first, that it hath conformitie of nature with the rest of the members of the body. Secondly, that it is the first, chiefest, and in a sort the beginning of all the members: and thirdly, that from it influence of sense and motion doth proceede: and hee sheweth the same to bee found in Christ, the mysticall head of the Church. For first, hee hath conformitie of nature with them that are members of his body the Church, in that he is Man: Whereupon S. Augustine, sayth, Aug. tract. So. in cap. 15. Ioan: Vnius naturae sunt vitis & palmites: the vine and the branches are of the same nature. And secondly, as the naturall head is the chiefest and most principall of all the members, so is Christ more excellent then they that are Christs. Idem in Psal. 39. Omnia membra faciunt vnum corpus, sayth, S. Augustine, multum tamen interest inter caput & caetera membra: Etenim in caeteris membris non sentis nisi tactu, tangendo sentis in caeteris membris: in capite autem & vides, & audis, & olfacis, & gustas, & tangis. All the members make one body, yet is there great difference between the head, and the rest of the members: for in the rest a man hath no sense, but that of feeling, in the rest he discerneth by feeling: but in the Head heseeth, and heareth, and smelleth, and tasteth, and feeleth. So in the members of Christs mysticall body, which is the Church, there are found diuersities of gifts, operations, & administrations: and to one is giuen the word of wisdo •… , to another the word of knowledge, to another faith, to another the gift of healing, to another the operation of great workes, and to another prophesie: but to the man Christ, the spirit was giuen without stint or measure, and in him was found the fulnesse of all grace. The third property of a naturall Head, which is the iufluence of Sen •… e and Motion, agreeth vnto Christ in respect of his humanity and diuinity both. For hee giueth influence of diuine sense and motion two waies: per modum praeparantis: and per modum impertientis, that is, by preparing and making men fitte to receiue grace, & by imparting it to them that are fitted & prepared. He prepareth and fitteth men to the receipt of Grace by the acts of his humanity, in which hee suffered death, dying satisfied Gods wrath, remoued all matter of dislike, meritted the fauour and acceptation of God, and soe made men fitte to receiue the grace of God, and to enioy his fauour: Hee imparteth and conferreth grace, by the operation and working of his diuine nature, it being the proper worke of God to inlighten the vnderstandings of men, and to soften their hearts. So that, to conclude this point, we may resolue, that the grace, in respect whereof Christ is Head of the Church, is of two sorts: the one created, and habituall: the other increate, and of Vnion. In respect of the one hee giueth grace effectiuè, by way of efficiencie: in respect of the other, dispositiuè, by way of disposition, fitting vs, that an impression of grace may be made in vs.

CHAP. 17.

Of the things which Christ suffered for vs, to procure our reconciliation with God.

HAuing shewed how Christ as a Mediator interposed himselfe between God and vs when we were his enemies, and how he is the Head of that blessed company of them that beleeuing in him looke for saluation; let vs see & consider, first, what he suffered for vs, to reconcile vs vnto God: secondly, what he did for vs; thirdly, what the benefits are that hee bestoweth on vs; and fourthly to whom he committed the dispensation of the rich treasures of his graces, the word of reconciliation, and the guiding and gouerning of the people which hee purchased as a peculiar inheritance to himselfe.

Touching the first, to wit the sufferings of Christ, he was by them to satisfie the justice of God his Father displeased with vs for sinne: that so wee might bee reconciled vnto him. Wherefore, that wee may the better conceiue what was necessary to be done or suffered to satisfie the justice of God, wee must consider sinne in the nature of a wrong, and in the nature of sin. In the nature of a wrong; and so two things were required for the pacifying of Gods wrath; for first, he that hath done wrong, must restore that he vnjustly tooke away from him whom he wronged; and secondly, hee must do something in recompence of the wrong he did: as, if hee tooke away another mans good name, by false and lying reports, hee must not only restore it to him againe by acknowledging that the things were vntrue, which in defamation of him hee had spoken, but he must also take all occasions to raise continue, and increase a good opinion of him. If sinne be considered in the nature of sinne it implyeth in it two things: debitum poenae, and debitum neglectae obedientiae, that is, a debt of punishment, and a debt of obedience then neglected, when it should haue been performed: and therefore in the satisfaction that is to reconcile us to God displeased with vs for sinne as sinne, two things must be implyed: for first, the punishment must be sustained that sinne deserued: and secondly, that obedience must be performed, that should haue been yeelded whilest sinne was committed, but was neglected. For if only the punishment be sustained we may escape the condemnation of death, but we cannot inherit eternall life, vnlesse the righteousnesse and obedience which Gods law requireth be found in vs also: Now the law of God requireth obedience, not only in the present time, and time to come, but from the beginning of our life to the end of the same, if wee desire to inherit the promised blessednesse. And though the performance of that obedience that was neglected may seeme to be in the nature of merit rather then satisfaction: yet in that it is not simply the meriting and procuring of fauour and acceptation, but the recouering of lost friendship, and the regaining of renewed loue, it is rightly esteemed to pertaine vnto satisfaction. Touching sinne considered in the nature of an offence & wrong, and the things required to pacifie Gods wrath in that respect, there is no question, but that the sinner himselfe that wronged God in sinning, must, by sorrow of heart, disliking and detesting, and by confession of mouth, condemning former euils, restore that glory to God hee tooke from him: and seeke and take all occasions the weaknes of his meanes wil affoord, to glorifie God as much as he dishonoured him before: and God accepteth weake indeauours as sufficient in this kind, CHRIST hauing perfectly satisfied for us: as a publicke person may accept of a meane and weake satisfaction for the wrong done to him, but must inflict punishment answerable to the fault, to satisfie publique justice offended by that wrong. Wherefore, passing from this kinde of satisfaction, let vs speake of that other that God requireth, standing in the suffering of punishments due to sinne. Some define this kind of satisfaction to be the suffering of the punishments that God inflicteth, or wherewith a man voluntarily punisheth himselfe: but this is not a good definition. For as a thiefe or murtherer may not lay violent hands on himself, & be his owne executioner when he hath offended, to satisfie publique Iustice, but must submit himself to that which authority will lay on him: so it is so farre frō being any satisfaction to Gods Iustice, for a man, when he hath sinned, to become his own executioner, & to punish himselfe for his sin, to satisfie the Iustice of God, that it highly displeaseth God. It is true indeede, that we may lawfully afflict our selues, not to satisfie Gods Iustice, but to purge out the drosse of that sinfull impuritie that cleaueth to vs, and to cure the wounds of our soules, as wee may afflict our selues by fasting, watching, and abstaining from many things otherwise lawfull, for the freeing of our selues from the remaines of our former excessiue and immoderate delight in eating, drinking, surfeiting, and riot, & other abuses of the good creatures of God. So that we must not define satisfaction, to bee the suffering of those punishments, that God inflicteth, or wherewith the sinner punisheth himself; for it is only the sustaining of those that God in Iustice doth inflict. And in this sort Christ satisfied his Fathers wrath, not by punishing himself, but by being obedient to his Father euen vnto the death. Wherefore let vs proceed more particularly, to consider the satisfactory sufferings of Christ, & see first, what punishments Christ suffered to pacifie his Fathers wrath: and secondly, what the manner of his passion was.

Touching the punishments that Christ suffered, they were not ordinary, but beyond measure, grievous, bitter, & insupportable: yea, such as would haue made any meere creature to sinke down vnder the burthen of thē to the bottome of Hell: For he suffered grieuous things from all the things in Heauen, Earth, & Hell; & in all that any way pertained to him. He suffered at the hands of God his Father, and of Men; of Iewes, of Gentiles, of enemies insulting, of friends forsaking, of the Prince of darknes, & all his cruell & mercilesse instruments; of the elements of the world, the Sun denying to giue him light, the aire breath, & the earth supportance. Hee suffered in all that pertained to him: In his name, being condemned as a blasphemer, as an enemy to Moses, the Law, the Temple, & worship of God; to his own Nation, to Caesar, & the Romans: a glutton, a cōpanion with Publicans, & sinners, a Samaritan, one that had a Diuell, & did all his miracles by the power of Beelzebub. In the things he possessed, when they stripped him out of his garments, & cast lots on his seamelesse coate. In his friends greatly distressed & discomforted with the sight of those things that fell out vnto him, according to that which was prophesied before: Mark. 14. 27. The Shepheard shall be smitten, & the sheep shall be scattered. In his body, when his hands & feete were nailed, his sides goared, his head pierced with the crown of thorns, his cheeks swollen with buffering, his face defiled with spitting vpon, his eyes offended with beholding the scornefull behauiour of his proud insulting enemies, his eares with hearing the wordes of their execrable blasphemy, his taste with the myrrhe & gall that they gaue him in his drinke, his smell with the stinch and horrour of the place wherein he was crucified, being a place of dead mens skuls. Lastly, in his soule distressed with feares, & compassed about with sorrowes besetting him on euery side, & that euen vnto death: In so wofull sort did he take on him our defects, and suffer our punishments.

But, because we may as well enlarge and amplifie Christs passions and sufferings too much, as extenuate them too much, let vs see, if it bee possible, the vttermost extent of that he suffered. For the clearing hereof Bonav. in 3. Sent. dist. 15. quaest. 2. some say, that he suffered all those punishments that were beseeming him, or behoofefull for vs: that hee suffered all those punishments, that neither prejudice the plenitude of sanctitie, nor science. But, that wee may the better informe our selues touching this point, wee must obserue, that the punishments of sinne are of three sorts: First, Culpa: Secondly, ex culpa, & ad culpam. Thirdly, ex culpa, sed nec culpa, nec ad culpam: that is, First, sinne. Secondly, something proceeding from sinne, and inducing to sin. Thirdly, things proceeding from sin, that neither are sins, nor incline and induce to sinne. Examples of the first, are Enuie, afflicting the mind of the proud man; grieuous disorders, accompanying the drunkard, and a reprobate sense, following the contempt of Gods worshippe and seruice. The punishments of this second sort are sins, though the Schoolemen doe not esteeme them to bee so. Of the second, naturall concupiscence, pronenesse to euill, difficulty to doe good, contrariety in the faculties of the soule, and repugnance and resistance of the meaner against the better. Examples of the third, which are things proceeding from sin, but neither sinnes, nor inclinations to sinne, are hunger, thirst, weakenesse, nakednesse, and death it selfe. The punishments of this last sort onely Christ suffered, and neither of the former two: for neither was there sin in him, nor any thing inclining him to euill, or discouraging him from good. The punishments of this kinde are of two sorts: Naturall, and Personall. Naturall, are such as follow the whole nature of man, as hunger, thirst, labour, wearinesse, and death it selfe. Personall, are such as grow out of some imperfection and defect in the vertue and faculty forming the body, disorder in diet, or some violence offered; and these are found but in some particular men, and not in all men generally, as Leprosies, Agues, Gowts, & the like, All those punishments, that are punishments only, that are from without, and that are common to the whole nature of Men, Christ suffered, that came to bee a Redeemer of all without respect of persons: but such as flow from sin dwelling within, or proceed from particular causes, or are proper to some, and not common to all, hee suffered not.

The punishments that are punishments onely, and not sinne, and are common to the whole nature of man, are likewise of two sorts: for either they are suffered for sinne imputed, or sinne inherent. For one may bee punished either for his owne fault, or the fault of another in some sort imputed to him. When a man is punished for his owne fault, hee hath remorse of conscience, blaming and condemning him as hauing brought such euils vpon himselfe, by his owne folly. But when a man is punished for another mans fault, whereof hee hath beene no cause, by example, perswasion, helpe, or consent, hee canne haue no remorse of conscience. Now our Saviour Christ, suffered the punishments of the sinnes of other men, not his own, and therefore hee was free from remorse of conscience, though it be generally found in all men, and be neither sinne, nor inducement to sin.

Lastly, the punishments that are punishments onely, and not sin, that are common to the whole nature of Man, and suffered not for the faults of him that suffereth them, but for the sins of other, are of two sorts: for either they are the punishments of sinne eternally remayning in staine and guilt; or broken off, ceasing, and repented of.

The punishments of sinne eternally remaining, must according to the rules of diuine justice, be eternall, and consequently joyned with desperation, which alwayes is found, where there is an impossibility of any better estate for euer. But it Picus Mirandula, in Apologiâ quaest. 2. & Scotus in 4. Sentent. dist. 46. q. 4. in resp. ad argumenta principalia. is no way necessary, neither doth the iustice of God require, that the punishments of sinne repented of, ceasing, and forsaken, should bee euerlasting, or ioyned with despaire. For, as the Diuines doe note, that there are three thinges to bee considered in sinne; The auersion from an infinite, and incommutable good: the inordinate conuersion to a finite good; and the continuing in the same, or ceasing from it: so to these seuerall thinges in sinne, there are three seuerall thinges answearing in the punishment of it. For to the auersion, which is obiectiuely infinite, there answereth poena damni; the losse of God, which is an infinite losse. To the inordinate conuersion of the sinner to thinges transitory, there answereth poena sensus, a sensible smart and griefe intensiuely finite, as the pleasure the sinner taketh in the transitory thinges, hee inordinately loueth, is finite. To the eternity of sin remayning euerlastingly in staine & guilt or the continuance of it but for a time, answereth the eternity of punishment, or the suffering of the same but for a time.

It is true, that euery sinner sinneth in suo aeterno, as Saint Gregor. exposit. moral. l. 34. c. 10. in 41. Caput Iob. in illa verba, Aestimabit Abyssum, &c. Gregorie speaketh, in that hee would sinne euer if hee might liue euer; and that euery sinner casteth himselfe, by sinning, into an impossibility of euer ceasing to sin of himselfe: as a man that casteth himselfe into a deepe pit, canne neuer of himselfe rise out of it againe: And therefore naturally eternity of punishment is due to sinne: but, if by force of Diuine operation, men be framed to cease from sinne, and to turne from it vnto God, the Iustice of God requireth not eternity of punishment, but onely extr •… mitie answerable to the grieuousnesse of sinne. Wherefore seeing our Sauiour Christ suffered onely for those sinnes which he meant to breake off by framing the sinners to repentance, it was no way necessary for the satisfying of diuine Iustice, that hee should endure eternall punishment.

If it be sayd, that all doe not repent, nor cease from doing ill, wee easily graunt it: but it is likewise to be knowne, that the satisfaction of Christ is not appliable to all sinners, not through any defect in it selfe, but through the incapacity of them to whom it should be applyed. Soe that as Christ dyed, and satisfied Gods wrath sufficiently for all, but effectually onely for the elect and chosen: soe likewise hee giueth grace to cease from sinne, if the fault were not in themselues, sufficiently to all. But to the elect and chosen, whom he foreknew before the world was made, hee giueth grace effectually, that his passion may be applyed vnto them, and they really and indeede made partakers of it.

They seeme therefore to be deceiued, who thinke, that the excellencie of the person of Christ, dispensed with the eternity of punishment, which otherwise to satisfie diuine justice, hee was to haue suffered; and thereupon inferre, that it might also dispense with the grieuousnesse and extremity of punishment, that otherwise hee was to haue endured. For the worth and excellency of his person, was neither to dispense with the time, nor grieuousnesse of his punishments, but to make the passion of one auaileable for many. Otherwise, if it might haue dispensed with one degree of extremitie of punishment due to sinne, it might also haue dispensed with two, and consequently with all, as Scotus aptly noteth, though to another purpose. Scotus in 4. senten. dist. 46. qu. 4. de art. 4.

These things being thus distinguished, it is easie to answer that question that hath troubled many: Whether Christ suffered all the punishments of sinne or not. For wee may safely pronounce, as I thinke, that Christ suffered the whole generall punishment of sinne, that onely excepted which is sinne, or consequent vpon the inherence, and eternity of sinne that is punished, as remorse of conscience and desperation. If any man shall goe further, and aske, whether to satisfie Gods justice, Christ suffered the paines of hell or not: it will be answered, that he suffered not the paines of hell in specie or loco, that is, either in kind or place; but some thinke that he suffered paines and punishments conformable and answerable to them in extremity, that onely excepted which is sinne, or consequent vpon the inherence, and eternity of the sinne of such as are punished in hell.

Concerning poena sensus, that is, sensible smart and griefe, Cardinall Cusanus Excitationum lib. 10. p. 659. Cusanus (a famous learned man) is claerely of opinion, that Christ suffered extremity of such paine, answerable to that sensible smart and griefe that is indured in hell: but the doubt is principally of the other kind of punishment, named Poena damni, which is the losse of God. For the clearing of which point, Scotus in 4. sent: dist. 46. q. 4. Scotus aptly obserueth diuers things. For first, he sheweth that punishment is the discernable want of some fitting good in an intellectuall nature, and the presence of some euill in the same. Secondly, that the good that is in an intellectuall nature is of two sorts; the one of vertue, the other of sweete, joyfull and pleasing delight: and that, though both these concurre sometimes, as in the fruition of God in heauen, wherein the perfection of vertue, & the fullnesse of joy and delight do meete together: yea, that though every thing that is vertuous, be delightfull, yet it is not so much the height of vertue as of delight, that is to be judged happinesse. Thirdly, he inferreth from hence, that there are two kinds of punishment consisting in the losse of God: whereof the one is, the want of that vertue whereby the soule is to be joyned and knit vnto God; the other, the want of that delight and pleasure that is to be found in God. That the former is an evill of vnrighteousnesse & sin, & may be called an obstinacy in sinne, and is nothing else but sinne not remitted nor remoued, Poena derelicta non inflicta, that is, no new euill brought in vpon the sinner, but that left in him that hee wrought in himselfe. The other is more properly named Poena damni, or Damnum, that is, the punishment of losse, or a losse & damage. It were impious to thinke, that Christ suffered the former kinde; but that hee suffered this latter kinde of punishment of losse & damage, many great Diuines are of opinion. For though as hee was ioyned to God affectione iustitiae, that is, by the affection of vertue or justice, hee could not be diuided or separated from him, no not for a moment, because he could not but loue him, feare him, trust in him, & giue him the praise and glory that belongeth to him; yet, as he was to be joyned to him, affectione commodi, that is, by that affection that seeketh pleasing content in enjoying those ineffable delights & pleasures that are found in him, hee might bee, and was for a time diuided from him. For as very great & graue Diuines do thinke, he was destitutus omni solatio, that is, destitute & void of all that solace he was wont to find in God, in that fearefull houre of darknesse, & of his dolefull passion. Canus Loc. Theol. l. 12. c. 13. As saith Melchior Canus, Christ in the time of his life, miraculously restrained, & kept within the closet of his secret Spirit, the happines that he injoyed in seeing God, that it should not spread farther, & communicate it self to the inferior faculties of his Soule, or impart the brightnes of it to the body: so in the houre of his passion, his very Spirit was with-holden from any pleasure it might take in so pleasing an object, as is the Essence, Majesty, and glory of God, which euen then he clearely beheld. So that Christ neuer wanted the vision of that object, which naturally maketh all them happy that beholde it, and filleth them with such joy, as no heart of mortall man can conceiue, or tongue expresse.

But as it was strange, and yet most true, in the time of his life, that his Soule enjoyed Heauen-happines, and that yet neither the inferiour faculties thereof were admitted into any fellowship of the same, nor his Body glorified, but subject to misery and passion; so it fell out by the speciall dispensation of Almighty God, in the time of his death, and in that fearefull houre of darknes, that his Soule seeing God, the pleasure & delight that naturally commeth from so pleasing an object, stayed, with-held, & communicated not it selfe vnto it: as a man in great distresse taketh no pleasure in those things that otherwise exceedingly affect him. This his conceipt, he saith, he communicated to very great and worthy Diuines, while he was yet but a young man, and that they were so farre from disliking it, that they approued it exceedingly. But some man will say, it is not possible in this life to feele extremity of paines, answereable to the paines of hell, more then on earth to enjoy the happines of Heauen: and that therefore it is absurd to grant, that Christ in the dayes of his flesh suffered in this World extremity of paine answerable to the paines of hell. Hereunto it is answered, that in ordinary course, it is impossible for any man liuing in this World, either to enjoy the happines of Heauen, or feele the paines of Hell: but that, as Christ was at the same time, both Viator and Comprehensor, that is, a manlike vnto vs that journey here in this World towards Heauen-happines, and yet happy with that happines that ordinarily is found no where but in Heauen: so hee might suffer that extremity of paine, & haue that apprehension of afflictiue euils, that ordinarily is no where to bee found in this World, euen while he liued here on earth. Luther cons. pro laborant. c. 1. de spectro primo. tom. 2. Luther saith truely, that if a man could perfectly see his owne euils, the sight thereof would bee a perfect hell vnto him: now it is certaine that Christ saw all the euils of punishment before expressed, to which he voluntarily subjected himselfe, to satisfie diuine Iustice comming fierce and violently vpon him, with as cleare a sight, and as perfect an apprehension of them, as is to be had in the other World.

CHAP. 18.

Of the nature and qualitie of the passion and suffering of Christ.

HItherto we haue spoken of the punishments that Christ sustained and suffered to satisfie the justice, and pacifie the wrath of his Father. Now it remaineth, that we come to take a view of the nature and qualitie of his passion and suffering, consisting partly in his feare and agonie before, and pardy in his bitter sorrow and distresse in the very act of that dolefull tragedy. Touching the first, the Scripture testifieth, that he Mark. 14. 33. Mat. 26. 37. feared exceedingly, and desired Mat. 26. 39. the cuppe might passe from him. Touching the second, that he Matth. 26. 38. was beset with sorrowes euen vnto the death; and that in his extremitie he cried aloud; Matth. 27. 46. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But touching both these passions of feare, & sorrow, it is noted, Bonauent. in 3. Sent. dist. 16. qu. 2. that, whereas there are three kindes of faults found in the passions of mens mindes, the first, that they arise before reason be consulted, or giue direction; the second, that they proceed farther then they should, and stay not when they are required; and the third, that they transport reason & judgement it selfe: Christ had these passions, but in a sort free from all these euils: For neither did they arise in him before reason gaue direction; wherevpon he is said to haue Ioh. 11. 33. troubled or moued himselfe in the case of Lazarus, for whom he greatly sorrowed; neither did they proceede any farther, if once reason & judgement commanded a stay, and retrait, wherevpon they are called Hieronym. in 26. Matthaei. Propassions rather then Passions; not because, (as Suruey. Booke 3. Chap. 10 pag: 177. Kellison ignorantly supposeth) reason preuenteth them, and causeth them to arise, though it bee true it doth so; but because they are but fore-runners to passions at liberty, and beginnings of passions to be staied at pleasure, rather then full and perfect passions; and therefore much lesse had they any power to transport judgement & reason it selfe. From these generall considerations of the passions of Christ, let vs proceede to take a more particular view of the chiefe particulars of his passions, to wit, Feare, & Sorrow.

Feare is described to bee a retiring, or flying backe from a thing, if it be good, because it is too high and excellent aboue the reach, and without the extent of our condition & power; if it be euill, because it is hard to bee escaped. So that the proper and adequate obiect of feare, is not, as some suppose, future euill, but difficulty, greatnesse, & excellency: which found in things good, makes vs know wee cannot at all attaine them, or at least that wee cannot attaine them but with too great difficultie & labour; in euill, that they will not easily be ouer mastered or escaped.

The difficultie, greatnesse, and excellency, found in things that are good, causeth feare of reuerence, which maketh vs steppe backe, and not to meddle at all with thinges that are too high & excellent for vs, nor with things hard, without good advice: and causeth vs to giue place to those of better condition, and to acknowledge and professe by all significations of body and minde, the distance, and disproportion that we know to be betweene them and vs, together with our dependance of them, or subiection to them. This kinde of feare causeth and produceth all acts of Reuerence & Adoration. It is found in the Angels, and spirits of iust & perfect men, & is more excellent then any other vertue.

The greatnesse that is found in thinges that are euill, causeth a feare declining them as euill, which is of diuerse sorts: For first, there is an Humane feare, which maketh men more decline the losse of their liues & good estates, then the losse of the fauour of God. Secondly, there is a Mundane feare, that causeth them to decline the disfauour of the world, more then the displeasure of Almighty God: and these two kindes of feare driue men from God; but there are other kindes which driue them vnto God. The first whereof is a Seruile feare, that maketh men leaue the act of sinne, both inward & outward, to auoid punishment, though they retaine the loue & liking of it. The second is an Initiall feare, that maketh them cast from them, the very desire of sinning, not out of the loue of God, which they haue not yet attained vnto, but out of the consideration of the wofull consequence of it: and thirdly, there is a Filiall feare, proceeding from the loue of God, causing vs to decline the offending of him whom we so dearely loue, and of whom wee are so dearely loued, more then any euill whatsoeuer.

The former kindes of feare that driue men from God, could not bee found in Christ, who was not onely nearely ioyned vnto God, but God himselfe blessed for evermore: for neither did hee prize life, nor the fauour of the world that knew him not, at any higher rate then was fit. Of the later sorts of feare, neither Seruile nor Initiall, were in him that was free from all sinne; and touching Filiall feare, being well assured of his owne power, in respect whereof it was impossible for him to be drawn to the committing of any euill; though he had that part of it, which standeth in declining the offence of GOD more then any euill in the world, yet not that other, that proceedeth from the consideration of the danger of being drawen therevnto: so that hee could not feare lest hee should fall into sinne. Besides all these kindes of feare, whereof some driue men from God, and some bring them to God, there is another which is the ground of them all, named Naturall feare, which is the declining of any thing that is hurtfull, or contrary to the desired good of him that feareth: This Naturall feare, as also the feare of Reuerence, & that part of Filiall feare, that is the declining of sinne, and the displeasing of God, was found in Christ, as all other sinlesse and harmelesse affections were. For in the nature of man, he reuerenced and adored the Maiesty of God his Father; and with a Naturall feare, declined death, and the bitternesse of that cuppe he was to drinke of, and with a Filiall feare declined the offending of God his Father, more then hell it selfe.

But (passing by the feare of Reuerence, and that part of Filiall feare that was found in Christ, concerning which there is no question among the Diuines) that wee may the better discerne, both what his Naturall feare was, and in respect whereof; wee must note, that Caietan: in 3. part. Summae qu. 15. art. 7. feare is, first, in respect of things which cannot bee auoided, neither by resistance and encounter, nor by flying from them: which things though they may seeme rather to make an impression of sorrow then feare, because in respect of their certainty they are rather apprehended as present, then future; yet for that wee know not experimentally, how we shall bee afflicted with them, and in what sort wee shall sustaine and beare them, we may rightly be said to feare them. Secondly, in respect of such things, as may be escaped or ouercome with a kinde of vncertainty of euent, and danger of the issue. Thirdly, in respect of such as may be escaped or ouercome without any vncertainty of the euent or issue, though not without great conflict and labour.

These kindes of Naturall feare thus distinguished, it is easie to see what Christ feared, and in what sort. For first hee feared death, and the stroke of the iustice of God his Father, sitting on the Tribunall or Iudgement seate, to punish the sinnes of men, for whom hee stood forth to answere that day: and secondly, hee feared euerlasting destruction. The former of these hee feared, as things impossible to be escaped, in respect of the resolution and purpose of God his Father, that by his satisfactory death and suffering, and no other way, man should be deliuered, The later hee feared, that is, declined as a thing he knew he should escape without all doubt or vncertainty of euent, though not without conflicting with the temptations of Sathan, and the enduring of many bitter and grieuous things: for it was no otherwise possible for him, hauing put himselfe into the communion of our nature, to escape the swallowing vp of that gulfe into which wicked sinners sinke downe, but by resisting the temptations of sinne, that it might not enter into him, by breaking off the same in others, and by suffering whatsoeuer it had deserued. But some man will say, Annotat. in 5. ad Hebraeos. ver. 7. Beza teacheth that Christus veritus est succumbere, & absorberi à morte; that is, that Christ feared to sinke downe, and to bee swallowed vp of death; and consequently, that he feared euerlasting destruction, with an vncertainty of his escape from the same.

It is true that Beza saith, that Christ feared to sinke downe, and to bee swallowed vp of death; yet doth not that follow, wh •… ch is alledged as a consequent of his saying, nor any thing contrary to that hath beene said of vs. For whereas there is a double Bonav. in 3 sent. dist. 16. q. 2. Scotus in 3. dist. 15. q. unica apprehension of reason in Christ, the one named Superior, that looketh into things with all circumstances: the other Inferiour, that presenteth to the minde of man some circumstances, and not all; Beza teacheth, that Christ feared to sinke downe, and to be swallowed vp of death, that is, that he so declined the swallowing gulfe of death, out of which he saw no escape within the view of Inferiour reason, presenting vnto him this hideous & destroying euill, in it owne nature endlesse, without shewing the issue out of the same; that yet notwithstanding simply he feared it not, Superiour reason clearely shewing him the issue out of it. This wil not seem strange vnto vs, if we consider, that in Christ euery faculty, power, & part was suffered, notwithstāding the perfectiō found in some other, to do that which properly pertained to it; & from hence it is easie to discerne, how it came to passe, that Christ should desire and pray for that which he knew should neuer be granted, as namely, that the Math. 26. 39 cup of death might passe from him. For the sense of nature, & Inferiour reason presented death, & the ignominie of the Crosse vnto him, as they are in themselues euill, without the consideration of any good to follow, & so caused a desire to decline them, expressed in the prayer he made: But Superiour reason considering them with all circumstances, & knowing Gods resolution to be such, that the World should thereby be saued, & by no other meanes, perswaded to a willing acceptance of them. Betweene these desires and resolutions, there was a diversity, but no contrariety; a subordination, but no repugnance or resistance. There was no contrariety, because they were not in respect of the same circumstances: for Death, as Death, is to be avoided; neither did Superiour reason euer dislike this judgement of the Inferiour Faculties, but shewed farther and higher considerations, wherein it was to be accepted & embraced. There was no repugnance or resistance, because the one yeelded to the other. For euen as a man that is sicke, considering the potion prescribed to him by the Physitian, to be bitter & vnpleasant, declineth it while he stayeth within the bounds & confines of that consideration, but when casting his eyes farther, he is shewed by the Physitian, the happy operation of good that is in it, he willingly accepteth it, in that it is beneficiall and good: So Christ considering death as in it selfe euill, & contrary to nature, while hee stayed within the bounds and confines of that consideration, shunned and declined it: and yet, as the meanes of mans saluation, joyfully embraced it, accepting that he refused, and refusing that he accepted. Hugo de S. Victore de Sac. fid. l. 1. part. 4. c. 19. There is a thing (saith Hugo de Sancto Victore) that is Bonum in se, good in it selfe, & the good of euery other thing. There is a thing good in it selfe, & yet good but to certaine purposes onely. And there is a thing euill in it selfe, & yet good to some purposes. The two former sorts of things may be desired simply and absolutely: the third cannot but onely respectiuely to certaine ends: & of this kinde was the death of the Crosse, with all the wofull tormentings concurring with the same, which simply Christ shunned and declined, but respectiuely to the ends aboue specified, willingly embraced. The Papistes Bellarm. l. 4. de anim. Christi c. 8. impute I know not what impiety to Caluine, for that he saith, Christ corrected the desire & wish that suddenly came from him. But they might easily vnderstand if they pleased, that hee is farre from thinking that any desire, or expressing of desire, was sudden in Christ, as rising in him without consent of reason, or that he was inconsiderate in any thing hee did or spake: but his meaning is, that some desires which he expressed, proceeded from Inferiour reason, that considereth not all circumstances: & that hee corrected, & revoked the same, not as euill, but as not proceeding from the full & perfect consideration of all things fit to be thought vpon, before a full resolution be passed.

Thus hauing spoken of Christs feare & agony before his passion, it remaineth that we proceede to speake of the sorrowes that afflicted & distressed him in his passion. These sorrowes were such & so great, that being beset & compassed about with them on euery side, he professed Math. 26. 38. his soule was heauy euen vnto the death: Yea. such was the bitternesse of his Soule, that pressed with the weight & burthen of grieuous and insupportable euils, he was forced to cry out aloud, Matth. 27. 46 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? These words of sorrowfull passion, the Papists say, Caluine thought to bee words of despaire, and that Christ despaired when he vttered them. Surely this shamelesse slander sheweth, that they that thus speake they care not what, are desperately malitious, and maintaine a desperate cause that cannot be vpholden, but by falshood, & lying. But Caluine is farre frō any such execrable & hellish blasphemie. For hauing by occasiō of these words, amplified the sorrowes & distresses of Christ in the time of his passion, Comment: in 27. Matthaei. hee sayth there were some that charged him that hee sayd, these words were words of desperation, and that Christ despaired when he vttered them: but hee accurseth such hellish blasphemie, and pronounceth that howsoeuer the flesh apprehended destroying euils, & inferiour reason shewed no issue out of the same: yet there was euer a most sure resolued perswasion resting in his heart, that hee should vndoubtedly preuaile against them, and ouercome them.

wherefore passing ouer this wicked calumniation of our aduersaries, let vs see in what sense Christ the Sonne of God complained of dereliction, and cried aloud vnto his Father, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? For the clearing hereof the Diuines do note, that there are sixe kindes of dereliction or forsaking, whereof Christ may be thought to haue complained. The first whereof, is by disunion of Person; the second, by losse of Grace; the third, by diminution or weakning of grace; the fourth, by want of assurance of future deliuerance, and present support; the fift, by deniall of protection; the sixt by withdrawing of solace, and destituting the forsaken of all comfort. It is impious once to thinke, that Christ was forsaken any of the foure first wayes. For the vnity of his person was neuer dissolued, his graces were neuer either taken away or diminished; neither was it possible he should want assurance of future deliuerance and present support, that was eternall God, and Lord of life. But the two last waies he may rightly be sayd to haue beene forsaken; in that his Father denied to protect and keepe him out of the hands of his cruell, bloudy, and mercilesse enemies, no way restrayning them, but suffering them to doe the vttermost of that their wicked hearts could imagine, and left him to endure the extremity of their furie and malice: and, that nothing might be wanting to make his sorrowes beyond measure sorrowfull, withdrew from him that solace he was wont to finde in God: and remoued farre from him all things, that might any way lessen and asswage the extremity of his paine. So that Christ might rightly complaine that he was forsaken, though he were farre from despaire, and words of despaire.

CHAP. 19.

Of the descending of Christ into Hell.

WITH the sufferings of Christ, his Descension into Hell is connexed, both in the order of things, and in the Articles of the creede, and therefore it remaineth, that in the next place, we speake of that. De animâ Christi, l. 4. c. 6. Bellarmine obserueth, that the Article of Christs descending into Hell, was not in the Creede with all Churches from the beginning: for that Irenoens, Origen, and Tertullian haue it not: and Augustine in his booke de Fide & Symbolo, and in his foure bookes de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, mentioneth it not, expounding the Creede fiue times: though Epst. 99. elsewhere he say, that none but an Infidell will deny the descension of Christ into Hell. Ruffinus expoundeth it amongst the articles of the Creede, but noteth, that it is not in the Symbole of the Romane Church, nor those of the East. The Nicene Creede hath it not, but that of Athanasius hath, and other of the Fathers reade it also. And at this day it is receiued in all the Churches of the world without contradiction: though there be some question touching the meaning of it.

De animâ Christi, lib. 4. c. 7. 8. & 9. Bellarmine reckoneth three opinions of Protestants, differently vnderstanding the same: whereof the first is, that to descēd into hell, is to be vtterly annihilated, & brought to nothing: the second, that it is to suffer the paines of hell: and the third that it is nothing else but his buriall. Of these three opinions imputed by Bellarmine to the Protestants, the first is nothing but his owne fancy, neuer dreamed of by any Protestant. For who euer, professing himselfe a Christian, thought, that to goe downe into hell, is to be vtterly extinct, and to be no more? But (saith he) Comment. in 2. Actorum. Brentius bringeth in Christ speaking in this sort: I will descend into hell, I will feele the paines of hell, & seeme vtterly to perish: therefore he is of that opinion, whatsoeuer others are. A strange thing it is, that men of learning, & iudgement, should so forget themselues, as this Cardinall often doth, saying hee knoweth not what. For doth he vtterly cease to be, that feeleth the paines of Hell? or doe not the wicked perish, & is not their estate in holy Scripture described to be euerlasting perdition? hee knoweth right well it is: & yet, I thinke, dareth not from thence inferre, that they are vtterly extinct, and haue no more beeing: if he doe, we will not feare to brand him with the marke of impiety, and intollerable ignorance; for the wicked are said vtterly to perish, not by losing all being, but all good, desirable, & happy being. If Brentius escape his hands, hee hath good hope to conuince Caluine of this errour, and so still to lay vpon vs the heauy imputation of so damnable impiety. Caluine hath written a Booke called Psychopanychia, the drift whereof is, to proue, that the soules & spirits of men, sleepe not after death, but liue, either in paine, or rest; out of this booke the Cardinall presumeth, that he shall bee able to proue, that the soules & spirits of wicked men are vtterly extinct, and haue no more beeing. An ill chosen booke, in my opinion, for such a purpose, the whole drift thereof being to demonstrate the contrary of that hee vndertaketh to proue out of it. Yet let vs see how he goeth about to conuince the Author of this booke of that errour, which throughout the same he laboureth to confute. His first demonstration is this. Caluine proueth at large in that booke, that the wicked doe liue for euer, though in paine & torment; therefore he thinketh that to goe downe into hell, is to be vtterly extinct, and to haue no more beeing. Astrange illation, & such as perhaps will not satisfie all: therefore let vs heare another, for he hath store of proofes. Caluine in the same booke, laboureth to proue, that the Spirits of iust men are not extinguished, but that they liue & remaine for euer, because that Christs soule was not extinguished in his death, but remained still, & liued after death. That Christs soule was not extinguished in his death, he strongly demonstrateth, because it was so commended into the handes of his Father, that it could not perish so as the wicked doe, who are swallowed vp of hell & destruction, and yet still remaine and liue for euer. If this demonstration satisfie vs not, what will? Christs soule was so kept by GOD the Father, to whom it was commended, that it could not perish at all, no not so as the wicked doe, who yet are not extinct, but liue for euer in bitter sense of woe & misery, much lesse be extinct, & vtterly cease to be: therefore Christs descension into hell, was an vtter extinction. These must be the Cardinals proofes, if hee will bring any out of that booke to conuince Caluine of that errour, wherewith he chargeth him. But he knoweth right well, that neither these, nor any other that he doth or can produce out of the same, conclude any such thing as he intendeth; and therefore let the Reader know that the Cardinall neuer perswaded himselfe, that either Brentius, or Caluine, or any other Protestant was of that opinion, with which he chargeth them; but that he sought onely to abuse his Reader: and therefore that which in vile hypocrisy he saith of Caluine & Brentius, that De anim •… Christi l. 4. c. 7. they bring in Atheisme, by these their impious & damnable assertions, may be verified of himselfe, and other his consorts, who by their shamelesse lying, & hellish slaundering, wrong both God and men, and bring all Religion into horrible contempt. Wherefore leauing these Hellish & Diuellish slaunderers to Gods most righteous and fearefull Iudgements; touching the descending of Christ into hell, it is true that Saint Epist. 99. Augustine saith, None but an Infidell will deny it: for it is one of the Articles of our Christian Faith. But how we are to vnderstand this his descending, it is not so certaine.

Wherevpon wee shall finde that there are presently three opinions in the Church concerning the same. For some vnderstand by the name of Hell, the place of dead bodies, and the dominion of death holding soule & body asunder, & turning the body forsaken of the soule into rottennesse, & corruption. These do so interprete this Article, as that they vnderstand nothing else by Christs descending into Hell, but his going downe into the chambers of death, and his three dayes continuance in the places of darknesse vnder the dominion thereof. Others vnderstand by the name of Hell, the paines of Hell, and thinke, that Christs descending into Hell, was nothing else but the suffering of hellish pains in his Soule, in the time of his Agonie in the Garden, and in the houre of his death vpon the Crosse. A third sort there are, that vnderstand by the name of Hell, into which (in this Article) Christ is said to haue descended, the receptacles and places appointed for the soules of men after this life sequestred from the presence of God, and not admitted into Heauen. These places the Romanists imagine to be foure. Of which, the first is, the Hell of the damned, wherein wicked Cast-awayes, & impenitent sinners are punished, not onely with the losse of the sight of God, but with sense also of smart & miserie, & that for euer. The second, is by them named Limbus puerorum, where Infants dying vnbaptized, and in the state of originall sin, are supposed to be holden for euer exiled from the presence of God, & his holy ones, yet without all sensible smart or paine. The third (they imagine) is Purgatory, where they thinke the soules of good, but yet imperfect men, are punished till they haue satisfied the wrath of God for sins committed in the time of their life, but not sufficiently repented of, nor satisfied for while they liued. The fourth place imagined by thē, is Limbus patrum, wherein the soules of Abraham, Isaack, and Iacob, and all the just, were holden till the comming of Christ, and kept from the sight and presence of God, yet without all sensible smart or griefe. These being the different mansions of that place, wherein the soules of men are sequestered from the presence of God, comprehended all in a sort, vnder the name of Hell, as our Adversaries fancie: the ordinary opinion of the Schoole-men heretofore was, Thom. Summae part. 3. q. 52. art. 2. that Christs Soule went locally onely into Limbus Patrum, & not into any of the other man •… ons of Hell, neither Limbus puerorum, Purgatory, nor the lowest Hell: but that hee descended into these places vertually onely, in that he made it appeare to all that were in them, that the worke of Redemption was now wrought, by force whereof, they in Purgatory, after full satisfaction should be receiued into Heauen: the rest, as well in Limbus puerorum. as in the lowest Héll, being excluded from all hope of bettering their estate, and left in endlesse misery with the Diuell and his Angels. But De animâ Christi l. 4. c. 15 Bellarmine thinketh, he went personally, and locally into the place of the damned, euen into the lowest Hell. These being the diuerse and different opinions of men, touching the meaning of the Article of Christs descending into Hell, let vs see what is to be resolued touching the same.

It is true, according to the first and second opinion imputed by Bellarmine vnto the Protestants, that Christ dying, after a sort suffered the paines of Hell, and being dead, was vnder the dominion of death three dayes: yet neither of these interpretations seemeth fitly to agree to the Article of our Faith: for that the hellish & bitter sufferings of Christ are sufficiētly expressed, in that he is said to haue suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, to haue beene crucified, and to haue dyed; and his being vnder the dominion of death, in that he is said to haue beene buried. Wherefore the third opinion, which is, that he descended into the places of soules sequestred, & shut out from the presence of God, seemeth more truely to expresse the meaning of this Article, not vnderstanding that he went into Purgatory, Limbus puerorum, or Limbus patrum, but that hee descended into the lowest Hell. For the three former imagined places are no where, and so no part of Hell into which Christ descended.

Of Purgatory, we finde nothing in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the most ancient Fathers, as I haue Book 3. c. 17. elsewhere shewed. Of Limbus puerorum, wee reade in Augustine, but confuted and rejected by him, as an erroneous conceipt of the Pelagians, who imagined a third place betweene Heauen and Hell, and a third or middle estate k August. in Hypognosticon resp. 5. l. 〈◊〉 . de peccator. merit. & remis. c. 28. & serm. 14. de verb. Apost. betweene heauen happinesse, and the miseries of the lowest Hell, wherein men dying in the state of Nature onely, shall continue for euer depriued of the happinesse of seeing God, but no way subjected to sensible smart and griefe. Of this it is, that S. Augustine saith, he hath heard of the right hand, and the left; of Come yee blessed, and Goe yee cursed; of Sheepe & Goates; of the Kingdome of Heauen, & Hell where the Diuell and his Angels are euerlastingly punished: But of a third estate, of a third sort of men, or of a third place, hee hath neuer heard or read, and therefore is verily perswaded there is no such.

Touching Limbus patrum, it is true, that some amongst the Ancient seeme to speake of some such thing: but we cannot perswade our selues that there is any such place, nor that Christ is to bee vnderstood to haue descended thither, when in the Article of the Creede, hee is sayd to haue descended into hell. First, because, as Epist. 99. S. Augustine fitly noteth, we do not find in the Scripture, that the word Hell is euer vsed to expresse any other place, but a place of woe and misery: and therefore so direfull a word, vsed onely to note vnto vs the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, cannot signifie that place where the soules of the just did rest till the comming of Christ, named in the parable or history of the rich man and Lazarus, Abrahams bosome. Neither did Augustine euer learne any other lesson afterwards, as Andrad: defens. fidei Trid: li. 2. fol. 175. some vntruly report that he did. Secondly, because wee cannot conceiue what Christ did benefit the spirits of the just, Abiding in Abrahams bosome, when hee went downe into hell: A quibus (as Saint Vbi supra. Augustine rightly noteth) secundum beatificam Diuinitatis praesentiam, nunqua •… ecessit, sed quemadmodum apud Tartara semper fuit judicante potentiâ, ita in paradiso, & sinu Abrahae beatificante sapientiâ; that is, from whom according to that presence of his Deity that maketh all them happy that enjoy it, he neuer departed, but as hee was euer present in hell by his power, judging & fastning condemnation to the woful inhabitants of that place of vtter darkenes; so he was allwaies in paradise, & in the bosome of Abrahā, as that wisdom of God that filleth al with blessednes, where it vouchsafeth to manifest it self. Christ therefore descēded into Hell, according to the Article of the Creed; into the place of soules sequestred frō the presence of God, into the place of dā ned soules euen into the lowest hell: for there are no soules or spirits of men sequestred from the presence of God, after the separation frō the body, but the soules of wicked Cast-awayes: nor other place of soules so sequestred, but the prisō of the lowest hel.

The end of Christs, going & descending into the hell of the damned, was not as Stromat. li. 6. Clemens Alexandrinus, and •… ome other did thinke, to preach vnto the damned spirits, and to deliuer from thence such as should there beleeue in him, either all or any. For wee must constantly resolue, that none were deliuered out of hell by Christs descending, nor none there conuerted by his preaching, but that his descending was onely to fasten condemnation to the Diuell and his Angels, to triumph ouer the principalities of darkenesse, to secure vs from being surprized by them, and to preuent our comming thither, not to fetch backe any that were there already. The places that are brought to proue that Christ preached in Hell, and sought the deliuerance either of all, or at the least of some of them he found there, are specially two. The first is that of the Apostle S. Peter: where he sayth: 1. Pet. 4. 6: The Gospell was preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but liue according to God in the Spirit. Here we see the Apostle speaketh of preaching vnto the dead; but he is to be vnderstood to speake of preaching to the dead, Andrad. defens. •… d. Trident. l. 2. p. 173. that is, to such as were dead when he wrote, but not when the Gospell was preached vnto them: as wee say Christ shall judge the quicke and dead, not as if any should be iudged being dead, but because many of them that shall be judged, are then deade when wee speake of them, though they shall not be, when they shall come into judgment: Or otherwise, that he speaketh of such as were dead in sinne, as some enterpret his words. The second place is that of the same Apostle, where he sayth, that 1. Pet. 3. 19. 20. Christ in spirit went, and preached to the spirits in prison, sometimes r Lyra & Glossa ordinaria in hunc locum. disobedient in the dayes of Noe. But as Saint Epist. 99. Augustine fitly noteth, this preaching of Christ in spirit mentioned by the Apostle, was not after his death in his humane Soule, but in the dayes of Noe in his eternall Spirit, & Deity. And as Defens. fid. Trident. li. 2. p. 172. Andradius rightly obserueth, they that he preached vnto, are named spirits in prison, because they were spirits in prison, when Peter wrote of them, not when Christ preached to them: though, if they should be vnderstood to be named Spirits in prison, as being such when Christ preached vnto them, yet we might rightly conceiue as Saint Augustine doth, that he preached to the Soules and Spirits of Men shut vp in the prison house of their sinfull bodies, and the darke dungeons of ignorance, and sin, and not in the prison of hell.

Thus then our Diuines deny the descending of Christ into Purgatory, Limbus puerorum, and Limbus patrum, perswading themselues that there are no such places. But his descending into the Hell of the damned they all acknowledge, though not to deliuer men thence, yet to fasten condemnation to them that are there, to bind Sathan the Prince of darkenesse, that hee may not prevaile against them that beleeue in Christ: and to keepe them from sinking downe into that deuouring pi •… into which he went, and out of which hee soe triumphantly returned. Onely this difference may seeme to be amongst them, that some of them thinke he went personally and locally, others onely vertually, in power and operation: Which diuersity of opinions is likewise amongst the Papists; Bellarmine, and some other in our time teaching, that hee went locally into the lowest Hell: and the Schoole-men, that he went not locally into the lowest Hell, but vertually onely in the manifestation of his vertue, and power, and into Limbus Patrum locally and personally: soe that all the controuersie betweene them and vs, standeth in two points: The descending of Christ into Limbus Patrum, and the suffering of Hellish paines. For whereas Cardinall De animâ Christi l. 4. cap. 10. Bellarmine laboureth to proue a locall Hell he busieth himselfe in vaine, no man denying it: But, sayth he, Beza, and others do say, the words vsed in the Hebrew and Greeke Sheol, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doe alwaies signifie the Graue in holy Scripture, and not Hell, whence it may seeme to follow, that there is no other Hell then the Graue: and soe consequently, noe locall Hell for damned soules. Surely this is a most vnjust, and vntrue imputation. For Beza, and the other learned Diuines he speaketh of, do not affirme, that Sheol and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doe precisely and alwayes in holy Scripture signifie the graue, but as De arcano sermone c. 21. Arias Montanus, Defens. fidei Trident. l. 〈◊〉 . fol. 174. Andradius, and sundry other excellently learned amongst our aduersaries do, that Sheol, which the Septuagint translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth not precisely, and immediatly signifie the place of damned soules, but in an indifferencie, and generality of signification, noteth out vnto vs the receptacles of the dead: And that, seeing there are two parts that are sundered one from another in them that are dead, there are likewise two kinds of receptacles of death, or dwelling places for them on whom death hath her full force: the one prouided for their bodies putrifying, and rotting, and the other for their soules tormented euerlastingly. Soe that, when these words, thus indifferently signifying either of these receptacles of death, do note out vnto vs the one, or the other of these two places, either the graue for the body, or hell for the soule: cannot be gathered out of the words themselues, but the circumstances of those places of Scripture where they are vsed. In like sort they say, that the word Nephesh translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and anima, doth not alwaies signifie the spirituall substance of man that is immortall, but the whole person, the life, yea, and some times that which hath beene aliue, though now dead, euen a dead carcasse: according as wee reade in Leuiticus, where God pronounceth, that whosoever toucheth Leuit. 21. 2. Numb. 19. 11. Nephesh, that is, a deade corpes, shall be vncleane. And in this sense it is, that Version. Interlinear. in Bibi •… lijs Regijs. Arias Montanus translateth not that place in the Psal. 16. 11. Psalme, Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, that is, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hell, but, Non derelinques animam meam in sepulchro, that is, Thou shalt not leaue my Soule, Life, or Person, or that Body that sometimes was aliue, in the Graue. For it it cannot be vnderstood, that the reasonable soule, or immortall Spirit of Christ, was euer in the graue, either to be deliuered thence, or left there. If it be sayd, that the Greeke and Latine words vsed by the Translators, signifie more precisely hell, and the reasonable Soule or Spirit, then those Hebrew words Sheol and Nephesh doe: we answere, that whatsoeuer their vse and signification be in prophane Authors, yet they must be enlarged in the Scriptures, to signifie all that which the Hebrew words doe, that so the translation may be true and full. De anima Christi, l. 4. cap. 10. Bellarmine, to confute this explication; and construction of the Hebrew words made by Beza, and the rest, vrgeth that the Septuagint neuer translateth Sheol by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which properly signifies the graue, but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that therefore Sheol doth not properly signifie the Graue. Hereunto we answere, that the word of it selfe being indifferent to signifie any receptacles of the dead, whether of their bodies or soules, must not be translated by a word precisely noting the graue, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth: and that therefore it is not to be marvailed at, that the Septuagint neuer translate the Hebrew word by this Greeke word of a narrower compasse, & straiter significatiō. Secondly we say, that seeing Sheol, when (by the circumstances of the places where it is vsed) it is restrained to signifie onely the place of dead bodies, yet doth not precisely note that fitting receptacle provided for them to be laide in, as in their beds of rest, by the liuing, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth, but any other receptacle what •… er, euen of such as want that honourable kind of buriall, whether they be devoured by wilde beasts, swallowed vp of the Sea, or receiued into any other place of stay and abode, till the time of the generall resurrection, the Translators vsed not the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of too narrow compasse & straight signification, but the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enlarged by them to expresse all that the Hebrew word importeth: & in this sense Gen. 37. 35. Iacob said, he would go down mourning into Sheol, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to his son, not into a place of soules sequestred from God, or into hell, sor he neuer thought his sonne to bee gone thither, nor into the graue properly so named, for he thought his son had bin devoured of a wilde beast; but into the receptacles of the dead, and into the chambers of death, wherein there are many, & very different mansions. The words of this holy Patriarch, professing that he would goe down mourning to his son into Sheol, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & not obseruing of this generalitie of signification of the word Sheol, but restraining it to note only the receptacles of the damned spirits, gaue occasion to some for to think, that the soules of the Iust were in some part of Hell, or at least in some invisible place farre frō Heauen, & within the confines of Hell, till the resurrection of Christ, if not till the generall resurrection, & his teturne, to judge both the quick & dead, as Cont. haeres. l. 5 •… . in fine. Irenaeus, De anim. c. 32 Tertullian, & others imagined. But howsoeuer the Greek or Latine words may seeme to bee restrained, to note only the places of damned spirits, yet it is plaine and euident, that the Hebrew word Sheol signifieth any devouring gulfe or pit, swallowing vp the dead, in that Num. 16. 33 Kore, Dathan, & A •… iram, with their wiues, children, cattell, tents, & all that euer they had, went down into Sheol, which cannot be vnderstood to be precisely the place of the damned spirits, vnlesse we will imagine, that sheepe, oxen, & tents may finde any place amongst the damned spirits.

The reason why our Diuines doe so much vrge the generality of the signification of this word, and will not suffer it to be restrained to signifie onely the place of damned spirits, is, because the proprietie of the word admitteth no restraint, and there are many things in Scripture said to goe down into Sheol, or to be in Sheol, that cannot bee vnderstood to haue gone into Hell, or to be in Hell; & not for that they deny Christs descending into the Hell of the damned: for there is no Protestant but confe •… seth that Christ did virtually descend into Hell, and many thinke he descended locally, and personally; which difference of opinions is also amongst the Papists. For In 3 sent. dist. 22. q. 3. Durandus thinketh that Christ descended into no part of hell personally, or locally, but virtually onely. Thom. Summae 3. part. 〈◊〉 . 52. art. 2. The rest of the Schoolemen for the most part suppose, that hee descended locally into that part of Hell which they call Limbus Patrum, but into the Hell of the damned, and the other infernall Mansions vertually onely. But De anima Christi l. 4. c. 16 Bellarmine thinketh hee went locally into the lowest Hell, or Hell of the damned, mooued so to thinke, as hee saith, by the authoritie of the Fathers, that seeme to haue beene of that opinion. So that, as I saide before, the onely difference betweene the Romanistes, and our Diuines about the descending of CHRIST into Hell, is, touching the suffering of Hellish paines, (whereof I haue spoken at large before, clearing the opinions of our Diuines in such sort, as I thinke our Adversaries will not much resist against the same so vnderstood, as I haue shewed they must bee) and touching Limbus Patrum. Wherefore let vs proceede to take a view of the proofes they bring for confirmation of their Limbus.

The first place that Bellarmine bringeth for confirmation thereof, is that in Genesis, where Iacob saith, Gen. 37. 35. I will descend or goe downe mourning to my Sonne into Sheol. See, saith De anima Christi l. 4. c. 11 Bellarmine, Iacob was a godly man, and so was Ioseph, and yet neither of them went vp into Heauen, but both descended into Hell. That they descended into Sheol, that is, into the chambers of death, and receptacles of dead bodies, we make no question; but that they went into the Hell of the damned, or into any region of darknesse neare vnto it, cannot bee proued; howsoeuer some amongst the Auncient, deceiued by the Greeke & Latine words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Infernus, vsed by the Translatours to expresse the force of the Hebrew word Sheol, haue so thought. The second proofe that he bringeth is this. Abraham in the Gospell telleth the rich man in Hell, that between theē there is Luk. 16. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth such a saeparation as is by the renting of the earth, & diuiding of one part thereof from another; therefore there is no solide thing betweene them, and consequently, they were all in the same deuouring gulfe or pitte. But this surely is a strange kinde of proofe: for his owne friends, and followers vnderstand by this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the immoueable decree of God, who will neuer suffer the one to passe to the other, and not litterally such a void, empty, & gaping distance, as the word doth properly signifie. Yea In eum locum Maldonatus is so farre from being perswaded by the bare signification of this one word, that Abraham & Lazarus were in the same deuouring gulfe with the rich man, that he saith, the place Abraham speaketh of, betweene which & Hell there is so great a distance, is heauen. Wherevnto Augustine seemeth in part to consent, who Epist. 99. pronounceth that he could neuer find, that Abrahams bosome, wherein Lazarus rested, was any part of hell. Wherefore it is absurd to imagine vpon the bare & onely signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that Abraham, & the rich man in Hell, were in the same pit, diuided only by an empty gulfe between them; seing Tertullian a very ancient writer, that knew the force of this word, as wel as Bellarmine, affirmeth, notwithstanding any thing that may be inferred from thence, r Aduersus Marcionem, l. 4 that Abrahams bosome is on high, far aboue those infernall dwellings of the damned. Wherevnto that in the Proverbs agreeth, Pro. 15. 24. The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoide from Hell beneath.

The next place that the Iesuite bringeth to proue Limbus, is that of 1 Sam. 28. Samuel, whō the Pythonisse raised, when Saul consulted her, being destitute of other means of direction. But this place of all other maketh least to the purpose, it being very doubtfull, whether it were true Samuel that appeared, or Sathan taking vnto him a body, and comming forth in the likenesse of Samuel. But let vs suppose it was true Samuel: could not his Soule returne from some other place as well as out of Limbus? No doubt it might: & that which Bellarmine hath, that the Soule of Samuel appearing vnto Saul, seemed to come out of the earth, and consequently out of Limbus, is a very silly conceipt; for what eye could see & discerne Samuels Soule? But, saith he, Samuel appearing told Saul a wicked & godlesse man, that he should be with him very shortly: therefore hee was in some region of Hell, & not in Heauen, seeing this wicked King could not goe to him into heaven. Wee need not seeke far for answere to this obiection; for the ordinarie In hunc locum. Glosse doth excellently answere it. saying, that if these were not the words of a lying Spirit, they may be vnderstood in respect of the common condition of death, not in respect of the same place, there being so great a distance betweene them, & so surely setled & established.

Touching this appearing Samuel, I find great difference of opinions amongst Divines: some thinking it was true Samuel the Man of God; others, a lying Spirit in his likenesse. Lyra in his annotations vpon the 1. of Kings, Chapter 28, putteth downe the reasons brought on both sides; and first, that it was the true Samuel, hee sheweth that these reasons are commonly brought. First, because the Scripture speaketh of him, as of his very person, not of any counterfeit likenes of him, calling him not once, but often, by the name of Samuel. Secondly, for that it had bin a great dishonour & irreuerence offered to Samuel, if so often the Diuell should haue beene called by his name in holy Scripture. Lastly, for that it is said in Ecclesiasticus, in the praise of Samuel the Prophet of God, that Ecclus. 46. 20. he prophesied after his death, that he afterwards slept againe, and that he made known to King Saul his end, & the ouerthrow of his armies, which prediction is not to bee imputed to a lying Spirit, seeing hee so certainely foretold what was to come to passe. On the other side, he produceth these proofes. First the Glosse vpon the 29 of Esay sayth, the Pythonisse did not raise Samuel, but euocated & called out the Diuell in his likenesse. Secondly, it is not likely, that God, who would not answere Saul by liuing Prophets, would send any from the dead to aduise or direct him. Thirdly, he that appeared vnto Saul sayd vnto him, To morrow thou shalt be with me; but Saul as a wicked man was to be in Hell the place of torments: therefore he that appeared was so. Fourthly he that appeared suffered Saul to worship him, which true Samuel would not haue done, seeing God onely is to be worshipped. Fiftly, if it were true Samuel that appeared; either hee was raised by diuine power, or by the power of magicall incantations: if by diuine power, God should very much haue fauoured magicall arts, if at the inuocation of this Pythonisse hee had wrought such a miracle: if by the power of Magicke, then was he raised by the Diuell: and that either with his consent, and then he had done euill, which he could not doe: or without his consent, which could not be, seeing the Diuell hath no power to force the Saints of God after their death, and departure hence. Lastly, he alleageth the authority of Ad Simplicianum. Augustine, who bringing the reasons on both sides, in the end inclineth rather to this later opinion: and that in the Part. 2. causa, 26. quaest. 5. ca. Nec mirum. Decrees, Cap. Nec mirum &c. adding that if that decree taken out of Augustine bee the decree of the Church, noe man may thinke otherwise: but if it be not (as he thinketh it is not, because Augustine, out of whom it was taken, disputeth the matter doubtfully, and many of the Diuines since the compiling of that decree, are of another opinion, which they ought not to be, if it were the decree of the Church) he rather thinketh it was true Samuel that appeared, then any counterfeit in his likenesse. If any man desire to see the different opinions of the Fathers touching this point, let him reade Tertullian in his booke de Animâ, the 33, Chapter, & the annotations vpon the same place of Tertullian. But howsoeuer, whether it were true Samuel that appeared vnto Saul, or a counterfeit in his likenesse, I hope it is cleare and euident out of that which hath beene sayd, that this apparition no way proueth the imagined Limbus of the Papistes.

There remaine yet two other places of Scripture to be examined, that are brought for confirmation of the same, but yealding as litle proofe as this. The one is in the prophesies of Zacharie, the other in the Epistle of S. Peter. The words in the former place according to the Vulgar translation are these: Zach. 9. 11. Thou in the blood of thy testament, hast deliuered thy prisoners out of the Lake wherein there is no water. But in the Originall the words are otherwise, and In versione interlineari, Arias Montanus translateth the place otherwise in this sort, And thou, to wit, Ierusalem, in the blood of thy testament, that is, sprinkled with the blood •… f thy testament, reioyce and be glad; I haue dismissed thy prisoners, out of the lake wherein there is no water. So that these words, Thou in the blood of thy testament, are not appliable vnto Christ, but to Hierusalem; and the other touching the dismissing of the prisoners out of the lake wherein is no water, vnto God the Father, who speaketh in this place to Hierusalē, cōcerning Christ her King, & cōforteth her, saying: Rejoyce, o Daughter of Sion: be glad, ô Daughter of Hierusalem; for behold, thy King commeth vnto thee meeke, & riding on an Asse vsed to the yoke, and the fole of an Asse. I will destroy the Charriot frō Ephraim, and the Horse from Hierusalem: He shall destroy the bowes of the fighters, and the multitude, and publish peace to the nations. He shall rule from Sea to Sea, and from the riuer to the end of the Land; And thou, to wit, Hierusalem, in the blood of thy testament, that is, sprinkled with the blood of thy testament, reioyce and be glad. I haue dismissed thy Prisoners out of the lake wherein there is no water. Thus wee see this place according to the Originall verity and the translation of Arias Montanus, maketh nothing for the confirmation of that, for proofe whereof it is brought. Yea, though we should follow the Vulgar Translation, and take the words to be spoken by Almighty God to Christ his Sonne, yet could not our aduersaries proue Limbus out of this place. For the Author of the Glosse, and many other, following the Vulgar Translation, vnderstand these words of the deliuerance of the people of God, out of the captiuity of Babylon, which was as a deepe pit, hauing in it no water but mire, wherein their feete stucke fast. And In eum locum. Hierome himselfe, though he vnderstand the words of Christs descending into hel, yet mentioneth the other interpretation also in the same place, not much disliking it. Neither doth his interpretation of Christs descending into Hell proue Limbus. For hee speaketh of the prison of Hell, where is no mercie, & calleth it a cruell, or fearefull Hell; & not of Limbus patrum, or Abrahams bosome. Bellarmine cunningly after his manner, to discredite our interpretation of deliuerance out of Babylonicall captivitie, maketh, as if Caluine onely had expounded the wordes of the holy Prophet in that sort; whereas yet many excellent Diuines, long before Caluine was borne, interpreted them in the very same sort, as we doe. But if the challenge of novelty faile, he betaketh himselfe to another of absurditie, & improbabilitie, pronouncing that our Interpretation hath no probabilitie: first, because in the wordes immediatly going before, there is a prophesie concerning Christ, vttered vnto Hierusalem in these words: Reioyce O daughter of Sion, for behold thy King commeth, &c. Which the Evangelists expound of Christs comming into Hierusalem: and then secondly, an Apostrophe to Christ in the words questioned. But first heerein he is deceiued: for the speech of Almighty God to his Church, begun in the former words, is still continued in these, shewing what fauours for Christs fake he had, & still meant to bestow on her: whereas according to the Translation they follow, there is first a speech directed to the Church concerning Christ, then an Apostrophe to Christ, and then thirdly, a returne unto the Church againe. Secondly, if that were graunted, which he vrgeth touching the supposed Apostrophe, it would not proue that there is no probabilitie in our Interpretation. For this consequence will neuer be made good in the Schooles: Christ is prophesied of in the words immediatly going before, & in these words God speaketh vnto him by way of Apostrophe; therefore they cannot be vnderstood of deliuerance out of Babylonicall captivitie; seeing it is certaine, that Christ deliuered the Israelites out of all the miseries, out of which they escaped. But, saith Bellarmine, if wee admit this Interpretation, in what bloud of the couenant may wee vnderstand the Iewes to haue beene deliuered out of Babylonicall captivitie? Surely, this question is soone answered. For their deliuerance out of the hands of their enemies, and all other benefites, were bestowed on them by vertue of the couenant betweene God and them, which was to be established in the bloud of Christ; in figure whereof, all holy things among the Iewes were sprinkled with bloud, as the Booke of the Covenant, the Altar, the Sanctuary, and People.

Wherefore seeing this place maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish errour, touching Limbus, let vs come to the last place brought for proofe thereof, which is that of S. Peter concerning 1 Pet. 1. •… 9. 20. Christs going in spirit, and preaching to the spirits in prison: & see, whether from thence it may be proued any better. Epist. 99. S. Augustine vnderstandeth the words of the Apostle, as I noted before, of Christs preaching in the dayes of Noe, in his eternall Spirit of Deity, & not of preaching in Hell, in his humane Soule after death: but this interpretation of S. Augustine, first Bellarmine rejecteth as contrarie to the Fathers: & secondly, endeauoureth to improue it by weakening the reasons brought to confirme it, and by opposing certaine reasons against it. The first of the Fathers that he alledgeth, is Stromat. l. 6. Clemens Alexandrinus, who indeede vnderstandeth the words of S. Peter, not as S. Augustine doth, but of Christ preaching in Hell after his death in his humane Soule; but, not conceiuing to what purpose preaching should serue in Hell, if there were not intended a conversion & sauing of some there, he runneth into a most grosse & dangerous error, cōdemned & rejected as well by Bellarm. & his companions, as by vs: so that his authority, as contrary to Augustines interpretation, needed not to haue beene alledged, nor would not haue beene, if Bellarmine had meant sincerely. For Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth, as hee well knoweth, that so many Infidels as beleeued in Christ, and listened to the wordes of his preaching when hee came into Hell, were deliuered thence, and made partakers of euerlasting saluation: against which errour, himselfe being Iudge, Saint Augustine not without good cause disputeth in his Epistle to Euodius. The second auncient Writer that hee produceth for proofe of Christs preaching in Hell after his death, is Ep. ad Epictetum. Athanasius, who indeed doth expound the wordes of Peter, of Christs going in Soule to preach in Hell after his death; but no way expresseth in what sort, to whom, to what purpose, or with what successe he preached. Haeresi. 77. Epiphanius, whom he produceth in the third place, doth not so interprete the words of Peter himselfe; but onely vpon another occasion citeth the epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus, wherein hee doth so interprete them. So that the authority of Epiphanius might haue beene spared. Ruffinus in his explication of the Creede, interpreteth the words of Peter, as Athanasius doth. Lib de recta fide ad The •… dosium. & lib 12. in Ioannem cap. 36. Cyrill in the place cited by Bellarmine, speaketh of Christs preaching to the spirits in Hell, but saith nothing in particular of this place of Peter. In cap. 10. ad Romanos. S. Ambrose doth not speake of this place, but that other of preaching the Gospell to the dead. So that there are no moe Ancient writers cited by Bellarmine, that doe precisely interprete this place of Peter of Christs preaching in Hell in his humane soule after death, but onely Clemens, Athanasius, Ruffinus, and Oecumenius. On the other side we haue S. Augustine, Beda, the authors of the Ordinarie and Interlincall Glosses, Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, and other, interpreting the words as wee doe: so that our Aduersaries haue no great aduantage in respect of the number of Interpreters: and yet if they had, it would not helpe them for confirmation of their supposed Limbus, seing some of the Fathers cited by him, as namely Clemens Alexandrinus, speake directly of preaching in the lowest Hell, for the conuersion of Infidels; which they dislike as much as wee. Wherefore let vs proceede to examine the reasons that are brought either of the one side, or the other, to confirme their seuerall interpretations of these words; and let vs see how Bellarmine weakneth the reasons brought by S. Augustine, and improueth his interpretation by reasons brought against it. The first reason whereby S. Augustine confirmeth his interpretation, is, for that mortification in the flesh, and viuification in the Spirit mentioned by the Apostle, cannot be vnderstood of the body & Soule, of Christ, as they that follow the other interpretation doe vnderstand them, seeing Christ neuer dying in soule, could not be said to be quickned in it. Besides that, the very phrase of the Scripture opposing flesh and Spirit in Christ, doth euer import the infirmity of his humane nature, and the power of his Deitie: and in other men, that part that is renued by the sanctification of the Spirit, and that which is not yet so renued. Against the former part of this reason of S. Augustine, Bellarmine opposeth himselfe, saying that it is not good: seeing a thing may be sayd to be quickned that was neuer dead, if it be preserued from dying, & kept aliue. But he should know, that onely those thinges may be said to be quickned, in that they were preserued from dying, which otherwise, if they had not beene so preserued, might haue beene killed, or dyed of themselues. Which cannot be verified of the Soule of Christ, that could neither die of it selfe, nor be killed by any other; and therefore the Soule of Christ cannot be said to bee quickned in this sense. The place in the seauenth of the Acts, brought by Bellarmine to proue, that those things may bee said to bee quickned that were neuer dead, besides that it is nothing to the purpose, is strangely wrested. For S. Stephen in that place speaketh nothing of viuification or quickning in that sense we now speake of it, but of multiplying, & increasing; saying, that Act. 7. 18. After the death of Ioseph, there rose vp another King in Egypt, that knew not Ioseph, who euill intreated our Fathers, and made them cast out their infants, and new borne children, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; that is, that they should not increase, & multiplie: and therefore Bellarmine should not in reason so haue pressed the Latine word of viuification vsed by the Vulgar translatour, seeing the Originall importeth no such thing as he endeauoureth to proue. But to take away all doubt touch •… ng the words of Peter; there is a decree of the Sess. 4. Decret. de editione & vsu sacrorum Libr •… rum. Tridentine Councell, that the Romanists in all their disputations, readings, and sermons, shall vse the Vulgar translation, and no way dare to refuse the authority of it vnder any pretence whatsoeuer. Now in the ordinarie readings of the Vulgar Translation, the words of the Apostle doe lie in this sort; Christ dyed for sinners, the iust for the vniust, that hee might offer vs to God; mortified in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit, in which Spirit he went and preached, &c. So that according to this reading, the Apostle speaketh not of Christs quickening but of our quickning in the Spirit, which cannot be vnderstood of the humane Soule of Christ, but of the Spirit of sanctification: whence it followeth, that Christ going to preach in that Spirit, by the force whereof we are quickned, & made aliue from the death of sin, went in his eternall spirit of Deity, & not in his humane Soule. But, saith Bellarmine, it cannot be sayd properly, but Metaphorically onely, that Christ did goe in his eternall Spirit of Deitie to preach to the old world. Suppose it to be so: Is it so strange a thing, that such locall motions should be Metaphorically attributed vnto God, that we should therevpon deny the going of Christ to preach, to haue beene in his eternall Spirit of Deitie? Doe wee not often reade in Scripture of Gods comming downe to see what thinges are done on earth? But it is hard to vnderstand by Spirits in prison, the soules of men shut vp in the prisons of their bodies, and in the darke dungeons of ignorance and impiety, as Augustine doth, and therefore we must not follow his interpretation. Surely, it is true that it is something hard to vnderstand these words of the Apostle, as S. Augustine doth, and therefore we rather follow the interpretation of Defens. fidei Trident. lib. 2. fol. 172. Andradius before mentioned, who expoundeth the words of the Apostle so as Augustine doth, saue that he thinketh that they to whom Christ preached in his eternall Spirit in the daies of Noe, are named spirits in prison, not for that they were so when hee preached to them, but when Peter wrote of them. Thus wee see, the Cardinall hath not yet greatly weakned any of Augustines reasons. One reason more S. Augustine hath, so forcible and strong, to confirme the interpretation hee followeth, that I thinke the Iesuite will hardly be able to say much against it: If the Apostle (saith S. Augustine) had meant to describe the descending of Christ in his humane soule to deliuer the Patriarches, hee would not haue expressed his meaning by saying, Hee went and preached to the spirits in prison sometimes disobedient in the daies of Noe. For, to say, a •… Bellarmine doth, that Christ went and preached onely to the good spirits in Limbus, but that the Apostle describing the same, nameth the disobedient in the dayes of Noe, lest it might bee thought that they all perished, is friuolous; seeing there was no reason, why the Apostle in describing the descending of Christ into Limbus, should bee so carefull to let all men know, that they did not all perish that contemned the preaching of Noe: and besides, if the Apostle had meant any such thing, hee would haue added, that howsoeuer these men were disobedient for a time, yet they did afterwards repent, obeying the voyce of God speaking by the mouth of Noe. If any man shall aske, as Bellarmine doth, why Peter should mention Christs preaching in his eternall Spirit to them in the dayes of Noe, more then to them in the dayes of Abraham, or Moses: the answere is easie: for therefore doth hee mention them, rather then any other, because they that liued before the floud, were men of another world, & are named the old world, & it was the greatest mutation of the world that euer was before or since, that followed vpon the refusall of Christs preaching by the mouth of Noe, who was the same then, that he is now: the same yesterday, & to day, & for euer.

That which the Cardinall hath in the conclusion, that the Fathers generally beleeued that Christ descended into Hell, wee thinke to be most true: but that the soules of all the iust were in Hell, till the resurrection of Christ, and then deliuered thence, is not the opinion of the Fathers. For Loco citato. Augustine clearly denieth that the spirits of the just, dying before Christ, were in Hell, till the comming of Christ; & touching the rest of them, some thought, that the Spirits of the just are & shall bee in a place of sequestration, separate from the presence of God, till the generall resurrection: so that according to their opinion, Christ by descending into Hell did not deliuer them from thence: of which opinion wee finde Irenaeus, Tertullian, & some others to haue beene. Some there were that thought, that Christ deliuered out of the lowest Hell, such as beleeued in him when hee came thither: and some, that hee went not to Hell to deliuer any from thence, but to preserue & keepe such from going thither, as otherwise should haue gone thither, if by vertue of his descending they had not beene preserued from falling into that hideous & deuouring gulfe. So that, though it were euer most certainly resolued, that Christ descended into Hell, to triumph ouer the prince of darkenesse, to fasten condemnation to the Diuell and his Angells, and to preserue all beleeuers, and faithfull ones, from falling into the pit of destruction; yet, as it appeareth by Augustines Epistle to Euodius; there was no certaine resolution amongst the Ancient, whether Christ deliuered any, or all: or whom he deliuered, if any, when he went into Hell.

CHAP. 20.

Of the Merite of Christ: of his not meriting for himselfe, and his meriting for vs.

HAuing spoken sufficiently of the sufferings of Christ, and his descending into Hell, it remaineth that in the next place wee come to speake of his merite; where we must obserue three things. First, whether he might or did merite. Secondly, whether he merited for himselfe. Thirdly, how, and in what sort he merited for vs.

The first of these questions is moued, because Christ being in termino, and comprehensor, that is, in possession of all desired blessednes, and seeing God face to face, euen while he liued heere, may seeme to haue beene extra statum merendi, that is, in such a state and condition, wherein there is no place for merite, and so not to haue merited: to merit being proper to them, that are viatores, that is, men journeying towardes the possession of Heauen-happines not yet attained. Wherefore, for the clearing of this point the Diuines doe note, Scotus in 〈◊〉 Sent. dist. 18. quaest. unica. that Christ in his humane nature, in the dayes of his flesh, was both Viator, and Comprehensor; in termino, and extra terminum: that is, both a man journeying toward heauen-happinesse, & one that had already attained it, being already come to the vttermost bound of all his desires, and yet in a sort not being come vnto it, because, howsoeuer he was perfectly joyned with God affectione iustitiae, that is, with that affection that yeeldeth vnto God the praise, honour, and loue that is due vnto him, and saw him face to face with cleare and perfect vision: yet hee was not so fully joyned to him, as he is to be enjoyed affectione commodi, that is, with that affection that seeketh after pleasing delight: but that hee suffered many bitter, grieuous, and vnpleasant things, fasting, watching, weeping & wearying himselfe, in all which respects being extra terminū, that is, not yet come to the vttermost extent & bound of that is desired, he was in state of meriting. But, because the enduring of these bitter, grieuous, & afflictiue euils, may seem rather to pertain to the nature of satisfactiō, then merit, therfore they adde, that howsoeuer in respect of the perfectiō of his Diuine & Heauenly vertues, he were in termino, that is, come to the vttermost bound & extent thereof, yet in the expressing of the actions of thē, he fitted himself to the conditiō of men here below, as appeared in the actiōs of his loue & obediēce, in that he gaue himself for the pacifying of his Fathers wrath, the satisfying of his Iustice, & the promeriting of our good: & besides, he had the actiōs of many vertues that are proper to the conversation of this world: & whereof there is no vse in Heauen, or in Heauen-happinesse, but in the way and journey towardes Heauen: as Temperance, Sobriety, Fortitude, Patience, and the Obseruation of the ceremoniall and judiciall Law: in which respect he may very properly be said, to haue been in a state of meriting, and to haue merited.

Wherefore presupposing that Christ might and did merite, let vs see whether hee merited any thing for himselfe. The Bellarm. de Christo Mediatore l. 5. c. 9 Papists impute, I know not what impiety to Caluine, because he saith, Christ merited not for himselfe, but for vs onely, & vrge against him that saying of the Apostle, when he saith, that Philip. 2. 8. Christ humbled himselfe, & was made obedient vnto death, euen the death of the Crosse, and that therefore God exalted him, and gaue him a name aboue euery name. Wherefore let vs take a view of that they teach touching this point, that so wee may the better discerne whether Caluine be justly blamed by them, or not. The Schoolemen generally agree, that Christ neither did, nor could merite the grace of personall vnion, the habituall perfections of his humane Soule, or the vision of God, because hee possessed all these from the beginning, & it would haue beene a matter of more imperfection to haue wanted any of them at the first, then of perfection to haue gotten them by merite afterwards: Yet the Lib. 3. dist. 18. Master of Sentences, & others resolue, that hee did procure vnto himselfe by his merite, the impassibility and glorification of his Body. But Scotus in 3 dist. 18. Scotus very acutely and wittily objecteth against them that so think, that Christ cannot be sayd to haue merited the impassibility & glorification of his body, because they would haue beene found in it, from the very first instant of the vnion, of the Natures of God and Man in him, by vertue of that union, before any act of his, had not the naturall consequence and flowing of them from that vnion, beene stayed and hindered by speciall dispensation, for the working of our saluation: and therefore he sayth, that if we will defend the Ma: ster of Sentences from errour in this point, we must soe construe his words, as that Christ did not directly merit glorification and impassibility, but onely the remouing of that miraculous stay of the naturall redundance of glory from his Soule, filled with the happy vision of his Deitie, into his body. But surely this fauourable construction will not helpe the matter, for seeing the miraculous stay of the redundance of glory from the Soule of Christ into his body, was of it selfe to cease, when that should be performed, for the effecting whereof such stay was made, he could no more merit such remoue of stay then the glory it selfe, that in respect of the grace of personall vnion, would as naturally haue beene communiated to his body, as it was in his Soule, had not God for speciall purpose stayed and hindred such redundance. So that wee shall find, that how soeuer the Papists do presse certaine testimonies of Scripture, as if they would proue out of them, that Christ meritted the name aboue all names, and the fullnesse of all power both in heauen and in earth, which hee could no more merit then to be God; yet in the end they are forced to confesse, (soe great is the truth which will euer preuaile) that he neither meritted the personall vnion of his two natures, the perfection of his habituall graces, the vision of God, nor the glorification of his body, but onely the remouing of that stay and impediment that hindred the flowing of Glory from his soule into his body: & finding, that this stay or hinderance was to cease of it self, so soon as the work of our Redēptiō should be wrought, & consequētly, that he could not merit it, they flie for helpe to a distinctiō of merits, which they make to be of 3 sorts. For Bonauent. in Sent. lib. 3. dist. 18. q. 2. there is, as they say, one kind of merit, that maketh a thing due which was not due before; another, that maketh a thing more due thē it was before; & a 3d that maketh a thing more waies due thē at first it was. The 2 first kinds of merit, they cō fesse, did not agree to Christ, there being nothing that was not due vnto him in as high degree in the beginning, as euer it was afterwards. But they say that he merited in the 3d sort or kind, in that he made those things that were due vnto him as consequents of the personall vnion of his 2 natures, to be due vnto him as a reward of his passion. This truly is a very silly evasiō; seeing that cānot be a reward of a mans labors, that was due to him in as high degree before, as after his work is don. He that labouteth in the field or vineyard of another man, & she that nourisheth a child that is not her owne, trauaile both in hope of reward, but that reward must of necessity be some thing that was not due to them before such trauaile; yea, he that dresseth his owne vine, & she that nourisheth her owne children, looke to the recompense of reward; but that reward is no other thing, but the prosperity and increase of their fields and vineyards, and the grouth of their children, like the Oliue branches round about their their table; which, without such paines and trauaile, they could not looke for. In like sort, a Man may say to his child; this land shall be the reward of thy dutifull behauiour; if he haue power to put it from him, if his behauiour be not dutiefull: but if he haue not, it is ridiculous to promise it as a reward, seeing a reward is euer some good to be gained by our well doing or patient suffering, counteruailing the difficultie in doing, and bitternesse in suffering. It is therefore most absurd, that any thing which is a mans owne, in as ample sort before he begin his worke as after he hath done it, should be the reward of his worke. But some man perhaps will say, that a thing that was due in respect of the habit resting in the mind, may become due in respect of the Act done: and consequently, that that which was due one way, may become more waies due. Surely 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 wee make no question but it may, because it was due to the Habit as to the Roote of such action, when occasion should be offered, & opportunity serue, & not otherwise. But seeing in Christ, the glorification & impassibility of his body was due vnto him as a consequent of personall vnion, and not of any habituall quality, or habit inclining & fitting vnto action, therefore that could not become due to any action of Christ, that was due vnto him in respect of some former thing, as that may bee due to the action of a Man, that was formerly due to the habit that is the roote of such action.

The places of Scripture that are brought to proue that Christ merited for himself, are specially two: for though there be a third, as pregnant as any of the other, in the first to the Hebrewes, where it is said of Christ Heb. 1. 9. Thou hast loued righteousnesse, and hated iniquity: therefore God, euen thy God hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse aboue thy f •… llowes: yet doe they not much stand vpon it, because, if it proue any thing, it proueth that Christ merited the grace of vnction, which they deny, who teach that Christ merited for himselfe. The first of the two places alleaged to proue that Christ merited for himselfe, is in the second to the Hebrewes: where the Apostle saith, Wee see Iesus for the passion of death, crowned with glory and honour. But the h Heb. 2. 9. words, as some thinke, are not so to be read, but to be placed in this sort: Wee see Iesus, who was for a litle while made lower then the Angels, for the passion of death, that is, that he might suffer death, crowned with glory and honour; so expressing the finall cause of his humiliation, and not the meritorious cause of his exaltation. This coniecture is made exceeding probable by those words added by the Apostle, that hee might taste of death: which otherwise haue no coherence with any part of his speech. The second place that they bring, is that of the second to the Philippians: The words are these: Philip: 2. 8. 9. Christ humbled himselfe, and became obedient vnto the death, euen the death of the crosse: Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and giuen him a name aboue every name, &c. This place, as Hugo de S. Victore de Sacram. fidei, lib. 2. part. 1. c. 6. Hugo de Sancto Victore hath fitly noted, importeth, that the humiliation of the Son of God becomming Man, was the cause of the exaltation of the nature of Man, for when he personally assumed the nature of Man, & became Man, Man became God almighty, hauing all power, & a name aboue all names: according to that of Leo, Leo Serm. 12. Diuinae maiestat is exinanitio, seruilis formae in summa prouectio est; that is, The abasing of the Diuine Maiestie, and Person of the Sonne of God, is the high aduancing & exaltation of the forme of a Seruant: and therefore he addeth, that Ex quo Deus coepit esse homo, & homo coepit esse Deus; Deus coepit esse homo subiectus, & homo coepit esse Deus perfectus. Si Deus humiliatus est quantum potuit in homine, homo sublimatus non est quantum potuit in Deo? that is, When God began to be Man, and Man began to be God; God began to be a Man in subiection and humilitie, and Man to be God in the heighth of perfection: For if God were humbled, as much as hee might be, in that he became man; was not Man exalted, as much as he might be, in that hee became God? God was humbled, when first he became Man, In quantum homo, dignitate, in quantum bonus, voluntate: that is, in that a Man, in condition and state, in that a good man, in will & minde: but manifested the same more specially in his passion: Likewise the Man Christ was exalted, when he was borne the Sonne of God, but manifested the same more specially after his resurrection then before. For wee must not thinke, that the Man Christ, did then first receiue, the full, and perfect power of Deitie, when he sayd, Mat. 28. 18. All power is giuen me in heauen and in earth: seeing before the vttering of those words, he commaunded the Diuels, had the Angels to do him seruice, and made the very elements of the world to bow and bend at his pleasure. Wherefore this place is vnaduisedly brought by our Aduersaries, to proue that Christ merited for himselfe, it being most cleare and evident, that the name aboue all names mentioned in this place, which is the name of God Almighty, was giuen to the Sonne of God donatione naturali, that is, by naturall communication, when he was begotten of his Father before all eternity, and to the Man Christ donatione gratuità, that is, by free gift, when God was made man, and Man became God, as the ordinarie Glosse vpon these words fitly obserueth: and so could no more bee merited by the passion of Christ, then it was possible for him to doe any thing whereby to merite to be God. And hereupon Calvin. instit l. 2. c. 17. Caluine rightly asketh (which all the Papists in the world are not able to answere) Quibus meritis assequi potuit homo ut iudex esset mundi, caput Angelorum, atque ut potiretur summo Dei imperio? that is, by what merits could man attaine to bee Iudge of the world, Head of Angels, & to haue the highest authority and power of God? But some man will say, that Christ pronounceth, it was o Luke 24. 26. necessary that he should suffer, and so enter into his glory; and that therefore it seemeth, he could not haue entred into it, vnlesse hee had suffered. Quomodò ergo suam (saith Hugo) si oportuit? & quomodò oportuit, si suam? Si gloria eius fuit, quomodò vt ad illam intraret, pati oportuit? Sed suam propter se; oportuit propter nos: that is, How then was it his glory, if he could not enter into it, vnlesse he suffered? and how was it necessary that hee should suffer to enter into it, if it were his? Surely it was his in respect of himselfe; and it was necessary he should enter into it by suffering, onely in respect of vs. For Christ truly if he had pleased, might haue entred into his glory some other way, & haue receiued it in what sort he would, euen as hee needed neuer to haue wanted it, vnlesse he had pleased: but he would for our sakes by punishment enter into his glory, that dying he might take away the feare of death, & rising againe he might restore vnto vs the hope of glorification: he would not goe any other way, because we could not go any other way: we would, but could not; he could, but would not. Quia sialiter iuisset, pervenisset, sed non subvenisset: that is, because if hee had gone any other way, hee might haue entred in himselfe, but could not haue brought vs in with him.

There is nothing therefore that Christ gained to himselfe by his passion, but that hee was made an example of suffering to all that beleeue in him, & a cause of glorification to all them that suffer with him, that they may bee glorified with him: but what did this profite him? He went before, & wee all follow him: whose good is this? I finde men out of the way, I goe before them to shew them the way, & all follow mee; what doth it profite me? I knew the way, and could haue gone it by my selfe alone: Sed non esset causa pergendi, nisi compassio esset subveniendi: that is, but there were no cause of my going, if the compassionate consideration of such as know not the way, did not moue me by going before them to be a guide vnto thē. Thus then we say, that Christ merited nothing for himself, not because we would detract any thing frō him, for he did things worthy of most ample rewards, if there had beene any thing hee had not already, that might haue been giuen & added to him, or that hee had not already a just claime vnto: but because we admire his perfection, which was so great from the beginning, that nothing could be after added vnto it: and praise his goodnesse that came into this world for our sakes onely, and not for his owne good. Wherefore let vs proceed to see how, and in what sort he merited for vs.

In the merit of Christ, 2 things are to be considered. The worth of those actions & workes of vertue which hee performed: & the dignity of his Diuine & Infinite Person performing them. Touching the former, though the actions of the best men that euer were, done in the state of grace, & proceeding frō the working of Gods Spirit, be not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed, yet we constantly affirme & teach, that the actions of Christ, done in his humane nature, were worthy of that glory: and therefore dare not deny, that Christ merited for vs ex condigno, as some of the Schoolemen doe. But for the better clearing of this point, touching the merite of Christ, wee must obserue, that to merite, simply, absolutely, & properly so named, foure things concurre. For first, he that will merite or deserue any thing at anothers mans hand, must do somthing that the other had no former claime vnto. Secondly, hee must doe something that may be beneficiall & good vnto him, of whom hee desireth to deserue something. Thirdly, he must doe something that may bee beneficiall in as high a degree vnto him, as he looketh to be benefited by him againe. And fourthly, hee must not hurt & wrong him as much one way, as he benefiteth him another: for if he doe so, he loseth all merit of reward.

These being the things required to the nature of Merite, strictly so named, no creature can in this sort merit any thing at Gods hand, seeing there is nothing that any creature can doe which God may not justly claime & challenge as due, in respect of good already done to it; or whereby it may any way benefite or profite him according to that in Iob, that Iob. 35. 7. Our righteousnesse reacheth not vnto God: Yet such is the goodnesse of Almighty God towards his poore creatures, that, as if hee had no claime to their well doings, in respect of benefits already bestowed on them, and, as if they were as good and beneficiall to him, as they are good in them selues seeking in all his workes to communicate, and not to receiue any good, in the day he made them, hee couenanted with them to giue them rewards answerable to the worth of their actions: which gracious condescending of Almighty God to the condition of his creatures presupposed, Adam in the state of his innocencie, and before he fell, might haue meritted and deserued good at Gods hands: but the best men in the world since his fall, are excluded from all possibility of meriting any thing, especially heauen-happinesse, properly of him: first, because they haue lost all that power of well doing, which originally in the state of their creation they had, and canne performe nothing that is good, vnlesse it be giuen vnto them by a newe free gift, for which they shall rather be indebted to God, then any vvay binde him vnto them. Secondly, because they offend him as much one vvay, as they please him another. And thirdly, because there is no equality betweene the good actions of vertue vvhich they performe and do, and the revvards that are layd vp in heauen, neither in totall, perpetuall, and constant doing of that they do, nor in the manner quality and measure thereof, the height of heauen-happinesse incomparably exceeding all other knowledge and desire, according to that of the Apostle: The eye hath not seene, the eare hath not heard, neither hath it entred into the heart of Man, what things God hath prepared for them that loue him. But none of q 1 Cor. 2. 9. these things exclude Christ from meriting in the nature of Man, which he assumed: for he brought the fulnesse of grace with himinto the world, & it was Naturall unto him: He no way offended or displeased God his Father: and there was a perfect equality betweene his actions and the rewards of Heauen, in that he loued God with that kind, degree, and measure of loue, wherewith men loue him in heauen; ardently, without defect; entirely, and totally without distraction; perpetually without intermission; and constantly, without possibility of euer ceasing so to do.

Wherefore let vs passe from the worth and value of those workes of vertue that Christ performed, to the consideration of the dignity of his diuine, and infinite Person performing them. Which dignity and infinity of the Person of Christ, to which nothing could be added, made the things he did to promerite, and to procure good to others, and to infinite other. Paludanus in 3 sent. dist. 18. Christus (sayth a learned Schoole-man) meruit omnibus quantum fuit ex sufficientiâ sui, pro eo quod in ipso fuit gratia: non sicut in singulari homine, sed sicut in capite totius Ecclesiae; propter quod fructus passionis eius redundare potuit in omnia Ecclesiae membra: & quia, vt dicit Damascenus, ratione vnitatis Diuinitatis cum humanitate, Christus operatur ea quae sunt hominis, supra hominē, operatio eius extendebat se ad totam naturam, quod non potest operatio puri hominis. Huius diuersitatis ratio reducenda est non in habitualem aliquam gratiam creatam sed increatam; quod pro multis sufficit finita gratia, haec sufficientia est ex gratiâ infinita & increata; That is, Christ merited for all sufficiently on his part, in that grace was found in him, not as in a particular man, but as in the Head of the whole Church: for which cause the fruit of his passion might redound to all the members of the same Church: and because, (as Damascene sayth) by reason of the vnion of the natures of God and Man in his Person, he doth the workes of a man in a more excellent sort, then any meere man can do, the benefite and force of his working and operation, extended to the whole nature of Man, which the action of a meere man cannot do. The reason of which difference is not to be attributed to any habituall, created grace, but to that which is increate: for that the finite grace that is in Christ, (that is, his vertue, and worke of vertue) is availeable for the good of many, it is from his infinite, and increate Grace.

CHAP. 21.

Of the benefits which wee receiue from Christ.

HAuing spoken of the Satisfaction, and Merit of Christ, it remaineth that we speake of the benefites which we receiue from him: which are all most fully expressed by the name of redemption, which is the freeing of vs from that miserable bondage and captiuity, wherein we were formerly holden by reason of Adams sin. This bondage was twofold; first in respect of sin: and secondly in respect of punishment. In respect of sinne, we were bondmen to Sathan, whose will we did, according to that of the Apostle, His seruants ye are, to whom ye obey. In respect of punishment, we were become bondmen to Almighty God the righteous Iudge of a Rom. 6. 16. the world, who vseth Sathan as an instrument of his wrath, and an Executioner of his dreadfull Iudgments, against such as do offend him and prouoke him to wrath. These being the kinds of captivity and bondage wherein we were holden, it will not be hard to see how we are freed and redeemed from the same. There is no redemption, as the Diuines do note, but either by exchange of prisoners, by force and strong hand, or by paying of a price. Redemption by exchange of prisoners is then, when wee set free those whom we hold as captiues taken from our Enemies, that they may make free such as they hold of ours: and this kind of redemption hath no place in the deliuerance of sinnefull men from sinne and misery: but their deliuerance is onely wrought by strong hand, and paying of a price. For Christ redeemed vs from the bondage of sinne, in that by the force, and working of his grace, making vs dislike it, hate it, repent of it, and leaue it, he violently tooke vs out of Sathans hands, who tyrannically, and vnjustly, had taken possession of vs: but from the bondage of punishment in respect whereof we were become Bondmen to Almighty God, hee redeemed vs not by force and strong hand, but by paying a price, satisfying his justice, and suffering what our sinnes had deserued, that so being pacified towards vs, he migh cease to punishvs, and discharge Sathan, who was but the Executioner of his wrath, from afflicting vs any longer.

In this sort do wee conceiue of the worke of our redemption, wrought for vs by Christ; and therefore it is absurdly and vntruely sayd by Suruey. books 3. chap. 2. Matthew Kellison, in his late published Suruey of the supposed new religion, that we make Christ an absurd Redeemer, for we speake no otherwise of Christ the Redeemer, then we haue learned in the Church and House of God. But for the satisfaction of the Reader, let vs see how he goeth about to conuince vs of such absurdity as hee chargeth vs with. The Protestants, sayth he, do teach (thē which nothing can be more absurd) that Christs passion was our Iustice, Merit, Satisfactiō, that there is no Iustice but Christs, no good workes but his workes, no merit but his merite, no satisfaction but his satisfaction; that there is noe justice or sanctitie inherent in man, nor none necessary; that no Lawes can bind vs, because Christs death was the ransome that freed us from all Lawes, Diuine & Humane. that no sinnes nor euil workes can hurt vs, because Christs Iustice being ours, no sinnes can make vs sinners: that no Hell or Iudgment remaineth for vs whatsoeuer wee doe, because Christs Iustice being ours, sins can neither be imputed to vs in this life, nor punished in the next, and that herein consisteth Christian liberty. A more shamelesse slanderer, and trifling smatterer, I thinke was neuer heard of. For some of these assertions are vndoubted truths, against which no man may oppose himselfe, vnlesse he will be branded with the marke of impiety and blasphemy: as that Christs passion is our justice, merite, and satisfaction: that there is no merite properly soe named, but Christs merite; no propitiatory, and expiatory satisfaction but Christs satisfaction: and the other are nothing else but shamelesse and hellish slaunders, and meere deuices, and fancies of his idle braine, without all ground of truth as that there is no justice nor sanctity inherent in Man, nor none necessary: that good workes are not necessary: that noe lawes canne binde vs: that noe sinnes nor euill workes canne hurt vs: and that no hell nor judgment remaineth for vs whatsoeuer wee doe. For we most constantly affirme and teach, that there is both justice and sanctity inherent in Man, though not so perfect, as that hee may safely trust vnto it, & desire to bee judged according to the perfection of it in the day of Tryall. Likewise wee teach, that good workes are in such sort necessary to saluation, that without Holinesse, & a desire at the least to performe the workes of sanctification, no man shall euer see God. Neither doe we say, that no Lawes can binde vs, as he slaunderously misreporteth vs, but wee constantly teach, that not to doe the things contained & prescribed in the Law of God, is damnable & damning sinne, if God vpon our repentance forgiue it not. And therefore L. 4. de Iustif, c. 5. Bellarmine, though hee wrongeth vs in like sort, as Kellison doth, yet in the end like an honest man, he confesseth ingenuously that he doth wrong vs, and sheweth at large, that Luther in his booke de votis Monasticis, defineth the liberty of a Christian to consist, not in being freed from the duty of doing the things prescribed in the Law of God, as if at his pleasure he might doe them, or leaue them vndone; but in that there are no works forbidden in the Law, that may stand with Faith, so euill, that they can condemne vs, nor none there prescribed, performed by vs, so good as to cleare, defend, & justifie vs; So making vs free non ab operibus faciendis, sed defendentibus & accusantibus: that is, not from the necessitie of doing the things that are commaunded as good, but from seeking justification in workes, or fearing condemnation for such euil workes as wee consent not fully vnto, but dislike, resist against, and seeke remission of. Whereunto Caluin agreeth, teaching that Christian liberty freeth not frō the duety of doing the things which the Law requireth, but frō doing them so, as to haue them examined & tryed strictly according to the Law & rule of Iustice: God in mercy accepting our works though imperfect, if they proceed frō a good conscience, & faith vnfained. But, saith Book 3. chap. 5. Kellison, the Protestants teach, that Christ came to bee a Redeemer only, not a Law-giuer: & therefore it seemeth they thinke men free from the duety of following the prescription of any Law. This surely is a very bad & weake inference. Christian men haue nothing to doe with Moses & his Law, and may at their pleasure either breake it or keep it, because Christ came to be a Redeemer, & not a Law-giuer. For though it be true that Christ came not to giue a new, or more perfect Law of morall duties, or to vrge it more strictly then Moses did, as some imagine, in which sense our Diuines rightly deny him to haue come as a Law-giuer, yet hee came to fulfill the Law formerly giuen by the Ministery of Moses: which thing hee performed: first, by clearing the meaning of it, and making it to be rightly vnderstood, where it was mistaken. Secondly, by meriting remission of the precedent breaches and transgressions of it. And thirdly, by giuing grace that men may in some sort doe the things it requireth. Wherefore if any man aske of vs, whether it may be truly said, that Christ was a Law-giuer to his Church, we answer, that our Diuines did neuer simply deny Christ to be a Law-giuer, but onely in sort before expressed. For they confesse, that he may truely be so named; first, because he writeth those Lawes in our hearts, which Moses deliuered written in Tables of stone; and secondly, because hee gaue certaine positiue Lawes to Christian men, touching Sacraments, Ministery, and outward meanes of saluation, that were not of force before. Wherefore to conclude this point, we do not think (as Kellison slaunderously against his own conscience reporteth of vs) that no sins can hurt vs, that no Hell nor Iudgement remaineth for vs whatsoeuer we doe: but wee constantly teach, that they who commit sinne with full consent, and persist therein, shall vndoubtedly perish euerlastingly. So that this is all that we say, that no sins, how grieuous soeuer, resisted, disliked, repented of, & forsaken, can hurt vs, & that no Hell, nor Iudgement remaineth for them, whom the working of diuine grace freeth from the dominion of sin, and the satisfaction of Christ from the condemnation of it: Against which doctrine, or any part of it, neither Kellison, nor any Papist in the world, is able to take any just exception.

CHAP. 22.

Of the Ministery of them to whom Christ committed the publishing of the reconciliation betweene God and Men, procured by him.

THus haue wee seene, first, the excellency of Christ our Sauiour, whom God sent into the world, in the fulnesse of time, to bee the great Sheepheard of his Sheepe, the guide of his people, the light of the Gentiles, the glory of Israel, and a King to fit vpon the throne of Dauid for euer, hauing all power both in Heauen and in Earth. Secondly, what great thinges hee did and suffered for vs, to reconcile vs vnto God. Thirdly, what the benefits are which hee procured for vs and bestowed on vs. Now it remaineth that wee see to whom he committed the publishing of the joyfull reconciliation betweene God and Man, the conversion of the world vnto himselfe, and the gouernment of such as should by beleeuing, become his people, when hauing finished the great worke he came to performe, he was to returne backe to that God his Father that sent him. The Apostle Saint Paul telleth vs, that Coloss. 2. 15. Christ hauing triumphed ouer principalities and powers, and made a shew of them openly Or in himselfe. vpon his Crosse, led captiuitie captiue, and gaue gifts, vnto men: Ephes. 4. 8. &c. that hee gaue some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastours and Teachers, for the gathering together of the Saints, the worke of the Ministery, and the edifying of the body of Christ, vntill wee all meete in the vnitie of Faith, and knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect Man, euen into the measure of the Age of the fulnesse of Christ. Amongstall those Messengers of glad tidings, and Ministers of Christ, appointed by him for the gathering together of the Saints, the Apostles were chiefe, and principall; Evangelists were assistants, which they vsed for the better settling & perfecting of thinges happily begunne by them, and the writing of the Euangelicall histories, concerning Christ: The Prophets were such as foretold future thinges, that knew all secrets, and opened the hidden mysteries of God, speaking to the consciences of Men in a strange and admirable manner; so that, as the Apostle telleth vs, 1. Cor. 14. 25. They that heard them prostrated themselues at their feete acknowledging that God was in them. These were temporary, and to continue but for a time. In the Apostles, two sorts of thinges are to bee considered, and distinguished by vs: first, such as were proper to them, as fitting to those first beginnings of Christianity; and secondly, such as are of perpetuall vse and necessity, and so to bee passed ouer to other, and continued to the end of the world.

The Diuines do note, that there were foure things proper & peculiar to the Apostles, & not communicable to any other of the Ministers of Christ, appointed by him for the gathering together of his Saints. The first was, Immediate vocation; the second, Infallibility of Iudgment: the 3d, generality of Commission, to do all things pertaining to the ministery of Saluation, in all places, & towards all Persons: the fourth, the speaking in all the tongues and languages of the world, the knowledge of all secrets, and power to confirme their Doctrine by signes and miracles, and by the imposition of their hands to giue the like miraculous gifts of the Spirite to others. These joyntly were not communicable to any other in those times, neither Evangelists, nor Prophets, as either not being called immediatly, but appointed by the Apostles; or not infallibly led into all truth: Generall commission they had not, but were taken into the fellowship of the Apostles labours; to assist their presence, & supply their absence, to build vpon their foundation, and to perfect that they beganne. Lastly, though the hauing of miraculous gifts, and the power of working miracles simply, were not proper to the Apostles, yet the hauing of them in such sort, as by the imposition of their hands to giue the Spirit, enabling to worke miracles, & to doe miraculous things, was peculiar and proper to them; and therefore we reade, that Acts. 8. 1 •… . Philip baptized, but that the ver. 17. Apostles went to confirme them by imposition of hands that were baptized by him, that so they might receiue the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost. And as these things were reserued as proper and peculiar vnto the Apostles, and not communicated to any other in their time, soe are they not passed ouer to their after-commers by succession: but in steed of immediate calling wee haue now succession; in steed of infallibility of judgment, the direction of their writings, guiding vs to the finding out of the truth: in steede of Generall commission particular Assignation of seuerall Churches to rule, and parts of Christs flocke to feed: in steed of miraculous gifts, and the Apostles power to conferre them, a setled course of Schooles and Vniuersities fitting men for the worke of the Ministery: insteed of their Miracles wherewith they confirmed their doctrine, the Faith already receiued, and by so many generations recommended vnto vs, as confirmed by the Apostles Miracles at the first. Neither was it fit, as Aug. de vtilitate credendi, cap. 16. Saint Augustine noteth, that these miraculous courses should still haue continued. For euen as a man that neuer had seene the seede cast into the earth, and there rotting; and the trees dead in Winter, after reuiuing, and flourishing againe in their appointed time, would wonder no lesse at it, then if he should see a blind man receiue sight, or a dead man life: but now that these things are ordinary, wee little esteeme them: so if those miraculous things appearing in the Apostles, and first Ministers of Christ which with their newnesse and strangenesse moued much at the first, should haue beene continued still, they would haue grown into contempt, and not haue beene regarded at all.

All that which hath beene sayd touching the dignity Apostolicall, and the things properly pertaining to it, is so cleare and euident, that wise and judicious men, make no question of any part thereof. Yet are there some that seeme to doubt, whether the Apostles generally had immediate calling, or vniuersality of commission, supposing that Peter onely was immediately designed by Christ, and the rest by him: that he onely had an illimited commission, without all restraint, and the rest an inferiour commission to that of Peter, bounded and stinted.

Touching the first of these doubts, Bell. de Pont. lib 4 c. 22. Bellarmine (whose manner it is not to conceale the diuisions and differences that are or haue beene amongst the Friends and Louers of the Church of Rome, but to write them in the forehead of euery controuersie) sheweth, that there are three opinions amongst the Diuines of the Romish Church touching this point. The first that as well the Apostles, as succeeding Bishops receiued their power, and and jurisdiction from Peter, and his supposed successour the Bishop of Rome. The second, that both Apostles and Bishops receiued their Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction immediately from Christ, and not from Peter nor his Successours. The third, that Bishops receiue their jurisdiction from the Pope, but that the Apostles receiued all their power and jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST, and not from Peter. The Second of these opinions is wholly true, and I will in due place confirme the same. The third, in part true, and in part false, which Bellarmine followeth: and the first wholly false, which hee largely and substantially confuteth; prouing first, Ibid. cap. 23. that the Apostles receiued all their jurisdiction and power immediately from Christ, and not from Peter, as well out of the words of our Sauiour, when hee sayth: As my Father sent mee, soe send I you: as out of the election of h Iohn 20. 21. Acts 1. 16. Matthias, who was not chosen by Peter, or the other Apostles, but designed immediatly by God himselfe, shewing by direction of the Lot falling on Matthias, that it was hee whom hee would haue to succede into the void roome of Iudas the Traytour: adding, that the Apostles gaue him no authority; and that Paul professeth the same touching himselfe, Gal. 1. & 2. protesting that hee receiued all his power and Iurisdiction immediately from Christ, and thereby prouing himselfe to be an Apostle. Secondly, he proueth that the fullnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power, was committed to all the Apostles, in as large and ample sort as to Peter, by the testimonies of Chrysostome and Theophylact: and that Christ by those words, As my Father sent mee, so send I you, made all the Apostles his Vicars or Vicegerents, yea, gaue them his owne office and authority; and out of Cyrill, that by these words he made them Apostles and Doctours of the whole world: and that to let them know, that in Apostolique power hee gaue them all Ecclesiasticall power, he sayd vnto them, As my Father sent me, so send I you: it being certaine that the Father sent the Sonne with all fulnesse of power. Farther he addeth out of Cypr. de 〈◊〉 . Eccl. Cyprian, that the same fulnesse of power was giuen vnto the rest of the Apostles by those words, As my Father sent me, so send I you, that was promised to Peter by those, I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, & performed by those other, Feed my Sheep, feed my Lambes. Now, saith he, it is certain that by those words; I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and by those other, Feed my sheep &c. is vnderstood all fulnesse of Iurisdiction both inward and outward: therefore the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction was giuen to euery one of the Apostles. Thus then the Cardinall confesseth, first that all the Apostles were immediately taught of God, without learning any thing of Peter, or needing in any thing to be confirmed by him. Secondly, that their commission was generall; so that there was not any act of Ecclesiasticall Ministery to which their commission did not extend, nor any places in which, nor persons towardes whom, they might not performe the acts of their Ministery. Thirdly, that they receiued all this authority and power immediatly from Christ, and not from Peter, and that therefore they could neither be limited, nor wholly restrained by him in the vse and exercise of the same. Thus doth hee ouerthrow the whole frame and fabrique of their building, who ground the pretended supremacy of the Pope vpon Christs words spoken to Peter. For to what purpose doe they vrge, that to Peter onely Christ said, Feede my Sheepe, &c? that to him onely he gaue the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and vpon him onely promised to build his Church? seeing they are forced to confesse, that the commission of feeding Christs sheepe, was giuen in as ample sort to the rest as to Peter, that they all receiued the whole power of the keyes; that the Church was builded vpon the rest as well as vpon Peter, and equally founded vpon them all.

If the Cardinall shall shrinke from this his confession, we can easily force him to it againe, and make him acknowledge that whatsoeuer Christ promised, intended, or performed by any of his speeches directed vnto Peter, he performed to all. Christ said specially to Peter, Feede my sheepe: yet had the rest (our Adversaries being Iudges) the same commission. Hee promised to him the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen; so that what hee should binde on Earth should bee bound in Heauen: hee named him Peter, and promised vpon that Rocke to build his Church: yet all receiued the same keyes as well as he, the same power of binding and loosing: & the Church was equally builded on them all. These things I will particularly confirme and proue; and first, that all the Apostles had the same commission of feeding the flocke of Christ that Peter had, it is euident. For whereas there are but foure kindes of feeding; Ockam dial. l. 5. 1 part. c. 15. & l. 4. 1. tract. 3. partis. c. 10. Vitâ exemplari, subsidio corporali, doctrinâ salutari, & disciplinâ regulari; that is, By exemplary conversation, by ministring things necessary for the entertainment of this present life, by wholesome doctrine, and by regular discipline and gouernement; all these waies, the rest of the Apostles, stood bound to feede the flocke of Christ, as well as Peter. For they were all the Matth. 5. 14. Lights of the world, and their Verse 16. Light was so to shine before men, that they seeing their good workes, might glorifie their Father in Heauen: they were all to take care of the poore and needie; they had all power to preach and minister Sacraments by Christs owne warrant, saying vnto them all, Matth. 18. 19. Goe teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost: and to gouerne and guide the Church and people of God, as well as Peter: Christ sending them as his Father sent him, and assuring them that whose sinnes they remit, they are remitted, and whose sinnes they retaine, they are retained. Neither can this bee doubted of, seeing Bellarmine himselfe confesseth in the place before alleadged, that in the Apostolique power, all power and Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, as well inward as outward, was contained: so that, that which Bellarmine and other Papistes insist vpon, Bellarm. de Pont. l. 1. c. 14. that Christ commended all his Sheepe vnto Peters care and charge, in that hee saide vnto him, Feed my sheepe, without any limitation or distinction, as if in this respect they would shew vs some singular thing in Peters feeding of the flocke of Christ, not found in others, is too silly, For who knoweth not, that euery Apostle had generall commission, and that howsoeuer for the better dispatch of the worke they had in hand, they diuided amongst them the seuerall prouinces of the world; yet this was, as Bellar •… himselfe confesseth, Ibid. cap. 16. Prouinciarum, non iurisdictionis diuisio; that is, a diuision of prouinces, not of Iurisdiction: for there was not any of them, but had power to preach, minister Sacraments, and exercise discipline wheresoeuer they would, one of them no way hindering the employment of another, but all with joynt care seeking to set forward the worke, they had in hand. Yea this is so cleare, that the Cardinall ingenuously confesseth it to be so, saying in expresse words, that Ibid. cap. 11. the rest of the Apostles were heads, Rulers, and Pastours of the vniuersall Church.

Touching the power of the Keyes promised to Peter, and the power of binding and loosing, it will easily appeare, that no singular thing was either promised or giuen vnto him, but that which was common to him with the rest. In addit. ad 3. part. Summae. quaest. 17. art. 1. Thomas Aquinis fitly obserueth, that in corporall things the Key is an instrument that openeth the doore, and giueth entrance to him that formerly was excluded: Now the doore of the kingdome of heauen is shut against vs by sinne, both in respect of the staine of it, and the guilt of punishment: whence it commeth, as hee aptly noteth, that the power, by which this stoppe & impediment is taken away, is named the Key. This power is in the diuine Trinity principally, and by way of authority, in that God onely taketh away sinne, dimittendo, quae facta sunt; adiuvando, ne fiant; & perducendo ad vitam, vbi omnino fieri non possunt; that is, By forgiuing the sinne that is past: by helping the sinner, that he doth not the like againe; and by bringing him to that life, where hee can sinne no more. And therefore the blessed Trinity is said to haue the Key of Authority. Christ had power to remoue this stoppe and hinderance by the merite of his passion, by instituting Sacraments, and making them effectuall instruments of the communication of his grace, for the taking away of sinne, and therefore he is said to haue the Key of Excellency. In men there is a ministeriall Power to remoue the impediment of sinne, that hindereth from entring into Heauen, and therefore they are rightly said to haue a key of Ministery, which is two-fold; of Science, and of Iurisdiction: Of Science, remouendo ignorantiam, & inducendo ad conuersionem; that is, by remouing the blindnesse of heart that is found in men, and inducing them to conuert and turne to God: Of Iurisdiction, in receiuing men into the society of holy ones, and in admitting those that they thinke meete & worthy to the participation of the holy Sacraments, in which the efficacy of Christs passion communicateth it selfe; as also in reiect •… ng the vnholy and vncleane. The Iurisdiction of the Church is rightly signified Metaphorically by the name of a Key, because the chiefe command in a house or Citty, is in him to whom the keyes of that house or Citty are committed; & hee that hath the keyes, hath thereby power to admit and receiue into the house or Citty whom he will, & to exclude and shut out whō he pleaseth. And therefore when Princes enter into their Cities & Towns, the Citizens are wont to offer vnto thē the keyes thereof, thereby acknowledging that the chiefe power & command of those places doth rest in them. Wherevpon when the Lord promised to Eliacim, sonne of Hilkiah, servant of King Hezekiah, chiefe authority in the Kings Court, and in the Citty of Ierusalem, he said by his Prophet; Esay. 22. 22. I will giue the keye of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulders. Hee shall open and no man shall shut: hee shall shut, and no man shall open. In which sense also it is said in the Reuelation of Christ: that Reuel. 3. 7. He hath the key of Dauid, that he openeth and no man shutteth, that hee shutteth and no man openeth; that is, hath all fulnesse of power in his Fathers house and kingdome. Thus then the key of Ministery being onely the power of teaching, instructing, admonishing, comforting, gouerning, and yeelding sacramentall assurances of Gods mercy & grace, by dispensing the Sacraments Christ hath instituted; and this power being the same in Peter, & the rest; it is cleare that the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were equally committed vnto them all.

The force of these keyes is not onely expressed by the acts of opening & shutting, but of binding & loosing also, thereby to shew, that they are no materiall keyes, but Metaphorically vnderstood, and spirituall; and that heauen is then opened vnto men that they may enter into it, when they are loosed from their sins that hindered them from entring in thither: and hereupon it is, that Christ hauing promised the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to blessed Peter, telleth him likewise, that what hee shall binde on earth, shall be bound in heauen, and what he shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen. The bonds wherewith men are bound on earth, are of foure sorts. First of Lawes, obliging, and tying them to the performance of certaine duties. Secondly, of sinnes. Thirdly of punishments to be inflicted by Almighty God; and Fourthly, of punishments to be inflicted by men. The bond of Lawes is of two sorts. For there are diuine lawes, and there are humane Lawes. God bindeth men to the doing of what hee pleaseth; and Men that are in authority, either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall, to such things as they thinke fit. Touching these bonds, none haue power to loose, but they that haue power to binde: so that what God by precept bindeth vs to doe, none but God can free vs from the necessity & duty of doing it: and what the Church or Magistrate binde vs to, no inferiour power can loose vs or free vs from. Loosing in this sense opposed to binding by law and precept, is in two sorts; By Reuocation, and by Dispensation. Reuocation, is an absolute Abrogation of a Law in respect of all places, times, persons, and conditions, and that either by expresse and direct Repeale, or by generall neglect, and long continued disuse. Dispensation is in respect of certaine persons, times, places and conditions of Men & thinges: so that a dispensation permitting the Law to retaine her wonted authority, onely freeth some particular person or persons, at some times, in some places, and in some condition of thinges, from the necessity of doing, or leauing vndone that, which, vnlesse it be in consideration of such particular circumstances, the Law-giuer meant should be obserued, but in such cases not so.

Heere the question is moued by occasion of that kinde of loosing, which is by reuersing Lawes formerly in force, whether God the giuer of the morall Law, may revoke the same, and dispense with men for the not doing of things there prescribed, of the doing of things there forbidden. The answere is, Paludanus in Sent. lib. 3. dist. 40. quaest. 2. & 3. that these Lawes are imposed vpon men by the very condition of their nature and creation: as the very condition and nature of a man, created by GOD, requireth that he should honour, loue, feare, and reuerence him that made him: and therefore touching the precepts of the first Table (that concerning the Sabaoth excepted) it is cleare and euident, that they cannot be altered, nor Man by God himselfe discharged from the duty of honouring, loving, and fearing God so long as he hath any beeing. Touching the precepts of the second Table, it is resolued, that GOD cannot dispense with man, or giue him leaue to doe the thinges therein forbidden, as to steale, murther, or lie. For all these imply, and involue in them that which is simply euill, and to bee disliked: but by some alteration in the doer, or matter of action, he may make that not to bee euill, that otherwise would bee euill: and consequently not forbidden; as namely, that to bee no theft, or murther, which otherwise would be: as when hee commanded the Israelites to spoyle the Aegyptians, they did not commit the act of robbery: for robbery is the taking away of a thing from the owner against his will: but these thinges which the Israelites tooke away, were the Aegyptians no longer, after God the supreme Lord, had spoyled them of the title they had therevnto, and assigned the same to the Israelites. So likewise for one man to take away the life of another, hauing no authority so to doe, is murther, and no man can be dispensed with lawfully to doe any such act; but for a Magistrate to take away the life of an offender, is a lawfull act, and no act of murther; and so, if Abraham had slaine his sonne Isaac, it had not beene murther, being authorized so to doe by God, who hath supreme authority in the world, and may justly, as a Iudge, for sinne found in men, take away the liues of whom he pleaseth, and as supreme and absolute Lord, bring all to nothing that for his wills sake he made of nothing, though there were no sinne nor fault at all. But touching Ceremoniall, Iudiciall, and Positiue Lawes of God concerning Sacraments and obseruations of what kinde soeuer, seeing they are imposed after & vpon the being of nature, wee thinke that God may alter them at his pleasure, so that at one time it may bee lawfull to doe that was forbidden at another. The Gouernours that God hath set ouer his Church and people by commission from him, may interprete what is doubtfull in these Lawes of God, or in those of the other sort: but yet according to the Law: but they may not abrogate or dispense with any Law of God, either naturall and morall, or positiue established concerning the vse of Sacraments, and things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice. But concerning those Lawes that were made by the Apostles and Primitiue Fathers; touching matters of outward obseruation, the succeeding Guides of the Church may either dispense with them, or reverse them vpon the due consideration of the difference of times, Men, and things. And so wee see to whom it pertaineth to binde men with their lawes, and to loose them from the bonds thereof.

The bond of sin, which is the second kinde of those bonds I mentioned, is two-fold; for there is Vinculum captivitatis, and Vinculum servitutis: that is, a man that is a sinner, z Rich. de S. Vict. tract. de potest. ligandi & soluendi c. 2 is so bound, that hee can neither returne to doe good, nor leaue off to doe euill: for sinne holdeth him in a bond of captivitie, that hee shall not returne to doe good: and with a bond of seruitude, that he shall not cease to doe euill. And though God hath so ordered the nature of Man, that hee who will doe euill, shall thus bee entangled: yet it is man that thus entangleth, wrappeth, and bindeth himselfe, and not God. But for the bond of eternall condemnation, and the punishments following euill doers, which is the third kinde of those bonds wherewith I shewed that men are tyed and bound, it is of GOD. From these bonds of sin, and punishment inflicted by GOD, none but hee alone can free men by his fauour, and the worke of his grace, as the supreme and highest cause, none but Christ by Merite & Satisfaction. The Ministers of the Church, by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, may convert Men to God instrumentally, making them partakers of his graces, & bringing thē into such an estate, wherein they shall be sure for Christs sake to finde mercie with GOD, for the remission & taking away of their sinnes. They may pray for them, and out of the knowledge of their estate, assure them of remission: But other power to vnloose and vntie these direfull & horrible bonds of sinne and punishment, they haue none: only the punishments which they haue power to inflict, they haue authoritie to diminish, lessen, or take away: so that whom they bind with the bonds of Ecclesiasticall censures, & punishments, those by the same authoritie they may vnloose. For as the Guides of Gods Church may prescribe, enjoyne, and impose certaine actions of Mortification, and penitentiall conversion vnto GOD: so when they see cause, they may release from the same: as by excommunication they may restraine from vse of Sacraments, societie of Beleeuers, and benefite of the Churches praiers: so by Absolution they may free from all these bonds againe. Neither is this kinde of binding and loosing lightly to bee esteemed of, or little regarded: for he that for his contempt and disobedience, is debarred from the vfe of the Sacraments, from enjoying the societie of the beleeuers, and partaking in the benefite of the Churches prayers, is vndoubtedly excluded from all accesse to the Throne of grace in Heauen, & all acceptation there: & so consequently no lesse bound in Heauen, then in Earth: and he that is vnloosed from these bonds on Earth, is vnloosed and set free in Heauen, that without all restraint, he may Heb. 4. 16. goe boldly to the Throne of Grace, to seeke helpe in the time of neede.

Thus wee see the diuerse kindes of binding and loosing, & that the Guides of Gods Church haue power and authority by Lawes and precepts, censures, and punishments, to binde those that are committed to their care and trust, and when they see cause, by reuersing such Lawes and precepts, wholly or in part, and by diminishing, releasing, & taking away such censures, and punishments, to vnty them, and set them free againe. The bond of Diuine Lawes, they may no otherwise meddle with, then by letting them know who are so bound, how straightly they are tyed. The bonds of sinne, and punishments by Diuine Iustice to be inflicted, they haue no power and authoritie to vnloose, but they concurre as helpers to the vnloosing of them by the Ministery of the Word, vvinning and persvvading men to convert vnto God, to cast their sinnes from them, and by the Sacraments instrumentally communicating vnto them; the grace of repentant conversion, and the assurance of remission and pardon.

In all these kindes of binding and loosing, the Apostles were equall: seeing (our Aduersaries themselues confessing) they had the same power of Order and jurisdiction in like extent, within the compasse whereof all these kinds of binding and loosing are confined. Wherefore let vs proceede to speake of the power of remitting and retaining sinnes, giuen to the Apostles by Christ our Sauiour. To remit sinne, properly is nothing else but to resolue not to punish sinne, and therefore hee onely may properly be sayd to remit sinne, that hath power to punish it. Now as sinne is committed against the prescript of God, our Conscience, and Men in authority: soe GOD, the conscience of the Sinner, and the Magistrate, and Minister, haue power to punish sinne: GOD, with punishments temporall and eternall, of this life and that which is to come: the Conscience, with remorse: the Magistrate, with death, banishment, Confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and the like: and the guides of the Church, with suspension, excommunication, degradation, and such other censures. Hence it followeth, that GOD onely is sayd properly to remitte the punishments that his justice doth inflict: that the conscience onely vpon repentance, canne take away that bitter and aflictiue punishment of remorse, wherewith shee is wont to torment and disquiet the minde of the offendour: and that the Magistrate and Minister onely haue power to take away those punishments that in their seuerall courses, they may and doe inflict. Notwithstanding, the Minister by the Word, perswading men to repentance, procuring remission, and out of his prudent obseruation of the parties conuersion vnto GOD, assuring him that it will goe well vvith him, as also by the Sacrament instrumentally communicating to him as well the grace of repentant conuersion, as of free remission (that soe hee may heare the very sound and voyce of GOD in mercy, saying to the heart and spirit of the repentant Sinner, I am thy Saluation) may bee sayd in a sort to remitte sinne, euen in that it is an offence against GOD, not by way of authority and power, but by winning and perswading the sinner to that conuersion which obtaineth remission from GOD, and by the Sacrament instrumentally making him partaker as well of the grace of remission of sinne from GOD, as of conuersion from sinne to GOD. There are but foure things in the hand of the Minister, the Word, Prayer, Sacraments, and Discipline. By the word of Doctrine hee frameth, winneth, and perswadeth the sinner to repentant, conuersion, seeking, and procuring remission from God. By Prayer, he seeketh and obtaineth it for the sinner. By Sacraments, he instrumentally maketh him partaker as well of the grace of remission as conuersion: And by the power of Discipline, he doth by way of authority punish euill doings, and remit or diminish the punishments he inflicteth, according as the condition of the party may seeme to require. By that which hath beene sayd, it appeareth that to bind and loose, to remit & to retaine sins, are equiualent & the same: saue that to bind and loose, is of more ample & large extent, in that it implyeth in it the binding by precepts & lawes, & the loosing which is by reversing or dispensing with the same. And therefore hauing shewed that the Apostles were equall in the power ofbinding and loosing, we need ad no farther proofe that they were equall in power of remitting & retaining sins.

Wherefore let vs proceede to the promise of Christ made to Peter, that vpon the Rocke mentioned by him, he would build his Church, and let vs see, whether any peculiar thing were promised vnto Peter in that behalfe. The Church of God, we know, is compared in Scripture to a City, an House, and a Temple; and therefore the beginning, proceeding, and increasing of the same, is rightly compared to building. Now in building there must be a foundation vpon which all may rest, and stay, that is put into the same building: and the foundation must be sure, firme, & immoueable; for otherwise it wall faile, and so alll other parts of the building, wanting their stay, will fall to the ground. Now nothing is so firme, sure and immoueable, as a Rocke, and consequently no building so strōg as that which is raised vpon a rockie foundation: wherevpon our Sauiour sheweth Matth. 7. 24. &c. that a House builded on the sand is easily ruinated, & soone shaken to pieces, but that an House builded vpon a rocke standeth firme, notwithstanding the furie and violence of the flouds, winds, and tempests: and compareth a Man rightly grounded, and established in his perswasion and resolution, to an house so built. By a Rocke therefore in this place is meant a sure foundation, that will not faile, nor be moued or shaken, how great a weight soeuer be laid vpon it. In a foundation there are three things required. The first is, that it bee the first thing in the building: the second, that it beare vp all the other parts of the building; & the third, that it be firme and immoueable. For as Christ saith; Matth. 6. 33. If the eye that is the light of the bodie, be darknesse, how great is that Darknesse? So, if that which is to support and beare vp all, doe faile & shrinke, all must needs be shaken, and fall a sunder. These being the things required in a foundation; simply, and absolutely, in respect of all times, persons, and things, Christ onely is that foundation, vpon which the spirituall building of the Church is raised, because he onely is that beginning whence all spirituall good originally floweth, and commeth, vpon whom all the perswasion of the truth of things revealed staieth it selfe, as being the Angell of the great Couenant, and that eternall Word, that was with God in the beginning, vpon whom all our hope, confidence, and expectation of any good groundeth it selfe: all the promises of God being in him 2 Cor. 1. 20. yea and Amen. And in this sense the Apostle Saint Paul saith, 1. Cor. 3. 11. Other Foundation canne no man lay then that which is layd, which is Iesus Christ. And Aug. tractat. vlt. in Ioannem. Se •… m. 13. de verb. Dom. Retract. l. 1. ca. 21. S. Augustine, and other of the Fathers vnderstand by that rocke vpon which our Sauiour promised Peter to build his Church, the rocke that Peter confessed, which rocke was Christ, vpon which foundation euen Peter himselfe was builded, for that other Foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, which is Iesus Christ. But in respect of some particular times, persons, and things, and in some particular and speciall considerations, there are other things that may rightly bee named foundations also, in respect of the spirituall building of the Church. So in respect of the frame & fabrique of vertue and weldoing raised in this building, the first vertue, namely Faith, vpon which all other vertues doe stay themselues, and from which they take the first direction that any vertue can giue, is rightly named a foundation. In respect of the forme of Christian doctrine, the first principles of heauenly knowledge are rightly named a foundation, Hebr. 6. 1. Not laying againe, saith the Apostle, the foundation of faith, and of repentance from dead workes, of the doctrine of Baptismes, & of the imposition of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and ofeternall iudgement, let vs be led forward vnto perfection. These first principles of heauenly knowledge are named a foundation, because they are the first things that are knowen, before which nothing can be knowen; and because vpon the knowledge of these things, all other parts of heavenly knowledge doe depend. In respect of the confession of the true faith concerning Christ, the first cleare, expresse, and perfect forme of confession that euer was made concerning the same, may rightly be named a foundation, and in this sense Peters faith and confession is by diuerse of the Leo in annivers. assumpt. Serm. 2. Fathers named the Churches foundation. But they vnderstand not by the faith and confession of Peter, either the vertue and quality of faith abiding in his heart and mind, or the outward act of confessing, but the forme of confession made by him when he said Matth. 16. 16. Thou art the Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God: vpon which forme, as being the rule of all right beleeuing, the Church of God is builded. In respect of the supernaturall knowledge of God in Christ, the first & immediate reuelation made to the Apostles from whom all other were to learne, and by whose Ministerie, accompanied with all things that might winne credit, they were to be gained vnto God, may very rightly and justly be named a foundation, vpon which the faith of all after-commers is to stay it selfe, and from which in all doubts they must seeke resolution. And in this sort De Pon. Rom. l. 1. c. 11. Bellarmine saith truely, that the Apostles may be named Foundations of the Church: according to that description, in the Reuelation of Saint Iohn, of the wall of the citie of God, that had Reuel. 21. 14. 12. foundation-stones vpon which it was raised, and in them written the names of the Lambes twelue Apostles; and that of S. Paul, that Ephes. 2. 20. wee are builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Iesus being the Head corner-stone: And this in three respects. First, because the Apostles were the first that founded Churches, and conuerted vnbeleeuers to the faith. Secondly, because their doctrine, which they receiued immediatly from God by most vndoubted revelation, without mixture of errour, or danger of being deceiued is the rule of the faith of all aftercommers, and that sure, immoueable, and rockie foundation, vpon which the perswasion of all succeeding generations, and posterities, may and doth, most securely stay and ground it selfe. Thirdly, because they were Heads, Guides, and Pastors of the whole vniuersall Church, hauing not onely supreme, but prime and originall gouernment of the same, out of whose most large and ample commission, all Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie of after-commers, was in an inferiour degree and sort to bee deriued, and taken. In all these respects, all the Apostles were that strong rocke, and those strong rockie foundation-stones on which the Church is builded, though in a peculiar sense Christ alone bee the Rocke: and in all these respects, as S. Hierome saith, Hier. l. 〈◊〉 . contra Iovinian. Super omnes ex aequo Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur: that is, the strength and firmenesse of the Church doth equally & indifferently stay it selfe vpon them all: and consequently no more vpon Peter then any of the rest. Hitherto we finde nothing peculiar to Peter, and not common to all the Apostles: so that all the allegations of our Adversaries touching the feeding of the Sheep of Christ committed to Peter, the power of the keyes, of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sinnes, and the promise that on him as on a rockie foundation-stone elect and precious, Christ would build his Church, are to no purpose, seeing they are forced to confesse, that all these things were likewise either by direct Cusanus de Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 13 words, or by intendment bestowed on all the rest. Wherefore let vs see how notwithstanding this their confession they can make good, that there was a primacie of power in Peter, and how they goe about to confirme the same.

CHAP. 23.

Of the primacie of power imagined by our Adversaries to haue beene in Peter, and their defence of the same.

FOr the avoyding of the cleare evidence of the truth of all that which hath beene said, touching the equalitie of the Apostles of Christ amongst thēselues (which our Adversaries cannot but see, & acknowledge) they haue two shifts; The first, Stapleton relect. controv. 3. q. 1. art. 1. that the Apostles were equall towards the people, but not amongst themselues. The second, Caietan. opusc. tom. 1. tract. 1. c. 3. that they were equall in the Apostolique power, but that Peter had that amplitude of power (which the rest had as Apostles by speciall fauour, and onely in & for their own persons) as an ordinary Pastour, and in such sort that he might leaue the same to his Successors. These their silly shifts & evasions we will examine, that so the truth of that which hath bin said, be more fully cleared, & that all men may see & perceiue; that nothing can be substātially objected against it, nor no evasiō foūd to avoid it.

Touching the first thing that they say, it is an Axiome, as I thinke, that may not bee doubted of, that whatsoeuer things are equall in respect of a third thing, are in the same sort, & fo farre for equall amongst themselues. So that if the Apostles were equall in the respect they had to the people, & as gouernours of the same, they were so far forth, & in that respect equall amongst thēselues. But they will say perhaps, that the Apostles were indeed equall amongst themselues in the power & office of teaching, directing, guiding, & gouerning the Christian World, but that yet amongst themselues there was an inequality, & one was superior, & had power ouer the rest, not in respect of the acts of their office of teaching & gouerning the world, but in respect of their personall actions. This surely is one of the strangest paradoxes that euer was heard of. For who can imagine, that God would trust the Apostles, with the managing of the weightiest affaires of his Church, & the gouernment of the whole world, without being any way accountant in respect thereof, vnto any one amongst thē as superiour, & that he would appoint an head & chief, & subject them to his censure in their personall actions? Nay this is impossible, & cannot be. For if in their office of teaching, & gouerning the rest of the Church they were equall, & could not therein be limited or restrained one by another, then was there none amongst them that could put any of the rest from his office, dignity, and imployment.

Now it is most cleare and certaine, that he who hath not power to suspend another from the execution of his office in the Church, hath no power to suspend him frō the Sacraments, or to excōmunicate him whatsoeuer his personall misdemeanours be. For as to be a Minister of the Church, presupposeth to bee a member of it: soe to be put from being a member of the Church, implyeth and presupposeth a putting from all office and dignity in the Church: soe that there neither was, nor could bee any amongst the Apostles, that had power to put any of the rest out of the Church, or to suspend them from the vse of the Sacraments, seeing there was none found amongst them that had authority to limit, restraine, or debarre any of the rest from the execution of his office: and therefore all that any one of them could do in respect of another, was but to admonish him, & vpon his rejecting of such admonitions to refuse to communicate with him; which thing any one may doe in an absolute equality, as well as when one is superiour to another; as we see by the example of Paul Galat. 2. 11. reprouing Peter, and resisting him to his face, and likewise by that of Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. •… 9. parting the one from the other vpon such dislikes and differences as grew betweene them.

Wherefore I suppose our Aduersaries will not much insist vpon this their first shift and evasion. Let vs see therefore if their second be any better. It is true (say they) that all power Ecclesiasticall, and all degrees of the same are included and implyed in the Apostolique office and dignity; that the Apostles, as Apostles were all equall; and consequently, that there was no one amongst the Apostles, but in his time had as much to doe in gouerning of the Church as Peter, without receiuing any thing from him, or being any way subiect to his controule, and to be restrained, limited, or directed by him: But this amplitude of power whicch all the Apostles had in common, the rest had onely for themselues, and as a personall priuiledge that was to end with them, but Peter had the same in such sort, that he might leaue it to to his Successours. Soe that that power which in the rest was Apostolique and temporary, and to end with them, was ordinary, Pastorall, and perpetuall in Peter, and to be deriued from him to his Successours and after-commers. Surely this second evasion will be found much worse then the first: for it is absurd to say, that Peter left all the dignity and Ecclesiasticall power he had in common with the rest of the Apostles, to his successours: for then all Popes should be immediately chosen by God, not by the Cardinals; then should they all be consecrated and ordained immediately by Christ, not by Bishops: then should they all see Christ in the flesh: then should they all haue power to write bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and be free from danger of erring whensoeuer they either preach or write: for so the Apostles were: yea then should they confirme their doctrine by miracles, and giue the Holy Ghost by imposition of their Hands. Whereas yet noe Pope dareth challenge any one of these preeminences. If they say, that all the dignity and power that was in the Apostles vvas not ordinary, Pastorall, and perpetuall in Peter, and soe to be passed ouer to his Successours, but some part of it onely, it is just nothing they say. For then this is all that they affirme, that some part of that dignity and power that was in Peter, is in Peters Successours, and so there is in the silliest Priest in the world.

But they will say, immediate vocation, the seeing of Christ in the flesh, infallibility of judgment, power to write Canonicall bookes of Scripture, and the confirmation of doctrine by miracles, together with the giuing of the holy Ghost by imposition of hands, were fitting to the first beginnings of Christianity, and not of perpetuall necessity and vse, and therefore to cease after things were established; but that vniversality of jurisdiction, and a kind of infallibility of judgment, are perpetually necessarie, and therefore these were to passe from Peter to others, though the rest of the Apostolique preeminences were not. Thus then first they amplifie the excellent dignities of Peter, as if the rest had not had the like; but being conuinced, that hee had nothing the rest had not, they make shew as if they would proue, that the Apostle S. Peter had all those things in such sort that hee might leaue them to his Successours, which the rest had as personall priuilidges onely; because hee is described to be a Pastour of the Church, in that CHRIST sayth vnto him, I •… h. 21. 16. Feed my sheepe, and the office of a Pastour is of perpetuall necessity. But being vrged, that there are many excellent dignities found in Peter and the rest, that are not communicable to any other, as immediate vocation, seeing of CHRIST in the flesh, absolute infallibilitie in word and writing, speaking in diuerse tongues, power to doe miracles, and power to giue the visible giftes of the holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, they confesse, that precisely Peters being a Pastour of the Christian Church, will not proue, that anie dignitie of his mentioned in the Scripture is perpetuall, pastorall, and to continue for euer, vnlesse the necessity of the perpetuity of it bee made to appeare otherwise. Whence it will follow, that they cannot proue that any speciall preeminences in Peter which hee had in common with the rest, as namely, infallibility of judgment, and vniuersality of Iurisdiction, were Pastorall and perpetuall in him, and to bee passed from him to his after-commers, and thereby entitle the Pope vnto them. For PETERS being a Pastor, which is the onely thing they canne alleage to proue, that what hee had was pastorall and perpetuall, proueth it not: and the proofe of the necessitie of the continuance of any preeminence found in Peter and the rest of the Apostles, sheweth that such a preeminence must continue, but not in what person or persons it must continue.

But let vs see whether infallibility of judgment, and vniversality of Iurisdiction bee amongst the things that were proper to the beginnings of Christianity, or amongst those that are perpetually necessary. Surely; touching the first, De Pont: Ro. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine seemeth to confesse, that the being taught immediately of GOD, and the being absolutely free from errour, soe that their writings and sayings were Canonicall, were temporarie in the Apostles, as necessary onely in those first beginnings of Christianity; and whether hee confesse it or not, it is most vndoubtedly true, that that absolute infallibility that was in Peter, for whose faith Christ prayed that it might not faile, was temporary, and not to bee communicated to any after-commers: for hee was so lead into all trueth, that hee could not erre in any of his writings and preachings; whereas all confesse, that euen Popes may erre in both these, and that they are free from errour onely when they determine those things, wherein the whole Church seeketh their resolution. Touching the second which is vniuersality of jurisdiction, the same Cardinall hath these words. De Pont. Ro. lib. 1. c. 9. Fuit in illis Ecclesiae primordijs necessarium ad fidem in toto orbe terrarum disseminandam, vt primis praedicatoribus & Ecclesiarum fundatoribus summa potestas & libertas concederetur: That is, in those first beginnings of the Church it was necessary, for the quicke dispersing of the Faith throughout the whole world, that the first Preachers, and founders of Churches, should haue a most ample power, and free commission, without that streightning and limitation of the same that is in their after-commers, that soe euery one of them might truely vse those words of the Apostle, 2. Cor. 11. 28. Instantia mea quotidiana sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, that is, my dayly instance is the carefulnesse of all Churches: or as some other translate it: I am cumbred dayly, and haue the care of all Churches. And therefore howsoeuer the Apostles diuided amongst themselues the seuerall parts of the world, to which each one of them should more specially preach the word of the Lord; yet did they not shut vp and inclose their cares within the bounds and compasse of any one prouince, but euery one of them. did soe take care of the whole Church, as if that care had pertained vnto him alone. Thus farre Bellarmine, clearely confessing, that the illimited comission of the Apostles was fitted to those first beginnings of Christianity, and the condition of those first times: soe that the same reason that excludeth the other dignities and preeminencies of the Apostles, as namely their being fitted to the first beginnings, excludeth both these from being perpetuall likewise.

But let vs let this aduantage go, and take a view of those proofes which they bring of the power of Peters Successours aboue other Bishops, whereas Peter himselfe had noe power more then any of the rest. It is true (say they) that Peter had noe power which the rest had not, but he had that amplitude of Ecclesiasticall power as an ordinary Pastour, which they had onely as Apostles and Delegates by speciall fauour, and personall priviledge. Against this distinction few of our Diuines say any thing, many of them confessing they vnderstand it not; so deepe is the learning of our Adversaries, that euery Man cannot bee so happie as to vnderstand what they write. Which is the lesse to be marvailed at, seeing many of them scarce vnderstand themselues, and yet contemne vs, as if we were silly idiots. But if without offence wee may conjecture what the meaning of this their riddle is, surely vnder correction I thinke this it is. The rest of the Apostles had as great authoritie and power, and as large a commission as Peter had: but they had it onely for terme of life, and could leaue none to succeed them in the same. He had it for himselfe, and such as hee would leaue it vnto. Besides, he was first invested with all the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power & jurisdiction, so that none could haue any thing to doe in this businesse, but such as should receiue commission from him, saue onely that Christ reserued power to himselfe, to giue commission to such as by speciall fauour hee should be pleased to honour, as were the Apostles separated to the worke of the Ministerie by his owne immediate designement, without receiuing any thing from Peter: but afterwards all were either to receiue of him, or of them to whom hee should leaue his office and charge. This their conceipt they illustrate by a similitude. A Bishop, say they, hath authoritie to preach in his Diocese, as Pastour of the place, and whosoeuer succeedeth him in his Bishoplie office, succeedeth him in the same power likewise. A Fryer by speciall fauour from the Pope, may preach in the same Diocese wheresoeuer the Bishop may, and cannot be silenced or restrained by him, because hee receiued nothing from him, but his superiour the Pope; but another desiring to succeed the Fryer, not so fauoured and priviledged by the Pope, must fetch his commission and allowance from the Bishop, and be subject to him in the performance and execution thereof. So heere Peter was first constituted Pastour of all the World; the Apostles were by speciall fauour authorized immediately by Christ to preach in Peters charge, and to gouerne the Church whereof he was Bishop, as well as he; but yet so, that all they that were to follow after, were to deriue their commission from Peter or his Successour, if they would meddle in the Church which was his charge. Many things are said by Caietan, Bellarmine, Stapleton, and others to this purpose; but this is the substance of all: Wherfore let vs see how they proue that they say.

Touching the first of these two points, thus they proue it. Peter was a Pastour, and had that amplitude of illimited commission before described, as a Pastour: but the office of a Pastour is of perpetuall necessitie and vse: and therefore this his illimited power and commission was to be perpetually continued. That Peter was a Pastour they proue, because Christ said vnto him expressely, Feede my Sheepe, Feed my Lambes. This is the frame of their whole building, which may very easily be throwne to the ground, if any man will put his hand vnto it. First, because it is certaine the other Apostles were Pastours also: so that if Peters being a Pastour proue the necessitie of the continuance of those ample preheminences hee had, and that hee might leaue them to whom he pleased, it would follow, that the rest of the Apostles also had their preheminences, which were equall with those of Peter, not as things temporarie, but perpetuall, and such as they might leaue to whom they pleased. That the other Apostles were Pastours, Ockam. Dial. l. 4. primi tract. 3. partis c. 3. first the Hymne of the Church wherein they are expressely saide to haue bin constituted Pastours by Christ, proueth. Secondly, the confession of Bellarm. de Pont. l. 4 c. 23 Bellarmine, acknowledging that what was giuen to Peter by those wordes, Feede my sheepe, was giuen vnto all by those other wordes, As my Father sent me, so send I you, confirmeth the same. And thirdly, the enumeration of the seuerall kindes of feeding, euery of which the Diuines doe shew to agree to the rest, as well as to Peter, demonstrateth that they were all Pastours. Secondly, whereas they say, that the office of a Pastour is a thing of perpetuall vse and necessitie, and consequently perpetuall, and that the amplitude of power which was in Peter agreed vnto him in that hee was a Pastor, and as a Pastor, they bewray notable ignorance and folly. For it is true indeed that the office of a Pastor is of perpetuall vse and necessity, and soe to continue for euer: but the amplitude of power and jurisdiction, and the great preëminences, that were in Peter, did not agree vnto him as to a Pastour, or in that hee was a Pastor: For if they had, then must they agree to euery Pastor, & so euery Bishop must haue the same, & not the Pope only. For as whatsoever agreeth to a man in that he is a man, agreeth to every man; so whatsoeuer agreeth to a Pastor in that he is a Pastor, agreeth to euery one that is a Pastor. If they shall say, that the great and ample preëminences that were in Peter, did not agree vnto him as a Pastor, but in some other respect; then his beeing a Pastor, which is an office of perpetuall necessity, vse, and continuance, will not proue the same perpetuall, no more then other things which this Pastour had in that he was an Apostle. If they shall say, these things agreed vnto him, not in that he was a Pastor, but in that he was such a Pastor as was to feed the flocke of Christ and people of God, by deliuering vnto them the doctrine of truth without all mixture of any the least errour, to confirme the same by miracles following, & to giue the visible gifts of the holy Spirit by the only imposition of his hands; it is true that they say; but such a Pastour they confesse is necessary onely in the beginnings of the Christian Church, and not afterwards; and therefore from hence it cannot be concluded that the ample preëminences, that were in Peter, as his infallibility of judgement, and illimited Commission, were to be passed ouer from him to his Successors, and after-commers. Their second conceipt is more fond then the first: For if Peter were by Christ constituted sole supreme Pastour and Bishoppe of the whole vniuersall world, and yet his meaning was, that others should likewise receiue immediatly from himselfe power to doe as much in the governing of the Church as Peter; he meant to giue him something, and presently to take it from him againe. For as if the Pope shall make a man Bishop of such a cittie, or countrey, and thereby giue vnto him that supreme direction that nothing shall be done within that compasse without his authoritie and consent; and shall presently send another with full authority to doe any thing that the former may do, and no way to bee subiect to his controule or restraint in the performance thereof, or accomptant for it; hee reuoketh, and maketh voyde his first graunt: so here, if Christ make Peter supreme Bishoppe, and Pastour of the whole Christian world, and presently constitute eleuen other Apostles with power and commission to doe any thing that Peter may doe in all parts of the world, and towards all persons (which as they haue not from him so he cannot take it from them, or limit them in the vse of it) hee absolutely voideth his first graunt made to Peter.

But they will say perhaps, that Christ meant little fauour to Peter more then to one of the rest of the Apostles, but that all his care was for the good of the Pope, whom hee meant to make a great man in the world: and that therefore he constituted the other Apostles immediatly as well as Peter, put them into equall commission with him, and would not haue them beholding to him for any honour or power they had, but appointed that all other Bishops should receiue their mission, calling, commission, and authority from Peter during the short time of his life, and after his departure in all succeeding ages to the end of the world, from his Successours the Bishoppes of Rome. This truly is well said in fauour of the Pope, if it were as truly said as it is kindly meant; but we shall find, that there is no truth in that they say: For it is cleare and evident, that each Apostle by his commission hee had from Christ without being any way beholding to Peter for it, had authority to preach the Gospell to such as neuer heard of it before, to plant Churches, and ordaine & constitute in them Pastours and Bishops, and out of his more large and ample commission to make other, though somewhat more restrained and limited; whence it will follow that they whom any of the other Apostles ordained and constituted Pastours and Bishoppes which were innumerable in all parts of the world, receiued nothing from Peter nor his pretended Successour. Now they whom the Apostles thus constituted, and ordained, might constitute and ordaine other by vertue of their office and calling they had from the Apostles, and those other, other againe to succeede them, so that none of these to the end of the world, one succeeding another, should euer receiue any thing frō Peter or his pretended Successor, And therefore it is absurd that De Pont. Ro: lib. 4. c. 23. 24. & 25. Bellarmine saith, that the Apostles receiued all their jurisdiction immediately from Christ, & that yet notwithstanding all Bishops receiue the same frō the Pope. And those Papists are better aduised that say, that the Bishops of other Churches receiue not their jurisdiction from the Pope, but from Christ by those Apostles that constituted their Churches, and planted their predecessours in the same, setting them the bounds of their Bishop-like charge: whence it will follow (as Bellarmine wisely foresaw, and therefore declined this opinion) that the Pope cannot either take away or diminish their authority vnlesse any man can shew where Christ gaue him power to limite, restraine, or take away that power from men, which they haue from himselfe by the hands of the other Apostles, and their after-commers, without being any way beholding to Peter for the same.

Wherefore they haue yet one more strange conceipt behind to helpe the matter, then any of those we haue hitherto heard; which is, that Peter being not onely an Apostle, but supreme Pastour and Bishop of the whole world constituted by Christ, made the other Apostles Bishops and Pastours; and that they ordained Bishops not by vertue of their Apostolique power (which they receiued immediately from Christ without being beholding to Peter for it, or inferiour to him in it) but by vertue of their Bishoply authority and offīce which they receiued from Peter. De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 23. Alioqui enim, sayth Bellarmine, cum omnes Apostoli plurimos Episcopos in varijs locis constituerint, si Apostoli ipsi non sint facti Episcopi à Petro, certè maxima pars Episcoporum, nondeducit originem suam à Petro; that is, For otherwise, seeing all the Apostles constituted exceeding many Bishops in diuerse places, if the Apostles themselues were not made Bishops by Peter, certainely the greatest part of Bishoppes will not fetch their originall from Peter. This his fancie of Peters making the other Apostles Bishoppes, immediately after as his manner is, like an honest man hee contradicteth, confessing, that the Apostles were all Bishops, and the first Bishops of the Church in that they were Apostles, without any such ordination. Ibidem. Omnes Apostoli, sayth he, fuerunt Episcopi, imò etiam primi Episcopi Ecclesiae, tametsi non sunt ordinati: that is, All the Apostles were Bishops, nay, which more is, the first Bishops of the Church, without any other or new ordination besides their Apostolique mission and calling. And Lib. 4. cap. 23. in another place he pronoūceth perēptorily, that by vertue of these words. Iohn 2 •… . 21. As my Father sēt me so sēd I you, the Apostles were made Vicars of Christ, nay that they receiued the very offīce, & authority of Christ, and that in the Apostolique power all Ecclesiasticall power is contained: and though in the former place he sayd expressely, Non eo ipso quòd aliquis est Apostolus, est Episcopus; that is, A man is not therefore a Bishop, because an Apostle: for the twelue were Apostles before they were either Bishops or Priests: yet in the later place hee sayth, it is not to be maruailed at, that they were Apostles before the passīon of Christ, and yet neither Priests nor Bishops: for that the Lord at diuerse times gaue the Apostles diuerse kindes and degrees of power: but especiallie in the twentith of Iohn, perfected that hee beganne before his passīon. Soe that an Apostle perfectly constituted and authorised, hath both Priestlie and Episcopall dignitic and power, though in the beginning, when the Apostles were rather designed then fully constituted, not hauing receiued their full Commissīon, they vvere neither Priests nor Bishoppes. But to leaue BELLARMINE lost in these mazes, it is most easie demonstratiuely to proue, that the Apostles in that they were Apostles perfectly and fully constituted, had both Priestlie and Bishoply dignity and power in most eminent sort. For did not CHRIST giue the Apostles power to doe any Ecclesiasticall act that a Bishoppe can doe? Did hee not giue them power to preach and baptize, vvhen hee sayd vnto them, Math. 28. 19. Go teach all nations Baptizing them, &c: to minister the holy Eucharist, vvhen hee sayd, Luke 22. 19. Doe this as est as ye shall doe it in remembrance of mee? Did hee not giue them the power of the Keyes, of binding & loosing, of remitting & retaining sinnes, & consequently all that commeth within the compasse of Ecclesiasticall office and Ministerie? doubtlesse hee did: Neither is there any that dareth to deny any part of that which hath beene saide. And therefore it is an idle fansie that Peter made the rest of his fellowes Bishops, the Apostolique power implying in it eminently Episcopall, as the greater the lesser.

But they will say, Peter made Iames the lesser Bishop of Hierusalem. Indeed Baron. annal. an. Christi 34. 291. Chrysost. in Ioan. homil. 87. Baronius falsifieth Chrysostome, and maketh him say, that the Doctour of the world made Iames Bishop of Hierusalem, whereas hee saith no such thing; but asking the question why Peter, whom Christ so much fauoured, was not preferred to bee Bishop of Hierusalem, answereth, that Christ made him Doctour of the world, which was a greater honour then to haue beene fastened to the Church of Hierusalem, & to haue beene set in the Episcopall Throne there. But it is cleare by the testimonies of Antiquity, that Peter, Iames the greater, & Iohn, ordained Iames Bishop of Hierusalem. So saith Anacletus in his second Epistie, if any credit be to be giuen vnto it, where hee hath these words: A Bishop must be ordained of three Bishops, as Peter, Iames the greater, and Iohn, ordained Iames the lesser Bishop of Hierusalem. Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. Clemens Alexandrinus also, as we reade in Eusebius, saith the very same; and Hier. de viris illustr. in Iacob. Hierome de viris illustribus, attributeth the ordaining of Iames not to Peter alone, but to the Apostles. His words are, Iacobus, statim post passionem Domini ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatur: that is, Iames presently after the passion of the Lord, is ordained Bishop of Hierusalem by the Apostles. If any man aske how the Apostles did ordaine or make Iames being an Apostle, a Bishop, if the Apostolique office imply in it the office and dignitie of a Bishop, as the greater the lesser: we answere, that a Bishop differing from an Apostle, as in other things, so in this, that he is fixed to some certaine place whereof specially hee taketh the care, whereas the care & imployment of an Apostle is more at large: When the Apostles after the conversion of Nations and people began to retire themselues to certaine places there to rest, and specially to take care thereof, they were in that respect rather Bishops then Apostles; and in this sort Iames the lesser being appointed by the Apostles, to make his principall abode at Hierusalem a chiefe city of the world, whence the faith spread it selfe into all other parts, and more specially to take care thereof, is rightly said to haue beene constituted Bishop of that place by them, not as if they had giuen him any new power and authority, that he had not before, or not in so perfect sort, but that they limited, and restrained him more specially to one certaine place where he should vse the same.

The place in the Act. 13. 2. 3. Acts maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish errour: for Paul and Barnabas formerly designed by Christ to be Apostles, were againe by the ministerie of Prophets revealing the will and pleasure of Almighty GOD, separated more specially to bee Apostles of the Gentiles, and put forth into that employment with fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands: not thereby receiuing any new power, but a speciall limitation and assignation of those parts of the world, wherein principally they should be employed. Besides, these were not Apostles but Prophets, such as Agabus was, that are mentioned in this place, inferiour in degree to Apostles, and such as might not make an Apostle to be a Bishop, but did onely signifie and reueale what the will of God was, and whither he meant to send these worthy Apostles, and so with prayer and fasting commended them to the grace of God; and therefore this place maketh nothing for proofe of Peters ordaining and appointing the rest of the Apostles to be Bishops.

CHAP. 24.

Of the preeminence that Peter had amongst the Apostles, and the reason why Christ directed his speeches specially to him.

THAT there was no more power and authoritie in Peter then in any of the rest, I hope it appeareth by that which hath beene said: and therefore it remaineth that now wee examine, what was the reason why so many thinges were specially spoken to him, why so many wayes hee may seeme to haue beene preferred before the rest, and what in trueth and in deede his preeminence, and primacie was. Touching the speeches of Christ for the most part specially directed to Peter, it is most certaine by that which hath beene said, that they did giue no singular and speciall power to Peter that was not giuen to euery of the rest.

And therefore Ockam. Dialo. l. 4. primi tractat. 3. pa •… t. cap: 3. the Diuines doe obserue the difference of the speeches of Christ, and note that Christ sometimes directed his speech to particular men precisely in their owne persons, as in the remission of sinnes, healing the sicke, and raising the dead: sometimes in the person of all, or many others, as when he saith, Ioh. 5. 14. Goe and sinne no more, which hee is intended to haue done so often as there is the same reason of speaking a thing to one and to others; as when a man is induced to doe or not to doe a thing, to beleeue or not to beleeue a thing, which other in like sort are bound to doe or not to doe, to beleeue or not to beleeue as well as hee. So it being as necessary for one to watch as another, Christ saith, Mark. 13. 37. That I say vnto you I say vnto all, Watch. And so here, seeing it is confessed and proued by our Aduersaries themselues, that there was nothing promised or performed to Peter that was not in like sort intended vnto, and bestowed on euery of the rest, it must be graunted, that what he spake to him, he meant to all, and would haue his words so vnderstood and taken. Ockam. vbi suprá. The reason why more specially, notwithstanding this his generall intendment, he directed his speech to Peter, then to any of the rest, was either because he was more auncient, and more ardent in charitie then the rest, thereby to signifie what manner of men they should be that should be chosen Pastours of the Church, namely men of ripe age and confirmed judgement, and full of charitie: or lest hee might seeme to bee despised for his deniall of Christ, which the Glosse seemeth to import when it saith, Trinae negationi redditur trina confessio, ne minus amori lingua seruiat, quám timori; that is, Therefore he was induced by Christ thrice solemnly to protest and professe his loue vnto him, as he had thrice denied him, that his tongue might shew it selfe no lesse seruiceable vnto loue that rested in him, then it had done vnto feare: or else because he first confessed Christ to bee the Sonne of the liuing God consubstantiall with his Father, because he was much conuersant with Christ, and acquainted with his secrets & counsels; or lastly, because Christ meant there should bee a certaine order amongst the guides of his Church, and some to whom the rest in all places should resort in all matters of importance, as to such as are more honourable then other of the same ranke & degree who are first to be consulted, from whom all actions must take their beginning, therefore he so specially spake to Peter, whom hee meant in this sort to set before the rest. Thus then, there is a primacie of power when one hath power to doe that act of ministerie another hath not, or not without his consent; and when one may by himselfe limite, restraine, or hinder another in the performance of the acts of ministery; and such primacie wee haue shewed not to haue beene in Peter. But there is another of order & honour, which he had, whereby he had the first place, the first and best employment, the calling together of the rest in cases where a concurrence of many was required (as for the better sorting out of the worke they had in hand, the ioynt decreeing of things to be euery where alike beleeued, and practised) and in these assemblies thus called, the sitting & speaking first, the moderation and direction of each mans speaking, and the publishing and pronouncing of the conclusion agreed vpon, if so he pleased. In this sense Cyprian saith, Cyprian de vnitate Ecclesiae. Erant vtique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit & Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, fed exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur; that is, The other Apostles doubtlesse were that which Peter was, hauing the same fellowship both of power and honour, but the beginning proceedeth from vnity, that the Church may be shewed to be one. And in the same sense Hierome saith against Iouinian, Hieron. lib. 1. contra Iouinian. Thou wilt say, the Church is founded vpon Peter: it is true it is so, and yet in another place the same frame of the Church is raised vpon all the Apostles: and all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and the firmenesse of the Church stayeth it selfe equally vpon them all: but therefore doth Christ more specially promise to build his Church vpon Peter, that hee being constituted and appointed head & chiefe amongst them, all occasion of Schisme might bee taken away. To the same purpose it is that Leo writeth to Anastasius, where hee saith, Leo epist. 84. Inter beatissimos Apostolos in similitudine honor is fuit quaedam discretio potestatis, & cum omnium par esset electio, vni tamen datum est, vt caeteris preemineret; that is, Amongst the most blessed Apostles like in honour, there was a certaine difference of power; and when all were equally elected, yet it was giuen to one to haue a preeminence amongst the rest. In which saying of Leo, that it bee not contrary to that of Cyprian, who saith, that the Apostles were companions, and consorts equall both in honour & power, wee must not vnderstand that one Apostle had more power then another, or that power another had not; but that in the same power one was so before the rest, that hee was the partie to whom they were to resort, and without consulting whom first and before all other, they might attempt nothing generally concerning the state of the whole Church, by vertue of this power. In which sense he saith in another place: Leo ep. 89. Petro praecaeteris soluendi & ligandi tradita est potestas; that is, The power of binding and loosing was so giuen to Peter, that therein hee was before the rest; and againe, Leo in annivers. assumpt. Serm. 3. Siquid cum eo commune caeteris Christus voluit esse principibus, nunquam nisi per ipsum Petrum dedit quicquidaliis non negavit: that is, If Christ would haue any thing to be common to the rest of the Princes, that is, Apostles, with Peter, he neuer gaue that which he vouchsafed vnto them any otherwise then as by Peter; which words must not so bee vnderstood, as if Peter had first receiued the fulnesse of power, and others from him; for all the Apostles receiued their power and commission immediatly from Christ & not from Peter, as I haue largely proued, and all confesse; but that what hee gaue to others, it did so passe vnto them, as that in the first place it was giuen to Peter, and hee thereby set in order and honour before the rest put in the same commission with him; so that Peter receiued not a different or more large commission from Christ then the other Apostles, but onely a kinde of honourable precedence, preëminence, and priority, such as the Duke of Venice hath amongst the great Lords of that state, to whom all Embassies and messages are directed from forreine Princes, and in whose name all letters, warrants, and mandates are sent out, as representing the whole State: yet can hee doe nothing without the rest, nor crosse the consenting resolution of those noble Senators.

And in this sense it is that Aug. tractat. vlt. in Ioannem. Augustine saith of Peter, that he was by nature one particular man, by grace a christian man, by more ample and abundant grace a chiefe Apostle; but that when hee receiued the Keyes, hee represented the whole vniuersall Church, not as a legate that representeth the person of his Prince, and receiueth honours, dignities and titles for him and not for himselfe, but as chiefe of the company of the Apostles receiuing for himselfe in the first place, that which in him and together with him was intended to them all. Leo epist. 84. This primacie of honour and order found in blessed Peter; who is therevpon named by the Fathers Prince and head of the Apostles, is the originall of all that superiority that Metropolitanes haue ouer the Bishops of their prouinces; and Primates and Patriarches ouer Metropolitanes, and in a word of all that order that is in the Church, and amongst her guides, whereby vnitie is preserued.

CHAP. 25.

Of the distinction of them to whom the Apostles dying left the managing of Church affaires: and particularly of them that are to performe the meaner seruices in the Church.

HAuing spoken of the Apostles power and office, and the largenesse of that commission, it remaineth that wee come to speake of them to whom they recommended the managing of Church affaires, and the ministerie of holy things when they left the world. They to whom they recommended the care of these things, when hauing finished their course, they were called hence to receiue the Crowne laid vp for them in Heauen, were of two sorts: first such as they trusted with the ministerie of the Word and Sacraments, and government of Gods people; and secondly, such other as they appointed to be assistant to them, and to performe the meaner seruices, though necessary also.

The former sort are all comprehended vnder one common name of Presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of Gods Church and people; the latter are Deacons, and such other inferiour Ministers, as attend the necessities of the Saints, and assist the principal Guides of the Church. In the ordination of a Presbyter, saith In 4. sent. dist. 24 qu. 2. Durandus, there is a certaine power conferred on him, and assigning of him to an employment, whereby after his ordination hee may doe something which hee could not haue done before, etiam quoad genus facti, no not in the kinde and nature of the thing it selfe; as hee that is ordained a Presbyter, may consecrate the Lords Body, and absolue in the Court of Penitencie; neither of which things without such ordination can be done: but to them that are in the inferiour orders there is no power giuen, neither haue they any assignement to doe any thing which they could not doe before, and without such ordination, but to doe such things as they could not lawfully doe; nay in many of them there is no designement of them that are so ordained to the performance of any thing, but that which according to the vse of the vniuersall Church, men without such ordination may lawfully doe. So that the ordination of men to the performance of such things, and the execution of such offices, seemeth to haue proceeded from the institution of the Church, for the greater solemnitie of Diuine worship and seruice: and therefore such inferiour orders are neither simply orders (order being a sacred signe or character, by vertue whereof a power is giuen to the ordained, not onely to doe that hee could not otherwise lawfully doe, but to doe that which otherwise hee could not doe at all) neither are they Sacraments, but Sacramentall solemnities onely, seeing the Church can institute no Sacraments. Hitherto Durandus. These being the sorts of them to whom the Apostles recommended the managing of Church affaires, and this the difference of their orders, I will first speak of the diuers orders & degrees of them that performe the meaner seruices in the Church, and then come to speake of them that haue the gouernement of the Church.

Lib. 4. c 24 The Master of Sentences saith, that the order of Subdeacons, and other minor orders below the degree of Deacons, as Acoluthes, Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, were brought in by the Church, and that they were not in the Apostles times; and Addit. ad 3. part. Summae. q. 37. art. 2. Thomas Aquinas, and other, are of the same minde. Notwithstanding there is no question but these minor orders and degrees were very ancient. For Cyp. l. 2. ep. 10 Cyprian maketh mention of one Mettius a Subdeacon, and Nicephorus an Acoluthe. In another place hee writeth, that he had ordained Idem l. 2. ep. 5. & l. 4. ep. 5. Aurelius and Celerinus Lectors: and in a third place hee mentioneth Lib. 5. ep. •… 4 Exorcists and Lectors. Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle recorded by Eus. hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 42. Eusebius, describing the Clergie of the Romane Church in his time, sheweth that there were in the same 46 Presbyters, 7 Deacons 7 Subdeacōs, 42 Acoluthes, 52 Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, Widowes with distressed people, more then 1500. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Antiochians, omitting Acoluthes, reckoneth the rest, as Subdeacons, Lectors, Ostiaries, and Exorcists, adding to them Cantores, and Laborantes, or Copiatae, whose imployment was to bury the dead; of whom also Epiphan. in epitome doctr. Catholicae. Epiphanius speaketh. Whereupon Bishop Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. c. 77. Lindan sayth, that howsoeuer in these times they make or account but seauen orders, yet in the Primitiue Church there were more now scarce knowen. But let vs see what the office, employment and manner of the admission of these men was in former times. Touching Ostiaries, the Councell of Carthage ordayneth thus: Concil. Car. thag. 4. Let the Ostiary after he hath beene instructed by the Arch-deacon how to behaue himselfe in the house of God, at the suggestion of the Arch-deacon be ordained, and let the Bishop take the Keyes frō the Altar, and giue them to him saying: So demeane thy selfe as being to giue an accoūt to God for the things that these Keyes locke vp.

The Lectors were to reade in the Church whatsoeuer was to be read out of the old or new Testament; whereupon Cyprian hauing ordained Aurelius the confessour, a Lector, giueth a reason why he had so done: Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 5. Quia nihil magis congruit voci, quae Dominum gloriosa praedicatione confessa est, quam celebrandis diuinis Lectionibus personare: that is, Because nothing doth more fitte or better beseeme the voyce that by a glorious publique testimony hath confessed the Lord, then to giue a sound in the Church, in reading the diuine Scriptures of the Lord.

The Exorcists were such as tooke care of the Energumenes, or men vexed with the Diuell, who in ancient times came to the Churches in great companies, and were there prouided for, and kept vnder rules and disciplinary gouernment. These Exorcists receiued of the hands of the Bishop the booke wherein the Exorcismes were written, which they were to commit to memory, that so by earnest inuocation of the name of CHRIST, who is to returne to judge the quicke and the dead, and to judge the world in fire, they might obtaine of him the repressing of Sathans furies, and the ease, and deliuerance of such as were disquieted and vexed by him. These had power to impose hands on them that were disquieted with Diuels, whether baptised or not; and in solemne manner to commend them vnto God, who onely hath power to rebuke Sathan.

Acoluthes were so named, for that they were to follow and attend the Bishop whithersoeuer he went, that so they might not onely be witnesses of his blamelesse conuersation, but do vnto him such seruice as he should require & stand in need of; whereupon in later times, for that they were to go before the Bishop in the Churches, bearing wax lights in the night watches, and other meetings for diuine seruice in the night time, they were named Ceroferarij, that is, Taper-bearers. Subdeacons were to assist the Deacons in all things pertaining to them. The order of Subdeacons in ancient time was not accounted a sacred order, Concil. Laod. can. 21. Decret. part. 1. dist. 23. c. 26 & dist. 60. cap. 4. so that they might not touch the sacred vessels, nor none might be chosen a Bishop out of their ranke: but the later Bishops of Rome decreed, that the order of Subdeacons should be reputed a sacred order.

These were the inferiour orders of ministery in the Church in anciēt times, to which were added Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 12. Widowes, or holy women, which being aged and destitute of friends, were maintained by the Church; and being of good report, were chosen and appointed to minister to the women that were baptized, to teach and direct them how to answere the Baptizer, and how to liue afterwards, as also to take care of them that were sicke.

All these, as well Ostiaries, Lectors, Exorcists, and Acoluthes, as Subdeacons, in ancient times serued for a certaine space in these degrees: and therefore the solemne designing of them thereunto was not to be disliked; but now, when they execute the office of Ostiaries, who are no Ostiaries: of Lectors, who are no Lectors: of Psalmists, who are worthy to bee driuen not onely out of the Quire, but out of the Church also, as Bishoppe Lindan. Panopliae. lib. 4. c. 78. & 79. Lindan rightly noteth: when none of these performe the duties their names import, and euery man almost is made a Presbyter the first day, as if none might bee made the next, it is but for shew and fashion onely that men are ordained to the performance of these offices, and in truth and in deede, nothing else but a meere mockery, as the same Bishop Lindan ingenuously confesseth. With whom Duarenus agreeth: His words are: Duaren. de sacr. Eccles. minist. & Benef. lib. 1. cap. 16. Hodie nec Diaconis nec alijs inferioribus Clericis vllus locus est in Ecclesia, vllumue ministerium aut munus quòd exequantur; sed quia priscis canonibus statutum est vt nemo Presbyter ordinetur, •… isi per omnes gradus inferiores ascenderit, ideo dicis causa, vt ita dicam, gradatim ordinari solent, idque certo quodam solenniqueritu, vt ad honorem Presbyterij aut quemuis ali •… sublimiorem capessendum idonei reddantur, potest que dici imaginaria haec ordinatio: that is, At this day neither is there any place for Deacons, nor other inferiour Clergimen in the Church, nor any ministery or function for them to execute; but because it is ordained in the ancient Canons, that no man be ordained a Presbyter, vnlesse hee ascend and climbe vp by all inferiour degrees: therefore for names sake they are wont to bee ordained to euery of these degrees in order, and that with a certaine solemne rite, that they may be made capable of Priestly honour, or any other higher dignity. And this ordination may rightly be tearmed an Imaginarie ordination, or in imagination onely. And therefore our Aduersaries cannot justly blame vs, who omitting the other inferiour ordinations, giue no lower order then that of a Deacon.

All these both Ostiaries, Lectors, Acoluthes and Subdeacons, in former times, were sanctified and set apart to serue God in these meaner employments, that they might bee trained vp thereby to performe the duties of higher orders. For in those times, men were not promoted to the highest roomes but by degrees, being found to haue demeaned themselues well in the lower: and therefore they were vnder a stricter kinde of gouernment then they of the Laity: and both in their conuersation, habite, and all things beseeming modesty and grauity, they were more precisely tyed to the keeping of order then other men. Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 44. Hereupon they were not suffered to weare their haire long like wantons, vnciuill men, or men of warre; but were commanded to polle their whole heads, leauing onely a circular crowne in the lower parts thereof.

And here truly we cannot but condemne the absurd custome of the Romane Church, violating old Canons, degenerating from auncient vse, and exposing her Priests and Leuites to the scorne and contempt of the world by those triobolar shauen crownes, which daily shee setteth before our eyes. For first, whereas the Concil. Toletan. 4. can. 40. Councell of Toledo in Spaine prouideth, that all Cleargie men, Lectors, Deacons, and Priests, polling the whole head aboue, shall leaue onely a circular crowne below, and not as the Lectors hitherto had done in the parts of Galicia (who wearing their haire long as Lay-men, were polled in a little round compasse in the tops of their heads onely) for that this had beene the custome of certaine Heretiques in Spaine, the Church of Rome abandoneth the forme of polling prescribed by the Councell, and alloweth the obseruation of those auncient Heretiques the Councell condemned. Here we see, saith Bishop Panoplia, li: 4. cap. 77. Lindan, whence these triobolar crowns in the tops of cleargy mens heads did come, namely from certaine auncient Heretiques in Spaine. But these lesser things might easily be reformed, if the vnspeakable scandals, shames, & dishonours of the Church, were first remoued and taken away. This is the censure of that learned Bishop. Secondly, whereas rasure was not vsed in auncient times, but condemned by the Fathers, as most vnseemely; they of the Church of Rome haue left tonsure, and brought in rasure in steed thereof. That rasure was not vsed in auncient times, it appeareth by Lib. 1. Paedagog. cap 11. Clemens Alexandrinus, where he saith, that the haires are to bee cut off not with the rasoure, but with the Barbours sheares; and by Lib: 2. contra Parmenian. Optatus Bishop of Mileuis, where hee reprehendeth the Donatists that tooke certaine Catholike Priests, and by force did shaue their heads. Shew vs (saith hee) where you are commanded to shaue the heads of Priests, when as on the contrary side, there are so many examples proposed that it ought not so to be done. With Clemens Alexandrinus, and Optatus, Hierome agreeth, who vpon the 44. of Ezekiel saith in expresse words, that Priests must neither nourish their haire, nor be shaued, but so polled, that their skinne may still remaine hid and couered; and Bell: lib. 2. de Monach. c. 40. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that Dionysius, Epiphanius, Hierome, Athanafius, Palladius, Augustine, Isidore, Bede, and the Councels of Carthage & Toledo, doe speake of tonsure onely, and neuer mention rasure, and that the Epistle of Anicetus the Pope alledged for rasure, is not indubitate. What then will the Cardinall bring for defence of the contrary custome now prevayling in the Church of Rome? and what will he answer to these authorities of the ancient? We reprehend not, saith he, the customes of those times, neither do they of those times condemne our obseruation. For howsoeuer tonsure, and not rasure, was anciently vsed, yet were not they of the Clergie forbidden to vse rasure, or to shaue their heads. A strange answer of so great a Rabbi, and contrary to that he knoweth to be vndoubtedly true. For Optatus directly condemneth rasure, as wee haue heard; and Hierome writing vpon the 44 of Ezekiel, hath these words: Quod autem sequitur, Caput autem suū non radent, neque comam nutrient, sed tondentes attondebunt capita sua, perspicuè demonstratur, nec rasis capitibus, sicut Sacerdotes cultoresque Isidis atque Serapis nos esse debere; nec rursum comam dimittere, quod propriè luxuriosorum est barbarorumque & militantium, &c. That is, that which followeth, They shall not shaue their heads, nor let their haire grow long, but polling they shall polle their heads, doeth clearely demonstrate, that wee should neither shaue our heads like the Priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis, nor on the other side let our haire grow long, as wantons, barbarous men, and Souldiers are wont to doe: that that which is fitting, honest, and seemely, may appeare in the faces of the Priests. The Septnagint reade the wordes of the Prophet somewhat otherwise in this sort: They shall not shaue their heads, nor cut their haire too neere, sed operientes operient capitasua: that is, but hiding they shall hide their heads: whereby wee learne, that wee must neither make our selues bald by shauing, nor cut the haire of our heads so neere as if wee were shauen, but let our haire grow so that the skinne may be hid & couered. These are the words of Hierome, whereby it appeareth, that the absurd and ridiculous ceremony of the Romanists, in shauing the heads of those of their Clergie, is condemned by the Fathers, and that Bellarmine speaketh against his owne conscience, when hee sayth the contrary. Wherefore ceasing any longer to insist vpon the refutation of the absurditie of so ridiculous a ceromonie, and leauing those inferiour orders and degrees of Ministerie in the Church of God, wherein men in auncient times were trained vp vnder the rules of strict and seuere gouernment & discipline, and fitted for higher and greater employments, let vs come to the office of the Deacons.

The office of Bishops & Presbyters, was from Christs owne immediate institution: but the institution of Deacons was from the Apostles, as Cyprian. l. 3. cp. 3. Cyprian deliuereth. These the Bishop alone may ordaine, neither is it necessarie that other impose their hands with him, as in the ordination of Presbyters, seeing they are consecrated onely to bee assistants to the Bishop & Presbyters, & not admitted into the fellowship of the same power and order with them.

The Deacons according to the intendment of their first institution, were to take care of the poore, and the treasure of the Church, and therevpon Chrysostome, and after him the Fathers of the Canone 16. sixth generall Councell, doe thinke they were not the same wee now haue; ours being busied in other affaires of the Church. But I am of opinion that they were the same: and that (the end of their first institution being principally to ease the Apostles of the care of prouiding for the poore, and to take the charge of the Church-treasure) when the treasure of the Church encreasing was committed to certaine Stewards, and the poore otherwise provided for, they were more specially vsed for the assisting of the Bishoppe and Presbyters in things pertaining to Gods seruice and worship. Whereupon wee shall finde in some cases they might baptize, reconcile penitents, preach, and doe sundry other things pertaining to the office of the Bishop and Presbyters. That in some cases they might baptize, u Tertullian witnesseth. That they might reconcile penitents, wee haue the authoritie of x Tertul. lib. de Baptimo. Saint Cyp. l. 3. cp. 17 Cyprian. That they might preach, wee haue the testimony of Saint z Gregory. And that they assisted the Bishops and Presbyters in ministring the Sacrament of the x Greg. ep. l. 4. c. 88. Lords body and bloud, and ministred the cup, it appeareth by Cypr. Serm. 6 de Lapsis. Cyprian. And hereupon Hierome amplifieth the dignity of them exceedingly, shewing that for avoyding presumption, the Presbyters may not take the cup of the Lord from the holy Table, vnlesse it be deliuered vnto them by the Deacons. These are they, saith hee, of whom we reade in the Revelation, Hier. tom. 4: de septem ordinib. Ecclesiae. Septem Angeli Ecclesiarum, hi sunt septem candelabra aurea, hi sunt voces tonitruorum, virtutum operatione praeclari, humilitate praediti, quieti, Euangelizantes pacem, annunciantes bona, dissentiones, & rixas & scandala resecare docentes, soli Deo colloquentes in templo, nihil penitus de mundo cogitantes, dicentes Patri & Matri, non noui vos, filios suos non agnoscentes. Sine his Sacerdos nomen non habet, ortum non habet, officium non habet: that is, These are the seauen Angels of the Churches; these are the seauen golden Candlestickes; these are the voyces of the thunders; these are renowned for the operation of vertues, humble, quiet, preaching peace, publishing good things, teaching how to cut away dissentions, brawles and scandals, communing with God alone in his holy temple, hauing no thought of the world, saying to Father and Mother, I know you not, and not acknowledging their own sons; without these the priest hath not the name, not the beginning, not the office of a Priest. And a litle after he addeth, Sacerdotibus etiam propter praesumptionem non licet de mensa Domini calicem tollere, nisi eis traditus fuerit à Diaconis: Leuitae componunt mensam Domini: Leuitae Sacerdotibus cum Sacramenta benedicunt, assistunt: Leuitae ante Sacerdotes orant, vt aures habeamus ad Dominum Diaconus acclamat: that is, Euen the Priests themselues for the auoiding of presumption must not take the holy cup from off the Table of the Lord, vnlesse it be deliuered to them by the Deacons. The Deacons or Leuites prepare the Table of the Lord, and make all things ready on the same. The Leuites assist the Priests when they blesse and sanctifie the sacramentall elements. The Leuites pray before the Priests. The Deacon crieth out aloud vnto vs to open our eares, and to listen and heare what the Lord will speake vnto vs. Great and glorious are these dignities of the Deacons; yet the councell of Carthage maketh them Concil. Ca •… th 4. can. 37. & 39. Ministers not of the Bishop alone but of the Presbyters also: soe that they might not sit in the presence of the Bishop or Presbyters. And when some went about to preferre them before Presbyters, Hierome with great violence opposed himselfe against the same, saying. Hieron. ad Euagrium. Quid patitur mensarum & viduarum minister, vt supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur? that is, What passion is this, that thus transporteth the Minister of the Tables and Widowes, that swelling in pride hee should lift vp himselfe aboue them, at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is consecrated? And obiecting to himselfe the custome of the Romane Church, where a Presbyter is ordained vpon the testimony of a Deacon, hee passionately breaketh into these words: Quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem? Diaconos paucitas honorabiles, Presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit. Caeterum etiam in Ecclesiâ Romae Presbyteri sedent, & stant Diaconi, licet paulatim increbresentibus vitijs, inter Presbyteros, absente Episcopo, sedere Diaconum viderim: that is, why dost thou vrge me with the custome of one Citie? the fewnesse of Deacons maketh them honorable, and the number of Presbyters make thē to be lesse esteemed. Yet euē in the Church of Rome Presbyters do sit, and Deacons stand; although things (growing worse and worse by degrees, and many things growing out of order) I haue seene a Deacon in the absence of the Bishop, sit amongst the Presbyters.

Out of the society and company of the Deacons in each Church, there was one chosen who not only was to performe the things pertaining to the Deacons office, but also to prescribe vnto others what they should doe. The institution of these is not new but very ancient, as it appeareth by Hier: ad Rusticum monachum. Hierome, who vrging the necessity of order and gouernment, sheweth that the heardes of cattel haue their leaders which they follow; that Bees haue their King; that the Cranes flye after one that leadeth them the way; that there is one Emperour, and one Iudge of each prouince; that Rome could not haue two brethren to reigne in her as Kings, but was dedicated in parricide: that •… sau and Iacob were at warre in the wombe of Rebeccah: that euery Church hath her Bishop: euery company of Presbyters and Deacons, their Arch-presbyter, and Arch-deacon.

This maketh nothing aga •… st them who wi •… h vs are named Arch-deacons, and vnder that name excercise Iurisdiction. For by the Canons of our Church they are Presbyters chosen to assist the Bishop in his gouernment, and not meere Deac •… s as sometimes they were. These chiefe Deacons, or Arch-deacons were in processe of time (notwithstanding all Canons to the contrary, and the violent opposition of Hierome and other Worthies of those times) lifted vp not onely aboue the Presbyters, but the Arch-presbyters also. The reason of which their aduancement was, first because the number of Presbyters made them little esteemed, and the paucity and fewnesse of Deacons made them honourable, as I noted before out of Hierome. Secondly, because they were busied about money-matters, and had the charge of the treasure of the Church, which kind of imployments are vsually much set by. Thirdly, because being Ministers vnto the Bishop, they were vsed by him for the viewing of such parts of his Diocese, as he could not conueniently come vnto himselfe, the dispatch of thinges for him, and in the end for the reformation of the lesser and smaller faults which vpon such view they should find. Whereupon at the last they obtained a kind of jurisdiction & power of correction by prescriptiō & custome, whereof I shall haue occasion to speake more hereafter. Thus haue we spoken of the inferiour degrees of Ministery, by which men were wont to ascend to the higher, being trained vp for a certaine space in the lower, that they might thereby be fitted for the higher, according to that of Hierome touching Nepotian, Hieron. in Epitaph: Nepotiani ad Heliodorum. Fit Clericus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur; that is, Hee is made a Clergie-man, and passing through the ordinary degrees he is ordained a Presbyter.

CHAP. 26.

Of the orders, and degrees of them that are trusted with the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, and the gouernment of Gods people: and particularly, of Lay-Elders, falsly by some supposed to be Gouernours of the Church.

NOW it remaineth that we speake of them that are trusted with the ministery of the Word and Sacraments, and the gouernment of Gods people, comprehended vnder one common name of Presbyters, that is, Fatherly Guides of Gods Church and people. Touching these Presbyters, or fatherly Guides of Gods Church, some in our time haue a new and strange conceipt, making them to be of two sorts: whereof some haue charge of gouernment onely, and some together therewith the ministery of the Word and Sacraments; the one sort Lay-men, and the other Clergie-men; the one sort gouerning only, & the other sort preaching, teaching, ministring Sacraments, and gouerning also.

Touching these newly supposed gouerning Elders, that are not Mininisters of the Word and Sacraments, I will first set downe the reasons that moue vs to thinke there neuer were any such in the Church: and secondly I will shew the weakenesse of their reasons that are induced to thinke there were.

The first reason that moueth vs to thinke, there neuer were any such, is, because Bishops, Presbyters, that preach and minister Sacraments, and Deacons that assist them, howsoeuer they much degenerated in later times, yet all still remained in all Christian Churches throughout the world (though in many things exceedingly different, as Greeke, Latine, Aethiopian and Armenian) in their names and offices also in some sort: But of these Lay-elders, there are noe foot-steps to be found in any Christian Church in the world, nor were not for many hundred yeares, whereas there would haue beene some remaines of these, as well as of the other, had they euer had any institution from Christ and his Apostles, as the other had.

Our second reason is, for that S. Paul prescribing Timothy how he should establish a 1. Tim. 3. the Church and appoint her Pastours, and shewing who should be Bishops and Ministers, who Deacons, yea who Widowes, passeth immediately from describing the qualitie of such as were to be Bishops and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, to the Deacons, omitting these Lay-elders that are supposed to lye in the midst betweene them, no way describing vnto vs of what quality they must bee, which in reason hee neither might nor would haue omitted, if there had beene any such.

Our third reason is, for that neither Scripture, nor practice of the Church, bounding the gouernment of such Gouernours, nor giuing any direction how farre they may goe in the same, and where they must stay, lest they meddle with that they haue nothing to doe with, men should be left to a most dangerous vncertainty in an office and employment of so great consequence, either of not doing that their office and place requireth, or presuming beyond that they should: which is not to be conceiued, seeing Christ our gracious Sauiour by himselfe or his Apostles, left certaine direction for farre lesser things then these mens gouernment is supposed to be. That the gouernment of these supposed Lay-elders is not bounded in the Scripture, or Fathers, it is most euident, neither can any man liuing shew vs any such bounding of the same in either of them. The gouernment of the Church is in respect of two sorts of men; the Cleargie, and the Laytie: Touching the former, they are to be tryed and approued for their life and learning, they are to be ordained with solemne imposition of hands, and if they deserue it, they are to be suspended from the execution of their office, or vtterly depriued, and degraded. Shall Lay-elders haue as much to doe in all these actions, as they to whom the Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments is committed? are they competent Iudges of mens learning and aptnesse to teach, that neither are Teachers nor learned? Can they giue the sacred power of holy ministery to others, that haue it not themselues? Or is it not a certaine Axiome on the contrary side, that the lesser is blessed of the greater? Surely they that in England sought to bring in the gouernment of the Church by Lay-elders, were of opinion, that they ought to haue interest in all these things, as well as the Pastours of the Church. And indeede admit them to the gouernment of the Church by force of certain doubtfull words of Scripture, mentioning gouernment without any distinction or limitation; and there is no reason to straighten them, but that they should haue their sway in all parts of it. But they of Geneva, France, and other parts, exclude these Elders from intermedling in ordination, and leaue the power to trye, examine, approue, and ordaine, to the Pastours onely. Likewise, as I thinke, they referre the deciding See Bezaes Epistles, and Caluins Institut. l. 4. c. 3. sect. 16. of doubts in matters of Faith and Religion to the Pastours onely, and not to the suffrages of Lay-men by multitude of voyces ouer-ruling them. Touching the other sort of them of whom the Church consisteth, which are Lay-men, who are to bee admonished, corrected, put from the Sacraments, yea from the communion of the Church for impiety, disobedience, and wickednesse, and vpon repentance and submission to bee receiued againe; doth not the ordering of these men in this sort come within the compasse of the power of the Keyes, and of binding and loosing? Did Christ leaue these to his Apostles as speciall fauours, and are they now transferred from their Successours, the Bishops and Pastours of the Church to Lay-men, that haue neither part nor fellowship in the worke of the Ministerie? Hath GOD committed the dispensation of his Sacraments to the Pastours of the Church? Is it on the perill of their soules, that they duely giue them, or with-holde them as cause shall require? And shall there bee in others that are not trusted with them, as great a power to direct the vse of this Ministeriall authoritie as in them? nay greater, the other being more in number, and their voyces more to carry any thing that shall bee brought into deliberation? Besides all this which hath beene saide, there are many more doubts touching the authoritie of these men, wherein I feare there wil be none found amongst the friends and fauourers of these Lay-elders that will be able to giue vs any satisfaction. For first, I would gladly know, whether these ruling Elders must bee in euery Congregation with power of ordination, and deprivation, suspension, excommunication, and absolution? or whether this power bee onely in the Ministers and Elders of diuerse Churches concurring? Surely in Geneva there are Elders in the Congregations that are abroad in agro, that is, in the Country, but these haue no power of excommunication, much lesse of ordination or deprivation: They may onely complaine to the Consistorie of the Cittie. Nay they that are in the Congregations within the Cittie, haue no separate power with their owne Ministers, but a joynt proceeding with the rest of the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches and Congregations; all which concurring make but one Consistorie. Secondly, let them tell vs, whether these offices be perpetuall, as the offices of Bishops and Pastours; or annuall, and but for a certaine time.

But to leaue them in these vncertainties, the fourth reason that moueth vs to reject the conceipt of these Lay-elders, is, because the founders of this new gouernment, fetch the patterne of it from the Sanedrim of the Iewes, the platforme whereof they suppose Christ meant to bring into his Church when hee said, Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church. Whereas it is most cleare, that that Court was as a ciuill court, and had power to banish, to imprison, yea and to take away life, till by the Romanes the Iewes were restrained: which made them say in the case of Christ, that Ioh. 18. 31. it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death.

Our fift and last reason is, for that all Fathers and Councels mentioning elders or Presbyters, place them betweene Bishops and Deacons, and make them to bee Cleargy-men: and that in the Acts, where the Apostles are said to haue constituted Elders in euery Church, Pastours and Ministers are meant, and not Lay-men, is strongly confirmed by that in the twentieth of Acts, where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus conuented before Paul are commanded to feede the flock of Christ, ouer which they were appointed ouerseers; whence it followeth ineuitably, that they were pastours.

The places of Scripture brought to proue this kinde of gouernment by Lay-elders are specially three. The first is that to Timothie, 1. Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well, bee esteemed worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. The second is that in the Epistle to the Romanes: Rom. •… 2. 8. He that ruleth, let him doe it with diligence. The third is that to the Corinthians, where 1. Cor. 12. 28. Gouernours, or Gouernments are mentioned. The two later allegations are too too weake to proue the thing in question. For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason, reason à genere ad speciem affirmatiuè, that is, from the generall to the particular and speciall affirmatiuely? Or will euer any man of common sense bee perswaded that this consequence is good; There were gouernours in the Primitiue Church mentioned by the Apostles, and required by them to rule with diligence; therefore they were Lay-gouernours? Surely I thinke not. Wherefore let vs see if the first place alledged by them yeelde any better proofe. Touching this place, some interprete it in this sort. The Guides of the Church are worthy of double honour, both in respect of gouerning and teaching, but specially for their paines in teaching; so noting two parts or duties of Presbyteriall offices, not two sorts of Presbyters. Some in this sort: Amongst the Elders and Guides of Gods Church and people, some laboured principally in gouerning and ministring the Sacraments, some in preaching, and teaching: So Paul sheweth, that hee preached and 1. Cor. 15. 10. laboured more then all the Apostles, but 1. Cor. 1. 14. baptized few or none, leauing that to bee performed by others; and when Paul and Barnabas were companions, and their trauels were equall, yet Acts 14. 12. Paul is noted to haue beene the chiefe speaker: so that though both were worthy of double honour, yet Paul especially. Some interprete the words in this sort. There were some that remained in some certaine places, for the guiding and gouerning of such as were already wonne by the preaching of the Gospell; other that travayled with great labour and paines from place to place, to spread the knowledge of God into all parts, and to preach Christ crucified to such as had neuer heard of him before. Both these were worthy of double honour, but the later that builded not vpon another mans foundation, more especially then the former that did but keepe that which others had gotten, and governe those that others had gained. Thus wee see that these words may haue a very good and true sense, without pressing of them to confirme the late conceipt of some few men touching Lay-elders. Which construction wee haue no reason to admitte, seeing the circumstances of the place doe not enforce it, nor no Ecclesiasticall writer did euer so interprete the words before our age. So that to conclude this point, the name of Presbyter, (one place onely in the first of Timothy and the fifth excepted, where it is a name of age and not of office) in the writings of the Apostles doth euer note out vnto vs a Minister of the Word and Sacraments. The reason why the Apostles chose this word rather then the name of Sacerdos, which wee commonly translate Priest (though the English word Priest come of Presbyter) was, lest there should be a confusion of the Ministers of the old Testament, who were to offer sacrifices vnto God, figuring the comming of Christ, with those of the new: and to shew that none should be appointed Ministers, but men of ripe age and confirmed judgment. But some man will say: the auncient Writers mention Seniours, without whose advice nothing was done; an Ecclesiasticall Senate and a Presbytery, or company of Presbyters, which gouerned the Church together with the Bishop: therefore the matter is not so cleare against Lay-elders, as some would make it.

Wee deny not but that there were Presbyters in the primitiue Church constituted and ordained by the Apostles and their Successours, not onely to preach and minister Sacraments, but to gouerne, direct, and guide the people of God also; but that they were Lay-men it cannot bee proued. The Bishops in the greater Churches, and in the Citties had a great number of Clergy-men seruing in diuers sorts, as it appeareth by Cyprian, and the whole Ecclesiasticall history; but out of the whole Clergie at large, the Presbytery or company of Presbyters was called forth to the weightiest deliberations, and to assist the Bishop for the preseruation of discipline; Cyprian. li. 4. epist. 10. Admonitos nos & instructos sciatis dignatione diuinâ, sayth Cyprian, vt Numidicus Presbyter ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero, & nobiscum sedeat in Clero: that is, Know yee, that we haue beene admonished and directed by God himselfe, to choose Numidicus, and to make him one of the company of the Presbyters of Carthage, that he may sit together with vs as a Clergy-man: by which words it appeareth, that there was in Cyprians time a Colledge of Presbyters or Elders in the Church of Carthage, which sate together with the Bishop for the hearing and determining of the causes of the Church; but that these Elders were Clergie-men, and not such Lay-seniours as some would haue. Apud Cypr. l. b. 3. epist. 11. Cornelius Bishop of Rome, writing to Cyprian, se totum Presbyterium contraxisse, that is, that hee drew together the whole Presbytery, or companie of Presbyters, for the reconciling of certaine Schismatiques to the Church, and that hee called together fiue Bishops also, and by common consent ended the whole matter. Of this Senate and company of Presbyters, Tertullian speaketh in his Apologie, when he sayth: Tertul. in Apolog. cap. 39. with vs the most approued Seniours do sit as praesidents to censure offendours, and to exercise discipline. And of these likewise is it that Hierome sayth, writing vpon Esay: Hieron. in 3. Esaiae. We also in the Church haue our Senate, the company of Presbyters: And vpon Titus: In 1. ad Ti tum. The Churches were gouerned by the common aduice and councell of the Presbyters. For to put it out of doubt that he meaneth not Lay-elders, hee sayth in the same place. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: that is, Therefore a Presbyter and Bishop are all one.

There is onely one place in Ambrose that hath some shew of proofe for Lay-elders. His words are; Ambros. com. in 1. ad Tim 5. The Iewish Synogogue, and after the Church, had Seniours or Elders, without whose councell nothing was done in the Church; which, by what negligence it grew out I know not, vnlesse it were by the sloth or pride of the Teachers, whilest they alone would seeme to be something. Here is mention of Elders, without whose aduice nothing was done; but it is not sayd, they were Lay-men. But some man perhaps will reply, that the Elders which Ambrose speaketh of, ceased before his time, which cannot be vnderstood of Clergie-men, therefore they were Lay-men. To this we say, that Ambrose doth not say, the elders without whose councell nothing was to be done, ceased before his time, and were no more, but that the aduising and consulting with them ceased, whilest some would doe all themselues. If it be sayd, that they who thus assumed more then was fitte, and excluded those Seniours without whose councell anciently nothing was done, are not said to haue bin Bishops, but Doctours, and that therefore Ambrose speaketh, not of Bishops excluding other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments from their consultations, but of Clergie-men refusing the aduice of Lay Seniours; we answere, that Ambrose by the name of Teachers, whose sloath or pride hee condemneth in this place, might fitly vnderstand the Bishops, seeing none but bishops haue power to preach in their owne right, and other but only by permission from them. Hereupon it is, that Possidonius in Cap. 5. the life of Augustine saith, that Valerius Bishop of Hippo, gaue S. Augustine his Presbyter leaue to preach, because being a Grecian, hee could not very well expresse himselfe in Latine. In the Canone 4. Councell of Vase leaue is giuen by the Councell of Bishops to Presbyters for to preach. But because this question touching Lay-elders is excellently handled by sundry of our Diuines, I will not trouble the Reader with any farther discourse of this matter.

CHAP. 27.

Of the distinction of the Power of Order and Iurisdiction, and the preheminence of one amongst the Presbyters of each Church, who is named a Bishop.

CEasing to speake of supposed Lay-elders, which the Church of God knoweth not, let vs come to the other that were appointed to teach and gouerne the people of GOD. Where first wee are to speake of the diuerse degrees of honour and preheminence found amongst them. Secondly, of their calling and appointing to the same. And thirdly, of their maintenance. For the clearing of the former of these three things, the Schoole-men note, that there is a two-folde power found in the Ministers of the Church of GOD, the one of Order, the other of Iurisdiction. The power of Order is that, whereby they are sanctified and enabled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can doe, as is the preaching of the Word, and ministration of the holy Sacraments. This power is to bee exercised orderly, and the acts of it to bee performed in such sort that one disturbe not another. Whereupon the Apostles, the first Ministers of CHRIST IESVS, though equall in the power of Order and Iurisdiction, yet for the better and more orderly dispatch of the great worke of converting the world, which they had in hand, and that they might not hinder one another, divided amongst themselues the parts and Provinces of the World; but when for the assisting of them while they liued, and succeeding them dying, they were to passe ouer part of their power to other, they so gaue authoritie to such as they made choyce of for this worke, to preach, baptize, and doe other acts of sacred Ministery (which are to bee performed by vertue of the power of order) that before they invested them with this power, they divided the parts of the world converted to Christianity into seuerall Churches, and when they ordained them, assigned each of them to that particular Church wherein he should preach and minister Sacraments. So that these successours of the Apostles had not an illimited commission, but were confined within certaine bounds; that they were not to preach, nor minister Sacraments, but onely within the limits and compasse of those places which were assigned vnto them, vnlesse it were with the consent, desire, and liking of other, willing to draw them at sometimes for speciall causes, to performe such sacred acts, within the limites and bounds of their charge.

This assigning of men hauing the power of order the persons to whom they were to minister holy things, and of whom they were to take the care, and the subjecting of such persons vnto thē, gaue them the power of jurisdiction which they had not before. And thus was the vse of the power of order which is not included within any certain boūds, limited in those the Apostles ordained, & their power of Iurisdictiō included within certain bounds: so that the one of these kinds of power they haue not at all without the extēt of their own limits, nor the lawful vse of the other. Hence is that resolutiō of the Diuines, that if a Bishop adventure to do any act of Iurisdictiō out of his own Diocese, as to excōmunicate, absolue, or the like, all such acts are vtterly voide, & of no force; but if hee shall doe any act of the power of order in another mans charge, as preach, or minister Sacraments, though he cannot be excused as not offending, if he doe these things without his consent, yet are the Sacraments thus ministred truly Sacraments and of force.

When the Apostles first founded Churches, and assigned to such as they ordained to the worke of the ministery the seuerall parts of the flocke of Christ, and people of GOD, of which they appointed them to take care and charge, they so sorted & divided out particular Churches, that a Cittie, and the places neere adioyning made but one Church: Wherevpon wee shall finde in the holy Scriptures, that to ordaine Presbyters Acts, 14. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Titus. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is in euery Church, and in euery Citty, are all one. Now because Churches of so large extent required many Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, and yet of one Church there must be but one Pastour; the Apostles in setling the state of these Churches, did so constitute in them many Presbyters with power to teach, instruct, and direct the people of God, that yet they appointed one onely to be chiefe Pastour of the place, ordaining that the rest should be but his assistants, not presuming to doe any thing without him; so that though they were all equall in the power of order, yet were the rest inferior vnto him in the government of that Church whereof hee was Pastour, and they but his assistants onely. As another of my ranke cannot haue that Iurisdiction within my Church as I haue, but if hee will haue any thing to doe there, he must be inferiour in degree vnto me. So wee reade in the Reuelation of Saint Iohn, of the Reuel. 2. 1. Angell of the Church of Ephesus, to whom the Spirit of God directeth letters from heauen, as to the Pastour of that Church. It is not to be doubted but that there were many Presbyters, that is, Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in so large a Church as that of Ephesus was; nay wee reade expressely in the Acts, that there were many in that Church, Acts 20. 28. that fed the flocke of Christ, and consequently were admitted into some part of pastorall office & employment; yet was there one amongst the rest to whom onely the Lord did write from heauen, to whom an eminent power was giuen, who was trusted with the government of that Church and people in more speciall sort then any of the rest, and therefore challenged by name by Almighty God for the thinges there found to bee amisse, the rest being passed ouer in silence. The like wee reade of the rest of the seven Reuel. 1. 20. Churches of Asia, compared to seuen golden candlestickes, in the midst whereof the Sonne of God did walke, hauing in his hand seuen starres, interpreted to haue beene the seuen Angels of those seuen Churches. Neither was this orderly superiority of one amongst the Presbyters of the Church, found onely in the seuen Churches of Asia, but in other Churches also. For Saint Hierony. ad Euagrium. Hierome testifieth, that in the Church of Alexandria, from the time of Marke the Evangelist, there was euer one whom the Presbyters of that Church chose out of themselues to be ouer the rest. Neither was this proper to the Church of Alexandria, but wee can shew the successions of Bishops in all the famous Churches of the world, euen from the Apostles times: and therefore all admitte and allow a kinde of preëminence of one aboue the rest in each Church. Cyprian. li. 1. Epist. 3. Heresies haue sprung, saith Cyprian, and schismes risen from no other fountaine then this, that Gods Priest is not obeyed, nor one Priest in the Church acknowledged for the time to bee Iudge in Christs steed. Hierony. aduersus Luciferian. If one, saith Hierome, in each Church be not aboue and before the rest of the Presbyters, there will be as many Schismes as Priests; and the Beza. in resp. ad tract. de minist. Evang. gradib. best learned in our age that affect presbyteriall government, ingenuously confesse it to be an essentiall, & perpetuall part of Gods ordinance, for each presbytery to haue a chiefe amongst them, the necessity whereof, wee may learne from all Societies, both of men indued with reason, and of other thinges also to which God hath denied the light of vnderstanding. Hier. ad Rusticum monachum. The dumbe beasts, saith Hierome, and wilde Heards haue their leaders which they follow; the Bees haue their King; the Cranes fly after one in order like an Alphabet of letters: there is but one Emperour, one Iudge of a Prouince; Rome newly built could not endure two brethren to bee Kings together; and therefore was dedicated in parricide; Esau & Iacob were at warre in the wombe of Rebeccah: euery Church hath her owne Bishop, her owne Arch-presbyter, her owne chiefe Deacon, and all Ecclesiasticall order consisteth herein, that some doe rule and direct the rest. In a shippe there is but one that directeth the helme. In a house or family there is but one master. And to conclude, in an armie, if it be neuer so great, yet the direction of one Generall is expected.

Thus then all confesse, that there alwayes hath beene, and must be in each Church, a preëminence of one aboue the rest of the Presbyters of the same; but some thinke this preëminence should be onely a priority of order, in sitting before, in propounding things to be thought of, and in moderating the whole action of deliberation, and that all things should be swayed by voyces, the President or Bishop hauing no voyce negatiue or affirmatiue, but as the maior part shall direct him. Likewise this presidencie they thinke should bee but annuall, or to end with the action about which they meete, whether it be to determine a doubt, to ordaine a Minister, or to doe any other such like thing.

This new conceipt wee cannot approue of, because wee finde no patterne of any such Bishop or President in all antiquity. But the Fathers describe vnto vs such a Bishop, as hath eminent and peerelesse power, without whose consent the Presbyters canne doe nothing. Cyprian. li: 1. epist. 3. Hence haue heresies sprung and schismes arisen, sayth Cyprian, because one Priest in the Church is not acknowledged for the time to bee Iudge in Christs steed, to whom if all the brethren would be subiect according to the diuine directions, no man would, after the diuine iudgements, after the suffrages of the people, after the consent of other Bishops, make himselfe Iudge, not of the Bishop, but of God. Ignat. ad Magnesian. Epist. 3. Let the Presbyter, saith Ignatius, doe nothing without the Bishop; Hier. aduersus Luciferianos. The Bishop (saith Hierome) must haue an eminent and peerelesse power, or else there will be as many schismes in the Church, as there are Priests. And Tertul. de Baptismo. Tertullian sheweth, that without the Bishops leaue and consent, no Presbyter may baptize, minister any Sacrament, or doe any ministeriall act. So that it is most cleare and euident, that the Bishop in each Church is aboue and before the rest of the Presbyters of the same, not in order onely, but in degree also and power of Iurisdiction.

Yet on the other side, we make not the power of Bishops to be Princely, as Bellarmine doth, but Fatherly: so that as the Presbyters may doe nothing without the Bishop, so he may doe nothing in matters of greatest moment and consequence without their presence and aduice. Wherevpon the Councell of Carthage Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 23. voideth all sentences of Bishops which the presence of their Clergie confirmeth not; and euen vnto this day they haue no power to alienate lands, and to doe some such like things without the concurrence and consent of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall, and great Church.

It is therefore most false that Bellar: li: 1. de Clericis, ca. 14. Bellarmine hath, that Presbyters haue no power of Iurisdiction, and the proofe he bringeth of this his assertion most weake, when he alledgeth, that all Councels both generall and prouinciall wherein Iurisdiction is most properly exercised, were celebrated and holden by Bishops, as if Presbyters had had nothing to doe therein. For it is most cleare and euident, that in all prouinciall Synodes Presbyters did sit, giue voyce, and subscribe as well as Bishops. And howsoeuer in generall councels none did giue voyce but Bishops alone, yet those Bishops that were present, bringing the resolution and consent, of the prouinciall Synodes of those Churches from whence they came, in which Synodes Presbyters had their voyces, they had a kinde of consent to the decrees of generall Councells also: and nothing was passed in them without their concurrence. Thus were things moderated in the primitiue ages of the Church; and though Bishops had power ouer Presbyters, yet was it so limited, that there was nothing bitter or grieuous in it, nothing but that which was full of sweetnesse, and content. For if any difference grew betweene the Bishop and his Presbyters; the Presbyters might not iudge their Bishop, whom they were to acknowledge to be a Iudge in Christs stead, but an appeale lay vnto a prouinciall Synode, to which not onely the Bishops of the prouinces were to come, but a certaine number of Presbyters also out of each Church, to sit as Iudges of such differences. Neither might the Bishop of himselfe alone depriue, degrade, or put from their office and dignity the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church; but Concil. Carthag. 3. can. 8. if there were any matter concerning a Presbyter, he was to joyne vnto him fiue other Bishops of the prouince; and if any matter concerning a Deacon, two other Bishops, before he might proceede to giue sentence against Presbyter or Deacon. The causes of other inferiour Cleargie-men the Bishop might heare and determine himselfe alone, without the concurrence, and presence of other Bishops, but not without the concurrence of his owne Cleargie, without whose presence no sentence of the Bishop was of force, but judged and pronounced voide by the canon.

Touching the preheminence of Bishops aboue Presbyters there is some difference among the Schoole-Diuines: For the best learned amongst them are of opinion, that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters in the power of consecration or order, but only in the exercise of it, and in the power of Iurisdiction, seeing Presbyters may preach, and minister the greatest of all Sacraments, by vertue of their consecration and order, as well as Bishops. Touching the power of consecration or order, saith Durandus in 4. Sent dist. 24. q. 5. Durandus, it is much doubted of among Diuines, whether any be greater therein then an ordinarie Presbyter: For Hierome seemeth to haue beene of opinion, that the highest power of consecration or order is the power of a Priest or elder; so that euery Priest in respect of his priestly power, may minister all Sacraments, confirme the baptized, giue all orders, all blessings and consecrations; but that for the avoiding of the perill of schisme, it was ordained that one should be chosen, who should bee named a Bishop, to whom the rest should obey, and to whom it was reserued to giue orders, and to doe some such other things, as none but Bishops doe. And afterwards hee saith, that Hierome is clearely of this opinion; not making the distinction of Bishops from Presbyters, a meere humane invention, or a thing not necessary, as Aerius did; but thinking that amongst them who are equall in the power of order, and equally enabled to doe any sacred act, the Apostles (for the avoyding of schisme and confusion, and the preseruation of vnity, peace, and order) ordained that in each Church one should beebefore and aboue the rest, without whom the rest should do nothing, and to whom some things should bee peculiarly reserued, as the dedicating of Churches, reconciling of penitents, confirming of the baptized, and the ordination of such as are to serue in the worke of the Ministerie: Of which the three former were reserued to the Bishop alone, Potiùs ad honorem Sacerdotii, quam ad legis necessitatem; that is, rather to honour his priestly and Bishoply place, then for that these things at all may not be done by any other. And therefore wee reade, that at some times, and in some cases of necessitie Ambros. in 4. ad Ephes. Presbyters did reconcile penitents, and by imposition of hands confirme the baptized. But the ordaining of men to serue in the worke of the Ministerie, is more properly reserued to them. For seeing none are to be ordained at randome, but to serue in some Church, and none haue Churches but Bishops, all other being but assistants to them in their Churches: none may ordaine but they onely, vnlesse it bee in cases of extreme necessitie, as when all Bishops are extinguished by death, or fallen into heresie, obstinately refuse to ordaine men to preach the Gospell of Christ sincerely. And then as the care and charge of the Church is devolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholique; so likewise the ordaining of men to assist them, and succeede them in the worke of the Ministery. But hereof I haue spoken at large elsewhere. Wherefore to conclude this point, we see that the best learned amongst the Schoolemen are of opinion, that Bishops are no greater then presbyters in the power of consecration or order, but onely in the exercise of it, and in the power of Iurisdiction, with whom Relect. contio. 2. q. 3. art. 3. Stapleton seemeth to agree, saying expressely, that Quoad ordinem Sacerdotalem, & ea quae sunt ordinis; that is, In respect of Sacerdotall order, and the things that pertaine to order, they are equall, and that therefore in all administration of Sacraments which depend of order, they are all equall potestate, though not exercitio; that is, in power, though not in the execution of things to be done by vertue of that power: whence it will follow, that ordination being a kinde of Sacrament, and so depending of the power of order, in the judgement of our Adversaries might bee ministred by presbyters, but that for the avoyding of such horrible confusions, scandals, and schismes, as would follow vpon such promiscuous ordinations, they are restrained by the decree of the Apostles; and none permitted to doe any such thing, except it bee in case of extreme necessitie, but Bishops, who haue the power of order in common together with presbyters, but yet so, as that they excell them in the execution of things to bee done by vertue of that power, and in the power of Iurisdiction also.

But Lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 14. Bellarmine sayth, the Catholique Church acknowledgeth, and teacheth, that the degree of Bishops is greater then that of Presbyters by Gods Law, as well in the power of order as jurisdiction: & addeth, that the Schoole-men vpon the fourth of the Sentences defend the same, and Thomas in his Summe; which yet De Sacram. Ord. l. 1. c. 5. elsewhere he confesseth to be vntrue. This his opinion he endeauoureth to confirme, because none but Bishoppes doe ordaine; and if they doe, their ordinations are judged voyde: which they could not be by the Churches prohibition, or decree of the Apostles, if they were equall in the power of order to Bishops. Hereunto I haue answered Booke 3. Chap. 39. elsewhere shewing that ordinations at large, or sine titulo, and ordinations in another mans charge by bishops, who by the character of their order may ordaine, are likewise pronounced to be voide by the ancient canons: and that therefore the prohibition of the Church and decree of the Apostles for the auoyding of confusion and schisme, reseruing the honour of ordaining to Bishops onely (vnlesse it were in the case of extreame necessitie) might make the ordinations of all other to be void, though equall with them in the power of order.

CHAP. 28.

Of the diuision of the lesser Titles, and smaller Congregations or Churches, out of those Churches of so large extent, founded and constituted by the Apostles.

HItherto wee haue seene how the Apostles diuiding the Churches in such sort that a whole citty and the places adioyning made but one Church, set ouer the same one Bishop, as Pastour of the place, & diuers Presbyters, as assistants vnto him. But in processe of time, we shall find certaine portions of these greater flockes of Christ, and Churches of God, to haue beene deuided out and distinctly assigned to seuerall Presbyters, that were to take the care and charge thereof, yet with limitations and reseruations of sundry preeminences to the Bishop, as remaining still Pastour of those smaller particular congregations, though in a sort deuided and distinguished from that greater Church, wherein especially hee made his abode. Two words wee find in Antiquie vsed to expresse the flockes of Christ, and Churches of a See D. Bilson perpet. gouern. Chap: 11. Euseb. lib. 4. c. 4. 5. 15. 19. & 23. God thus deuided for more conuenience, and yet still depending on that care of one Pastour or Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, parish and Diocese: The former contained the cittizens, and all such borderers, as dwelt neare and repaired to any chiefe church or citie, though now we vse the word Parish to signifie another thing: namely, some particular, smaller and lesse congregation, diuided out from the Mother Church: the later which is Diocese, both then and now, importeth the villages and Churches dispersed in diuers places, vnder the regiment of one Bishop.

The first that began thus to deuide out smaller Churches and congregations out of those great ones first founded, and to assigne Presbyters distinctly to take care of thē, was Platina de vitis Pont. in Euaristo. Euaristus Bishop of Rome, whose example others did follow in al parts of the world. These parts of Gods Church thus deuided, & assigned to the care of seuerall Presbyters, were called Tituli, that is, Titles, because God was intituled vnto them, & did specially claime them as the lot of his inheritance. These Titles, or smaller Churches and congregations were of diuerse sorts: for some were more principall, wherein Baptisme might be administred, and the like things performed, which were thereupon named Baptismall Churches: and in respect of meaner in time growing out of them and depending of them, Mother Churches also: Other there were not hauing so great liberties. Onuphr. in libello de statio, vrbis Romae. To such of these Churches as he pleased, the Bishop himselfe went and preached one day in one of them, and another in another, carrying great cōpanies with him, & drawing great multitudes to him, which solemne assēblies & meetings were named stations, from their standing at prayers vsed in those times: and were like the mighty armies of God keeping their watches, and standing ready to encounter their furious and dangerous enemies. In this sort Gregory the Great went and preached in such Churches in Rome, as he thought fit, whose Homilies and Sermons then preached are yet extant, with the names of the particular churches or places where they were preached, which were therevpon named churches of station; though now in another sense they call those churches of station, whither men out of devotion resorting to visite Reliques and Monuments, are made partakers of ample Indulgences and pardons, for dayes, yeares, nay hundreds, and thousands of yeares. In those times when the auncient Bishops of Rome were wont to goe to the churches of station, because all churches had not their Quire and Ministers fit to performe the seruice of God with that solemnitie that was wished, there were some specially appointed for this purpose, that they might attend the Bishoppe, and goe with him in the dayes of station, that so nothing might be wanting to all joyfull solemnitie & divine exultation.

Bel: de Clericis li: 1. cap. 16. Those principall titles or parish churches, as now we vse to speake, that enioyed the greatest liberties and priuiledges, were called Cardinall Titles, or churches; and those Presbyters that attended the service of God in those principall or Cardinall churches, were called Cardinall Presbyters; and in processe of time some amongst the Deacons also, Cardinall Deacons; and amongst the Bishops of Italie, certaine Bishops were named Cardinall Bishops. Neither were these Cardinall Presbyters onely in the church of Rome, but in other churches also, as De Sacris. E •… cles. minist. lib. 1. cap. 13. Duarenus sheweth; whence it is that wee reade in the councell of Canone 54. Melden, that the Bishop must canonically order the Cardinall Titles in the cities or suburbes; and that wee reade in In vita Greg: lib: 3 cap: 1 •… . Ioannes Diaconus, that Gregorie called backe the Cardinals violently ordained in the parishes abroad, into their auncient title againe. Onuphr. lib. de Episc. tit. & Diaconijs Cardinal. Onuphrius a great Antiquary, giueth another reason of the name of Cardinall, supposing that they were called Cardinall priests and deacons in each church, which were ouer all the other priests and deacons of the same; for that they were chiefe priests and deacons, and of more principall esteeme then the rest. But this conceipt of his, Bella. vbi supra. Bellarmine refuteth, for that there were sometimes many Cardinals in the same title, as appeareth by Saint Gregorie in his Epistles. So that it seemeth more probable, that Cardinalls are so named from the titles and churches which are Cardinall & chiefe churches, enjoying greater liberties and priuiledges then others, then for that they are Cardinall or chiefe amongst the Priests of those their churches and titles.

But whatsoeuer was the reason that they were named Cardinals, which perhaps cannot now certainely bee knowen; it is strange to see from how meane beginnings they haue grown so great in state & dignity, as therein to match & equall the greatest Princes of the world. That at first they were but parish priests of Rome (besides that it is confessed by all) it is most euident, for that yet still in this their greatnesse, they are stiled but Cardinall priests of such a title or parish church in Rome; and that for a long time there was no more respect had to one Presbyter then another, but all equally interessed in the gouernment of the church, were indifferently called to the election of the Bishop, and his consultations, it is most cleare and euident. Whereupon Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 5. & 2 •… . Cyprian writing to the cleargie of Rome, writeth not to the Cardinalls onely, but to all the priests and deacons of the church of Rome. In the time of Gregorie the Great, it may seeme that all the Presbyters were not called to the consultations of the Bishop, but Cardinall Presbyters onely: For Greg. lib. 4. Registri. cap. 88. onely foure and thirty were present at the Synode holden by him, and mentioned in his epistles; whereas no doubt in his time there were many more Presbyters of that great and large church, seeing there were sixe and fortie in the dayes of Cornelius in the time of persecution, when the greatest part of the citie remained yet still in infidelity, and heathenish superstition. But whether all the Presbyters of the church of Rome, or onely some certaine were called to the consultations of the Bishop in Gregories time, it is certaine that all the cleargie had interest in the choice, and election of the Bishop. But afterwards in processe of time, the Cardinals onely had interest in the election of their Bishop, & they and no other were admitted to sit in councell with the Bishop, all other Presbyters being excluded. By which meanes the dignitie of these Cardinals was greatly encreased. So that whereas before all Bishops were preferred before those Cardinals that were not Bishops, and to be a Cardinall was but a step to the degree of a Bishop, as Onuphrius in his booke of Cardinals sheweth, and as is collected out of the first book and seuenth Chapter of the life of Gregory: afterwardes, this order was changed, and the dignity of a Bishop was made but a step to the degree and honour of a Cardinall. Neither did they onely exclude the rest of the Clergie of the Church of Rome from the election of their Bishop, and from sitting in Councell with him: but whereas from the yeare three hundreth, to the yeare eight hundreth after Christ, for the determining of all weightie matters concerning the Church, the Bishoppes of Italie were convocated to Nationall Synodes, as it appeareth by the Tomes of the Councels, they excluded them also: so that the managing of the weightie affaires of the Church, was wholly referred to these Cardinals, the other being no longer called according to the olde manner, though yet still they take an oath yearely to visite the Apostolicall thresholds, and to present themselues vnto the Romane Bishoppe their Metropolitane, as they were wont to doe, when being called by him to Nationall Synodes, they were bound to make their repaire to Rome. Of this chaunge De concord. cathol. l. 2. c. 18. citat. d. 93. c. 4. Cardinall Cusanus speaketh, shewing that in his opinion the first steppe to the due reformation of the Church, were the chusing of these Cardinals out of those seuerall Churches which were heretofore interessed in the deliberations of the Romane Bishop, and the making of them to be but agents and procurators for them, and in their names, till such time as the Bishops might be convocated againe to Nationall Synods, as in former times they were wont to be. From hence, saith De sacris Eccles. ministeriis l. 1. c. 13. Duarenus, wee may easily gather the same that the Interpreter of the decrees somewhere writeth, that howsoeuer in time, and by spoyling other of their right, the Cardinals of the Church of Rome are growne exceeding great, yet in trueth and indeed, euery Bishop of what citie soeuer, is of greater dignity then any Cardinall, Priest, or Deacon of the Romish Church: which thing, saith Duarenus, if any man should doubt of, might easily be confirmed by the authoritie of Saint Augustine, in a certaine Epistle to Saint Hierome Priest of the Romane Church, where hee saith expressely: Quanquam secundùm vocabula, quae vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus sit Presbyterio maior; Augustinus tamen Hieronymo minor est: that is, Although according to the titles which now are in vse, it is a more honourable thing to be a Bishop, then a Presbyter, yet Augustine is lesse then Hierome. His meaning is, in merite, and personall worth: for otherwise, that there is no other reason of Priests, and Deacons of the Church of Rome, then of any other citie, in respect whereof Hierome as Priest of Rome, might be greater then Augustine being Bishop of little Hippo in Africa, Hierome himselfe demonstrateth at large in his Epistle to Euagrius. But this proofe of Duarenus perhaps will be found too weake, because it is greatly doubted by some of excellent learning, whether Hierome were a Priest of the Church of Rome, or not. Surely in his Epist. 61. ad Pammachium, de erroribus Ioannis Hierosolym it. Epistle against Iohn of Hierusalem, he termeth himselfe a Priest of the Church of Antioche, and not of Rome: So that it may bee probably thought, that howsoeuer for a time he were in Rome, and did Hier. ep. ad Gerontiam de Monogamiâ. helpe Damasus the Bishop in certaine writings, matters of learning, and resolution of doubts, yet hee neuer had any title or charge in the Romane Church. De Clericis l. 1. c. 16. Bellarmine taketh great exception to Caluine, for saying that Hierome was Priest of the Romish Church, which if he had beene well aduised, he should not haue done (howsoeuer perhaps Caluine were deceiued in that point) not onely because many of his owne friends haue erred with Caluine in this point, if it be an errour, but because they haue for a long time in their Churches, and all other places, painted him in his scarlet robes, & Innocent. 4. in Concilio Lugduni habito plures Cardinales creavit. Primu •… que fuit qui Cardinalitiam dignitatem rubeo pileo adauxit, eâ intentione vt admonerentur, teste Martino Polono, se semper paratos esse debere sanguinem pro Christianâ religione profundere, praesertim eo tempore quo Romana Ecclesia à Frederico secundo quondam Imperatore vehementer oppugnabatur. Bin. Conc. tom. 3. part. 2. pag. 148 •… . in vita Innocentii 4. red hat, like a Cardinall. And howsoeuer Bellarmine perhaps will not bee much moued with these paintings, yet Campian a great champion of the Roman Church, bringeth the painted glasse windowes of their Churches as pregnant witnesses against vs, which we may not except against; & testes fenestrae are not the meanest of those witnesses, which in his Omne genus testium (wherein he maketh a search in heauen, and raketh hell, to see who will speake for him, and depose against vs) he produceth and bringeth to the barre. But to leaue this proofe of the dignity of Bishops brought by Duarenus as vncertaine, it is most certaine, which the same Duarenus hath, that Cardinals of the Church of Rome in ancient time, were not matchable in honour & dignity with the meanest Bishop in the world; that they were but parish Priests & deacons of the Church of Rome, & bound by all canons to be resident in their parishes and titles, as all other Priests, and Deacons are; & that they canne noe way justifie their possessing of Bishoprickes, being noe Bishops, but Presbyters, and Deacons onely. What hauocke and spoyle these parish Priests haue made throughout the whole Christian world, since they came to that greatnesse they are at now, by seazing into their hands the richest Abbeys, Bishoprickes, and Arch-bishoprickes by vertue of the Popes prouisions, not contenting themselues with one or two, but getting to themselues so great a number of the greatest dignities and Church-liuings, as is incredible, Nicholas Clemangis de corrupto Ecclesiae statu. all stories report, and the wofull experience of all Christendome, doth sufficiently testifie. If any man desire to see how the Pope as a wild Boare hath layd wast the Vineyard of the Lord in former times, spoyling the Church and people of God for the enriching of these his Cardinals, that so they might be equall in state and magnificence to the Princes and Potentates of the world, let him reade that which Confer. with Hart, Chap: 7. diuision 6. pag. 384. 385. &c. Doctor Reynolds in his most learned and worthy Conference, hath collected and gathered out of most authenticall records, touching these Romish practices, to the euerlasting shame and ignominie of the Court Rome; which long since for the intollerable and infatiable couetousnesse thereof, Math. Parisien. in Henrico 3. p. 848. Grostead the renowned Bishop of Lincolne fitly compared vnto that Behemoth, that thinketh he can drinke vp the whole riuer of Iordan & sayth, that among other the praises of the Romish Court, these two are not the least, that Eius auaritiae totus non sufficit orbis, Eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis: that is, That the Courtiers of the Court of Rome are so insatiable in couetousnesse, that a whole world of wealth is not sufficient to satisfie their greedy desires; and so impure in their filthy lusts that all the stewes in the world are not able to giue them content.

CHAP. 29.

Of Chorepiscopi, or Rurall Bishops, forbidden by old Canons to encroach vpon the Episcopall office, and of the institution and necessary vse of Arch-presbyters, or Deanes.

FOR the more easie gouerning of their Churches, in number many, and in place farre distant one from another, some of the Bishops in ancient times communicated part of their authority to some principal men, which in places farre remote from them supplied their absence, and performed some things pertaining to them. These were called Chorepiscopi, either for that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; that is, rurall Bishops; or else for that they were in steed of the Bishops, and in many things supplied their places, and did their duties. The first institution of these as it appeareth by the Councell of Canone. 13. Neocaesarea, and Damas. Epist. 5. Damasus in his Epistle written concerning these Rurall Bishops, was specially that they might be assistant to the Bishop in receiuing such contributions, oblations, and set rents, as were for the maintenance of the Bishoppe, and his Clergie, the reliefe of the poore and needy, and the entertainment of strangers; as also in taking care of the poore, and prouiding for them out of the common treasury, the Bishop himselfe being farre off. Afterwards in processe of time there were some Bishops, that put ouer vnto these the care, execution, and performance of such things as properly pertained to themselues, that they might take their ease, and attend their owne priuate affaires; like harlots, that put out their children to be noursed by others, that themselues in the meane while may satisfie their lusts, as a great Damasus ibid. Bishop, not without some bitternesse, speaketh: whence it came that these Chorepiscopi waxed proud, and insolent, and in the end being but Presbyters, presumed to ordaine Priests and Deacons, and to doe such things, as none but Bishops ought to do: whereupon they were controlled by the learned Bishoppes that liued in those times, and the councels holden by them. Damasus so farre disliketh their presumption in ordaining Prests and Deacons, that he will not haue them to ordaine sub-deacons or inferiour clearkes. The Councels of Canone 12. Ancyra, and Hispalens. 2. Canone. 7. Hispalis, Epist. 86. & 88. Leo the great, and In epist. ad Episcop. Germaniae & Galliae. Iohn the third, forbid them the ordaining of Priests & Deacons, mentioning not the other inferiour clerkes. The Councell of Canone 10. Antioche sayth, the rurall Bishops that haue receiued imposition of hands of Bishops and haue been ordained as Bishops, may ordaine Sub-deacons, and other inferiour clerkes; but Priests or Deacons without the Bishop of the cittie, or as some reade it, without the priuity of the Bishop of the cittie, they may not: thereby insinuating that with his consent they may. Out of which Councell De Clericis. li. 1. c. 14. Bellarmine collecteth two things: The first that in the Primitiue Church there were two sorts of Chorepiscopi or rurall Bishops, whereof the former had Episcopall ordination, that is, were ordained of three Bishops like the Suffragan Bishops of our time: the later were but Presbyters: The second, that the Councell appointing the rurall Bishop to be ordained by the Bishop of the Citty, meant to forbid that there should be any more such rurall Bishops as haue Episcopall ordination, whereunto the concurrence of three Bishoppes at the least is required: & thereupon hee thinketh, the Councell of Antioche permitting rurall Bishops to ordaine Sub-deacons, and the Decretall of Damasus forbidding them so to do, may be reconciled; for that the Councell permitting the ordination of Sub-deacons to rurall Bishops speaketh of such as were ordained of three Bishops: and the Decretall of Damasus forbidding them to meddle in such ordination, of such as were but meere Presbyters. But whosoeuer shall take a view of the Decretall epistle of Damasus, shall finde that hee condemneth the intermedling of any rurall Bishops whatsoeuer in ordination, and shutteth them out of the k Epist. suprà citat. Church, as men that neither haue nor can haue any place in the same. What is Chorepiscopus, sayth Damasus, but a country Bishop? and if hee be a country Bishop, what doth he in the citty? the Canon altogether forbidding, that there should be two Bishops in one city. If he be not in the city, but in some countrey village, and in such place where there neuer was any Bishop before (the canon forbidding Bishops to be ordained in meane cities, villages or forts, or in any place whatsoeuer were bishops haue not bin placed in former times, least the authority, & name of Bishops grow into contēpt) what I pray you shall he be? For behold, neither doth the place agree with his ordination, nor his ordination with the place: because, if such rural Bishops haue receiued the imposition of the hands of many Bishops, & haue bin ordained as Bs, they should not haue bin consecrated in a country village, such as the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 importeth, the canon forbidding Bishops to be placed in villages, small forts, or litle citties. Giue me therefore a reason, sayth he, I pray you, of the constituting of these men: or if you cannot, as I know you cannot, lay your hand on your mouth, and assure your selues, that they haue no place nor authority in the Church of God, diuers things making voyd their ordination, and whatsoeuer thing they attempt to doe by vertue of such ordination: Whereof the first is, for that they are wont to bee ordained by one Bishop, wherein their ordination is against the canons concerning Bishops, which will haue Bishops ordained by the imposition of the hands of 3 Bishops at the least. The 2, for that if they be ordained by many bishops, yet they are placed in some village, litle fort, or smal city: or at least in some such place where lawfully Bishops may not be ordained, or formerly haue not bin, & where the authority, and name of a Bishop wil grow into contempt: or if they be placed in a city, they are placed there with another Bishop, whereas the canons permit not 2 Bishops in one city. The third is, for that if they haue bin ordained at large, & neither placed in city, nor country village, as it hath bin reported vnto vs of some, their ordination is voyd, because the canons do voyd all ordinaons at large: so that which way soeuer we turne vs, we shal find that these men neither haue, nor can haue any Episcopal authority or place. This is the resolution of this great Romane Bishop, who wholly rejecteth this kinde of rurall Bishops, and will not haue them at all to intermeddle in any thing peculiarly pertaining to the Episcopall office. But some man will say, May not a Bishop when he is growne aged, infirme, and vnable to sustaine and beare the weight of that great office, haue a Coadiutor or assistant? Surely there is no doubt but that he may haue one joyned vnto him to beare part of his burthen; but that that other should haue Episcopall ordination, the Canons permit not: whereupon S. Augustine now aged, and distracted with multiplicitie of manifold businesses concerning the state of the whole Church, desirous with the consent of his Cleargie and people, to haue Eradius a Presbyter of his Church joyned vnto him as a Coadiutor while he liued, & designed to succeede him after his death, would by no meanes haue him ordained a Bishop, but to continue a Presbyter still, though himselfe had beene ordained a Bishop, while Valerius yet liued. His words are these, Aug. ep. 110. Adhuc in corpore po sito beatae memoriae Patre & Episcopo meo Valerio, Episcopus ordinatus sum, & sedi cum illo: quod Concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, nec ipse sciebat. Quod ergo reprehensum est in me, nolo reprehendi in filio meo: erit Presbyter, ut est; quando Deus voluerit, futurus Episcopus. Obsecro vos, & obstringo per Christum, ut huic Iuveni, huic Presbytero Eradio, quem hodiè in Christi nomine designo Episcopum successorem mihi, patiamini refundere onera occupationum mearum, &c. that is, While my Father & Bishop Valerius yet liued, I was ordained a Bishop, and sate together with him, which I knew not to haue bin forbidden in the Nicene Councell, neither did he know it. What therfore was disliked in me, I will not haue to be blamed in my sonne, hee shall continue a Presbyter as he is, & when God will hee shall bee a Bishop. I beseech you, and earnestly entreate you for Christs sake, that you will giue mee leaue, in some sort to ease my selfe, and to cast the burthen of my employments vpon the shoulders of this yong man, this Presbyter Eradius, whom this day in the name of Christ, I appoint and designe the Bishop that shall succeede mee. My counsell shall nót bee wanting to him, neither will I faile to supply what shall be any way defectiue or wanting in him. Thus wee see, a Coadiutor was allowed, but yet such a one as should be but a Presbyter: and therefore long after the time of Augustine, when Naucler. vol. 2. gener. •… 6 p. 667. Decreti part. 2 causa 7. q. 1. c. Petiisti. Zacharias Bishop of Rome associated another Bishop, as a Coadiutor to Bonifacius the Bishop of Mentz, he confessed it to be a thing that was forbidden, and worthy reprehension: but that vpon his importunity, of speciall fauour, he had yeelded so much vnto him, that he might haue such a Coadiutor, whom with the advice of his brethren hee might appoint to succeede him when hee should die. But notwithstanding the Canons forbidding any such thing to bee done, and the dislike of many the greatest Bishoppes of the world, yet in the later ages of the Church, the Bishops giuing themselues to ease, or attending secular businesses, and greatly neglecting their Episcopall function, again reduced into the Church these rurall Bishops, whom they named Suffraganes. To these they committed the doing of such things as are most proper vnto Bishops, as ordination & confirmation, but kept the power of Iurisdiction to themselues, or gaue it to some other, and not to these: contrary to the example of S. Augustine, that put ouer to Eradius the hearing of causes, and the performing of things pertaining to Iurisdiction, himselfe onely directing and ouerseeing him, but held still himselfe that which is most properly Episcopall. Such Bishoppes Loc. Theol. l. 5. c. 2. The Bishops hee speaketh of, hee calleth annular Bishops, haply for that whereas full Bishops had both staffe and ri •… g, expressing their Iurisdiction as well as their espousing to the Church, these had the ring onely. Melchior Canus entreating of Councels, and the persons whereof Councels consist, sayth, are so farre from hauing any place or voyce in the Councels, that they neither haue, nor ought to haue any place in the Church at all.

But whatsoeuer wee thinke of these, the Bishops in former times for the better governing of their Churches, chose out certaine of their Presbyters to assist them in the supervision and direction of the rest, whom they first named Arch-presbyters, and afterwardes Deanes. The name of Decanus or Deane being first vsed, to note out such a Prefect or Governour of Monkes, as had the rule of tenne Monkes liuing together in common: And in this sense the name of a Deane is found in Aug. de morib. Eccl. cath. 〈◊〉 S. Augustine. The Arch-presbyters, which Bishops anciently appointed to assist them, were of 2 sorts, Duarenus de sacr. Eccl. minist. l. 1. c. 8. Vrba •… i & Vicani, that is, such as liued in the great Church in the City, and such as liued abroad in the country, & were therevpon named Rurall Arch-presbyters, or Rurall Deanes. Touching the former, who liued in the great church in the citie, because the Bishop alone either in respect of absence, or employments, could not execute all things that pertained to the service belonging to his place, nor giue particular direction to every other what he should doe, they were chosen out of the whole number of Presbyters, partly to execute and performe what the Bishoppe in his owne person should haue done, and partly to prescribe to others what they should doe. The Rurall Arch-presbyters had the ouersight and direction of the Presbyters, that were placed in the lesser Titles, or meaner churches, abroad in the countrey. Concerning these wee finde it thus decreed, Decret. Greg. 9. ex Synod. habit. Rauennae. l. 1. Tit. 25. Vt singulae plebes Archipresbyterum habeant, qui non solùm imperiti vulgi sollicitudinem gerat, sed etiam Presbyterorum qui per minores Titulos habitant, vitam iugi circumspectione custodiat, quâ quis que industriâ diuinum opus exerceat, Episcopo enunciet; nec contendat Episcopus non egere plebem Archipresbytero, quasi ipse eam gubernare valeat; quia etsi valde idoneus sit, decet tamen vt sua onera partiatur, vt sicut ipse matrici Ecclesiae praeest, ita Archipresbyteri praesint plebibus, vt in nullo titubet Ecclesiastica sollicitudo; cunctatamen referant ad Episcopum, nec aliquid contra eius decretum ordinare praesumant; that is. That each division of the people of God in their seuerall limits haue their Arch-presbyter, who may not only take care of the rude and ignorant multitude, but may also with continuall circumspection obserue & looke vnto the life & conuersation of the Presbyters, which dwell in the lesser Titles, and shew vnto the Bishop with what diligence each of them performeth the worke of God. Neither let the Bishoppe contend and say, that the people committed to his charge need no Arch-presbyter, as if he himselfe were able sufficiently to gouerne the same, because, though he be exceeding worthy, yet it is fit hee should deuide his burthens, that as he is ouer the Mother church, so the Arch-presbyters may bee ouer the people abroad, that the Ecclesiasticall care stagger not, or be not two weake in any thing. Yet notwithstanding let them referre all things to the Bishop, neit •… r let them presume to order any thing against his liking & decree. These rurall Arch-presbyters were to be chosen by the clergie, & confirmed by the Bishop, and being so placed, might not be remoued without the consent of the clergie. Concil. Turonens. 2. Canone 7. Archipresbyterum, saith the second Councell of Turone, sine omnium Presbyterorum consensu de loco deiicere Episcopus non praesumat: quem autem negligentia eijcit, cum omnium Presbyterorum consilio refutetur: that is, Let not the Bishop presume to remoue or put an Arch-presbyter frō his place, without the consent of all the Presbyters: but when the negligence of any one of these maketh him worthy to be eiected & put out, let him be reiected with the counsell and aduice of all the Presbyters. Touching the power & authority of these Arch-presbyters; first they were to admonish such as they saw to liue scandalously, or any way to offend, as well Lay-men as clergie-men; and the Councell of Canone 44. Antisiodorum decreeth, that if any lay or secular man shall contemne and despise the information & admonition of the Arch-presbyter, he shall be kept from entring or setting his feete within the thresholds of the holy church, till hee shall submit himselfe to the wholesome information & admonition: Secondly, Synod. Aug. they were twise in the yeare to visite all the churches within the limits subiect to them, to see what was there amisse, defectiue, or weake, that so they might either reforme, supplie, or strengthen & confirme the same: Thirdly, they were to receiue warrants from the Bishop or his substitute, and by vertue thereof to cite all such to make their appearance before the chiefe u Linwood. lib. 2. de Iudicijs, fol. 45. Pastour or Bishop, as were vpon any occasion to be conuented before him: and this their citation of such parties to be conuented, vnder the seale of their office they were to certifie the Bishop of. Fourthly, Idem, li: 1. de Cóstitutionib. they were to hold Chapiters in a set course foure times in the yeare, and at other times as often as vrgent occasions should require; and all Synod. Trebi •… ens. de Decanis Christianitatis. parish Ministers within a yeare after their being possessed of their liuings were to sweare to the Deane, and so to be admitted as brethren to sit in Chapiter with him, & to be bound to come to the yearely Chapiters, and otherwise also when as vpon vrgent cause the Deane should call a Chapiter; and to beare part of the charge. This oath which the Ministers were to take before they were admitted to sit in Chapiter, was not simple, but with this limitation, Saluis juribus Capituli; that is, No way to prejudice the rights of the Chapiter. In these Chapiters the Arch-presbyters, were to publish the decrees of prouinciall, and Episcopall Synodes, excluding Lay-men at such times as they published things precisely concerning the Clergie, which otherwise might bee present at the publication of things generally concerning all. Neither were they onely to publish such decrees in their Chapiter, but to vrge the execution of the same, to take notice of all places of ministery void, vpon what occasion, and by whose fault they continued voyd; of all intrusion into places of ministery, and of the inuestiture of all such as newly entred into the charge of ministery, and the authority by which substitutes supply the places of other men. And besides they were to admonish such as either by their visitation or other information they found to be faulty: And if by other good meanes they could not win them to Statu Synoda. Episc. Hildemens. suspend Lay-men from the Sacraments, & Clergie-men from the execution of their offices, but farther they might not goe. But in case of obstinate continuance of disordred persons in their misdemeanors notwithstanding these proceedings, they were to complaine to the Bishop if the matter required hast, or otherwise to the next Episcopall Synode. For the Bishop in each diocese hauing certaine thus appointed to assist and helpe him in the superuision of the rest, as well of the Clergie as the people, was once in the yeare to hold a Synode with the chiefe of his Prelates, Deanes rurall, and other worthy men. Decret. part. 1. dist. 18. cap. Annis. Conc. Tarrac.. can. 8. Annis singulis (saith Gratian) Episcopus in suá Diocesi Synodum faciat de suis Clericis & Abbatibus, & 〈◊〉 alteros Clericos, & Monachos; that is, Let the Bishop euery yeare hold a Synode in his Diocese of his Clerkes and Abbots: and let him therein discusse and examine the learning, conuersation, & behauiour of other Clerkes & Monkes. The Synode of Colei •… e vnder Adolphus confirmed by Charles the fifth, appointed this Diocesane Synode to be holden twise euery yeare, according to the old manner & custome. And the Synode of Coleine vnder Hermannus ordaineth, that the Bishop or his Officiall generall with the Prelate •… of the Metroropoliticall, Cathedrall, & Collegiate Churches, especially the Arch-deacons, & Deanes rurall, who in some part are taken into the fellowship of the Bishops cares, shall enquire into things out of order; & what he shall find by their iudgment to need reformation, he shall with their aduice amend & reforme. The like doth Reformat: Cle •… Germaniae per Laur: Legat. Clem: 7. apud Iouerium. Classe 2. sect. 3. Laurentius the Popes Legate decree and ordaine. Yea the Councell of Ses. 24. cap. 2. T •… confirmeth the same also; and the Councell of Coleine vnder Adolphus taketh order, that Deanes of colledges comming to the Episcopall Synode in the name of their colledges, & rurall Deanes in the name of the parish ministers within their diuisiōs, shall haue their charges borne by such their colledges & ministers, according to the nūber of daies the Synode endureth, seeing they go on warfare for God. The forme of holding a Diocesane Synode Iouerius out of Burchardus describeth in this sort. Iouer. Clas. 2. sect. 2. At a cōueniēt hower whē it seemeth good to the B: or his vicegerent, all other doores being locked, let the Ostiaries stād at that, by which the Presbyters are to enter, & cōming together let thē go in & sit according to their ordinatiō: after these the approued Deacons which order shall require to be present; let some lay-men also of good cōuersation be brought in, and then let the Bishop or his substitute enter: who entring into the Synode, is first to salute the clergie and people: and then turning towards the East to say a certaine prayer: & the Deacons to read the Gospel, When it was late the first day of the 〈◊〉 , and the dores were shut, &c: after which reading and praiers all are to go out saue the Presbyters and clerkes only: & after departure of the rest, another prayer being made the Bishop shall will the Presbyters to propose their doubts, and either to learne or teach, and to make known their complaints, that so they may receiue satisfaction. This is all that is done the first day. The second day, if the clergie haue no matter of complaint or doubt, let the Laitie bee let in to propose their doubts, and make knowne their grieuances, or otherwise let their comming in be deferred till some other day. Besides this Synode, which euery Bishoppe was to hold once euery yeare, he was to goe from Church to Church, and see all the Churches in his Diocese. The secōd councell of Canone 1. Bracar appointeth, that the Bishop shall go through all his Churches enforming both Presbyters and people: and the third councell of Canone 17. Arles prescri •… th, that he shall enquire & take notice of the wrongs offered to those of meane & poore estate, by them that are great and in authoritie, and first seeke to reforme such euils by Episcopall admonition and counsell; but if he cannot so prevaile, hee shall acquaint the King with it. The Bishop, saith the fourth Councell of Canone •… 5. Toledo, must goe euery yeare through his Diocese, and see all his Churches and parishes, that he may enquire what reparations the churches doe neede, and what other things bee amisse. But if he be either detained by sicknesse, or so intangled with businesse that he cannot goe, let him send some approued presbyters or Deacons, which may not onely consider of the ruines of each church, and the needfull reparations thereof, but enquire also into the life and conversation of the clergie, and ministers. According to the decree and direction of this Councell, we shall finde that Bishops hindered by other employments, sicknesse, weaknes, or age, so that they could not go in person to visite their churches, sent some of their chiefe Presbyters or Deacons, but especially the chiefe Deacons, to performe the worke of visitation for them, because they being the chiefe among the Deacons, which are but church-seruants, were more attendant about them for dispatch of all publicke businesses, then presbyters. These chiefe Deacons, or Arch-Deacons at first, they sent onely to visite, and to make report, but not to sententiate any mans cause, or to meddle with the correcting or reforming of any thing, but afterwardes in processe of time they were authorized to heare and determine the smallest matters, and to reforme the lighter and lesser offences: and therefore in the Councell of Conc. Later. de Sent. & Interlocut. 4. Laterane vnder Alexander the third, it is ordered, that the Arch-deacon shall not giue sentence against any one; But in the Conc. Rhotomag. apud Ioverium 2. Clas. sect. 2. ex Burchard. l. 1. c. 90. Councell of Rhoane it is appointed, that the Arch-Deacon and Arch-presbyter shall bee fore-runners to the Bishoppe, and shall reforme the lighter and smaller things they finde to bee amisse.

Hence in time it came, that Arch-Deacons much vsed by Bishops, as most attendant on them in the visitation of their churches, and reforming some smaller disorders, at length by prescription claimed the correction of greater things, as hauing of long time put themselues into the exercise of such authoritie. And thus the Deacons, or at least the chiefe of them, the Arch-Deacons (which at first might not sit in the presence of a presbyter, but being willed by him so to doe) in the end became, by reason of this their imployment by the Bishoppe, to bee greater, not onely then the ordinary presbyters, but then the Arch-presbyters themselues. And therefore it is confessed by all, that the Arch-deacon hath no authoritie or power of Iurisdiction by vertue of his degree & order, but by prescription onely: neither can hee claime more then hee can prescribe for; which his prescription is thought reasonable, because the Bishop is supposed to haue consented to his intermedling in such parts of gouernement, as by prescription hee may claime. Yet lest it might seeme absurd for him that is onely a Deacon, to exercise Iurisdiction ouer presbyters, the canon of the Church prouideth, that no man shall possesse the place of an Arch-Deacon, vnlesse he haue the ordination of a presbyter.

Besides the Deanes or Arch-presbyters, which the Bishops vsed for the gouerning and ouer-seeing of certaine parts of their Diocese allotted to them, with such limitations as they pleased, & for counsell & aduise in managing of their weightiest affaires; and the Arch-deacons, which they vsed as spies in all places, and trusted with the dispatch of what they thought fit; they had for their direction in cases of doubt, and for their ease in the multiplicitie of their employments, Annot. in 2. l. Linvvoodi de sequestration. certaine of their cleargie, skilfull in the canons; and Lawes of the Church, whom they vsed as Officials to heare all manner of causes, and matters of instance betweene party & party, but suffered them not to meddle in the censuring and punishing of criminall things, or in any matter of office: but in case of absence, or sicknesse, they had Vicars generall, that might doe any thing almost that pertaineth to the Bishops Iurisdiction. The former are not onely named Officials, but Chauncellours, though the name of Chauncellour bee not in this sense so auncient as the former. Onuphrius in interp. vocum Eccles. Cancellarius originally, and properly, signifieth a Notarie or Secretarie, because these for the preseruing of their writings and notes of remembrance, were wont to sit and write Intra cancellos; that is, Within certaine places inclosing them, made in the manner of Checquer-worke: But from hence in time it came to be vsed, for any one that is employed for the giuing of answere vnto sutors, for keeping of Records and notes of remembrance, and generally for the performance of some principall duties pertayning to him, whose Chauncellour he is said to be.

CHAP. 30.

Of the forme of the gouernment of the Church, and the institution and authority of Metropolitanes and Patriarches.

THis being the forme of gouernment of each Diocese, and particular Church, let vs consider what dependance or subordination such particular Churches haue. For it cannot, nor may not be imagined, that each Diocese, or particular church is absolutely supreme, and subiect to no higher authority. The Papists are of opinion, that Christ constituted and appointed one chiefe Pastour, with vniuersality of power, as his Vicegerent generall vpon earth, placed him in the chiefe City of the world, and set him ouer all the other both Bishops and Churches: But the auncient Fathers are of another opinion: For Hieron. ad Euagrium. Hierome pronounceth that all Bishops are equall in order, office, and ministery, whether of Rome, Eugubium, Tanais, or Constantinople, howsoeuer riches and magnificence of Churches and cities, may make one seeme to be greater then another: and Cyprian speaketh to the same purpose, saying: Cyprian. li: 2. epist. 1. & in Concilio Carthaginensi. Let no Bishop make himselfe a Iudge of other, euery one hauing receiued his authority from Christ, and therefore being accountant to him onely. And this he speaketh vpon occasion of a difference, betweene him and the Romane Bishops of that time, about rebaptization.

Wherefore let vs examine these contrary opinions, and see which of them is most agreeable vnto truth and reason. For the confirmation of the former of these two opinions, the Romanists alledge many things, to proue, that the best forme of Regiment and gouernment is a Monarchie, and consequently that Christ who vndoubtedly established the best forme, appointed one supreme Monarch in his Church. To this allegation Ockam. Dialog. l. 〈◊〉 . tract. 1. part. 3. cap. 30. Ockam most excellently and learnedly answereth in his Dialogues, shewing and prouing at large, that though the gouernment of one, or a Monarchie, be the best forme of Regiment in one citty or country, as Aristotle rightly teacheth, yet it is not the best forme of policie and gouernment in respect of the whole world and all the parts of it, so farre distant & remote one from another; because the whole world, and the infinite different countreyes and regions of it, regularly may be better gouerned by many, whereof no one is superiour to other, then by one alone: neither is the same forme of gouernment alwayes most expedient for the whole, and for each part; for greater circuits, and for straighter or narrower bounds: seeing one man may susteine the burthen of hearing, determining, and dispatching the greater causes & more important matters in one kingdome or countrey; but no one can so manage the weightiest businesses of the whole world. And that in like sort, though it be expedient that there should bee one Bishop ouer some part of the Church and people of God, yet there is not the same reason that there should bee one ouer the whole, seeing no one canne dispatch the greater businesses, and manage the weightier affaires of the whole Christian world. Besides, he saith, it would bee most dangerous, that there should be any such one supreme ruler of the whole Church; for that, if he should fall into errour or heresie, all the whole world would bee in great danger to bee seduced, the members, for the most part, conforming themselues to their head, and the inferiours to their rulers and superiours. That which Ockam saith, may be confirmed by the authority of Saint Augustine, who thinketh a Monarchie or the gouernment of one supreme ruler, most fit for the seuerall countries and parts of the world, but not for the whole. His words are: Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 4. ca. 15. Feliciores essentres humanae, si omnia Regnaessent parua, & concordi vicinitate laetantia; that is, The state of worldly things would bee much more happy, if the whole world were diuided out into small kingdomes, joyfully conspiring together in a friendly neighbourhood, then if all should be swayed by one supreme commander.

Thus then wee deny not, but that amongst all the simple and single formes of government, a Monatchie is the best for each country and people; neither doth Caluine contradict vs herein, as De Pont. Rom. l 1. c. 1. Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 6. Bellarmine seemeth to report; for hee doth not simply say, that amongst all the simple formes of gouernment Aristocratie is best and to bee preferred, but onely in the respect of often declinings and swaruings of absolute Kings, hardly moderating themselues so in so free and absolute a liberty of commaunding all, as that their wils should neuer swarue from that which is right and good. De Pont. Romano. l. 1. c. 3. But Bellarmine himselfe thinketh, that the mixt formes of gouernment are to bee preferred before any of those simple formes of Monarchy, Aristocratie, and Democratie, as having in them the best that is found in every of those single and simple formes. And such is the gouernment of the Church of God (Christ vndoubtedly establishing the best forme of gouernment in the same.) For the gouernment of each Diocese, & particular Church, resteth principally in one, who hath an eminent & peerelesse power, without whom nothing may be attempted or done: yet are there others joyned with him as assistants, Concil. Carth. 4. without whose counsell, aduice, and consent, he may doe nothing of moment and consequence; whom hee cannot at his pleasure displace and remoue from their standings, or depriue them of their honour, or any way hardly censure them of himselfe alone; but in Conc. Carth. 3. the case of a Deacon, hee must haue two other Bishops to concurre with him, and in the case of a Presbyter, fiue, without which concurrence he may not proceed against either of them. The gouernment of a prouince is principally Aristocraticall, resting in the Bishops of the prouince & their assistants, but it hath a kinde of chiefty of one hauing a primacie of order and honour amongst the rest, who being placed in the Metropolis or Mother cittie is named a Metropolitane; This gouernment is so mixed, that the Bishops may doe nothing concerning the state of the whole Prouince, or out of the limits of their owne Churches without consulting the Bishop of the mother citty, nor Lucius 1. in Epist. ad Episc. Hisp. & Galliae. Concil. Antioch. 1. Canone. 9. Concil. Nicen. canone. 4. he without them; and Concil. Antioch. 1. canone. 19. if they differ in judgement and opinion, he is bound to follow the maior part of voices for the ending and determining of all controuersies that may or doe arise concerning matters of faith, or of fact. Neither is this the forme of gouernment of one prouince only, but the gouernment of larger circuits is altogether like vnto it, and in proportion the same. For looke what the Metropolitane is in respect of the Bishops of the prouince, that and no more is the primate or Patriarch in respect of the Metropolitans, & Bishops of diuerse prouinces; so that as the Metropolitan canne doe nothing out of his owne Diocese without the concurrence of the maior part of the Bishops of the province, though he be in order and honour the first and greatest amongst them, who must bee consulted before they canne doe any thing; so in like sort, the Primate or Patriarch may doe nothing without the aduice and consent of the Metropolitanes & Bishops subiect vnto him. So that wee see the forme of Church gouernment is mixt in such sort, that in respect of a Diocese or particular Church, there is a speciall authority resting in one, though not excluding nor neglecting the assistance and concurrence of more; but the gouernment of many particular Churches and prouinces is principally Aristocraticall, all thinges being swayed by the maior part of the voyces of the Bishops and Metropolitanes, yet admitting a primacie of order and honour of one amongst the rest, who must be first consulted, from whom all deliberations must take beginning, and who sitteth in all their meetings as a president and moderatour.

This De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 8. Bellarmine endeavoureth to improue, and therefore laboureth to shew, that the supreme power of the Church is not in the company of Bishops. His first reason is, because Christ, as he supposeth, gaue no authority to his Apostles and Disciples, but that which he gaue to euery one of them apart, as to preach, baptize, binde and loose, remitte, and retaine sinne. But this silly argument is easily answered, and the absurditie of Bellarmines confident affirmation is too too apparant. For to ordaine Bishops, to depose Bishops or Presbyters, and to determine the differences, and controversies that arise amongst them, is, as I thinke, a great part of Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction: yet may no one Bishop doe any of these things, but the company of Bishops onely. Conc. Carth. 2. can. 12. To the ordination of a Bishop, the presence of the Metropolitane, and of three other Bishoppes at the least, with the consent of the rest that are absent, signified in writing, is by the olde Canons required: neither did the Church euer admit lesse then three Bishops to ordaine, vnlesse in certaine cases of necessitie: And touching the depriuing or degrading of Bishoppes, Presbyters, and Deacons, the auncient Canon requireth the concurrence and consent of three Bishoppes, for the censuring and depriuing of a Deacon; of sixe for the depriuing of a Presbyter; & of twelue for the censuring, judging, and deposing of a Bishop. Wherefore let vs see, if the Cardinall haue any better reason behinde.

His second reason is, that it cannot bee imagined that CHRIST committed the gouernement of the Church to the company of Bishoppes; for that then the Church should oftentimes lacke Gouernours, for that the Bishoppes are seldome assembled by joint consent to decree and determine things. Surely this reason hath farre lesse strength then the former; for in the beginning all the Bishoppes of each Province met to the ordination of euery Bishoppe newly elected; and twice in the yeare besides, there was a Synode holden, consisting of all the Bishoppes of the Province, the Metropolitane not onely hauing power, but also being straightly bound to convocate his brethren: and they as surely tyed and obliged to come when he called them.

His third reason which he bringeth to proue, that the gouernement of the church was not by Christ committed to the company of Bishoppes, but to some one chiefe and supreme amongst them, is, for that the whole multitude of right beleeuing Christians is one church, and therefore must haue one chiefe Ruler. For answere hereunto wee say, that a church may bee named one either in respect of the same faith, hope, profession, meanes of saluation, and communion or fellowship of Saints: and so the whole multitude of right beleeuers throughout the world is but one church: or in respect of the same immediate communicating together in Sacraments, and in the actions and exercises of Gods worship and seruice. The vnitie of the church of God in this later sort implyeth and requireth a necessitie of the vnity of one chief Pastour; but the vnity of the church in the former sort may stand without the vnity of one Pastour. Ockam. Dialo. l: 2 tract. 1. part. 3. c. 30. Christian men, saith Ockam, in Scripture are compared to sheepe, and the church of God to a fold. Now though it bee expedient that these sheepe so many as belong to the same particular fold, that goe out to the same pastures to feed, to the same riuers of water to drinke, and doe remaine and abide together, should be fed, directed, and guided by the same Pastour; yet the sheepe of diuerse folds led out to diverse pastures to feede in, and riuers of water to drinke, may haue their diuersitie of Pastours vnder the same chiefe Sheepheard Christ Iesus: neither is there any vnitie implyed in the whole Church, or in the Churches of diuerse Provinces which may not be preserued, as well by the multitude and diversitie of Pastours, bound & knit together in the bond of conspiring consent and agreement, as by the vnitie of one chiefe Pastour. And in this sort wee shall finde the Church of God to haue stood in perfect vnitie in the first and best ages thereof, without finding any want of the helpe of one chiefe Pastour. For how could there bee a more perfect vnitie in the whole Church, then when the Pastour of each particular Church chosen by the Cleargie, and people of the same, was appointed by the Metropolitane, and all the rest of the Bishops of the province, for his sincerity in profession, and godlinesse of conversation, and ordained to the worke of the Ministery by the joint imposition of all their hands? when the Vide Decret. Damasi ex De •… r. Iuoni •… Carnotens. l. 1. in Tom. 〈◊〉 . Concil. apud Binnium, p. 505. Metropolitanes of seuerall provinces were confirmed by the Primate or Patriarch, but ordained by the Bishops of their provinces? when the Greg. l. 1. ep. 24. Vide exemplar literarum Thar •… sii ad summos Sacerdotes & Episcopos Antiochiae, Alexandriae, & Sanctae Vrbis. in 3 Action. Synodi 7 apud Binnium. Patriarches elected by the Cleargie and people, and ordained by their Metropolitanes, sent their Synodall letters one to another, testifying and expressing their faith and profession, before they were receiued and allowed one of another, and before tehy were accounted and reputed for lawfull Patriarches?

Wherefore presupposing that the gouernment of the Church is not Monarchicall in respect of any one supreame Pastour on earth, but mixt; and hauing seene how, notwithstanding the diuersitie of many Pastours, the Church may be preserued in peace and vnity, let vs more exactly and distinctly consider what the auncient forme of Church policie and gouernment was.

If we looke into the monuments of Antiquity, wee shall finde, that there were aunciently three Subordinations in the Church. For the actions of the Bishoppe of each particular Church of a citty, and places adjoyning, were subject to the censure and judgment of the rest of the Bishops of the same prouince; amongst whom for order sake there was one chiefe, to whom it pertained to call them together, to sit as moderator in the midst of them being assembled, and to execute what by joynt consent they resolued on. The actions of the Bishoppes of a prouince, and a prouinciall Synode consisting of those Bishoppes, were subject to a Synode consisting of the Metropolitanes, and other Bishoppes of diuerse prouinces. This Synode was of two sorts. For either it consisted of the Metropolitanes and Bishoppes of one kingdome and nation onely, as did the Councels of Africa: or of the Metropolitans, and Bishoppes of many kingdomes. If of the Metropolitanes and Bishoppes of one kingdome and state onely, the chiefe Primate was mederator. If of many, one of the Patriarches, and chiefe Bishops of the whole world, euery Church being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchicall Churches, and incorporate into the vnity of it. Thirdly, the actions of the Bishops of a whole kingdome and Patriarchship, were subject to an Oecumenicall Synode consisting of all the Patriarches, and the Metropolitanes and Bishops subject to them.

Touching prouinciall Councells, to the censures whereof the actions of particular Churches are subject, they were by the auncient Canons of the Church to be holden in euery prouince twice euery yeare. Concil. Nice. canone 5. It is very necessary, say the Fathers of the Councell of Nice, that there should be a Synode twice euery yeare in euery prouince; that all the Bishops of the prouince meeting together, may in common thinke vpon those thinges that are doubtfull and questionable. For the dispatch of Ecclesiasticall businesses, and the determining of matters in controuersie. Conc. Antioc canone. 20. Wee thinke it were fit, say the Fathers in the Councell of Antioche, that in euery prouince Synodes of Bishops should be assembled twice euery yeare. The first councell of Canone. 2. Constantinople decreeth the same: and the Fathers assembled in the Councell of Canone. 19. Chalcedon complaine that in some prouinces the Synodes of Bishops are not holden, and that thereby many Ecclesiasticall matters needing reformation are neglected: and therefore they appoint, that the Bishops of euery prouince shall assemble euery yeare twice at that place, which the Bishoppe of the mother Citty shall thinke fit, to amend all thinges that shall be found to bee amisse in the prouince. Here we see the necessity of holding these Synodes, and by whom they were to bee called and moderated. Wherefore let vs now proceede to see of whom they consisted, what causes they examined and determined, what the power of the Metropolitane originally was, and what in processe of time, by positiue constitution, vpon due and just considerations it grew to be.

Touching the persons that prouinciall Synodes consisted of, it is cleare and euident, that not onely Bishops, but Presbyters also were present in these Assemblies, and had decisiue voyces: whereupon the Councell of Concil. Antisiod. canone 7. Antisiodorum sayth; Let all the Presbyters being called come to the Synode in the Citty. The Councell of Tarracon. Conc: Tarrac. canone. 13. Let letters bee sent by the Metropolitane to his brethren, that they bring with them to the Synode, not onely some of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall Church, but also of each Diocese. And the fourth Councell of Toledo, describing the forme of celebrating prouinciall Synodes, hath these words: Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 3. Let the Bishops assembled goe to the Church, and sit according to the time of their ordination; and after all the Bishops are entred and set, let the Presbyters be called, and the Bishops sitting in compasse, let Presbyters sit behind them, and the Deacons stand before them. In the first Councell of Toledo, we find these words. Initio, Concilij Toletan. 1. Considentibus Presbyteris, astantibus Diaconis, & caeteris qui intererant Concilio congregato, Patronus Episcopus dixit, &c. that is, The Presbyters sitting together with the Bishops, the Deacons standing before them, and the rest, which were present in the Councell assembled, Patronus the Bishop said, &c. The like we reade of a Synode holden by Gregory the Pope. The words are these: Greg. lib. 4. Epistola •… um, ca: 88. Gregorius Papa coram sacratissimo corpore Beati Petri Apostoli, cum Episcopis omnibus Romanae Ecclesiae, & Presbyteris residens, assistentibus Diaconis, & cuncto Clero, dixit &c. that is, Gregory the Pope sitting before the most sacred body of blessed Peter, with all the Bishops of the Romane Church and the Presbyters also, the Deacons standing before them, and all the Clergie, said, &c. And that Presbyters were not only present in Provinciall Synodes, but had decisiue voyces as well as Bishops, it appeareth by their Vide Subscript. Concil. Elibert •… . & Synod. sub. Gregorio. subscribing to the Decrees of such Synodes, in the very same forme and manner that Bishops did. So that it will be found most false and vntrue that Bel. de Clericis li: c. 14. Bellarmine hath, that Presbyters haue no voyces in Synodes: and the auncient forme of our Convocation here in England, wherein not onely the Arch-bishops, and Bishops, but sundry Presbyters also, as well out of Cathedrall Churches as Dioceses at large, are present, and haue decisiue voices, will clearely refute the same.

The causes that were wont to be examined and determined, in the meeting of the Bishops of the prouince, were the Conc. Antioch. canonc. 19 ordinations of Bishops, when any Churches were voyd, and the depriving and reiecting of all such, as were found vnworthy of their honour and place: and in a word, any complaint of wrong done in any Church, was there to be heard. Ibid. can. 20. Let the prouinciall Synodes be holden twice euery yeare, saith the Councell of Antioch, and let the Presbyters and Deacons bee present, and as many as thinke they haue beene any way hurt or wronged, there expect the determination of the Synode. The power of the Metropolitane, was in calling the rest of the Bishops to the Synode, in appointing the place of their meeting, and in sitting as President in the midst of them: and so were things moderated, that Ibid. can. 9. neither the rest might proceede to doe any thing without consulting him, nor hee to doe any thing without them, but was tyed in all matters of difference to follow the maior part; and if hee neglected his dutie in convocating his brethren, that so things might bee determined by common consent, hee was by the Canons subiect to censure and punishment. Thus at first all matters were to be heard, determined, and ended by Synodes, and they holden twice euery yeare: But in processe of time when the gouernours of the Church could not conueniently assemble in Synode twice a yeare, the Fathers of the sixth Canone. 8. generall Councell decreed, that yet in any case there should be a Synode of Bishops once euery yeare for Ecclesiasticall questions. Likewise the Canone. 6. seventh generall Councell decreeth in this sort. Whereas the Canon willeth iudiciall inquisition to be made twice euery yeare by the assembly of Bishops in euery prouince, and yet for the misery and pouerty of such as should trauell to Synodes, the Fathers of the sixth councell decreed, it should be once in the yeare, anà then thinges amisse to be redressed, we renew this later Canon. So that, whereas at the first there was a Synode of Bishoppes in euery prouince twice in the yeare, now it was sufficient if the Bishops met once. But afterwards, many thinges falling out to hinder their happy meetings, we shall finde that they met not so often, and therefore the Councell of Canone. 8. Basil appointeth Episcopall Synodes to be holden once euery yeare, and Prouinciall at the least once in three yeares: And so in time, causes growing many, and the difficulties intollerable in comming together, and in staying to heare these causes thus multiplyed and encreased, it was thought fitter to referre the hearing of complaints and Appeales to Metropolitanes, and such like Ecclesiasticall Iudges, limited and directed by Canons and Imperiall lawes, then to trouble the Pastours of whole provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastours and Guides.

Thus hauing spoken of the authority of the Metropolitane and his Councell in every province, it remaineth that we come to Synodes of a larger extent. These, besides Oecumenicall, whereof wee will not yet speake, were of two sorts: Patriarchicall, wherein one of the Patriarches and chiefe Bishops of the world sate as president; or Nationall, consisting of the Bishops of many Provinces, within one Country or Kingdome, wherein the Primate sate as President: of which sort the Councels of Africa were; concerning which Councels it is ordered in the third Councell of Canone 2. Carthage, that once euery yeare there shall be a general assembly of the Bishops of Africa, to which all the provinces which haue primas sedes, that is, first Sees, and so may holde provinciall Councels, shall out of their Councels send two Bishops, or as many as they shall thinke fit; but that out of Tripolis, because of the pouerty of the Bishops of it, one Bishop shall come. In these Councels, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome were sometimes present, not as presidents, but assistants, as other Metropolitanes were. There were many provinces which had primas sedes, that is, first Sees, and so consequently many Primates; yet for distinction, some call him that was Bishop of that first See (which was in honour before all the rest of the same country and kingdome, and to whom in all common deliberations the other Metropolitans did resort) by an excellency, the Primate; & the rest by the cōmon name of Metropolitans; in which sense the Bishop of Carthage was Primate of all Africa; and so is a Primate in order and honour before Metropolitanes, but inferiour vnto a Patriarch. Of this distinction of degrees of honour amongst Metropolitanes and chiefe Bishops, Hugo de Sancto Victore writeth in this sort: De Sacram. 〈◊〉 . 2. part. 3. cap. 〈◊〉 . Post Sacerdotes altiores sunt Principes Sacerdotum, id est, Episcopi: supra quos iterum sunt Archiepiscopi: & supra illos qui dicuntur Primates: supra quos quidam Patriarchas constituere volunt: alii eosdem Patriarchas & Primates dicunt: that is, after priests we are to reckon the chiefe priests, that is, Bishops, as in the first degree and honour aboue them: aboue whom againe are Arch-Bishops, and aboue them they that are named Primates: aboue whom some will haue Patriarches to bee placed: but others will haue Patriarches and Primates to bee all one. Rabanus in his booke Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉 . de institutione Clertcorum, sorteth Bishoppes into three rankes: Patriarches, Arch-Bishoppes, who also are named Metropolitanes: and ordinary Bishops.

CHAP. 31.

Of Patriarches who they were, and the reason why they were preferred before other Bishops.

TOuching the Patriarches, they were in the beginning but onely three: to wit, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioche. The reason, as some thinke, why the Bishops of these places were preferred before other, and made Patriarches, was in respect had to blessed Peter, who was in sort before expressed, in order and honour the first and chiefest of the Apostles. For Antioche was honoured, for that he sate there for a certaine space, and afterwards governed it by Euodius: Alexandria for that he placed Marke his Scholler there: and Rome because it was the place of his death and martyrdome, where in his body hee stayeth and expecteth the Resurrection of the dead, and the second comming of Christ. All the Churches founded by any Apostle, are rightly called Apostolique, but these more specially in which the Apostle Peter sate. Anacletus epist. 3. Secunda fedes, saith Anacletus, apud Alexandriam beati Petri nomine à Marco eius discipulo consecrata est. Tertia autem sedes apud Antiochiam eiusdem beati Petri Apostoli habetur honorabilis; that is, The second See, and in degree and honour next vnto that of Rome, was consecrated at Alexandria, by the authoritie of blessed Peter, by Marke his Scholler; and the third See honourable for Peters presence in the same, is at Antioche. Leo ad Anatol. ep. 53. Nihil, saith Leo writing to Anatholius, Alexandriae sedi, eius quam per sanctum Marcum Evangelistam beati Petri discipulum meruit, pereat dignitatis. Antiochena quoque Ecclesia in quâ primum praedicante Apostolo Petro, Christianum nomen exortumest, in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret; & in gradu tertio collocata, nunquam fiat inferior: that is, Let the See of Alexandria lose no part of that dignity which it obtained by Saint Marke the Evangelist, the disciple of blessed Peter. Let the Church of Antioche also, in which vpon Peters preaching, the name of Christians first beganne, continue in that degree and order, wherein the constitution of the Fathers set it, and being placed in the third degree, let it neuer be put lower. This did Leo write, when the Bishop of Constantinople sought to haue the second place in the Church of God, and to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioche. Gregory writeth to the same effect to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria. His words are. Greg. Epist. li. 6. ep. 37. Cum multisint Apostoli, pro ipso tamen principatusola Apostolorum Principis Sedes in authoritate conualuit, quae tribus in locis vnius est. Ipse enim sublimauit sedem, in qua etiam quiescere & praesentem vitam finire dignatus est. Ipse decorauit sedemin qua Euangelistam discipulum misit. Ipse firmauit sedem, in qua septem annis, quamuis discessurus sedit, Cum ergo vnius atque vna sit sedes, cui ex authoritate dinina tres nunc Episcopi praesident, quicquid ego de vobis boni audio, mihi imputo; that is, Whereas there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the chiefty that Peter had, as being Prince of the Apostles, his Sea only grew to be in chiefe authority, which in three places is yet the See but of one and the same Apostle. For he exalted that Sea in which he pleased to rest, and end this present life. Hee beautified that Sea in which he placed Marke his Scholer: and he firmly and strongly setled that Sea in which hee sate seauen yeares, though with purpose in the end to leaue it. When as therefore there is one See of one Apostle, in which by diuine authority three sit as presidents, whatsoeuer good I heare of you, I impute it to my selfe. And againe in the same place to Eulogius, hauing spoken to him of the dignitie of Peters chaire in which he sate, he saith: He hath spoken to me of Peters chaire, who himselfe sitteth on Peters chaire. This is the opinion of these Romane Bishops, touching the reason of the exaltation of the Seas of Rome, Alexandria and Antioche aboue other Episcopall Seas; who, how partially soeuer they may be thought to be affected to the chaire of Peter, yet herein do they mainly crosse the conceipt of the Romanists at this day, in that they teach that other Bishops succeede Peter in the chaire, and that chiefty and primacy he had, as well as the Bishop of Rome.

The dignity of these 3 Apostolicall Churches was cōfirmed in the Nicene Councell; and each of them confined within the ancient bounds and limits thereof. Conc. Nicen. Canone 6. Let the ancient custome, say the Nicene Fathers, continue in Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria may haue power ouer all these; seeing the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome. In like sort in Antioche, and other prouinces, let euery Church retaine and keepe her owne degree and honour. De Pontif. lib. 2. c. 3. Bellarmine much troubleth himselfe about this limitation and bounding of these Patriarches, as preiudiciall to the illimited iurisdiction of the Romane Bishop: and therefore though it be most cleare that there was a particular assignation of Churches to euery of these Patriarches, yet hee seeketh to auoyd the euidence of these words. For whereas Ruff. Hist. eccl. li. 1. c. 6. Ruffinus sayth, it was decreede by the Councell of Nice, that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue care and charge ouer Aegypt, as the Bishop of Rome hath of the Churches neere that city; and Theodorus Balsamon in the explication of the Nicene canons, with Nilus in his booke against the primacie interpreteth the words of the Nicene decree in this sense, that the Bishoppe of Alexandria should haue the charge of Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, and the confirming of the Metropolitanes in those parts, because the Bishop of Rome, who hath a care of the West, confirmeth the Metropolitanes of the West; hee maketh this construction of the words of the councell: Let the Bishop of Alexandria haue the charge of Aegypt, seeing the Bishoppe of Rome was wont to permitte him soe to haue, before any Councell had decreed it. And soe, hee sayth, Nicolas the Pope in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour vnderstandeth the words; which yet is most vntrue: for Nicolas sayth no such thing, but onely that the Councell maketh the custome of the Romane Church the patterne for others to follow. But the Canone 17. eight generall Councell, which no doubt vnderstood the words of the Nicene Fathers farre better then Bellarmine, sheweth plainely, that the meaning of the Nicene Canon was, that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue power ouer Aegypt, and the prouinces pertaining to it, to confirme the Metropolitanes in the same, seeing the like custome preuaileth in the Romane Church; And this Councell confirmeth the same distinction of the bounds of iurisdiction, within which euery Patriarch is to containe himselfe, both for old Rome and new, and for the other Churches of Alexandria and Antioche. The Canons of the Nicene Councell translated out of the Arabian tongue, and published by Turrian, Pisanus, and Binnius, will fully cleare this point, if our Aduersaries giue any credit vnto them. Apud Binnium Tom. Conciliorum primo, pag. 352. For in the eighth of those Canons, the decree, about the meaning whereof wee contend, is thus set downe: Constitutum est, vt Episcopus Aegypti, id est, Patriarcha Alexandrinus, praesideat & habeat potestatem totius Aegypti: that is, It is ordained that the Bishop of Aegypt, that is, the Patriarch of Alexandria, shall sit as President, and haue power ouer all Aegypt, and ouer all places, Citties and Townes which are round about it: because soe it is fit, and because likewise the Bishop of Rome, that is the Successour of Peter the Apostle, hath power ouer all the Citties and places which are about Rome. And in like sort let the Bishop of ANTIOCH haue power ouer that whole prouince, &c. But because perhaps these Canons, though published by themselues, as rare secrets of Antiquity lately brought to light, will be of litle credit with them, I will adde one reason more, which to me seemeth very forcible to confirme our interpretation of the words of the Nicene Fathers. Binnius in vita Hadriani 2. Tom. 3. Concil. part. 2. There was aunciently a great contention betweene the Church of Rome, and the Church of Constantinople, about the Churches of Bulgaria, either of these Churches making claime thereunto, and seeking to bring them within the compasse of their owne Iurisdiction: which contention could not haue beene, if the one of these two Churches had had an illimited extent of Iurisdiction. But that neither of them had any such illimited Iurisdiction, it is euident, in that neither Constantinople, nor Rome, vrge any such thing for iustification of their claime, but stand vpon their conuerting of the people of Bulgaria to the Christian faith, and the planting of religion amongst them. Which either of these pretending rather then other, sought thereby to iustifie a title of iurisdiction, and authority ouer them.

Wherefore resoluing that we haue the true meaning of the Nicene canon, let vs returne thither whence we haue a litle digressed, namely to the discourse of Patriarchical Churches and Bishops set in order and honour before all other. These as I haue already shewed, were at first but three, to which afterwards two other were added: First Constantinople, and afterwards Hierusalem. Touching the Church and Bishop of Constantinople, after that city was by Constantine made the seate of the Empire, and thereby as much or more honoured then any city in the world, the Bishop thereof, before little esteemed, grew exceeding great: and in the second Councell, which was the first of Canone. 〈◊〉 . Constantinople, was made a Patriarch in degree of honour next the Bishop of Rome, and before the other two: And againe in the Councell of Actione, 16. Chalcedon, confirmed in the same. And though Leo resisted against this act of the Councell of Chalcedon, and peremptorily protested, that he would not suffer the Church of Alexandria to loose the dignity of the second See, and the Church of Antioch of the third; and his successours many of them persisted in the same resistance; yet they were forced in the end to giue way to the exaltation of the Constantinopolitane Church; so that after the time of Iustinian the Emperour, they neuer made any more words about this matter. Whereby we see, that to be true of Hierome, Hieron. ad Euagrium. Orbis maior est vrbe; that is, The world is greater then any one city of the world, though Rome it selfe. The Church of Hierusalem, as being the place of Christs passion, & whence the preaching of the Gospell tooke beginning, was euer much honoured; yet was it not so much as a Metropolitane Church at the first; but the B: & Clergy there of were subiect to the Bishop of Caesarea, as their Metropolitane, & the Bishop of Antioch as their Patriarch; as Hierome writing to Pammachius against Iohn of Hierusalem testifieth: And thereupon Leo Leo epist. 62. writing to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, blameth Iuuenall Bishop of Hierusalem for seeking to subiect Palaestina to himselfe, & chargeth him with insolent boldnesse for that attempt. But the In Fragmento Concil. 5. apud Binnium. Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 606. Fathers of the fifth generall Councell thought good to honour the Church of Hierusalem, where Christ suffered, and rose againe from death: and therefore whereas the Bishoppe thereof had formerly but a bare title, and a preeminence in sitting before other, they made him a Patriarch in order the fifth; and that hee might haue Metropolitanes subject vnto him, they tooke some parts of the Diocese of Alexandria, and Antioche from the Bishops of those Churches, and put them vnder him: So that now we haue fiue Patriarches of the Christian Church. Touching these, the Canone 2 •… eighth generall Councell taketh order, that no man shall offer any indignity to any of them. To these they were wont to wish all prosperitie and long life in the conclusion of their Councels. Without these, no Councell was holden to bee full and perfect. These might convocate the Metropolitanes of their seuerall divisions, and holde a Patriarchicall Councell, which was of greater authoritie then either those in the seuerall provinces, or of a whole Nation, formerly mentioned, because it consisted of more, and more honourable Bishops: yet had the Patriarches no greater authoritie ouer the Metropolitanes within their larger circuites, then the Metropolitanes within their lesser compasse. These were by the order of the Canone •… 7 eighth generall Councell, to confirme the Metropolitanes subject vnto them, either by imposition of hands, or giuing the Pall: but inferiour Bishops they might not meddle with, but were to leaue them to the ordering of their Metropolitanes.

CHAP. 32.

How the Pope succeedeth Peter: what of right belongeth to him: and what it is that he vniustly claimeth.

VVE deny not but that blessed Peter had a kinde of primacie of honour and order, that in respect thereof, as all Metropolitanes doe suceede him, as being greater then other Bishops in honour and place; so the Patriarches yet more specially: and amongst them the Romane Bishops in the first place. We will not therefore put our Adversaries to so much paines, as some other haue done, to proue, that Peter was at Rome; that he dyed there, and that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him. But this is it which we say, that he succeeded him in the Bishopricke of that Citie, and in the honour of being one of the prime Bishops of the world, as the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioche likewise did: but not in the condition of being vniversall Bishop, that is, such a one in whom all Episcopall power and authority is originally invested: from whom it is deriued to others: and who may limite and restraine the vse of it in other, as seemeth good vnto himselfe. Por Peter was not such an Apostle, but had only a joint commission with the rest, who were put into it immediatly by Christ as well as he, though hee were in some sort the first man in it.

We deny not therefore to the Romane Bishop his due place among the prime Bishops of the World, if therewith he will rest contented: but vniuersall Bishop in sort before expressed, we dare by no meanes admit him to be, knowing right well, that euery Bishop hath in his place, and keeping his owne standing, power and authority immediatly from Christ, which is not to be restrained or limited by any, but by the company of Bishops: wherein though one be chiefe for order sake, and to preserue vnity, & in such sort, that all things must take their beginning from him, yet he can do nothing without them.

The Bishop of Constantinople, as I haue alreadie noted, in the time of the second generall Councell, obtained to be one of the foure Patriarches, by reason of the greatnes of his Church and citie: and in the fourth holden at Chalcedon, to haue equall priviledges with the Bishop of Rome: but not contenting himselfe long with this equality, soone after he sought to be aboue him, and would be called vniversall Bishop, seeking thereby to subiect to himselfe all other Bishops and Churches: in which proud claime he was resisted by Gregory the 1, who professeth, Greg. ep. l. 4. cp. 34. & 38. that whosoeuer assumeth this title, ouerthroweth the dignity & honour of all other Bishops, in his pride is like Lucifer, & may rightly be thought to be a fore-runner of Antichrist. Paul the Apostle, saith Greg. when he heard certain men say, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, & I of Cephas, trembling, & quaking exceedingly, to heare and see this tearing and renting asunder of the Lords body, through which his members joyned themselues in companies factiously vnto other heads, cryed out aloud saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were yee baptized in the name of Paul? In such sort therefore did hee decline the particular subiecting of the members of the Lords body to certaine Heads, as it were, besides Christ, yea though they were the Apostles themselues. And what wilt thou be able to answere to Christ the Head of the vniuersall Church in the tryall of the last Iudgement, which goest about by assuming the title of vniuersall Bishoppe, to put vnder thy selfe all the members of his mysticall body? Who is it, I pray thee, whom thou proposest to thy selfe for imitation, in taking to thee so perverse a title, but hee who despising the Legions of Angells, joyned with him in society as companions, sought to climbe vp aboue them to the heighth of singularity, that neither hee might seeme to bee vnder any, nor any might bee found ouer whom hee was not: who also said, I will ascend into heauen, I will exalt my throne aboue the Starres of heauen, I will sit in the mountaine of the testament, in the sides of the North; I will ascend aboue the heighth of the cloudes, and will bee like vnto the most high. For what are thy brethren, all the Bishoppes of the vniuersall Church, but the starres of Heauen; whose life, and tongue or speech, doe shine in the midst of the sinnes and errours of men, as it were in the midst of the darkenesse of the night; whose name and honour while thou seemest to trample vnder thy feete, in that thou seekest by this title of pride to preferre thy selfe before them, what else doest thou say, but I will ascend into heauen, and exalt my seate aboue the Starres of heauen? Are not all the Bishoppes of the Church; cloudes, who by the wordes of their preaching powre downe the graces of GOD like showers of raine, and shine through the light of good workes, whom whiles your brotherhood despising seeketh to bring vnder it selfe, what other thing doth it say but this, which is said of the old enemy, I will ascend aboue the heighth of the cloudes? And a little after, the same Gregory addeth: Surely Peter the Apostle was the first member of the holy and vniuersall Church: Paul, Andrew, and Iohn, what other thing are they but heads of particular parts of the people and Church of God? and yet notwithstanding they are all members of the Church vnder one head. Thus doth this holy man and worthy Bishop dislike, that any amongst the Bishops of the Christian Church, should bee so proud and insolent, as to seeke to bee ouer all, and subiect to none; to subiect vnto himselfe all the members of Christ, as to a head, and to challenge vnto himselfe to bee vniuersall Bishoppe: Greg. Epist. lib. 4. ep. 3 2. for that if any such bee, if hee fall into errour or heresie hee draweth all other with him, and ouerthroweth the state of the whole church. Yet doe the Romane Bishoppes at this day, take all these thinges vnto themselues: for they subiect all Christs members to themselues, as to Heads of the vniuersall church, vpon perill of euerlasting damnation: they will bee subiect to none, or haue any to bee ouer them, so that all depends of them, their standing is the stay of all, and their fall the ruine of all; and if they erre, all erre.

But perhaps it will be said, that the name of vniuersall Bishop is not simply euill, nor these claimes simply to be disliked; but when they are made by them to whom it pertaineth not to make them, such as the Bishops of Constantinople were. Surely this evasion will not serue the turne. For Gregory saith in the same place, that no Bishop of Rome euer assumed this title, ne dum priuatum aliquid darétur vni, honore debito Sacerdotes priuarentur vniuersi: that is, Lest while some singular thing were giuen to one, all Bishops should be depriued of their due honour: thereby shewing, that this title, and the claimes accompanying it, are simply to bee disliked, as preiudiciall to the state of the whole Church, & the honour & dignity of all other Bishops, by whomsoeuer they be made. Some man perhaps will be desirous to know, how our Aduersaries seeke to decline the evidence of this cleare testimony of so great a Romane Bishoppe, witnessing against them in a matter of so great consequence. I will therefore set downe briefly in this place, what I find any where said by any of them in answere to this authority. The credit of the Author is such, that they dare take no exception aagainst him; and the generality of his speech is such, that what he disliketh in the Constantinopolitane Bishop, he confesseth to be euill in any other, and particularly in the Bishop of Rome. And therefore the onely thing that they can deuise, whereby to darken the cleare light of truth, is this; that the Bishop of Constantinople did so, and in such sence challenge to be vniuersall Bishop, that hee onely would haue beene a Bishop, and there should haue beene no more; then which nothing could be more absurdly sayd. For the thing that the Romane Bishops disliked in those of Constantinople, was not the putting of all other from being Bishops, but the preferring themselues before other, the subjecting of other to themselues, the incroching vpon the priuileges and rights of other, and the challenging of the power of ordination, and confirmation of them, whom it pertained not to them to ordaine or confirme; as appeareth by the Epistles of Leo epist. 53. Leo, blaming Anotolius for subjecting all vnto himselfe, for depriuing other Metropolitanes of their due honour, by encroaching vpon their rights, and for taking vpon him to ordaine the Bishop of Antioch, who was one of the Patriarches. That the Bishops of Constantinople sought not so to be vniuer all Bishops, that there should be no other Bishops but they only, is most euident by the Epistles of Leo and Vide epist: Gregor. supra citat. Gregorie, in that they ordained Bishops themselues, and are blamed by them for presuming to ordaine such as they should not haue ordained. Wherefore the most that they can be conceiued to haue desired, and sought in assuming the title of vniuersality, is no more but the inuesting of the fulnesse of all power and jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall originally in themselues, and thereby the subjecting of all other to a necessity of deriuing ministeriall power and authority from them; of seeking ordination at their hands, and being in all things pertaining to Episcopall office subiect to them: all which things are challenged by the Bishop of Rome, For the Romanists at this day teach, that the fulnesse of all power and jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is originally in the Pope, & that he communicateth a part thereof vnto others, with such limitations as seemeth best vnto himselfe; that all other Bishops receiue their jurisdiction from him; that all the Bishops of the world cannot iudge him: that hee may dispose of all the kingdomes of the world, that his standing is the stay of all: that his fall would be the ruine of all: and that therefore we must perswade our selues hee cannot erre. And hence indeed it followeth, that he onely is Bishop in truth, and that there are no other. For if the Pope may take from any Bishop, so often as he seeth cause, as many as he pleaseth of them that are subject to him: if hee may reserue vnto himselfe what cases he will, and inhibite Bishops to meddle with them: if hee may giue leaue to preach, minister Sacraments, and to do all other Ecclesiasticall duties, to whom he will, within any Diocese of the world: if in generall councels, where the power of jurisdiction is principally exercised, where the great affaires of the Church are treated of, where doubts are resolued, controuersies determined, articles of faith defined, and lawes made that bind the whole Church, he haue so absolute power, that he is neither bound to follow the greater, nor the lesser part of Bishops there present, but may determine what hee pleaseth, when they haue all done, & sayd what they can. If the assurance of finding out the truth, and decreeing that which is good & behoofefull, rest not partly in him, & partly in them, but only in him, as our Aduersaries teach: then are Bishops indeed no Bishops: no judges of controuersies, but counsellers only to aduise the Pope: no Lawgiuers to the Church, but such as must receiue lawes from the Pope: no commaunders in their own right in the Church in any degree, but meere Lieuetenantes, or, to speake more truly and properly, vassals to the Pope.

CHAP. 33.

Of the proofes brought by the Romanists, for confirmation of the vniversality of the Popes iurisdiction and power.

IT is euident by that which hath beene said, that that vniuersality, whereof Gregory speaketh in his Epistles, and which he so peremptorily condemneth, is claimed by the Popes his successours, at this day; and consequently, that they are in his judgment the fore-runners of Antichrist, and in pride like Lucifer. Yet because there is nothing so absurd, that some will not defend; nothing so false, which some will not endeauour to proue true: let vs see what the Romanists can say for proofe and confirmation of the vniuersall Iurisdiction of their Popes. Surely as men carefull to vphold the state of the Papacy, vnder the shadow of the boughes of which tree they so sweetly rest, and repose themselues, they haue turned ouer their bookes to see what may bee said, and out of them alleage against vs the testimonies of Councels, Popes, Fathers Greeke and Latine, and the practise of Popes, whence such a peerelesse power may bee proued and inferred.

The first testimony that they bring out of any Councell, is out of the Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 9 citat. a Bellarm. l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 13. & Bin. in annot. ad concil. Constant. 1. Epistle written by the Fathers of the second generall Councell to Damasus Bishop of Rome, & the other Bishops of the west; wherein the Fathers say, (if we beleeue these men) that they came together to Constantinople by the mandate of the Pope, whose letters the Emperour sent vnto them: and confesse, that the Romane Church is the head, and they the members. Truely this is a very ill beginning, and may make vs justly feare, that we shall find little good dealing in that which followeth. For there is no part of this true, which, in the front of all their proofes, is by them so confidently alleaged. For thus the matter standeth betweene the Fathers of that Councell, and the Bishop of Rome. The Bishops assembled at Constantinople writ to the Bishop of Rome, and the rest of the Bishops of the West assembled in a Councell at Rome, signifying, that they had beene invited by them out of their brotherly loue, as their owne members, to come to their Councell; and that they wished nothing more, then that they had the wings of doues, that they might flye away, and rest with them; but that the state of their Churches not permitting them to be so long absent, and that intending at the time they vnderstood of their letters, to come no farther then Constantinople, they could not come, but had sent notwithstanding certaine vnto them. This is all that is contained in the letter of those Fathers written to the Bishop of Rome: in all which there is no word of any mandate of the Pope, but of a friendly and louing entreatie of the Westerne Bishops, desiring the presence of their brethren of the East; no word of head and members, but of fellow members, nor any thing that may proue a commaunding power in the Pope. Nay, the contrary is most strongly from hence to be proued. Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 7. For it was the Emperour, and not the Pope, that called them to Constantinople: they refused to come to Rome, though they had receiued the letters of the Romane Bishop, and his colleagues, intreating and desiring them to come to Rome, they abode at Constantinople, and were esteemed to bee the Generall Councell, though the Pope held a Councell in the West at the same time, which should haue beene accounted generall, rather then this, if all assurance of finding out the trueth, and making good Lawes, did rest in the Pope onely. And lastly, they ordained Bishoppes of the greatest and most famous Churches of the world, such, and in such sort, as the Pope did not greatly like, and yet was forced to giue way to their doings, and to ratifie that which they had done.

The 2d allegation to proue the vniversalitie of the Popes jurisdiction, is, Bellarm. ubi suprá. that the Fathers of the 3d general Councell, holden at Ephesus, professed, that they deposed Nestorius by force of the mandatory letters of Caelestinus B. of Rome, & that in their epistle to Caelestinus they say, they reserued the judgement of the cause of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch to him, as being more doubtfull. The former of these two things they endeauour to proue out of Euagrius hist. lib. 1. cap. 4. Euagrius; the later out of the Epistle written by the Fathers of that Councell, extant in the Councell it selfe. For the clearing of this objection wee must obserue, that See these things in the Actes of the Councell of Ephesus, the 7. books of Socrates hist and the first of Euagrius. Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople, hauing vttered certaine hereticall, and impious speeches, touching the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ, whereby many were scandalized, the first amongst the Patriarches that tooke notice of it, was Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt; who after he found, that Nestorius would not bee reclaimed by admonitions, called a Synode of his Bishops, and condemned the absurd and hereticall positions of Nestorius, and required him to anathematize them, otherwise threatning, that hee and his Bishops, would reiect him from their communion, and hold them as brethren who vnder his iurisdiction resisted against him. This his proceeding hee signified to the Bishop of Rome, who approved and commended the same; & with his whole Synode of westerne Bishops encouraged him to goe forward, wishing him not to doubt of his concurrence with him, but as hauing all the authority and power hee and his Bishops had, to prouide for the church of Constantinople, and to let Nestorius know, that he was cut off from the vnity of the body of their Churches, if hee should not within a certaine number of dayes anathematize his wicked doctrine, and professe the faith touching the generation of Christ the Sonne of God, which the Romane Church, the Church of Alexandria, and Christian religion euery where preacheth. Hereupon Nestorius, fearing the course that Cyrill would take against him, desired the Emperour to summon a generall Councell. To this Councell came Nestorius, and the Bishops that were vnder him: and Cyrill, with his Bishops, assisted with the concurrence of the resolution and direction of the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishoppes of the West, though absent; But Iohn the Patriarch of Antioche and his Bishops were not come. Whereupon after a while, the Bishops that were present, being wearie of staying there, beganne to proceede without him, requiring Nestorius to appeare in the Synode, and to answere to such things as should bee obiected to him; Which when hee refused to doe, the Fathers assembled, finding by manifest proofe, that hee had taught impiously, condemned, and deposed him, compelled so to doe by the Canons, and the letters of the Bishop of Rome, and his westerne Bishops, who had set a time, within which if hee submitted not himselfe, they would reiect him from their communion. Fiue dayes after the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius, came Iohn the Patriarch of Antioche with his Bishops, excusing himselfe for his long tarrying in respect of the distance of the place from whence he came, as also for that his Bishops could not sooner be gathered together. Hee was much offended, that they who were come before him had passed their sentence before his comming; and therevpon without delay, before he had put off his cloake, or shaken off the dust from his feete, as the storie saith, assembling the Bishops subiect to him in a Synode, deposed 〈◊〉 Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. cap. 17. Cyrill and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, who were chiefe agents in the proceedings against Nestorius. Which deposition of Cyrill and Memnon, was something hastily confirmed by the Emperour Theodosius. The Synode assembled vnder Cyrill, in like sort gaue sentence against Iohn, and signified to Caelestinus Bishop of Rome, what they had done, shewing how vnaduisedly a few had presumed to condemne a great many, and the Bishop of the third See, Bishops of greater Sees, to wit, Cyrill of Alexandria, and Caelestinus of Rome, who was present in the Councell by his Vicegerent: yet referring the finall proceeding to his consideration also, hee and his Bishops being as much interessed in this businesse, as they that were assembled. In the end by mediation of many great and worthy ones, Iohn and his Bishops, that formerly were misconceited of Cyrill, were satisfied, and he sent the confession of his faith vnto him; which he approued, and so they were reconciled, and made friends without any farther intermedling of the Bishop of Rome. Here is nothing to be found, that any way argueth or importeth an vniuersality of power in the Bishop of Rome, but onely his concurrence with the other Patriarches, as prime Patriarch, in the waighty and important businesses of the Church: and therefore the Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. cap. 19. Fathers of that Councell writing to the Vicars of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops, sent by them to the Emperour, to informe him concerning the differences that had arisen in the Councell, and their proceedings, charge and require them to doe nothing but according to their direction; assuring them, that if they doe otherwise, they will neither ratifie that they doe, nor admit them to their communion: Thereby shewing, that though the Romane Bishop be to concurre with the Fathers assembled in Councells, yet he is not absolutely there to commaund, but to follow the directions of the Maior part. So that he hath a joynt interest with others, but not an absolute Soueraignty ouer all others; God therefore hauing ordained the high toppes of Patriarchicall dignities (as it is in the eighth generall Apud Binnium Conciliorum. Tom. 3. part 2. Act. 1. pag. 881. Councell) that they might iointly concurre to vphold the state of the Church, and the truth of Religion; and that if one fell, the rest might restore, settle, and reestablish things againe: Which course Cyril. Ep. inter acta Ephe. Conc. Cyrill in his Epistle to Iohn of Antioche sheweth to haue beene holden by him. For when he obserued that Nestorius his fellow Patriarch erred from the faith, he first admonished him, and threatned to reiect him from the communion of his Churches. Secondly, he acquainted the Bishop of Rome and the Westerne Bishops with the impieties and blasphemies of Nestorius; who thereupon reiected him, professing that they would admitte none to their communion, but such as would condemne him. Thirdly, he wrote to Iuvenall Bishop of Hierusalem, and to Iohn Bishop of Antioche, shewing his owne dislike of Nestorius, and farther professing, that for his part hee was fearefull to be cast out of the communion of the Westerne Bishoppes, as hee saw he must be, if he accursed not Nestorius.

The next allegation is out of the Councell of Actione. 3. Chalcedon, where Theodorus and Ischiron, Deacons, in their bils of complaint exhibited to the Bishop of Rome as president, and to the whole Councell, call Leo the Bishop, Most holy and most blessed vniuersall Arch-bishop, and Patriarch of great Rome. But they that presse the testimony of these two distressed Deacons, flying to Leo for helpe, should remember, that in the Councell of Actione 5. pag. 455. 460. apud Binnium, tom. 2. Constantinople vnder Mennas, not Deacons, but Bishops, & they many, are reported to haue written to the Bishop of Constantinople in this sort: To our most holy Lord, and most blessed Father of Fathers, Iohn, the Archbishop, and vniuersall Patriarch; and Eodem Tomo pag. 438. Mennas himselfe also is called Oecumenicall Patriarch, & Archbishop, oftentimes in that Councell of Constantinople: and yet, I thinke, they will not acknowledge the Bishops of Constantinople to haue had an vniuersall, supreme commaunding power ouer the whole world.

Herevnto therefore they adde another proofe, out of the relation of the Actione 16. pag. 139. Councell of Chalcedon made to Leo; wherein the Fathers complaine of Dioscorus, that as a wilde Boare he had violently entred into the vineyard of the Lord, and wasted the same, plucking vp the true fruitfull vines, and planting vnfruitfull in their places; and that hee stayed not there, but reached out his hand against him to whom the keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour, that is, against the Bishop of Rome, whom hee thought to excommunicate. These words wee willingly confesse, to bee words of iust complaint, vpon great cause made by the Fathers of the Councell, against Dioscorus; but they proue not the thing in question. For wee make no doubt, but the keeping of the vineyard of the Lord of hosts was committed to the Bishop of Rome, not onely as well as to other, but in the first place, as being in order and honour the chiefe: But that he onely receiued from Christ this power, authority & charge, and others from him, not we onely, but many learned amongst themselues doe denie, as De Pontif. Rom. l. 4. c. 22. Bellarmine testifieth.

There are two other testimonies that may be alleaged out of the Councell of Chalcedon. For Paschasinus, one of the Vicegerents of the Bishop of Rome in that Councell, calleth Conc. Chalced. act. 1. p. 4. Rome the head of the churches, and In Exempl. epist. Paschasini, pag. 141. Leo the Bishop of Rome, head of the vniuersall Church. But they who presse so much the saying of the Popes Legate in fauour of the Pope, must know, that by head hee meant chiefe in order and honour, and not one hauing all power originally in himselfe, and absolutely commaunding ouer all, as the Papists now teach. For if he had meant so, he had not been endured by the Fathers of that Councell, who peremptorily pronounce, Act. 15 chap. 28. that it was the greatnesse of the citie, and not any power giuen by Christ or deriued to him from Peter, that made the Bishop of Rome to be great; & that therefore they would equall the Bishop of Constantinople vnto him, seeing Constantinople was now become equall vnto Rome.

The next testimony that they alleage, is out of the Patriarchicall Councell of Actione 4. Constantinople vnder Mennas, wherein the Fathers professe by Mennas their president, that they follow and obey the Apostolique See, that they communicate with them with whom that See communicateth, and condemne all those it condemneth. Surely, this reason, howsoeuer it may seeme to haue some force, yet indeed hath none at all. For there is no question, but that the Bishop of Rome with his Westerne Synods, all which according to the phrase of Antiquity, are comprehended vnder the name of the Apostolique See, was more to be esteemed then the particular Synode vnder Mennas; and that therefore they might professe to follow it, and obey the decrees of it; and yet neither thinke the Pope to bee vniuersall Bishop, nor that the Bishop of Rome with his Westerne Bishops, is more to be listned vnto, and obeyed, then all the other Bishops of the Christian World. That Ep. ad Tharas. in conc. 7. act. 2 Adrian the Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle to Tharasius inserted into the seuenth generall Councell, saith, that the See of Rome hath the primacie throughout the whole world, and is the head of all Churches (which is the last allegation of Bellarmine out of Councels) is no more then wee granted before, if it be rightly vnderstood of a primacie of order and honour, and not of an vniversall, supreme, commaunding power ouer all.

This is all that Bellarmine can alledge out of any auncient Councell: in which his allegations, it will not be amisse for the Reader to obserue his guilefull cunning: who vndertaking to produce the testimonies of auncient Councels for confirmation of the Papacie, bringeth nothing for the most part, but the words of particular men: and they either sutors to the Pope, agents for him, or Popes. To that which hee hath out of latter Councels, as that of Laterane vnder Innocentius, and that of Lyons, and Florence, I will answere when I come to shew the opinions of latter times touching the Popes vniversality of jurisdiction and power, and therefore will passe them ouer in this place.

CHAP. 34.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes Iurisdiction, taken out of the Decretall Epistles of Popes.

THE next proofes that are brought for confirmation of the vniversalitie of Papall jurisdiction, are the sayings of Popes in their Decretall Epistles. These Epistles De Pont. l. 2. c. 1 •… 4. Bellarmine sorteth into three rankes, placing in the first the Epistles of those Popes that liued within the first 300 yeares: in the second, the Epistles of those that liued after the first 600 yeares: and in the third, the Epistles of such as came in the midst betweene these.

Touching the first, he confesseth, that certaine errours haue crept into them, and that he dareth not pronounce them to be indubitate: but Cardinall Cusanus, a man of great learning, reading, and judgement, minseth not the matter, as Bellarmine doth, but plainely and in direct words professeth, that he thinketh these Epistles that goe vnder the names of auncient Popes, are counterfeit. His words are these. Cusan. de concord. cath. l. 〈◊〉 . c. 2. In my opinion, the things that are written of Constantine and his donation, are Apocryphall, as also perhaps some other long and large writings, attributed to the holy men Clemens and Anacletus the Pope, on which, they that desire to magnifie the Romane See, which is worthy of all honour, and to exalt it more then either is expedient for the Church, or is any way fit, doe either altogether, or in some sort ground themselues. For assuredly, if any man would diligently reade ouer and peruse all the writings attributed to those holy men, and compare the times wherein they liued with those writings, and then would be conversant in the workes of all the holy Fathers, which were till the time of Augustine, Hierome, and Ambrose, and in the bookes of Councels, wherein authenticall writings are alleaged, committing them to memory, & making vse of thē, he would find this to be true, that neither any mētion is made of those forenamed Epistles in any of those writings, nor that the epistles compared with the times wherein their supposed authors liued, can be made to agree with the times of their life; but by the very circumstance of time bewray themselues to be counterfeit. It is written in the Epistles of Clemens, how he was made Pope and succeded Peter: and after the death of Peter, the author of these Epistles writeth vnto Iames, who was brother of our Lord and Bishop of Hierusalem: and yet it is most manifest that the same Iames died eight yeares before Peter, which was one of the causes (as Beda writeth in his commentaries vpon the Canonicall Epistles) why the Epistle of Iames is set first among the Catholique Epistles. Neither is this the censure of Cusanus onely, but Contius annotat in dist. 26. cap. 70. Contius a learned Canonist, in his annotations vpon Gratian, feareth not to pronounce all the decretall Epistles, that go vnder the names of such Bishops, as liued before Syluester, to be false and counterfeit. Besides these censures of learned men, there want not strong and effectuall reasons to disproue these Epistles. For first, they will easily appeare to be counterfeit, because they are barbarously, and rudely written, and are not like the writings of those men, that liued in the times wherein the supposed authors of those Epistles did liue, but like the writings of such as liued in later and worse times, after Barbarisme had preuailed and ouerflowne all. Secondly, because the style is so different from those indubitate remainders of the Epistles of the same Popes, found in Cypr. epist. 46. & 48. in edit. Pammelij. Cyprian, Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 42. Eusebius, and Athanas. apologia. 2. Athanasius, that they cannot be but counterfeit: For whosoeuer shall compare them, shall find them to differ as much as gold and drosse. Thirdly, for that all these supposed Epistles are soe like one another in style, and oftentimes haue the verie same sentences, that it is very likely they came all from one and the same forge. Fourthly, because neither Eusebius, Hierome, nor any other auncient writer maketh any mention of them. Fiftly, because they follow not the old translatiō in their allegations of Scripture, but that of Hierome, which was not in being in those times, wherein the supposed Authors of these Epistles did liue. Lastly, which is the reason before vsed by Loco citato. vide etiam Binnium in annor. in epist. Clem. Cusanus, because the Epistle to Iames written after the death of Peter, as appeareth in the front of it, and soe consequently after the twelfth yeare of Nero, could not be written to Iames the brother of our Lord, who, as Hieron: Catalog. Script. Eccl. in Iacobo. Hierome testifieth, was slaine at Hierusalem in the seauenth yeare of Nero. But whatsoeuer become of the censure of learned men branding these Epistles with the note of forgery, and the reasons brought to disproue them, which cannot easily be answered; yet Bellarmine will proue, that these Epistles are mentioned by the ancient, and consequently, that the Cent. 2. cap. 7. ad finem. Centurie-writers say vntruly, that hardly any shall be found before the time of Charles the great, that speaketh any thing of them. To this purpose he produceth Isidore, in his preface before his collection of the Councels, affirming, that he gathered Canons out of the Epistles of Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus, and the rest of the Romane Bishops, by the aduice of eightie Bishops; but this is to justifie one counterfeit by another; For this preface is thought to be counterfeit, because in it there is mention made of the sixt generall Councell vnder Agatho, whereas Isidore was dead forty yeares before the holding of that Councell. Wherefore he alleageth the Councell of Vase, as mentioning the same decretals. But the decrees of that Councell are vncertaine, as Binnius annot. in Conc. Vasens. 2. Binnius noteth, by reason of the great confusion that is found in them: and truly, I thinke, there is noe man that can make any sence of that which is cited out of Clements Epistles by that Councell. Therefore in the third place he addeth Ruffinus, who in his preface before his translation of the recognitions of Clemens out of Greeke, speaketh of an Epistle of Clement vnto Iames the brother of our Lord, and sayth, hee turned it out of Greeke into Latine: and this, sayth Bellarmime which we haue, is vndoubtedly the same that he translated, as may be proued out of Genna Catalog. illustrium virorum. Gennadius: therefore the Epistle that is now carried about vnder the the name of Clemens, is ancient, and not late or counterfeit. But that these Philistines may fall by their owne sword, wee will oppose against Bellarmine the Cardinall, Baronius the Cardinall, against the Romane reader of controuersies, the Romane Annalist. For Baron. Anno 102. num. 6. Baronius proueth out of De viris l. lustr. cap. 17. vide Annot. Binnij in 1. Ep. Clement. ad Iacobum. Gennadius, whom Bellarmine alleageth, that these Epistles wee haue, are not the same that Ruffinus translated, because those hee translated had prefaces before them, but this of Clement hath none. Thus wee see the Epistles of the Popes of the first 300 yeares, proue nothing, because they are counterfeite.

Of them that were written by such as liued after the first 600 yeares, I shall haue a fitte opportunity to speake in another place. Wherefore let vs come to those of the middle ranke, where Bellarmine produceth twelue auncient Bishoppes of Rome, clayming that supreme, absolute, and commaunding authority ouer the whole Church, which we deny.

The first of the twelue, is Iulius the first, in his Epistle extant in the second Apologie of Athanasius. The witnesse is good, and wee will not except against him, but hee deposeth directly against them that produce him; neither is there any better evidence to bee desired, then this his Epistle. For the Bishops of the East hauing written to Iulius, and blamed him for communicating with such as they reiected, & going about to reuerse the acts which they had agreed on; and hauing told him, that the greatnesse of citties maketh not the power of Bishoppes to bee the greater: and that therefore he should not takē on him to bee greater then other Bishops, and to vndoe that which they had done, because he was Bishop of a greater citty then any of them was; hee answereth modestly in this his Epistle, that hee hopeth hee offendeth not in desiring them to come to a Synode, that therein their proceedings might bee examined; seeing the Nicene Councell appointeth the acts of one Counecll to be reëxamined in another. Secondly he sheweth, that they whom they sent to informe him & the Westerne Bishops, touching their proceedings against Athanasius, being conuicted by the Presbyters of Athanasius, desired him to call a Councell of his owne Bishops, and to write to Athanasius, and those of Eusebius part to come vnto the same; wherein they doubted not, but they should proue the things they had alleaged. Thirdly, he sheweth that if without the sollicitation of their Agents he had desired them to meete in Councell, it had beene no fault, nor any way preiudiciall vnto them. Fourthly, that they who will not haue their proceedings reëxamined contemne Councels, by admitting such as were condemned by the Nicene Councell; that Athanasius was not condemned at Tyrus; that he was not present when he was condemned at Mareotta; and that many wrote in his defence, to him & the other Bishops of the West; & that yet he foreiudged nothing, but would haue had matters defined in a Coūcel. Fiftly, he sheweth that though he wrote alone, yet he reported not his own opinion only, but of all the Bishops of Italy, and the countries thereabout. Lastly, he telleth them, that the Bishops they proceeded against, being no vulgar persons, but Bishops of such churches as the Apostles themselues planted, before they had proceeded against them, they should first haue written to him and his colleagues, that from thence might haue beene defined, what was right and good; then which course what could be more fitting? For Athanasius Bishop of the second See, with other his adherents, were not to be iudged by Bishops of an inferiour ranke, especially in a matter concerning the faith, without first consulting the Bishop of the first See, & his colleagues, that from thence an action of such consequence might take beginning. And therefore Iulius rightly telleth the Orientall Bishops, that in their rash proceeding against so great & worthy a Bishoppe, as was Athanasius, they had offended against the ordinations of Paul; that the Fathers had not taught them so to doe; and that he had receiued otherwise from blessed Peter. Here is nothing found, for any thing I see, that any way proueth the Pope to haue a supreme commaunding power ouer the whole church; but rather the contrary: For hee doth nothing, without the Synode of the Westerne Bishops: Hee challengeth not the right of iudging the causes of the Orientall Bishops, either by himselfe alone, or with his Synode of Westerne Bishops: much lesse deriueth the claime of any such right from Peter; as the Iesuite vntruly misreporteth the matter; but thinketh, that the finall, and supreme iudging of them, pertaineth to a generall Councell.

The next allegation is out of an Apud Theodor. l. 5. hist. Eccles. c. 9. Epistle of Damasus, wherein writing to the Bishops of the East, he commendeth them that they gaue due reverence to the See Apostolique, and calleth them sonnes. To what purpose this allegation serueth, I know not. For if any man doe thinke it consequent, that the Pope hath an vniversall commanding power ouer all, because the Bishops of the East yeelded a kinde of due respect and reverence to the See Apostolique, (that is, to the Bishop of Rome, and his colleagues) for that it was in order and honour the first See; he is greatly deceiued, and may bee confuted out of the Apud Theodor. 10. Epistle of the Orientall Bishops, in answere whereof Damasus writeth. For they write vnto him, not as to their Lord and Commaunder, but as to their brother and colleague; and direct not their letters to him onely, but to him and the other Bishops of the West. Their Epistle beginneth in this sort. To their brethren and Colleagues, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerianus, Acholius, &c. and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great citie of Rome. Where by the way, we may obserue, that howsoeuer Damasus call them sonnes, as being Bishops of meaner places, & inferiour Sees, yet they call him brother and colleague, as being equall in office and power, though inferiour in order and honour. Besides this, they refused to come to Rome, though earnestly entreated by Damasus so to doe, but stayed at Constantinople, and there held a Councell, wherein they condemned the heresies of the Eunomians, & Macedonians; ordained sundry Bishops, as the Bishops of Constantinople, Antioche, and Hierusalem, Nectarius, Flavianus, and Cyrill: they made the Bishop of Constantinople a Patriarch, and set him in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome. These ordinations Vide notas Binnii in Concil Constantin. Primum conc. tom. 1. of Nectarius, and Flavianus especially, Damasus liked not, and yet was forced to giue way vnto them, and to yeeld to the Bishops assembled at Constantinople, (being but an hundred and fiftie in number) the name of the generall Councel, though about the same time, hee, and all the Bishops of the West were assembled at Rome. Wherefore this testimony might well haue beene spared. The next allegation out of the Damas. ep. 4 •… Epistle of Damasus to the Bishops of Numidia, is lesse to be esteemed then the former; seeing that Epistle hath many things in it, which cannot agree with the state of things in those times. For if the Africans had bin so willing to refer all greater matters by way of appeale to Rome, as the Epistle of Stephen, in answere whereunto this of Damasus is written, importeth; how could it haue come to passe, that in Zozymus his time, appeales to Rome should seeme so strange, as it appeareth they did?

That which is alleaged out of the Epistle of Syricius to Himericus, Bishop of Tarracon, and of Zozymus to Hesychius, Bishop of Salona, is to little purpose; for that Syricius saith, he is more zealous of true Religion, then all other Christians, and that he beareth the burthen of all that are grieued, is no more then is attributed to Basil. ep. 48 Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria. Neither is it to be marvailed at, that he saith, the Bishop of Tarracon referred certaine matters to the Church of Rome, as to the head of his body, seeing he was one of the Bishops that were subiect to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West. Which also is the reason why Zozymus giueth directions to the Bishop of Salona, touching the time they of the Clergie were to continue in euery of the lower degrees, before they might be preferred to higher, wishing him to acquaint others neare vnto him with the same, and to assure them, that he should answere it with the losse of his place, whosoeuer should contemne the authority of the Fathers, and neglect his prescriptions.

The next Pope that is produced as a witnes, is Innocent. cp. 22. ad Episcop. Maced. Innocentius the first, in his Epistles to the Bishops of Macedonia, & the Inter Epistolas August. ep. 91. & 93. Fathers assembled in the councels of Mileuis & Carthage; out of which Epistles, foure things are alleaged for proof of the Popes supremacie. The first is, that the Church of Rome is by him called head of Churches, yea the wellspring, and head of all Churches, The second, that doubtfull cases were referred to the See of Rome by the Bishops of Macedonia. The third, that all the Bishops of the world, were wont to consult the Romane Bishop, in doubtfull questions touching matters of faith. The fourth, that the Romane Bishops haue the care of all Churches. To these seuerall obiections framed out of the Epistles of this Romane Bishop, we answer briefly: First, that the Church of Rome was head of all Churches; that is, first in order and honour amongst them, but not in absolute supreme commanding power. Secondly, that the Church of Rome was in more speciall sort head of such Churches, as were within the Patriarchship of Rome (as Macedonia was in Innocentius his time) and that this was the reason, why the Bishops of Macedonia referred their doubts to the determination of the See of Rome. Thirdly, that all the Bishops of the world consulted the Apostolique See of Rome, and the Bishop thereof, in controuersies of Faith and Religion, not as an absolute supreme judge, to whose determinations they were bound to stand, but as their most honourable Collegue, interessed as much as any of them in the maintenance of the truth of Religion, and the determination of things questioned concerning the Faith. Fourthly, that they did not consult the person of the Bishop of Rome alone, but all the Bishops of the West together with him, who were a great and principall part of the Christian world, though sometimes hee onely be named, as beeing the President of all the Synodes of Bishoppes throughout the West. Fiftly, that the Bishops of Rome had the care of all Churches, not as absolute supreame commanders, but as most honourable amongst the Bishops, and Pastours of Churches, who were first to be sought vnto in matters requiring a common deliberation, and from whom, all things generally concerning the state of the whole Church, were either to take beginning, or at the least to seeke confirmation before they were generally imposed, and prescribed; that so being rightly determined by the Bishops of the chiefe and principall Churches, other Churches might receiue the same, like waters flowing from a fountaine, and running in puritie in all Churches, according to the purity of the head and beginning.

The sixt Bishop of Rome that is produced to giue testimonie for the Popes supremacie, is Leo the first, out of whom seauen things are alleaged: whereof the first is, that he Leo epist. 84. appointed Anastasius the Bishop of Thessalonica, to be his Vicegerent for the gouernement of the Prouinces farre off from him: whence it may be inferred as our Aduersaries thinke, that the Bishops of Rome had an vniuersall commanding power ouer all the world. The second, that he Idem epist. 46. commaundeth Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople. The third, that he Idem epist. 62. wisheth the Bishop of Antioch to write often to him, touching the affaires and state of the Churches. The fourth, that Ibidem. Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria besought him, not to permit Iuuenall Bishop of Hierusalem, to prejudice the right of the Church of Antioch, and to subject Palestina to himselfe. The fifth, that hee Idem epist. 81 commaunded Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria. The sixt, that hee Idem epist. 87. intermeddled in Africa. And the last, that hee Idem Serm 1. in natal. Apost. sayth, that Rome had a larger extent of Presidence, in that by Peters chaire she was made the head of all Churches, then in that, in respect of earthly dominion, she was Lady and Mistresse of a great part of the world. To all these objections thus mustered together out of the writings of Leo, we answere in this sort. First, that Thessalonica was within the Patriarchship of Rome, and that therefore the Bishop of Rome, might haue a Vicegerent there, to dispatch some of those things that pertained to him as Patriarch, and yet haue no vniuersall commanding power ouer all the world. Secondly we say, that Leo did not acknowledge Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople to be a Patriach, and that therefore it followeth not, that he would haue presumed to haue commanded a Patriarch, if he had commanded him: but that indeed he did not cōmand him. For thus the case stood. Vide Epist. 46. Leonis. After the Councel of Ephesus wherein diuers Bishops compelled by Dioscorus, subscribed to impious decrees, Leo besought the Emperour, that a generall Councell might be called; but because by reason of warres in many parts of the world, such a Councell could not conueniently be presently called, he sent certaine commissioners to Constantinople, who taking to them the Bishop of Constantinople, and being assisted by him and the Bishops thereabout, might, vpon repentance and due satisfaction, reconcile and againe admitte to the communion of their Churches, such as they should thinke fit. These commissioners Leo directed and commanded, as in right he might: But that he specially commanded the Bishop of Constantinople, it cannot be proued. Thirdly we say, that Leo in brotherly sort wished the Bishop of Antioch to resist heretiques: and to let him vnderstand of the state of the Churches, and to be a consort of the Apostolique See in this care: to see that the priuiledges of the third See were not deminished by any mans ambition, assuring him, that whensoeuer he will do any thing for the aduancing of the dignity of the See of Antioch, he also will be ready to concurre with him. In all which passages betweene Leo and the Bishop of Antioch, there is nothing found that hath any shew of proofe of the Popes supremacie. Fourthly, we say that Cyrill the Patriarch of Alexandria, besought Leo to giue noe consent to the attempts of Iuuenall Bishop of Hierusalem, seeking to prejudice the Church of Antioch, & to subject Palaestina to himselfe: but that he besought Leo, not to permit, nor suffer Palaestina to be taken from Antioch, and subjected to the Church of Hierusalem (as if the whole power of permitting or hindring this thing, had rested in Leo) is but the false report of the Cardinall, according to his wonted manner of misse-alleaging authors for the the aduantage of his cause. So that the disposition of this matter rested not wholly in Leo, but his concurrence with the Bishops of Antioch, and Alexandria, was necessary for the withstanding of the attempts of Iuuenall; which his concurrence and helpe, hee promised the Bishop of Antioch, as we haue already heard, and was euer ready to yeeld the same vnto him. Fiftly we say that Leo did not command Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria: but whereas the manner was, when the Patriarches were first elected & ordained, that they should mutually consent one to another, and that hee who was newly ordained, should send vnto the rest his Synodall letters, and testimonies of his lawfull election and ordination: Dioscorus being newly elected, & appointed Patriarch of Alexandria, sendeth his Synodall letters to Leo Bishop of Rome, that so he might giue his consent, & receiue & embrace him as his fellow Patriarch. Leo, that these beginnings of Dioscorus might be more sure and firme, & nothing wanting to perfection, fatherly, as more ancient, and brotherly, as of the same ranke with him, putting him in mind of some differences betweene their two Churches, about the time of the ordination of Ministers; and for that it seemed not likely vnto him, that Marke the scholler of Peter tooke any other order in this behalfe then Peter did, saith vnto him; Wee will haue you to obserue, that which our Fathers euer obserued; making this a condition of the allowance & consent he was to yeeld vnto him; and vrging the practice of the Apostles, sayth, hee shall do well, if obeying these Apostolicall institutions, he shall cause that forme of ordination to be kept in the Churches ouer which God hath set him, which is obserued in the Churches of the West; that Ministers of the Church may be ordained onely on the Lords day, on which day the creation of the world was begun, in which Christ rose, in which death was destroyed; and life, after which there is no death, tooke beginning; in which the Apostles receaued frō the Lord the trūpet of preaching the Gospel, & the ministration of the Sacrament of regeneration. Sixtly we say, that Leo intermedleth in the Churches of Africa, and requireth some ordained contrary to the Canons, to be put from their places: tollerateth others, and willeth the cause of Lupicinus, a Bishop who had appealed vnto him, to be heard there, because he was Patriarch of the West: and these parts of Africa were within his Patriarchship: and that yet this his intermedling in so particular sort with the affaires of the Africane Churches, was not very pleasing vnto those of Africa, as shall appeare by that which followeth. Lastly, we say that the Church of Rome was the head of all Churches in the sence before expressed, and had a presidence of order and honour amongst them: and had in that sort, as Leo truly saith, more subject to it, then euer were vnder the Romane Empire: but vnder any absolute, supreme commanding power of the Church of Rome they were not. But, saith Bellarmine, if the former testimonies of Leo be auoided, there is one more yet behind so cleare and full for the supremacie of the Pope, that nothing can be sayd in answere vnto it, in his Epistle to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. His words are these: Leo Epist. 84. Amongst the most blessed Apostles, like in honour, there was a certaine difference and distinction of power; and whereas they were equally chosen, yet notwithstanding it was giuen to one of them to haue a preeminence amongst the rest, from which forme, the distinctiō and difference, that is amongst Bishops, hath taken beginning; and by a most wise disposition it hath beene prouided, that all without difference shall not challenge all vnto thēselues, but that there should be in seuerall prouinces seuerall Bishops, whose sentence & judgment should be first and chiefe amongst the brethren; and againe certaine other constituted and placed in greater cities, who might take the care of more then the former, by whom the care of the whole Church might flow vnto that one seate of Peter, and nothing any where might dissent from the head. These words truely make a goodly shew, and may seeme most strongly to proue the supremacie that the Popes now challenge: but in very deede they most powerfully ouerthrow it. For the Bishops of Rome will neuer be perswaded in proportionable sort as is expressed in the words of Leo, to challenge no more in respect of the whole Church, then the Metropolitane Bishops doe in respect of their Provinces, and the Patriarches in respect of their Churches of a larger extent: For then they must doe nothing, but accordingly as they shall bee swayed by the major part of the voyces of the Bishops of the Christian Church. For the Metropolitane may doe nothing in his province, nor the Patriarch in his larger extent, but as they shall be directed, & swayed by the major part of the voices of their Bishops: and yet surely the meaning of Leo was not to giue so much to the Bishop of Rome, in respect of all Christian Bishops, as pertaineth to the Metropolitanes and Patriarches, in respect of their Bishops. For the Metropolitane is to ordaine the Bishops of the Province, and the Patriarch to ordaine and confirme the Metropolitanes by imposition of hands, or mission of the Pall: but the Pope neuer had any such power in respect of the Patriarches, who were onely to send their Synodall Epistles to him, testifying their faith, as he likewise to them, without expecting any other confirmation then that mutuall consent, whereby one of them assured of the right faith and lawfull ordination of another, receiued and embraced each other as fellowes and colleagues. So that that care of the vniversall Church, which Leo saith, floweth together, and commeth vp to that one chaire of Peter, is to be vnderstood only in respect of things concerning the common faith, & generall state of the Church, or of the principall, most eminent, & highest parts, & members of the same: none of which things might bee proceeded in, without the Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues: but otherwise he was not to intermeddle with inferiour persons and causes, within the Iurisdiction of other Patriarches, neither immediatly, nor vpon appeale, and complaint.

The 7t• Roman Bishop brought to testifie for the absolute supreme power of Popes, is Gelasius: out of whom two things are alledged: The first is, that he Gelas. cp. ad cp. Dardan. saith, the See of Peter hath power to loose that which the Bishops of other Churches haue bound. The second, that Idem cp. ad Anast. Imperat. it hath power to judge of euery Church, & that no Church may judge of the judgment of it. For answer to this testimony of Gelasius, first we say, that the Church of Rome may not meddle with reviewing, re-examining, or reversing the acts of other Churches, proceeding against Lay-men or inferiour Cleargy-men. Secondly, that in the case of a Bishop complaining of wrong, by the authority of the Councell of Cap. 7 Sardica, she might interpose her selfe, not so as to bring the matter to Rome, there to be heard: but so farre forth onely, as to commaund and appoint a review to be taken, by the Bishops of the next bordering Province, or at the most to send some Cōmissioners to sit with such second Iudges. Thirdly, that in cases which concerned the principall Patriarches, whether they were differences between them & their Bishops, or between themselues, the chiefe See, as the principall part of the whole Church might interpose it self. Neither was this proper to the See of Rome: for other Patriarchs likewise of the higher thrones, might interpose thēselues in matters concerning the Patriarchs of inferiour thrones: whence it is, that Basil writing to Athanasius Bishop of the second See, Basil. cp. 48 telleth him, that the ordering of the Church of Antioch, which was the 3d See, did pertain to him, & that he was to see to the setling of things there, though the quieting of the whole East required the helpe of the Occidentall Bishops: & Act. concil. Ephes. Cyril in the case of Nestorius not yet fully established, in the right of a Patriarch intermedled, & proceeded so far as to reject him & his adherents frō the cōmunion of the churches of Egypt, Lybia, & Pentapolis. But the B. of the inferior thrones, might not judge the superior: & therfore Ibid. Iohn of Antioch of the 3d See, is reprehended & reproued for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d See: & Dioscorus Bishop of the 2d See, is condemned in the councel of In epist. ad Martian. & Valentinian. Imp. & in altera ad ipsum Leonem quae habetur act. 3. eius. conc. Chalcedon, as for other things, so for this amōg other, that he presumed to judge the first See. So that this is it which Gelasius saith, that the See of Rome, that is, the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of the West, may iudge and examine the differences betweene Patriarches, or between Patriarches and their Bishops; but neither so peremptorily, nor finally, but that such iudgement may be reuiewed and reexamined in a generall Councell: and that no other particular Church or See may iudge the Church of Rome, seeing euery other See is inferiour to it; no way denying, but that a generall Councell may review, reēxamine, and reuerse the acts & iudgements of the Romane See; as being greater, and of more ample authority. Neither truely can there be any better proofe against the pretended supremacie of the Popes, then this Epistle, the circumstances whereof are these. Acatius Bishop of Constantinople, for communicating with certaine Eutichian Heretickes, was by the See of Rome condemned; some disliked his proceeding against him, because a Synode was not specially summoned for the purpose, especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely citty; Gelasius standeth not vpon the claime of vniuersall power, thereby to iustifie his proceeding, but aunswereth; First, that Eutiches being condemned in the Councell of Chalcedon, all such were accursed likewise, as should either by defence of such errour, or communicating with men so erring, fall into the fellowship of the same heresie, and that therefore there needed no Synode, but the See Apostolique might execute that was there decreed. Secondly, that the Catholicke Bishops in the East being deposed, and Heretickes thrust into their places, there was no reason why hee should haue consulted with them. Thirdly, that hee did nothing of himselfe, but with a Synode of the Westerne Bishops.

The next foure Bishops produced by the Cardinall, are Iohn the second, Anastasius the second, Felix the fourth, and Pelagius the second; out of whom hee alleageth nothing but this, that the See of Peter holdeth the chiefty assigned of the Lord in the vniuersall Church, and that the church of Rome is the head of all churches. Wherevnto wee briefly answere, that the See of Peter euer held the chiefty, & that the church of Rome was euer the head of all churches, not in vniuersality of absolute supreme power & commanding authority, but in order & honour in sort before expressed: & that by the See of Peter and church of Rome, is meant the whole West church, & not precisely the Diocese of Rome, as likewise we haue noted before; and therefore these allegations to proue the Popes supremacie ouer all Bishops, are nothing to the purpose.

The last of the twelue Bishops brought by Bellarmine, is Gregorie the first; out of whom foure things are alledged; the first is, Greg. Epist. lib. 1. cp. 72. that he required the Africanes to permit appeales to Rome from the Councell of Numidia, and blamed the Bishops of Africa, for that after letters written vnto them, they had degraded Honoratus the Arch-deacon. n Idem. l. 2. cp. 37. The second, that he sent a Pall to the Bishop of Corinth. The third, Idem. li. 4. cp. 56. that he saith, Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople, acknowledged the Church of Constantinople to be subiect to the See Apostolique. The fourth, Idem. lib. 7. cp. 63. that the Bishop of Constantinople professeth his subiection to the See Apostolique. To these obiections we answer; First, Vide infra. chap. 39. of appeales to Rome. that it is contrary to the resolution of the ancient Councels of Carthage, & Mileuis, that the Bishop of Rome should admit appeales of inferiour Clergy-men out of Africa; & that therefore by some positiue constitution or later agreement, Gregory might bee permitted to heare the complaints of an Arch-deacon appealing vnto him out of Africa, yet from the beginning it was not so, though some parts of Africa were euer within the compasse of the Patriarchship of Rome. Secondly, that he sent the Pall to the Bishop of Corinth, because hee was within his Patriarchship; all Patriarches being to confirme their Metropolitanes by imposition of hands, or by sending the Pall. 3. That there was no such Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregories time, as is mentioned in the Epistle alledged; and that they that were, as Iohn & Cyriacus, stroue and contended with Gregory, to be aboue him, and to haue the first place in the Church; & that not without the help & furtherance of the Emperour: so that it may be doubted whether Gregory wrot this or not, it being so contrary to that wee know to haue bin attempted & sought by the Bishops of Constantinople, that liued in his time. But granting that Gregory did so write, & that Eusebius a B. of Constantinople did acknowledge his Church to be subject to the See of Rome, yet he meant nothing else thereby, but that it was an inferiour See and so subject in such sort, as I haue declared the inferiour Sees to be subject to the superiour; which subjection will no way proue the supremacie that the Popes now claime. Fourthly, that Gregory doth not say that the Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged himselfe subject to the Bishop of Rome. For it was not Primas Byzanzenus, the Primate of Byzantium, that Gregory reporteth to haue confest himselfe subject to the Bishop of Rome, and whose cause the Emperour commanded Gregory to heare, but Vide annot. in Gratian. Decr. part. 1. dist. 22. c. 3. Primas Byzanzenus, that is, the Primate of the Byzazene prouince of Africa. So that this confession of the Primate mentioned by Gregory, brought to proue that the Bishop of Rome had a commanding power ouer the Bishop of Constantinople, is meerly mistaken by Bellarmine, as it was before him by Gratian. But some man wil say, howsoeuer there be a mistaking of this allegation, yet it is strong and forcible to proue the thing intended. For Gregory saith expressely, that howsoeuer all Bishops in respect of humility, be equall, yet there is no Bishop but if he be found faulty, is subject to the See of Rome. That this saying of Gregory may be foūd true, certaine limitations must be added vnto it. For the Bishop of Rome might not immediatly punish euery Bishop that he found to offend, nor vpon appeale take notice of the faults and misdemeanours of all Bishops; but the Councell of Canone 9. Chalcedon ordereth, that if any inferiour Clergy-man haue ought against another inferiour Clerke, the matter shall be heard and determined by the Bishop, or such as with the liking of the Bishop shall by the parties be chosen arbitratours; and if he go against their determination, hee shall be punished. If a Clerke haue ought against his owne or another Bishop, it shall be inquired of in the audience of the Synode of the Prouince: If either Clerke or Bishoppe haue ought against the Metropolitane of the prouince, hee shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the throne and See of the Regall citty of Constantinople. This Canon of the great Councell of Chalcedon, was confirmed by the decree of Iustinian the Emperour. Iustinian. Nouel. 123. c. 22. If any man (sayth the Emperour) accuse a Bishop, for whatsoeuer cause, let the cause be judged by the Metropolitane: and if any man gainsay the Metropolitane, let the matter be referred to the Arch-bishop, and Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him end it according to the canons and Lawes. So that wee see the Bishops of Rome might not intermedle in judging inferiour Bishops, subject to other Patriarches, neither immediatly, nor vpon complaint and appeale, whatsoeuer their faults be: but they haue other supreme Iudges, who haue power finally to determine such matters, and from whom there lyeth noe appeale. This canon of the Councell of Chalcedon, and the Emperours decree confirming the same, Gregor. Epist. lib. 11. cp 54. Gregorie alleageth and alloweth, onely adding, that if there be no Metropolitane or Patriarch, such things as otherwise should be finally determined, and ended by them, are to be brought to the Bishop of Rome: Wherefore it seemeth that Gregory speaketh of the Bishops within his owne Patriarchship, whom sometimes he calleth his own Bishops, when he sayth there is no Bishop, but if he be found faulty is subject to the See of Rome. Of these hee speaketh when he sayth, Idem. lib. 4. Epist. 34. & in cp. 36 •… ortatur Eulogium Episc. Alexandr, & Anastasium Antiochenū vt omnes Episcopos eorum curae Subjectos ab iniquitate elationis Episc. Constantinopolitani prohibeant. I impute it to my sinnes, that my owne Bishops should thus despise me. And againe, if the causes of bishops committed to mee be thus dealt with, alas what shall I doe? And in this sense he Lib. 11. epist. 42. willeth Iohn of Palermo, to whom hee sendeth a Pall, not to suffer the reuerence of the Apostolique See to be troubled by any mans presumption: for that the state of the members is then entire and safe, when the canons are kept, and no iniurie hurteth the head of the faith: not naming the Church of Rome the head of the Faith, for that the Bishop of Rome hath an infallible iudgment, and absolute command in matters of faith, vpon which all the world must depend (as some ignorantly construe him) but because it was the head, that is, the beginning and wel-spring, whence the doctrine of Faith, the knowledge of GOD, and all Christian institution flowed to sundry other Churches, which therefore are in a sort to depend on it, to haue recourse to it, and to hold conformity with it. Innocent in Epist. ad Decentium. Eugubin. Episcopum No other, faith Innocentius, established and founded the Churches of Italy, France, Germany, Spaine, Africke, and the Isles that lye betweene, but Peter and his Successours: and therefore the Bishoppes of these Churches, must keepe such obseruations as the Romane Church (from which they tooke their beginnning) receiued from the Apostles, ne caput institutionum omittere videantur, that is, Lest they seeme to forsake the Head, & well-spring of all the institutions and ordinances they haue. This is the reason, why the Churches of these parts haue beene so subiect to the Church of Rome, namely for that from thence they receiued the light of Christian knowledge; but to all Churches it is not an head in this sort, seeing they receiued the faith not from Rome, but from some other Apostolicall Church, as Antioche, or Alexandria.

CHAP. 35.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes supremacie, produced and brought out of the writings of the Greeke Fathers.

HAuing examined the proofes they bring for confirmation of the Popes supremacie out of Councels, and the writings, of ancient Bishops of Rome, let vs come to the testimonies of the Fathers Greeke and Latine.

The first that they produce amongst the Greeke Fathers, is Ignatius, Ignatius ep. ad Romanos. who writeth to the Holy Church which hath the presidence in the Region of the Romans, or sitteth before other in the Region of the Romans; from which wordes nothing can be inferred that wee euer doubted of. For wee most willingly confesse the Romane Church to haue beene in order and honour the first and chiefest of all Churches, and he saith nothing out of which any other thing may be concluded.

The next is Irenaeus, Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who being to shew against Heretiques, that the Tradition of the Church is against them, and for him, and thinking it very tedious to run through the successions of all Churches, saith, he will content himselfe with that which is the greatest, ancientest, best knowne to all, & founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome; for that the whole Church, that is, the company of all faithfull ones, that are euery-where, in which the Tradition hath beene euer preserued, must of necessity agree in her tradition with this, propter potentiorem principalitatem, that is: For that it is the principall of all other. This testimony of Irenaeus no way proueth the thing in question. For heere is nothing of the dependance of all other Churches on the Church of Rome, in their faith and profession, nor that all Churches haue kept the faith in that Church, that is, in cleauing to it, as to their Head and Mother, as Bellarmine vntruly fansieth: But all that is heere saide, is nothing else, but that vndoubtedly the same faith was giuen and deliuered to all other Churches, that was deliuered by blessed Peter and Paul, to the Church of Rome the chiefest of all.

The two next Greeke Fathers that are produced to testifie for the supremacie, are Epiph. haeres. 68. Epiphanius, and Athan. in Apol. 2. Athanasius, who report, that Vrsacius and Valens, sworne enemies of Athanasius, repenting them of their former errours, came to Iulius Bishop of Rome, to giue an account, and to seeke fauour and reconciliation. Surely, the producing of such testimonies as these are, is nothing else but meere trifling; and they that bring them know right well, that they no way proue the thing questioned: the circumstances of this narration touching Vrsacius and Valens, are these. The cause of Athanasius, as himselfe Apol. praedict. testifieth, was first heard in his own Province, by an hundred Bishops, and he there acquitted: Secondly at Rome, by more then fiftie Bishops, at the desire of Eusebius his Adversary: and lastly, at Sardica, by three hundred Bishops, where he was likewise acquitted. To the decrees of this Synode, Vrsacius and Valens, his enemies, making shew of repentance, subscribed, confessing they had played the Sycophants: neither rested they there, but they wrote to Iulius Bishop of Rome, to testifie their repentance, and to desire reconciliation; and likewise to Athanasius himselfe. It were strange if any man could proue the absolute supreme power, & cōmanding authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer all the world by this testimony, wherin nothing is foūd of submissiō to Iulius, or of seeking his fauor & cōmuniō more then the fauour and communion of Athanasius, and all other Catholique Bishops adhering to him. The Epistle of Athanasius to Felix Bishop of Rome, is a meere counterfeit, as that worthy and renowned Defence of the Chaleng. Artic. of the Supremacie. Iuel hath proued at large by vnanswerable demonstrations; and therefore it needeth no answere. The allegation of the accusation of Dionysius of Alexandria, to Dionysius of Rome, joyned with it by Bellarmine, is of the very same stampe; and yet if it were not, proueth nothing against vs. For there is no question, but that in matter of faith, men may accuse any erring Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome and his Westerne Bishops; and that they may iudge and condemne such a one, though the Pope be not supreme head of the Church.

The fifth Greeke Father that they alledge, is Basil, Basil. Epist. 52. &. 48. who, as they say, in an Epistle to Athanasius, attributeth to the Bishop of Rome authority to visit the Churches of the East, to make decrees, and to reuerse the decrees of generall Councels, such as that of Ariminum was. Truly to say no more, the alledging of this testimony, sheweth they haue very little conscience that alledge it. For these are the circumstances of Basils Epistle, whereof let the Reader iudge. Basil writing to Athanasius (whom hee highly commendeth, for that, whereas other thinke it well if they take care of their owne particular churches, his care was no lesse for the whole church, then for that which was specially committed to him) aduiseth him, that the onely way to settle things put out of order in the Easterne churches by the Arrians, were the procuring of the consent of the Westerne Bishops, if it were possible to intreat them to interpose themselues: for that vndoubtedly the rulers would greatly regard, and much reuerence the credit of their multitude: and people euery where would follow them without gainesaying. But seeing this, which was rather to be desired, would not in likelihood easily be obtained, he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced, to send some of good discretion and moderation, who by gentle admonitions might pacifie the mindes of men, and might haue all things in readinesse that concerned the Arimine Councell, necessary for the dissoluing and shewing the inualidity of the acts of that Councell. I doubt not but the Reader, vpon the bare view of these circumstances, will easily perceiue, that this Epistle of Basill maketh very much against their opinion that alledge it: For hee preferreth, and rather wisheth a Councell, then the Popes owne interposing of himselfe, if there had beene any hope of a Councell. Besides, these whom the Pope was to send, were not to proceed iudicially, and by way of authority, but by intreaty and gentle admonitions to pacifie the mindes of men; & therefore here is nothing of visiting the Churches of the East, or voiding the acts of the Councell of Ariminum by way of sentence and formall proceeding, as Bellarmine vntruly reporteth; but onely a reaching forth of the hand of helpe to the distressed parts of the Church, by them that were in better state, and a manifesting or declaring of the inualidity of that Councell, the vnlawfull proceedings of it, and the reasons why it neither was, nor euer ought to be admitted.

The sixth Greeke Father brought to be a witnesse of the Popes supremacie, is Gregorie Nazianzen, Nazianz. in Carm. de vitâ suâ. who saith, that the Romane Church did euer hold the right profession, as it becommeth the citty which is ouer all the world. This testimony is no lesse abused then the former, as it will easily appeare to him that will take the paines to view the place alledged. Nature (saith Nazianzene) doth not affoord two Suns, yet are there two Romes, the lights of the whole world: the old and the new seate of the Empire, The one of these lights appeareth at the rising, and the other at the setting of the Sunne, and both iointly send forth a most excellent glittering brightnesse. The faith of the one was a long time, and now is right, knitting, and ioyning the West to the sauing word of Life, as it is fitte the Mistresse and Lady of the world should be. In which words it is euident, that hee speaketh of the greatnesse of the cittie of Rome, in respect of her ciuill and temporall soueraignty; and not in respect of the spirituall power of the Church; and therefore it is strange that Bellarmine should deny the same. For though in the time of Nazianzen, the Emperour made his abode, for the most part, at Constantinople, and not at Rome, yet he calleth Rome the Mistresse of the world, in respect of the ciuill state thereof, as appeareth in that he speaketh of two famous cities, two lights of the world; and nameth the one the old Seate, and the other the new Seate of the Empire.

The seuenth Greeke Father is Chrysostome, who (if we may beleeue Bellarmine) being deposed by Theophilus Bishoppe of Alexandria, and put from the Bishopricke of Constantinople in a Councell of Bishops, Chrysost. Ep. l. ad Innocentium. writeth to the Bishop of Rome, by his authority to voyde the sentence of Theophilus, and to punish him: whence it will follow, that Chrysostome acknowledged the Romane Bishop to bee supreme Iudge of the Greeke or Easterne Bishops, and consequently of all the world. For the better manifesting of the bad dealing of the Cardinall in alledging this testimony, I will briefly set downe all the most materiall and principall circumstances, of the narration of the most vniust deposition of Chrysostome, that worthy and renowned Bishop of Constantinople. Thus therefore the case stood. Sozomen. li: 8. ca. 11. & seq. Socrates. lib. 6. Pallad. & Gregorius Alex. in vitâ Chrysostomi Nicephorus l. 13. Baron. an. 404. numero 2. & Binnius. Concil. Tom. 1. pag. 589. There arose a question in the Churches of Aegypt, whether God were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; that is, had the shape of a man. Some of the simpler sort of Monkes thought, that God hath a bodily forme or shape: others thought otherwise, and condemned such as so thought, as blasphemous: Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was of opinion, that GOD is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, that God hath no bodily shape or forme: which the Monkes that thought otherwise greatly disliking, came to Alexandria with a full purpose to kill and destroy him, as a wicked and godlesse person. But he perceiuing their affection, presented himselfe speedily vnto them saying, I haue seene you, and looked vpon you, as vpon the face of God: and thereby pacified them for the present, supposing he had beene of their opinion, and had thought God to haue a face and countenance like man. But afterwards, hauing vpon some dislikes excommunicated Isidorus, a Presbyter of his Church, Isidorus goeth to the Monkes, and thereupon Ammonius with certaine other come to Theophilus, desiring him to receiue such to the communion, as hee had excommunicated, which he promised to doe, but performed not. Hereupon farther quarrels grew, and Theophilus perceiuing that these Monkes were in opinion contrary to the Anthropomorphites, ioyned himselfe with the Anthropomorphites, and intended some ill to the other; whereupon Ammonius, Dioscorus, and Isidore, came to Constantinople, and desired that the Emperour and Chrysostome might heare the matter between them. Chrysostome vsed them kindly, and suffered them to be present at the common prayers, but admitted them not to the communion: he wrote to Theophilus, to restore them to the communion as being right beleeuers, and desired him, if he thought fitte to haue their cause heard and examined at Constantinople, to send some to follow the businesse for him: Whereunto Theophilus returned no answere; which moued the complainants to sue to the Empresse, that a Councell might be called, which shee promised to procure: but in the meane while there being a rumor raised, that Chrysostome had received Dioscorus and the rest to the communion, and that he sought to steed them what hee could, Theophilus enraged against him, beganne to devise how hee might put him from his Bishopricke. To this purpose he writeth to sundry Bishops, reprehending the bookes of Origen, wherein the errour of the Anthropomorphites was condemned. Amongst other, he drew into his faction by this means Epiphanius, a man erring in that point, but otherwise of great authority for his good life and learning. Epiphanius calleth a Synode of the Bishops of Cyprus, condemneth the bookes of Origen, forbiddeth the reading of them; and perswadeth other, and amongst them the Bishop of Constantinople to doe the like. Theophilus likewise followed his example, and with his Bishops passed the like decree; but Chrysostome neglected the matter: which offended Epiphanius and Theophilus not a little. Hereupon many of the great ones in Constantinople, and of the Clergy also, hating Chrysostome, perceiuing that Theophilus was bent against him, vrged him to goe forward, and procured a great Synode to be called at Constantinople; which opportunity he neglected not, commanding the Bishops of Aegypt to goe thither, and writing to Epiphanius and the rest of the Easterne Bishops to come thither. Epiphanius accordingly came thither, shewed himselfe auerse from Chrysostome, and would neither come into the same house, nor pray with him, though hee sought him with great respect: Wherevpon after a while, Epiphanius in great dislike departed from Constantinople; at the parting of these Bishops, the one of them saying, he hoped the other should neuer returne home; the other, that he should neuer dye a Bishop; both which fell out accordingly: for Epiphanius dyed by the way, as he was returning home, and Chrysostome cast out of his Bishopricke, dyed in banishment. After the departing of Epiphanius, Chrysostome made a Sermon in reproofe and reprehension of women; which so moued and enraged the Empresse, that shee complained bitterly to her husband, and vrged him to cause Theophilus to come quickly, and to hold a Councell, which accordingly he did. Chrysostome was called to come into the Synode; but he answered, that he refused not judgement, but desired to know his accusers: and what crimes he was charged with, and protested against these Iudges as partiall, appealing to a Generall Councell, whereupon he was deposed. Three dayes after he withdrew himselfe; which put the people into an vproare, who stirring in very tumultuous manner, forced the Emperour to bring him backe againe, and caused him to take his chaire againe, thirtie Bishops bringing him to it. Heere beganne a new quarrell, for that being deposed by a Synode, hee resumed his place without a Synode: but the matter was reasonably well quieted, till reprehending those in authority, for permitting certaine abuses, the Empresse thinking her selfe touched, beganne againe to thinke, how she might procure another greater Councell to bee called then before; which Chrysostome vnderstanding, made that Sermon that beginneth, Herodias denuò insanire, denuò commoveri, denuò saltare pergit, denuò caput Ioannis in disco accipere quaerit: that is, Herodias proceedeth and goeth on to be mad againe, to be moued and stirred againe, and to daunce againe: shee seekes once againe to haue the head of Iohn in a platter. It was not long after the preaching of this Sermon, before the Bishops came together and met in Synode, by the procurement of the Empresse: who omitting all other things, objected vnto him, the resuming of his place without a Synode. He answered, that there were 50 Bishops that consented to him, and communicated with him. But they replyed, that there were more that condemned him: and that therefore by the Canon he ought not to haue resumed his place. To whom he answered, that that was a Canon of the Arrians, made by them when they proceeded against Athanasius, and therefore not to bee regarded. But that answer would not serue the turne: wherefore they proceeded to sentence against him, and put him out of his Bishopricke, and the Emperour immediatly sent him into banishment. Being in this distresse, and thus grieuously wronged, he writeth to Innocentius, and the Westerne Bishops, desiring them to doe what they can to represse these vile practises, & to write, that the things done against him be of no force, as indeede they are not: and that hee might still hold communion with them, as before he had done. The Bishop of Rome vpon this his suite, called a Synode of all the Bishops of the West, Vide ep. Innocentii ad Chrysostom. & Theophilum, apud Binnium. Tom. 1. Conc. held both Theophilus and Chrysostome in their communion: pronounced the judgement of Theophilus, & his proceedings against Chrysostome, to be voide, as being against the Canons: and yet tolde Chrysostome, there was no helpe, nor no meanes to releeue him, but in a generall Councell, which by all possible meanes he will labour to procure: till which time hee must be content, and referre all to God, who taketh care of these things. But with how ill successe hee sought to procure a generall Councell for the restoring of him to his place againe, wee may finde in k Sozomene: who reporteth, that being desirous that l Lib. 8. c. 18 Chrysostome might returne, he sent with those Orientall Bishops that came to him to intreate his helpe and assistance, fiue Bishops, and two Presbyters to Honorius, & Arcadius, to obtaine a Councell, and to haue the time appointed: who were so farre from prevailing and obtaining that they sought, that they were sent away with disgrace, as forreine and outlandish disturbers of the state of the Empire. These are the principall, and most materiall circumstances of the narration and report of the vniust deposition of Chrysostome, his writing to the Bishop of Rome, and the answer hee had from him, and the other Bishops of the West, which make most strongly against the pretended supremacie of Popes. For Innocentius telleth Chrysostomes friends, that it lyeth not in him to helpe him; but in a generall Councell: And though hee and the Bishops of the West pronounce the proceedings of Theophilus voide, as against the Canons, and do make them voyd, as much as by their dissenting they can, yet they confesse, that the absolute voyding of them, and the punishing of Theophilus was not in them, but in a generall Councell. But sayth Bellarmine, Inter Epistolas Innocentij supradictas. Chrysostome in another Epistle giueth Innocentius thankes for his fatherly care and kindnesse, & intreateth, that his enemies may not be excluded from the communion, if by any meanes they may be reclaimed: therefore it seemeth Chrysostome thought, hee had an absolute supreame commanding power. What it is in this Epistle that argueth that supreame power which Bellarmine dreameth of, I cannot tell. For I know no reason why Chrysostome, now a deposed and distressed Bishop, might not vse so respectiue a forme of speech to the Bishop of the first See, and esteeme of him as a father, without acknowledging him to haue any absolute supreame power ouer all. And all the other circumstances and parts of the Epistle most clearely make against the Papacie. For he sayth, Innocentius had done what he could; but that his enemies notwithstanding went still forward in their ill courses; and for the auoyding of greater scandals, distractions, & confusions, desireth him not to reiect them from his communion, considering the greatnesse of the worke: for that this was the contention almost of all the world: So that the Churches were brought vpon their knees, the people dispersed, the Cleargy vexed, Bishops banished, and the constitutions of the holy Fathers violated and broken.

The eighth Greeke Father is Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, out of whom Bellarmine alleageth noe new thing, but the very same which hee brought out of the Councell of Ephesus, whereof he was president; and therefore I will make no new answere here to this renued allegation, but referre the Reader to the See chap. 33. answere already made,

The ninth Greeke Father is Theodoret, out of whom Bellarmine seeketh to confirme the Papacie, for that though he were a Bishop of Asia, and had vnder him eight hundred Churches, yet Theodoret. in Epist. ad Leonem quae habetur in fine operum ejus. he acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be his supreme Iudge: and in an Epistle written to Renatus, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, sayth, that that holy See hath the gouernment and direction of the Churches throughout the world. For answere vnto this objection, we must obserue, that Theodoret being deposed, banished, and grieuously vexed for matters of faith, seeketh to haue his cause reexamined, and heard againe by the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of the West; which thing he obtained, and was by Leo, and the rest of the Bishops of the West, judged Catholique, receiued to their communion, and, as much as lay in them, restored to his Bishopricke againe; yet could he not repossesse his place, till the Councell of Chalcedon put him into it; Cone. Chalc. Act. 1. & 8. which, though it were informed by the deputies of Leo, that hee had long before receiued him to his communion, yet admited him not till he was reexamined, and at the first many of the Fathers disliking his answeres as imperfect, cryed out aloud, that he was a Nestorian, and desired that the Heretique might be cast out, censuring him as Cyril, and other Catholique Bishops had done before. But when hee fully and peremptorily accursed Nestorius with all his adherents, they all with one consenting voyce, pronounced him worthy of his place, and admitted him to sit in Councel with them. Whereby it apeareth, that howsoeuer the Westerne Bishops pronounced him Catholique, receiued him to their communion, and, as much as in them lay, restored him to his place, yet of themselues they neither could, nor did perfect that worke but were forced to leaue it to the generall Councell: all which Leo himselfe in his Epistle to Theodoret acknowledgeth: Leon. Epist. in fine operum Theodoreti. Adiutorium nostrum sayth he, in nomine Domini, qui fecit coelum & terram, qui nullum nos in nostris fratribus detrimentum sustinere permisit: sed quae nostro prius ministerio definierat, vniuersae fraternitatis irretractabili firmauit assensu, vt verè àse prodijsse ostenderet, quod priùs à prima omnium sede formatū, totius Christiani orbis iudicium recepisset, vt in hoc quo que Capiti membra concordent. Nā, ne aliarum sedium, ad eam quam caeteris omnium Dominus statuit praesidere, consensus, assentatio uideretur, inuenti priùs sunt, qui de iudicijs nostris ambigerent: that is, Our helpe is in the name of the Lord, who made both heauen and earth, who suffered vs not to sustaine any losse in our brethren, but confirmed & established by the irreuocable assent of the whole brotherhood, what things he had before defined by our ministery; that he might clearly shew that thing vndoubtedly to haue proceeded frō himselfe, which being formerly framed by the first See, the iudgment of the whole Christian world received: So that herein the head & mēbers conspire together. For lest the consenting of other Sees to that which the Lord of all appointed to be the first of all, might seeme to bee but flattery, there were some found that at first doubted of our iudgements, whether they were right or not. And he addeth, that multum Sacerdotalis officij meritum splendescit, vbi sic summorum servatur authoritas, vt in nullo inferiorum putetur imminuta libertas: that is, that the excellent worthinesse of the Priestly office doth then most appeare in shining brightnesse, when the authority of the highest is so retained, that the liberty of the inferiour and lesser be thought in nothing to be diminished or empaired. Thereby insinuating, that hee and his Westerne Bishops did so goe before in their resolution touching the case of Theodoret, that they no way diminished, much lesse tooke away the liberty of other inferiour Sees, but that they might resist and gainesay, till they were satisfied, and made to see the equity of the iudgement of the first See: accordingly as we finde they did in the Councell of Chalcedon, reiecting him as an Heretique, whom the Bishop of Rome had receiued, till vpon more full & particular examination, they found him to be catholicke, and acquited him in their owne iudgement. So that here we see there is nothing to proue the Pope to bee an absolute supreme iudge of all, as Bellarmine vntruly alledgeth. But happily hee will say, that Theodoret intreateth Renatus to perswade Leo to vse his authority, and to require the Bishoppes that had proceeded against him, to come to his Synode in the West, seeing the See of Rome hath a direction of all Churches, and that therefore hee seemeth to acknowledge an absolute supreme power in the Pope. For answere herevnto we say, that the circumstances of this Epistle doe clearely conuince and proue he had no such conceipt. For first, he speaketh not of Leo alone, as if of himselfe hee could determine the matter of difference betweene him and his Aduersaries, but of him and his Westerne Councell, Secondly, hee doth not say, that he, & his Councell alone may determine the matter; but that his See being the first See, hee and his Bishops may call all other Bishops to their Councell: and this is that direction or government which he saith the first See, or Westerne Church hath of other Churches; namely, in going before them, and inuiting and calling them to publique deliberations, not in peremptory and absolute commanding without them and ouer them.

The tenth witnesse produced out of the Greeke church, is Sozomene, out of whom two things are alledged. The first is, that he saith Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. Iulius Bishop of Rome, restored Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, to their churches, from which they were violently and vniustly expulsed by certaine Orientall Bishops. The second, Ibidem. that he did this because the care of all pertained to him in respect of the dignity of his See. How the words of Sozomene reporting that Iulius restored these Bishops to their churches, are to bee vnderstood, we may learne of Iulius himselfe, who in his Epistle mentioned by Athanasius in his second Apologie, hauing blamed the Orientall Bishoppes, for proceeding in a matter of so great consequence concerning the faith, and the Bishops of the principall Churches of the world, without him and his Bishops, and, as he vnderstood, very irregularly; telleth them, that he durst not confirme that they had done, that he communicated still with Athanasius and Paulus, not foreiudging any thing, but desir •… ng them to come to a Synode, where thinges might bee fully debated, and determined; and that, though hee alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the name, and with the consent of all the Bishops of the West. Vpon which his letter, they Sozom. vbi supra. were so farre from restoring them to their places, that they tooke it in ill part, that hee did write vnto them, telling him that when hee proceeded against certaine Nouatians, they intermedled not, and that therefore hee should not meddle with their proceedings, seeing the greatnesse of citties maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then the power of another. By which their peremptory reiecting of his motion, it appeareth that hee neither did, nor could put the expulsed Bishops into their places againe: which thing Ibid. c. 9. Sozomene himselfe testifieth also, telling vs, that they could neuer recouer their places, till the Emperour by his mandatory letters preuailed. So that when he saith, Iulius restored them, his meaning is, that hee restored them as much as lay in him: as likewise it may be said of Cyrill, and Iohn of Antioche, that after many and bitter contentions, they were in the end reconciled, and Socr. l. 7. c. 33 Euagr. l. 1. c. 5. Vide acta concil. Ephes. restored each to other their Churches, from which yet they were neuer driuen indeed, but in the censures of the one of them passed against the other. But Sozomene saith, the care of all Churches pertained to the Bishop of Rome, therefore he acknowledgeth, that hee had an vniversalitie of power ouer all. Surely this consequence will neuer be made good. For the Metropolitane, or he that is Bishop of the first See in each Province in respect of the dignitie of his See, hath the care of the whole Province, yet can he doe nothing, but as hee is directed by the maior part of the Bishops. So that the care of all is said to pertaine to him, not because he hath power to dispose of all things by himself, but because all publike proceedings concerning the whole Province, must take their beginning from him, & nothing of that nature may be taken in hand, without consulting him. In like sort, and in the same sense and meaning, Sozomene saith, that for the dignity of his See, the care of all pertained to the Bishop of Rome; not as if the absolute disposing of all things did rest in him, but for that he, as prime Bishop of the world, was first to be consulted, before any thing concerning the common faith, and the whole state of the Christian Church, were determined; and for that by the assistance and concurrence of other Bishops, he as first in order and honour amongst them, was to beginne and set forward allthings of greatest consequence tending to the common good.

Three more witnesses Bellarmine hath yet behinde, Acatius the Bishop of Patara; and Iustinian the Emperour, out of whom three things are alledged. The first, that the Bishop of Rome beareth about with him the care of all Churches. The second, that the Pope is ouer the Church of the whole world. The third, that the Pope is the Head of all holy Churches. To the first of these allegations taken out of Acatius his Epistle to Simplicius Bishop of Rome, I haue answered before; as likewise in what sense the Pope may be said to be ouer the Church of the whole world, to wit, in respect of a primacie of order and honour, but not of power; in which sense also, Iustinian the elder, writing to Iohn the second, saith, his See is the Head of all Churches. And thus hauing examined the testimonies of the Greeke Fathers, we are now to proceed to the authorities of the Latine Church.

CHAP. 36.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes supremacie, taken out of the writings of the Latine Fathers.

THe first among the Latine Fathers, that Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 16. Bellarmine produceth, is Cyprian; who of all other most clearely ouerthroweth the error of the Romanists, touching the Papacie, & therefore is very vnadvisedly produced by them in the first place, and appointed to marshall and conduct the rest of their witnesses; yet let vs heare what he will say. Out of Cyprian foure places are alledged. The first is, in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae. The second, in the third Epistle of his first book written to Cornelius. The third, in the tenth Epistle of his second booke to the same Cornelius. The fourth, in the eighth Epistle of the first booke ad plebem vniversam. Out of the first of these places they will proue, that hee maketh Peter Head of the whole Church. Out of the second, that there is one High Priest, & one supreme Iudge in the Church, whom all men are bound to obey. Out of the third, that Cornelius was Head of all Catholiques. Out of the fourth, that there is one singular Chaire in the Church, wherein he sitteth that must teach all.

To euery of these allegations, I will answere in order, and make it most cleare and evident, that none of the things imagined by the Cardinall, can possibly bee concluded out of any of the fore-named places. For to beginne with the first: whosoeuer will but reade ouer Cyprians booke of the vnity of the Church, shall most certainely and vndoubtedly finde, that hee speaketh not in that book of Peters headship of the vniuersall Church, as the Iesuite fansieth: but of the head, originall, and first beginning of Pastorall commission. Which that it may the better appeare, I will as briefely as possibly I can, lay downe the most principall and materiall circumstances of the whole discourse of that booke, written vpon occasion of the Schisme of the Nouatians. The first thing that occurreth in the whole discourse of the booke, is the authors obseruation of the endlesse malice of Satan, who when he found the Idols of the Gentiles, wherein he was wont to be worshipped, to be forsaken, & his Seates & Temples deserted, almost all professing to belieue in Christ, Haereses inuenit & Schismata, quibus subuerteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet vnitatem: that is, Found out Heresies and Schismes; by which he might subvert the Faith, corrupt the verity, and cut in sunder the vnity: so that Quos detinere non potest in viae veteris coecitate, circumscribit, & decipit noui itineris errore that is, Whom he cannot hold in the blindnesse and darkenes of the old way, those he circumuenteth and beguileth, by making them erre, goe aside, and not hold on the right course of their journey in the new way that leadeth to life. In the second place he sheweth, that this so falleth out, and that men are soe beguiled, and misse-led into Schismes & Heresies, because they returne not backe to the first origine of truth, because they seeke not the head, nor keepe the doctrine of the heauenly Maister: which if a man would consider and thinke of, he should not neede to seeke out many arguments, nor fetch any great compasse about: but the truth would easily without any great search offer it selfe vnto him. For therefore did Christ, when hee was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church, say specially to Peter, Matth. 16. 18. 19. Thou art Peter, & vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, & I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen: and againe after his resurrection, Ioh. 21. 15. 16. Feede my sheepe: because though rising againe from the dead, he gaue like power to all the Apostles, when he sayd Ioh. 20. 21. & 23. As my Father sent me, so send I you: whose sinnes ye remit, they are remitted: whose sinnes ye retaine, they are retained: yet he would by speaking specially to one, & by appointing one chaire, shew what vnity should be in the Church. The rest of the Apostles, sayth Cypriā, were vndoubtedly the same that Peter was, equall in honour & power: but therefore did Christ in the first place giue or at least promise to giue specially & particularly to one that Apostolique cōmissiō, which he meant also to giueto the rest, that hee might thereby shew, that the Church must be one, and that there must be but one Episcopall chaire in the world. All the Apostles, say the Cyprian, are Pastours, but the flock of Christ is but one, which they are to feed with vnanimous cōsent. There is but one body of the Church, one spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one baptisme, one God. This vnity all men must endeauour to keepe, especially Bishops, that they may make it appeare that there is but one Bishoply commission in the Christian Church, Cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, that is, Whereof euery one indifferently and in equall sort hath his part. Here is nothing that proueth the vniuersality of the Papall power, or that Peter was by Christ made head of the whole Church. But this place most mainely ouerthroweth that supposed Headship. For Cyprian teacheth, that Christ meant to giue equall power and authority to all his Apostles, and that the reason, why intending no more to one then to the rest, yet he more specially directed his speech to one then to the rest, was, onely to shew, that there must be an vnity in the Church, which he settled in that beginning with one, from him he proceeded to the rest, not meaning that the rest should receiue any thing from him, but that from himselfe immediately they should receiue that in the second place, which he had first, and that they should receiue the same commission together with him into which he was first put, that they might know him to be the first of their company. In this sense Innocentius sayth, Inter Epistolas Augustini, epist. 91. A Petro ipse Episcopatus, & tota authoritas nominis huius emersit: that is, The Bishoply office, and the whole authority of this name and title tooke beginning from Peter: whom, he sayth, all Bishops must respect, as Sui nominis & honoris authorem: that is, as the first and originall of their name and honour. And Leo in like sort, Huius muner is sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium Apostolorum officium f Leo epist. 89. voluit pertinere, vt in beatissimo Petro Apostolorū omnium summo principaliter collocaret, v •… ab ipso, quasi quodam capite, dona sua velut in corpus omne diffunderet; that is: The Lords will was, that the mystery of this heauenly gift, commission, and imployment, should so pertaine to the ministery & office of all the Apostles, that yet he would first and principally place it in most blessed Peter the greatest of all the Apostles, that soe beginning with him as the head and first, hee might proceede from him to poure forth his gifts into all the body. But, sayth Bellarmine, Cyprian speaketh of another head of the Church besides Christ, and maketh the Church that so enlargeth it selfe, and hath so many parts, yet to be one in this roote and head: as the beames are many, but the light is one, as the boughes are many, but the tree is one: the riuers are many, but the fountaine is one. It is strange that a man of his learning and judgement should so mis-conceiue things, as he seemeth to doe. For it is most euident to any one that will but take the paines to peruse the place, that Cyprian speaketh not of a distinct head of the Church different from Christ, and appointed by him to gouerne the Church, but of the originall, first beginning, and head of the commission the Pastours of the Church haue: Which commission Christ so gaue to all the Apostles, that yet first hee gaue it, or at least, first promised to giue it to one, and directed his speech specially to him, to shew that none can be Pastors of the Church, but such as without intrusion are consented on by them, that, hauing this power in vnity amongst themselues, may communicate it to others. Neither doth he say, as the Iesuite fansieth, that the many parts of the Church are one in subjection to one head distinct from Christ, as the beames of the sunne are one in the same light; but in the vnity of the same maine body: For euen as, sayth Cyprian, the beames of the sunne are one in the same light, and the boughes of the tree are one in the same tree; so all Churches must deriue thēselues frō the first Church, & all Pastors their cōmission from the first cōmission, which Christ gaue to all his Apostles; yet so, that he put one first into it, & directed his speeches specially vnto one, thereby to setle thē in an orderly vnity amongst thēselues. This is vndoubtedly the meaning of Cyprian: For it can no way stād, either with truth, with the opinion of Cyprian, or with the opinion of our Aduersaries themselues, that rest of the Apostles receiued their Ministeriall power from Peter, and were subject to him as to an head, and absolute commander ouer them, seing hee sayth expressely, that they were the same that Peter was, & equall to him, both in honour and power; and besides, both in this booke, and in many other places, hee is wont to deriue the originall of schismes and heresies, frō the intrusion of men into places already full, ar at least into void places, without due admittance and allowance of them, that in a kind of coherent concord, rule and gouerne the Church; & neuer frō the resistance against one supreme cōmander set ouer all. So in his Epist. 52. Epistle to Antonianus, he proueth Cornelius Bishop of Rome to be a true and lawfull Bishop, because hauing the testimony of the Clergie, and voyces of the people, the place of Fabianus being voyd, he was ordained to succeede him by many Bishops then at Rome, who sent their letters abroad, making honourable report of his due and right comming to the place, and the whole number of Bishops throughout the world with great vnanimity consented: and by the want of these things proueth his factious opposites to be schismatiques.

In the second allegation the Cardinall bewrayeth very grosse ignorance: For it was not a difference betweene Cornelius, and the Nouatians, refusing to acknowledge him to be Bishop, that gaue occasion of writing that Lib. 1. Epist. 3. Epistle, as he vntruely saith; but the calumniations of Faelicissimus and Fortunatus, against Cyprian himselfe: Which factious companions being put from the communion by Cyprian, and many of his colleagues, flying to Rome, were there rejected, and thereupon fell to threatning. These threatnings Cyprian despiseth, pronounceth them to be murtherers, sheweth that they shall not escape the judgment of God, and that nothing is to be remitted of the seuerity of Church-discipline, for feare of these wicked ones, that are enemies of Priests, and rebels against Gods Church; whom God will vndoubtedly much more seuerely punish, then they were, who in the time of the law of Moses despised the high Priest, and other Priests and rulers of the people: who yet answered such their contempts with their bloud; and then addeth the words cited by Bellarmine, that hence all heresies and schismes doe arise, for that the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor one Priest in the Church for the time, & one Iudge in Christs stead for the time acknowledged: whom if men would obey according to the divine instructions, no man would attempt any thing against the Colledge of Priests, no man after the judgement of God, the voices of the people, & the consent of fellow-Bishops, would make himselfe a Iudge, not so much of the Bishops, as of God himself; no man pleasing himself would bring in any new heresie or schisme to the renting & dividing of the Church; as if, when a sparrow falleth not to the ground without the will of our Father, it were possible that hee who is ordained a Bishop in the Church, should bee ordained without the will of God. Surely, saith he, I speake it provoked, I speake it grieued & constrained, when a Bishop is placed in the roome of one that is dead, chosen in peace by all the people, protected by diuine helpe in the time of persecution, faithfully conjoined with all his colleagues, approued to his people foure years in his Bishoply office, in the time of peace keeping the rules of discipline, proscribed in the times of trouble, so often euen with addition of the title of Bishop, called for to bee cast to the Lyon, & euen in these very dayes wherein I write vnto thee, called for again to the Lyon; if such a one be impugned by a few desperate & wicked ones, it will easily appeare who they are that so impugne him. All these things are spoken by Cyprian of his own case, as most clearly appeareth by his 69 epistle; & therfore the words are strangely wrested by Bellarmine to proue the Papacie, when Cyprian speaketh of the respect that is due to the B. of euery particular Church, &, by application thereof to himself, sheweth Cornel. how little he had bin respected, & how grievously he hath bin wronged. But the Cardinall will proue that he speaketh of the Pope, when he speaketh of one Pastour, & of one Iudge in the Church for the time, & not of euery Bishop or Pastour in his own particular Church: First, because in the book De vnitate Ecclesiae, he maketh Peter Head & Commander of all the Church; and saith, heresies spring from the not seeking to this Head; then which nothing is more vntrue. For Cyprian doth not make Peter Head & commander ouer the whole Church, as I haue alreadie shewed in answer to the former allegation. Secondly, for that when he speaketh of one Iudge in the Church in stead of Christ, he must of necessitie by the name of the Church vnderstand the vniversall Church, and not each particular Church, because in his Epistle he speaketh of Cornelius. A strange kinde of proofe, & such as I thinke can neuer be made good: For first, the consequence doth not hold, seeing he might speak of Cornelius, & yet vnderstand by the name of the Church, the diocese of Rome, and not the vniversall Church: and secondly, it is vntrue that hee saith, hee speaketh of Cornelius. For it is as cleare as the Sun at noone day, that throughout the whole Epistle, hee complaineth of contempts, indignities, & wrongs offered to himselfe by Faelicissimus and Fortunatus, & not to Cornelius. But that Cyprian neuer acknowledged the supremacie of power which the Roman Bishops at this day claime, no better proof can be desired then this Epistle will yeeld: For these miscreants, Faelicissimus, Fortunatus, & their adherents, fled to Cornelius, complaining against Cyprian: whom hee peremptorily condemneth for this their flying to Rome, as violators of the Canons, & disturbers of the order of the Church, which requireth all matters to bee heard and determined in those places where the accusers and witnesses may be produced, Vnlesse, saith he, a few desperate & wicked companions do thinke the authority of the African Bishops to be lesse then the authority of the other Bishops elsewhere, & therefore carry things out of Africa by way of appeale to other places. So that when hee calleth the Church of Rome the principall Church, whence Sacerdotall vnity sprang, his meaning is, that it is the principall Church in order & honour, & not in absolute, supreme, commaunding power: & that Sacerdotall vnity sprang from thence, not as if all Bishops did receiue their power and jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome, but for that, though all receiue their Bishoply commission immediatly from Christ, by the hands of the Apostles ordaining them, yet he is to be acknowledged as first in the commissiō succeeding Peter, to whom Christ first promised that, which hee meant afterwards in as ample sort to giue to all the rest.

For answer to the third allegatiō, we must obserue that Cyprian in the Lib. 2. ep. 10. ad Cornel. Epistle cited by Bellarmine, laboureth to satisfie Cornelius Bishop of Rome, who was something offended with him, for that presently so soone as he heard of his ordination, he did not write vnto him as to his fellow Bishop. To this purpose he sheweth, that he refrained and forbare so to doe, till he was by others assured of his due and orderly election, and ordination, as well as by himselfe, because hee perceiued there was some opposition against him; but that as soone as his ordination was approued vnto him, hearing of some factious and turbulent men stirring against him, hee sent certaine of his brethren and colleagues, to put to their helping hands for the bringing of the devided members of the body, to the vnitie of the Catholique church, if by any meanes it might bee; but that the obstinacie of the one part was such, that they not onely refused the bosome of the roote, and common mother, seeking to receiue and embrace them, but set vp another head or Bishop; where it is plaine and euident, that he speaketh not of the vniuersall church, the common mother of all beleeuers, but of that particular church of Rome, whereof Cornelius was Bishop, opposite to the divisions of such as departed from the vnity of it, who being gone out of the bosome and lap of it, chose a Bishop of their owne faction.

The fourth and last allegation will easily be answered, if we doe but take a view of that which Cyprian writeth in the Li. 1. Ep. 8. ad plebem vniuer. Epistle alleaged. There is, saith he, one God, one Christ, one Church, one chaire founded vpon Peter by the Lords owne voyce. No other Altar may be raised, nor other new Priest-hood appointed, besides that one Altar and one Priesthood already appointed. Whosoeuer gathereth any where else, scattereth. Surely, it is not possible, that the Cardinall should thinke as he pretendeth to do, that Cyprian speaketh of one singular chaire ordained by Christ for one Bishoppe to sit in, appointed to teach all the world. For the question in this place is not touching obedience to be yeelded to the Bishop of Rome, that Cyprian should neede to vrge that point, but touching certaine Schismatiques which opposed themselues against him; & therefore hee vrgeth the vnity of the church and of the chaire, to shew, that against them that are lawfully placed, with consenting allowance of the Pastors at vnity, others may not bee admitted; and that they, who by any other meanes get into the places of Ministerie, then by the consenting allowance of the Pastors at vnitie amongst themselues, are in trueth and indeede no Bishops at all. So that Cyprian by that one chaire hee mentioneth, vnderstandeth not one particular chaire appointed for a generall teacher of all the world to sit in, but the ioynt commission, vnity, and consent of all Pastors, which is and must be such, as if they did all sit in one chaire.

Hitherto we haue heard what can be alleaged out of Cyprians writings, to proue the supreme commaunding authority of the Pope. Now let vs heare what may bee alleaged out of the same for the improuing thereof. First, in his booke of the vnity of the church he saith, There is one Episcopall office whereof euery one equally and indifferently hath his part; and secondly, in the Councell of Carthage holden by him and other Bishops of Africa, he saith; Concil. Carthag. inter opera Cypriani. None of vs maketh himselfe a Bishop of Bishops, or tyrannically enforceth his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, because every Bishop hath his own free iudgment & disposition, & may neither iudge other, nor bee judged of other, but must all expect the iudgement of God, who only hath power to set vs over his Church, and to iudge of our actions. To the first of these authorities De Pont Rom. l. 2. c. 16. Bellarmine answereth that each Bishop hath his part in the Episcopall office & communion, equally, & as well as any other, but not an equall part: For Peter & his successours haue that part, that is as the roote, head, & fountaine; the rest, those parts that are as the braunches, members, & riuers, and that therefore Peters Successours are to rule & gouerne the rest. But this answere is refuted by the other place, where Cyprian with the whole Councell of Carthage saith: None of vs maketh himselfe a Bishop of Bishops, or goeth about tyrannically to inforce others to a necessity of obeying, seeing each Bishop hath his liberty, & no one may iudge another, nor be iudged of another, but must all expect the iudgement of God. If hee reply, that this which Cyprian speaketh of the equality of Bishops, is to be vnderstood of the Bishops of Carthage, amongst whō none was found, that had power to command ouer others, & not generally so as to include the Bishop of Rome, he is refuted by Cyprian himselfe: who in his Epistle to' Stephen n Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 1. Bishop of Rome, hauing freely dissented from him, and shewed the reasons of his so dissenting, pro communi honore, & simplici dilectione: that is, For the fellowship they haue in the same honorable calling and imployment, and the simplicitie and singlenesse of his loue, sayth, hee hopeth Stephen will approue that which is true and right, and which he hath so strongly confirmed and proued, though there be some (so taxing him in a sort as too stiffely cleauing to his owne opinion) that will not easily alter their minds, but holding communion with their colleagues, stiffely maintaine what they haue once conceiued. Wherein, saith he, Nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cum habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum vnusquisque praepofitus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus: that is, Neither do we force any man, or giue a law vnto any man, whereas euery gouernour hath the free disposition of his owne will in the administration of the Church being to giue an account of his actions vnto the Lord. Here wee see Cyprian speaketh in the very same sort in the case between him and Stephen, as he did in the Councell of Carthage, and that generally hee maketh all Bishops equall, and no one subject to the judgment of another, but to the judgement of God only, and the company of their fellow Bishops. And that he did not thinke the Bishop of Rome to haue an infallibility of judgment, or a commanding authority ouer other Bishops, it appeareth, in that writing to Epist. 74. Pompeius of Stephens answere to his letters, and sending him a copy of the same answere, he telleth him, that by reading it, hee may more and more note his errour in maintaining the cause of heretiques against Christians and the Church of God: and feareth not to pronounce of him, that he writeth many things proudly, impertinently, vnskilfully, improuidently, and contrary to himselfe: and, which more is, contemning his prescription, that heretiques should not be rebaptized, but bee receiued with the imposition of hands onely, hee chargeth him with hard, stiffe, and inflexible obstinacie. Firmilianus in epist. 75. inter epist. Cypriani. Firmilianus with the Bishops of Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia, and other regions neere adioyning, assembled in a Synode at Iconium, consented with Cyprian: and Firmilianus writing to him, telleth him of their resolution, and chargeth Stephen with folly, who bragging of the place of his Bishoprique, and pretending to succeed Peter, on whom the Church was founded, yet bringeth in many other rockes, and new buildings of many Churches, in that hee supposed heretiques to be truly baptized, who are out of the communion of the true Church: whereas the Church was specially promised to be builded on Peter, to shew that it must be but one. And in great dislike and reprehension of Stephen, he saith, he was not ashamed in fauour of heretiques to deuide the brotherhood, and to call Cyprian the worthy seruant of God, a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceiptfull, and guilefull workeman: whereas all these things might much more truly bee sayd of him: and therefore guilty to himselfe, Praeuenit, vt alteri ea per mendacium objiceret, quae ipse ex merito audire deberet: that is, By way of preuention, hee falsely, and lyingly obiected those things to another, which himselfe truly and deseruedly might haue had objected to him by others. Such and so great were the oppositions of Cyprian and his consorts, against Stephen and his adherents, in the matter of rebaptization: whereupon De Pont. Ro. lib. 4. c. 7. Bellarmine saith, it seemeth that Cyprian sinned mortally, in that hee obeyed not the commandement of Stephen, nor submitted his judgement to the judgement of his superiour. That hee erred in the matter of rebaptization, we willingly confesse: but, that he knew not the power, authority, and commission of the Bishoppe of Rome, or that he would euer haue dissented from him, or opposed himselfe against him in a question of faith if hee had thought his power to bee vniuersall, and his iudgment infallible, we vtterly deny. For then hee should not onely haue erred in the matter of rebaptization, but haue beene a damnable heretique, and and haue perished euerlastingly: whereas yet the Church of God hath euer reputed him a holy Bishop, and a blessed Martyr. Thus hauing examined the testimonies of Cyprian, vsually alleaged, for and against the supremacy of the Pope, let vs proceed to the rest of Bellarmines witnesses.

The next that followeth is Optatus, out of whom it is alleaged, that Optat. lib. 2. contra Parmenian. there was one Episcopall Chaire in the whole Church appointed by Christ. But because this is the same which was formerly alleaged out of Cyprian, & already answered in the answers to the allegations brought out of him, therefore without farther troubling of the Reader, I referre him to that which went before.

The next vnto Optatus is Ambrose, out of whom three seuerall places are produced; in the first, his words are these, as Bellarmine citeth them. Ambr. in 3 cap. 1. ad Tim. Though the whole world bee Gods, yet the Church onely is called his house, the Gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus. For answer hereunto we say, that this testimony rather witnesseth their forgery, then confirmeth their errour. For the Commentaries attributed to Ambrose, wherein these words are, are not his: and besides, this addition, (the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus) may be thought to haue beene put in, in fauour of their fancie touching the Papall vniversalitie of jurisdiction; it is so sudden, causelesse, and abrupt. In the second place, Ambrose Ambr. in orat. in Satyrum. reporteth of Satyrus, that before he would receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body, he asked of the Bishop by whose hands hee was to receiue it, whether he held communion with the Catholick Bishops, and namely, with the Romane Church? To the inference of our Adversaries, and the conclusion they seek to deriue & draw from these words in fauour of the Papacie, I haue answered elsewhere, u Book 3. chap. 41. whither I referre the Reader. Wherefore let vs come to the third and last place of Ambrose: His words are, Wee follow the type and forme of the Romane Church x Ambr. de sac. l. 3. c. 1. in all things; and againe, I desire to follow the Romane Church in all things. Surely, this place of all other most clearely confuteth the errour of the Romanists, touching the infallibility of the judgement of the Roman Church and Bishop, and the necessitie of absolute conformity with the same. For in this place Saint Ambrose sheweth, that in the Church of Millaine, whereof he was Bishop, the manner in his time was, that the Bishop girding himselfe about with a towell in imitation of Christ, did wash the feete of such as were newly baptized; and after great commendation of the same custome, objecting to himselfe that the Romane Church had it not; first he saith, that perhaps the Church of Rome omitted this washing, because of the difficultie, and great labour in performing it, by reason of the multitude of those that were baptized. Secondly, whereas some said in defence and excuse of the omission of this washing in the Romane Church, that it is not to be vsed as a mysticall right in the regeneration of them that are new borne in Christ, but in the ciuill entertainment of strangers (the offices of humilitie and ciuill courtesie, being very farre different from the mysteries and sacred rights of sanctification) he reproueth them for so saying, and endeauoureth to shew, that this kinde of washing is a sacred and mysticall right, tending to the sanctification of them that are newly baptized, and that out of the words of Christ to Peter; Vnlesse I wash thee, thou shalt haue no part in me: and then addeth the wordes alleaged by Bellarmine, I desire in all things to follow the Romane Church, but notwithstanding we also are men, and haue our sense and iudgment: and therefore what we finde to be rightly obserued any where else, we also rightly obserue & keepe: we follow the Apostle Peter, wee cleaue fast vnto his devotion, and hereunto, what can the Church of Rome answer? Whereby wee may see with what conscience these men alleage the testimonies of the Fathers. Ambrose saith, Other men haue judgement to discerne what is fit to be done, as well as the Romanes: that if any where else they finde better obseruations then in the Church of Rome, they may lawfully embrace them; that S. Peter Bishop of Rome was authour of his assertion; and that the Church of Rome hath nothing to answer in her own defence, or whereby to justifie her omitting of this sacred washing: and they produce his testimonie to proue, that he thought it necessary to be like in all things to the Church of Rome. Neither doth Bellarmines answer, that he thought it necessary to follow the Church of Rome in all things necessary to saluation, though he dissented in this observation, satisfie vs; seeing he thought this obseruation necessary to the perfect regeneration of the baptized, & consequently to saluation, as appeareth in the place it selfe. Wherefore, when Ambrose saith of himselfe, and those of Millaine, that they follow in all things the type & forme of the Romane Church it is not to be vnderstood without all limitatiō: but that as other daughter-Churches do follow the custome of their mother-churches; so the church of Millaine conformeth her selfe to the church of Rome in all things, so farre forth as shee can perswade her selfe it is fitte and right so to doe: otherwise, out of her judgement and discretion receiuing from other churches that which they haue in better sort then shee: euenas Gregorie Bishop of Rome Greg. Epist. l. 7. cp. 63. professed, that he was not ashamed to learne of those churches that were meaner then his owne.

From Ambrose the Cardinall passeth to Hierome, out of whose writings he produceth two testimonies. The first, out of his Epistle to Ageruchia, de Monogamiâ; the other out of his Epistle to Damasus touching the vse of the word Hypostasis. The first of these two testimonies might well haue beene spared. For what canne any man inferre from this that Hierome saith, hee did helpe Damasus in writing answeres to the Synodall consultations of the East and West? was there euer any man that doubted of the consulting of the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops by the Synodes of the East and West, in matters concerning the faith, and state of the vniuersall Church? Or may it bee concluded from hence, that the Pope hath an absolute supreme power in the Church? Surely, I thinke not. Wherefore let vs passe to the second testimonie. Ego, saith Hierome to Damasus, nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tuae, idest, Cathedrae Petri, communione consocior: super illampetram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio, Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum commederit, profanus est: Si quis in arcâ Noae non fuerit, peribit regnante diluuio; that is, I following no first and chiefe but Christ, am ioyned in communion to your blessednesse, that is, to Peters chaire. Vpon that rocke I know the Church to bee builded: whosoeuer shall eate the Paschall Lambe out of this house, he is a profane person: If any man shall be out of Noahs arke, hee shall vndoubtedly perish, when the floud prevaileth and drowneth all. It is true, that Cyp. Ep. 67. Cyprian hath obserued in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome, that therefore almighty God appointed a great number & companie of Bishops, ioyned together by the glew and bond of vnity, that if some fall into heresie, and seeke to wast the flocke of Christ, the rest may gather the dispersed sheepe into the fold againe; and therefore euen as if one hauen be dangerous, they that saile will seeke to another more safe; and if one Inne vpon the way be possessed by theeues and wicked persons, wayfaring men will turne into another; so in the Church, when the Pastours of one part of it are infected with errour and heresie, men must flie to them that are right-beleeuers in other parts. This was the case of Hierome, as it appeareth by this his Epistle: Hee liued at the time of the writing of it in the East parts, where Arrianisme had strangely and dangerously prevailed, but the West churches were sound. Hee was vrged to confesse and acknowledge, that there are three Hypostases or subsistences in the Godhead. This forme of speaking he suspected, as fearing some ill meaning, especially because he suspected them that tendered it to him; and therefore flieth for direction to Damasus and the Westerne Bishops. For it appeareth that hee sought the resolution of them all, though the manner was to write onely to the chiefe amongst them. Let vs heare therefore what it is that he saith, and what the Iesuite inferreth from his saying. He admitteth, saith Bellarmine, no originall teacher but Christ: yet is ioyned in communion with Damasus, that is, with Peters chaire, and professeth, that vpon that rocke the Church was builded. Therefore he acknowledgeth the vniuersality of Papall power and iurisdiction. This argument of the Cardinall is too weake to proue the intended conclusion. For though there bee no question but that in a true sense the Church may be said to haue beene builded on Peters chaire, that is, vpon his office and Ministery, yet it will not follow that they who succeed him in that chaire haue vniversality of power and iurisdiction: seeing Hierome. li 1. cōtra Iouinian. Hierome himselfe teacheth, that the Church is builded as well vpon the rest of the Apostles, as vpon Peter, & consequently that their chaires are that rocke, vpon which the Church is builded, as well as Peters. And yet besides all this, Greg. Ep. lib. 6. Epist. cp. 37. Gregory sheweth, that Peters chaire being but one, is in three seuerall places, and three Bishops doe sit in it. For Peters chaire is at Alexandria, where he taught and ruled by Marke his scholler; at Antioch, where he remained for a time; and at Rome, where in his body he yet still abideth, expecting the second comming of Christ. Vpon this chaire as on a rocke the Church is builded. But this chaire and throne implieth not onely the office and ministery of them, who most specially succeed Peter, as the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, but of such other also, as in ioynt commission with them gouerne the Church. Wherevpon, according to the phrase of Vide apud Binnium Epist. Nichola. Ignatio Constantinopolitano. Tom. 3. concil. p 2. pag. 879 & alteram Epist. eiusdem, pag. 889. & orat. Basilij Imperatoris, p. 859. Antiquity, the iudgement of the Romane See, and the iudgement of the Bishop of Rome with his fellow Bishops of the West, is all one. But some man will say, that Hierome pronounceth him to be a profane person that eateth the lambe out of this house, speaking of the Church of Rome: therefore hee thinketh all men and Churches bound for euer to hold communion with the Romane Church. For answere to this obiection, first we say, it may very probably be thought, that by the house he speaketh of, out of which the Lambe may not be eaten, he meaneth not particularly the Romane Church, but the true Catholique Church of Christ, which is equally builded vpon all the Apostles, in respect of the same firmenesse found in them all; but more specially vpon Peter, as in order and honour the chiefest of them; and then there is no question but all men are bound for euer to adhere to this church, and to eate the Lambe within the wals of this house. That this is the meaning of Hierome, the very forme of his words doe perswade vs. I am ioyned (saith hee) to Peters chaire, vpon that rocke the Church is builded, out of this house (of the Church, doubtlesse) the Lambe may not be eaten. Now by the name of the Church immediatly going before, is meant the vniuersall Church: therefore by this house we must vnderstand that great house, within the wals whereof the whole houshold of faith is contained. Secondly we say, that if he speake of the Romane or West Church particularly, he may be thought to meane, not that hee shall perpetually and alwayes bee iudged a profane person that eateth the Lambe without the wals of that house: but things so standing as they did when he wrote, no other partes of the Church being sound, safe, and free from heresies, but the Westerne parts onely. Which made him say, hee knew not Paulinus, who was then Bishop of Antioch, within the compasse of whose Patriarchship he liued, because there was question as well of his faith, as of the lawfulnesse of his ordination. For otherwise hee ought to haue knowne him, sought to him, and respected him. Thirdly, wee say it is more then probable, that the whole West Church shall neuer lose or forsake the true profession, and that therefore hee may rightly be iudged a profane person that eateth the paschall Lambe out of the communion of the same; though sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an heretique, other of his colleagues continuing faithfull. And that Hierome was of opinion, that the Bishop of Rome may become an heretique, it is most cleare and euident, in that Hieronym. in Catalog. Script. in Fortunatiano & Acacio. he saith, that both Liberius and Felix were Arrian Heretickes.

Thus haue we answered whatsoeuer may be alledged out of Hierome for the Papacie, and shewed the weakenesse of those allegations. Now let vs see what authorities may be brought out of his writings against the absolute supreme power of Popes. First, he saith, if wee seeke authority, Hierome ad Euagrium. Orbis maior est vrbe. The world is greater then the greatest citty in the world, and the whole Church is of greater authority then the particular Church of Rome: And thereupon reprehendeth the negligence or errour of the church of Rome, in permitting contrary to the manner of other churches, Deacons to grow so insolent, as to dare to sit in the presence of the Presbyters when the Bishoppe was away; as also in ordaining Presbyters vpon the commendation of Deacons; So that hee blamed not the Deacons onely, as Bel. de Pont. li: 2. cap. 16. Bellarmine vntruely saith, but the Romane Bishop, to whom the ordaining of Presbyters pertained. Neither will it followe, that the insolencie of the Deacons presuming to sitte in the presence of Presbyters, was vnknowne to the Bishop, or not allowed by the Church, as Bellarmine collecteth, because they are said so to haue done, when the Bishop was away. For that circumstance rather insinuateth that though they had not cast off all respect to the Bishop, yet they had forgotten their duty towards the Presbyters, then that this their presuming was vnknowne to the Bishop. Secondly, he pronounceth that Hierome vbi iupra. wheresoeuer a Bishop bee, whether at Rome or Eugubium, at Constantinople or Rhegium, at Alexandria or Tanais, hee is of the same merit, and the same Priesthood; the power of riches, and the humility of poore estate not making a Bishop higher or lower. To this place Bellarmine answereth, that all Bishops are equall in the power of order, but not of jurisdiction. But it is certaine, Hierome thought all Bishops equall, not only in the power of order, but of jurisdiction also. For Metropolitanes in his time, though in order and honour greater then the rest, were bound to follow what the greater part of the Bishops of the Province consented on, and might doe nothing but as the greater part should resolue, howsoeuer in processe of time, by positiue constitution, the Metropolitanes limited and directed by Canons, were trusted with the doing of many things by themselues alone, rather then the Bishops would bee troubled with often meeting in Councels. But saith Bellarmine, it cannot bee that Hierome should thinke all Bishops equall in the power of jurisdiction, seeing without all question the Bishop of Alexandria, hauing vnder him three great Provinces, was greater in jurisdiction then the Bishop of Tanais, who had vnder him onely one poore little city. For answer hereunto we say, that Patriarches haue no more power ouer the Metropolitanes subject to them, then the Metropolitanes haue ouer the Bishops of the Province; and that therefore howsoeuer the extent of their power reach farther, yet proportionably it is no greater then the power of the Metropolitanes within their narrower precincts and compasse, & that the Metropolitan originally is not greater in the power of jurisdictiō, then any other Bishop of the Province, howsoeuer he haue a preheminence of honour, and sit as a President among the Bishops meeting to performe the acts of jurisdiction, and by cōmon consent to manage the affaires of the Province: so that, notwithstanding any thing the Cardinall can say to the contrary, the testimonies and authorities of Hierome stand good against the Popes proud claime of vniversall power.

Wherefore leauing Hierome, who witnesseth not for them, but against them, let vs heare whether Augustine will say any thing for them. Out of Augustine sundry things are alleadged: as first, that hee saith, Aug. ep. 562. The principality and chiefetie of the Apostolicall chaire did euer flourish in the Romane Church: and secondly, that to Bonifacius he saith, Idem l. 1. ad Bonif. c. 1. Thou disdainest not to be a friend of the humble, and those of the meane sort; and though thou sit in higher place, yet thou art not high minded: And againe. Ibid. The watch tower is common to vs all that are Bishops, although thou hast a higher roome in the same. Surely it is strange to what purpose these places of Augustine are alleaged. For wee neuer denied a principality or chieftie of order and honour to haue belonged anciently to the Bishops of Rome, whilest they rested contented therewith, and sought not to bring all vnder them by claime of vniversall power: and this is all that can be collected out of Augustine. But (saith Bellarmine) In his Ep. 157. Epistle to Optatus, speaking of a meeting of Bishops at Caesarea, he saith, an Ecclesiasticall necessitie laid vpon them by the reverend Pope Zozimus, Bishop of the Apostolicall See, drew them thither: therefore he thought the Bishop of Rome superiour vnto other Bishops, not in order & honour onely, but in power of commaunding also. For answer hereunto, first wee say, that a great part of Africa was within the precincts of the Pat •… archship of Rome, and that therefore the Bishop of Rome might call the Bishops of those parts to a Synodall meeting, as euery Patriarch may doe the Bishops vnder him, though hee had no commaunding power ouer all the world. Secondly, that in a matter of faith concerning the whole state of the Church, Zozimus as in order and honour first amongst Bishops, might vrge them by vertue of the Canons appointing such meetings, to meete together in a Synode for the suppressing of such heresies as he found to arise amongst them, and might justly threaten, if they should refuse so to doe, to reject them from the communion of the Bishops and Churches adhering to him, and thereby lay an Ecclesiasticall necessity vpon them, without any claime of vniversall power. Neither doth the next place (wherein Ep. 92. ad Innoc. Augustine, and the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Mileuis, desire Innocentius to concurre with them in suppressing the heresies of the Pelagians, which sought to spread themselues into all parts of the world, and to vse his pastorall care and diligence for the preventing of the dangers of the weake members of Christ) yeeld any better proofe, that they reputed him vniversall Bishop. For what doe they here attribute to the Bishop of Rome, that. Cyr. l 3. ep. •… 3 Cyprian writing to Stephen in the case of Martianus Bishop of Arle, doth not assume to himselfe & other his colleagues, saying of himselfe & thē, that they are bound to vse all diligence to gather together, and call backe the erring sheepe of Christ, to apply the medicine of fatherly piety for the curing of the wounds and hurts of such as are fallen, to recollect and cherrish al the sheepe that Christ purchased with his precious bloud; & to know that though they be many Pastours yet they feed but one flocke. But sayth Bellarmine, why do they not rather write to the Patriarch of Hierusalem, to the Metropolitane of Palaestina, or to the Primate of Africa, in which parts of the world Pelagianisme specially seemed to preuaile, then to the Bishop of Rome, if they did not thinke him to haue an vniuersall power? Surely this question of the Cardinall sheweth that either he knoweth not, or careth not what he writeth: for the cause of Pelagius had beene often heard and examined by Synodes of Bishops in Palaestina; and the Vt patet ex epist. August. supradict. Primate of Africa with his Africane Bishops did write to Innocentius as well as Augustine, and those assembled in the Councell of Mileuis; as well to informe him of the guilefull fraudulent, and slipperie dealings of Pelagius, that hee might no way be induced to fauour him, (as some feared not to giue out that he did) as also that he might be perswaded to put to his helping hand for the suppressing of this heretique, who though condemned by many Synodes, ceased not to flie from place to place, seeking to spread his heresies, & therefore there was no cause that they should write to either of these.

Thus haue our Aduersaries found nothing in Augustine and the Africanes, that any way fauoureth the Popes proud claime of vniuersall power. Neither do the rest of the witnesses who are next brought forth to giue testimonie for the Pope, depose any more to the purpose then the former haue done. For that Prosper saith, Prosper. lib. de ingratis. Rome the See of Peter being made the head of Pastorall honour to the world, holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it possesseth, not by force of armes; and Idem l. 2. de vocatione gentium. cap. 6. that by reason of the principality of Priestly or Bishoply dignity, it became greater in respect of the high tower of religion, then the throne of princely power; that Victor Vticensis Lib. 2. de persec. Wandalicâ. calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches; & Hugo de Sancto Victore sayth, De sacrament. lib. 2. part. 3. cap. 15. the Apostolique See is preferred before all the Churches in the world; is no more then that wee euer granted. For they all speake of a chieftie and principality of order and honour, and not of absolute commanding power. And the place which our Aduersaries bring out of Vincentius Lirinensis Vinc. Lirinens. in suo commonit. to proue the Pope to be head of the world, is strangely missealleaged. For hauing spoken of the letters of Faelix the Martyr, and holy Iulius Bishop of Rome, he addeth, that blessed Cyprian was produced out of the South, and holy Ambrose out of the North, that so not only Caput orbis, the head of the world, but the sides of it also might giue testimony to that iudgment, by the head and sides of the world vnderstanding the parts of the world, whence these witnesses were produced, and not the witnesses themselues: So that there is no more reason to inferre from hence, that the Bishop of Rome is head of all the world, then that Cyprian and Ambrose were the sides of the world. Neither doe the testimonies of Cassiodore Cassiod. l. 11. Epist. 2. ad Ioannem Papam. who attributeth to the Bishop of Rome a generall care of the whole Christian world, and Beda who sayth, Beda hist. gent. Anglor. l. 2. c. 1. Leo excercised the Priestly office in the Christian world, make any more for proofe of the Popes vniuersall jurisdiction then the rest that went before. For their sayings argue not an absolute vniuersall commaunding power ouer all, but such a care of the whole, as beseemeth him that is in order and honour the chiefe of Bishops, from whom all actions generally concerning the Christian Church, are either to take beginning, or at least to be referred before finall ending, that so his aduice may be had therein. And surely howsoeuer Anselmus Ans. de incar. verbi. cap. 1. sayth, the custodie of the faith of Christians, and the regiment of the Church is committed to the Bishop of Rome; and Bernard Bern. lib. 2, de consideratione. writeth of him that he is chiefe of Bishops, heire of the Apostles, in primacie Abel, in gouernement Noah, in Patriarchicall honour Abraham, in order Melchizedek, in dignity Aaron, in authoritie Moses, in iudgment Samuel, in power Peter, and in vnction Christ: that others haue particular flockes assigned to them, but that his charge hath no limits, with such like Hyperbolical amplificatiōs of the Popes greatnes, sauouring of the corruptiō of those late times wherein he liued; yet wil it neuer be proued, that either he or diuers others speakinges he did, were of the Papall faction, or beleeued that the Pope hath that vniuersall power and iurisdiction, that is by the Iesuits. and other Romanists at this day giuen vnto him. For as Iohn Bacon Iohn. Bacon. sup. Sen. prolog quaest. 10. art. 2. a learned Schooleman, and countriman of ours, hath fitly noted, some attributed all those things whereof Bernard, and Anselmus speake, to the Pope, as thinking all fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction to be originally found in him, and that by himselfe alone hee might doe all things in the gouernment of the Church, and all other were to receiue of his fulnesse; which is the opinion of our aduersaries at this day: Other attributed these thinges vnto him, not as hauing all power in himselfe alone, but as head & chiefe of Bishops, together with their ioynt concurrence and assent: So that hee had power to iudge of the faith, to determine controuersies in religion, as Patriarch of the West, with the ioynt consent of his Westerne Bishops, and as prime Bishoppe of the world with an Oecumenicall Synode, wherein he was to sitte as an honourable president & moderatour, pronouncing according to the resolution of the Bishops, and not absolutely disposing thinges according to his owne liking. Neither is it to be doubted but that very many followed this latter opinion, & consequently neuer gaue that fulnesse of power to the Pope that is now claimed, howsoeuer they attributed that vnto him as president of Ecclesiasticall meetings, which rested not in him alone, but in the whole meetings and Assemblies; as it is an ordinary thing to attribute that to the president of any company that is done by the whole company: and as all the great actions of State are attributed to the Duke of Venice, whereas yet he can do nothing but as he is swayed & directed by the noble Senatours of that State.

CHAP. 37.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes vniuersall power, taken from his intermedling in auncient times in confirming, deposing, or restoring Bishops deposed.

HAuing examined the testimonies of Councels, Popes, and Fathers Greeke and Latine, brought to proue the vniuersality of Ecclesiasticall power claimed by the Pope, and found their insufficiencie and weakenesse; let vs proceed to see, by what other proofes our Aduersaries endeavour to demonstrate and confirme the same. The absolute, supreme power of Popes, they labour to proue, by the authority they exercised ouer other Bishops; by their lawes, dispensations, and censures; by their Vicegerents which they appointed in places farre remote from them; by Appeales brought vnto them; by their exemption from beeing subiect to any judgement; and by the names and titles that are giuen vnto them. Of all these I will entreat in order, and first of the authority the Bishoppes of Rome are supposed to haue exercised ouer other Bishops, in confirming, deposing, or restoring them.

Of confirmation Bell. de Pont. li: 2. c. 18. Bellarmine bringeth some few examples, but such as will neuer confirme the thing he desireth to proue. For touching the confirmation of Conc. Chalced. Actione 7. Maximus in the Bishopricke of Antioch, which is the first example that hee bringeth, first, it was not any confirmation of himselfe in his Bishoply office, but onely the determining of certaine differences betweene him and Iuvenall, about their limits, and the confirmation of the same end and conclusion: Secondly, this end was not made by Leo alone, but by the whole Councell of Chalcedon. Neither is the second proofe, that the confirmation of the chiefe Bishoppes of the world pertained aunciently to the Pope, any better then this. For these are the circumstances of that Leo Ep: 54. ad Marcianum. Leo writeth, whom Bellarmine citeth in the second place, as challenging the right of confirming the Bishop of Constantinople. Anatolius the Bishop of Constatinople, ambitiously asp •… red to be greater then was fit, as Leo thought: Leo writeth to the Emperour in reprehension of his presumption; and saith, that he might haue forbornethus ambitiously to aspire higher, seeing hee obtained the Bishopricke of Constantinople by the Emperours helpe, and his favourable assent. The favour that Leo speaketh of, was in that Anatolius not hauing passed through the lower degrees of Ecclesiasticall Ministery, was somewhat irregularly preferred to bee Bishop of so great a city, which he was content to winke at, at the Emperours entreaty. And as the manner was, that the foure Patriarches, should (vpon notice giuen of their due ordination, and Synodall letters containing a profession of their faith) mutually giue assent one to another before they were accounted Patriarches, and fully possessed of their places: by his allowance, in the same sort as others were to allow of him, as much as in him lay he was content to confirme and make good his ordination, though somewhat irregular and defectiue; which no way proueth that the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained any otherwise to the Bishop of Rome, then the right of confirming him pertained vnto them. Yet this is in effect all they can say: For that Ep. 84. ad Anastas. Thessal. Leo willeth the Bishop of Thessalonica to take knowledge of the Metropolitanes chosen in the Provinces subject to him, as Vicegerent to the Patriarch of Rome, and by his assent to confirme their ordination; as likewise, that Ep. 87. ad Episc. Afric. writing to the Bishops of Africa, subject to him as Patriarch, he telleth them, hee is content the Bishop of Salicen turned from Novatianisme, shall keepe his place, if hee send vnto him the confession of his faith, and that Greg. l. 1. ep. 34. Gregory complaineth, that the Bishop of Salona within his Patriarchship was ordained without his privity and consent, doth no more proue the Pope to be vniversall Bishop, then the other Patriarches, without whose assent none of the Metropolitanes subject to them, might be ordained. And this was it that so much grieued Gregory, namely, that his Bishops (thereby putting a difference betweene such as were subject to him, in that he was Patriarch of the West, and others) should so despise and contemne him. But let our Aduersaries proue, that either Gregory, or any of his predecessours euer challenged the confirmarion of Metropolitanes, subject to any of the other Patriarches, and we will confesse they say something: Otherwise all that they bring is idle, and to no purpose, prouing nothing that wee euer doubted of. For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitanes within the precincts of his owne Patriarchship, as likewise euery other Patriarch had: and that therefore hee might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece, France, and Spaine, as Bellarmine alleadgeth, being all within the compasse of his Patriarchship, and yet not bee vniversall Bishop, as Bellarmine would willingly from hence inferre.

Wherefore seeing our adversaries haue so little to say for the Popes right of confirming Bishops, let vs proceede to see what proofes they can produce of his power and authority in deposing them. Their first allegation is touching Cyp. l. 3. ep. 13. Stephen Bishop of Rome, deposing as they suppose Martianus Bishop of Arle in France, who had joined himselfe with Novatianus, denying reconciliation, and the Churches peace to such as hauing fallen and denyed the faith, afterwardes repented and turned againe vnto God. This allegation is too weake to proue their intended conclusion: For it is most certaine by all circumstances of the Epistle of Cyprian cited by Bellarmine, that Stephen the Bishop of Rome did not depose Martianus by himselfe alone: and therefore Cyprian doth not say to Stephen, therefore hath God appointed thee to bee ouer all Bishops, that if they fall into heresie, or faile in the performance of their duty, thou mightst set all right againe: but, therefore hath God appointed a great number of Bishops, that if any one of that company and society fall into here sie, and beginne to teare, rent, and waste the flocke of Christ, the rest may helpe, and as good and pittifull Pastours, gather the scattered sheepe of Christ into the fold againe. Neither doth he say to Stephen, that hee should suspend Martianus, but that he should write to the Bishops of France to doe it, and not to suffer him any longer to insult vpon the company of Catholique Bishoppes, for that hee was not yet suspended, and rejected from their communion. But some man perhaps will aske why Cyprian desireth Stephen to write to the Bishops of France, and writeth not himselfe, as if the power of deposing Martianus were no more in Stephen then in himselfe. Surely there may bee three reasons giuen of his so doing; the first, because hee was nearer to them then Cyprian. The second, because hee as Patriarch of the West, with his Bishoppes, was more likely to prevaile then Cyprian with his Africanes alone. The third, for that (as Cyprian himselfe obserueth in the end of this Epistle) it more concerned him then any other to maintaine the reputation of LVCIVS and CORNELIVS his predecessours, and to oppose himselfe against Martianus, who joyned himselfe with Nouatianus, that had schismatically and heretically rent and diuided himselfe from them, and made a schisme in their Church. Neither doth that which followeth (where he desireth Stephen to write vnto him, who is appointed in the roome of Martianus, that so he may know whom to write vnto, and with whom to communicate) import, that hee should by himselfe alone constitute the Bishoppe of Arle; but that writing to the people to choose, and the Bishoppes of the prouince to direct them in choosing, and to consecrate him they should choose, hee should require to be certified from them of their proceedings accordingly, that so he might impart the same vnto him.

The next proofe that the Pope hath authority to depose any Bishop of the world, deseruing to be deposed, is out of the Epistle of Nicholas the first to Michael the Emperour of Constantinople. But whosoeuer shall peruse the place, shall finde, that noe such thing can be concluded out of it. For the drift of Nicolas in that Epistle, is to shew, that the inferiours may not iudge their superiours, as the prouinciall Bishops their Metropolitanes, or the Metropolitanes their Patriarch; but that still the greater must judge the lesser. If a Clerke, sayth the Councell of Canone 9. Chalcedon, haue ought against his Bishoppe, let the matter bee heard in the Synode of the prouince: but if a Bishop or Clerke, haue a complaint against the Metropolitane, let him go to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of Constantinople: So that euer the greater must judge the lesser, and the lesser may neuer presume to judge the greater, so long as there is any greater to flye vnto. And therefore Iohn of Antioch in the Councell of Ephesus was reproued, for that being but Bishop of the third See, he presumed to judge Cyril Bishop of the second See: & Dioscorus Bishop of the second See was condemned in the Councell of Chalcedon, for that he iudged Leo, Bishop of the first See. This he insisteth vpon, to shew, that the Bishops subiect to Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, had vnjustly proceeded against him: & then to shew, that this their proceeding was strange & new, he saith, there hath scarce beene any of the Bishops of Constantinople deposed, whose deposition hath bin holden iust and good, without the concurrence of the See of Rome. Now how will this proue that the Pope hath power in himselfe alone to depose all Bishops worthy to be deposed? is it consequent, that if the Bishops of Patriarchicall Sees may not be judged by their owne Bishops alone, nor by those that are in degree of honour inferiour to them, and that the Patriarches of higher Sees, with their Bishops, must concurre with the Bishops of those Patriarches that are judged, and that neuer any Bishop of Constantinople, being next in honour to the Bishop of Rome, was deposed but by such a Synode, whereof the Bishop of Rome was president, that the Bishoppe of Rome hath in himselfe alone the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power? Surely, I thinke not, our Aduersaries themselues being judges. But Gelasius in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, sayth, the See Apostolique by her authority condemned Dioscorus, Bishop of the Second See: therefore the Pope hath all Ecclesiastical power originally seated in himselfe alone. Truely this cōsequence is no better then the former. For by the See Apostolique Gelasius vnderstandeth the Romane Bishop, and the Bishops of the West subject to him, who Synodically condemned Dioscorus, and yet not without the concurrence of many other Bishops: nor so as that the iudgement was thought perfect, till an Vide acta Concilij Chalced. Oecumenicall Synode confirmed it, as it appeareth by the course of histories.

The next example is the deposition of Bell. ex Theodoret h •… st. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 23. Flauianus, Bishop of Antioch, by Damasus Bishop of Rome. But this example might haue beene spared. For it is most certaine that Damasus did not depose Flauianus. The circumstances of the history are these: Eustathius that worthy Bishop of Antioch, who 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . l •… . 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 7. made that excellent Oration in the prayse of Constantine in the Councell of Nice, and was so earnest and zealous a defender of the true faith against the Arrians, being by certaine Arrians 〈◊〉 . cap 2 •… . 21. cast out of his Bishoprique, and banished, vpon the occasion of a lewd woman; charging him to haue committed adultery with her, but afterward confessing she had wronged him, and that shee had beene suborned by those Arians, so to accuse him, Eulalius was chosen into his place, whom Euphronius succeeded, and after him, Placitus obtained the Bishoprique. All these did secretly fauour Arrianisme, and therefore many, both of the people and Priests, forsaking the publique assemblies, had their priuate meetings, and were called Eustathians; for that, after the banishment of Eustathius, they began thus to assembe together. Idem. l. 2. c. 24 Stephen succeeded Placitus, Leontius Stephen, and Ibid. cap. 25. Eudoxius Leontius; who Cap. 31. obtaining to be Bishop of Constantinople, left the Church of Antioche voide: Whereupon the Bishops of the prouince assembled together, and chose Milesius to be Bishop, some of them hoping that he would fauour Arrianisme, and other knowing that he was an Orthodoxe; the errour of the one side mis-perswaded of the man, and the true knowledge the other had of him, made both willingly to consent to his election and ordination. But so soone as the Arrians perceiued what he was, they deposed him and sent him into banishment, placing Euzoius in his place: which when the people and Priests that were Catholique perceiued, who had long endured the insolencies of the Arrians, they diuided themselues, and refused to communicate with him. After a while Lib. 3. c. 4. Milesius, in the time of Iulian, returneth from banishment; to whom though such Catholiques as diuided themselues vpon dislike of Euzoius, presently cleaued; yet would not they that first diuided themselues in respect of Eustathius, neither at the first ordination of Milesius, though Eustathius were then dead, nor now vpon his returne by any meanes be induced to hold communion with him and his; which Lucifer, one of them that had beene in banishment with Athanasius seeing, and pittying, laboured with them what he could to bring them to vnity. But when he saw they would not be induced to joyne with Milesius and that Paulinus was their leader, hee made him their Bishop: which act of his, made the Schisme more dangerous then before, and of longer continuance, then otherwise happily it would haue beene: for it Ibid. cap 5 •… continued 85. yeares. Lib. 5, c. 3. Milesius perceiuing Paulinus to be ordained Bishop ouer them that were diuided from his communion, seemed noe whit therewith to be offended or displeased, but spake peaceably to Paulinus, desiring him that they might joyne their flockes, and feede them together: and if, sayd hee, the throne diuide vs, let mee lay the Gospell in it, and then do thou sit in it sometimes, and I will sit in it at other times: and if I dye before thee, thou shalt haue the care and charge of all: if thou dye before mee, the care and charge of all shall be deuolued to mee. This counsell, Paulinus would not harken vnto, and therefore the Emperours officer adiudged the Churches to Milesius, and the guiding of the diuided sheepe to Paulinus. Whereupon, when Milesius dyed, Ibid. cap. 23. though Paulinus would haue had the place, yet hee was refused, because hee had refused to harken to the Counsell of Milesius: and the Bishoppes chose Flauianus, a man verie conspicuous for his great labours, and one that had exposed himselfe to many dangers for the good of the Church. Yet this ordination greatly displeased the Aegyptians and Romanes. Sozomen li. 7. c. 2. & 11. Socrates li. 5. c. 15. The reason of which their soe great dislike, was for that when there was much contention betweene Milesius and Paulinus, it was so agreed, that all they that were fit for that Bishopricke, or might in likelyhood bee in any hope or expectation of it, should sweare neither to seeke it nor accept it, while either of these liued: nor noe way to hinder, but that after the death of the one, the other might haue the full and entire gouernement of the whole: of which number it was thought that Flauianus was one, & that therefore not without periury, contrary to his vow and oath, hee had hindred the reuniting of the diuided parts of the Church.

This dislike conceiued against Flauianus, dyed not when Paulinus dyed: but though Euagrius most vnlawfully, and against the Canons had gotten the Bishoprique, hauing x Theodoret. li. 5. c. 23. noe ordination but from his predecessour, (whereas the Canons allow no such nomination of a Successour, and besides require the presence of the Bishoppes of the prouince) yet would they that at first disliked the ordination of Flauianus take noe knowledge of any of these things, but cōmunicated with Euagrius, & incited the Emperour against Flavianus; who being vrged continually by the Bishop of Rome, and others, no longer to suffer Flavianus to enjoy his place: and told, that suppressing Tyrants, he did ill to suffer the violatours of the Lawes of the Church to escape vnpunished; sent for Flavianus, thinking to send him to Rome, there to be judged in a Synode of Bishops: who when hee came into the presence of the Emperour, tolde him confidently, that if any man would object against his doctrine or life, he would desire to be tryed by no other Iudges but his greatest enemies; but if the matter were for his Episcopall chaire, he would willingly relinquish it, that the Emperour might commit it to whom hee would; vpon which his confident answere, the Emperour dismissed him, and bade him to goe home, and feed the flocke committed to him. Yet long after, many complaints were againe renewed against him to the Emperour by sundry Bishops being at Rome, fearing to taxe the Emperour himselfe for that he suppressed not the tyranny of Flavianus: but the Emperour bade them say, what that tyranny was, as if he were Flavianus, for that he had vndertaken the defence of him. Which when they refused to doe, professing themselues vnwilling to stand vpon termes with the Emperour, he exhorted them to lay aside their foolish quarrellings, and to reunite the Churches that had long without cause beene divided: for that Paulinus was now dead, and Euagrius came vniustly to the Bishopricke; and the ordination of Flavianus was so farre forth allowed of, that all the Churches of the East, with the Churches of Asia, Pontus, Thracia, and Illyricum, held Flauianus to be lawfull Bishop of the East. Hereupon the Bishops promised to surcease, and that if Flavianus would send Legates vnto them, they would kindly intreate them, and hold communion with him. Howsoeuer it appeareth by Socr. l. 5. c. 15. Socrates, that after the death of Euagrius, hee procured there should be no Bishop chosen in opposition to him: and first pacified Theophilus, and afterwards by his meanes Damasus: Zozo. l. 8. c. 3. Sozomen reporteth, that Chrysostome after he was made Bishop of Constantinople, finding that the Aegyptian & westerne Bishops dissented from those of the East, in respect of Flavianus, and that all the Churches throughout the whole Empire were divided about him, besought Theophilus to bee pacified towards him, and to assist him for the reconciling of Damasus also. To this suite of Chrysostome, Theophilus yeelded, & sent certaine to Rome; who prevailing, sailed into Aegypt, and from thence, as also from Rome, brought letters of reconciliation & peace, both from the Aegyptian and Westerne Bishops. This History, I thinke, will neuer proue, that the Bishop of Rome deposed Flavianus, Bishop of Antioche, and that hee could not hold his Bishopricke till the Bishop of Rome consented to him. For the thing that was sought, was not his holding of his Bishopricke, as Bellarmine vntruly reporteth, but the peace and concord of the Churches, divided about him. Neither was the difference onely betweene him and Damasus, but all the Bishops of Aegypt, & the West dissented from him likewise: and therefore Amb. cp. 78. Ambrose sheweth, that the examining of the matter betweene Euagrius and him, was committed to Theophilus, & the Bishops of Aegypt, and desireth him to make relation of the end he should make, to the Bishop of Rome, that he also agreeing thereunto, an vniversall peace might be concluded. So that nothing can bee concluded out of this history, for proofe of the vniversall power of Popes: Seeing Damasus could neither of himselfe alone, nor with the concurrence of the Westerne Bishoppes depose Flavianus, nor by any meanes perswade the Emperour to thrust him out of his place, but was sharply reprooued by the Emperour for quarrelling with him, and required to bee at peace with him, that so the Churches formerly divided without cause, might be revnited.

The next instance of the Popes deposing Bishops, is that of Acta Sixti 3. in 1 tom. conc. Sixtus the third, who deposed Polychronius, Bishop of Hierusalem, if wee may beleeue Bellarmine: but in truth there was neuer any such thing. The circumstances of the whole proceeding against Polychronius, Bishop of Hierusalem, (if there be any credite in the report of Pope Nicholas, and the acts of the Councell vnder Sixtus the third) were these. Two c Nichol. 1. in ep. ad Michael. Imp. things specially were objected to him: the one, that hee went about to violate the ancient bounds of the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of Bishops, set and limited by the Fathers, to preferre himselfe before the other principall Bishops, and to make his See the first, whereas in trueth it was the last amongst the Patriarchicall Sees; the other that Simoniacally he conferred Ecclesiasticall honours vpon such as would purchase the same. Hereupon the Bishops subiect to him, not willing to proceede against him themselues alone, complained to the Bishop of Rome, and shewed him how much he was wronged by the vndue claimes of this Bishop. The Bishop of Rome tooke not vpon him to doe any thing of himself, but called a Synode of the Bishops of the West, and by their aduice, with the concurrence of the Emperour, directed certaine out of the West, authorized by the whole Synode, to goe, and sitte in Councell with the Bishoppes of those parts: who together with them examining the crimes obiected to Polychronius, and finding that hee was truely charged with them, deposed him from his Bishopricke; so that the Bishoppe of Rome did not depose him of himselfe, but onely called a Synode, (as in such a case it was fitte hee should) and the Synode deposed him; but in trueth it is rather to bee thought, that the acts of the Councell vnder Sixtus the third, are counterfeit, and of no credite. For Binnius annot. in illud Concil. Binnius sheweth, that there was no such Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem in those times, & bringeth many other reasons to disproue the acts of this supposed Councell, besides that the absurdity in the proceedings bewrayeth them to be counterfeit. For what can be more absurd, then that the accuser of Polychronius, making good his accusation, should bee condemned for accusing him, and he first condemned; and then presently vpon slender or no reasons at all, restored againe?

Thus we see how little our Adversaries are able to say for proofe of the Popes vniversall power, exercised in deposing Bishoppes. Wherefore let vs now proceede to see if they can produce any better proofes of his restoring such as were deposed by others. The first example they bring, is the restitution of Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 4. Basilides, a Bishop in Spaine, but they know right well that the Bishop of Rome did not restore him to his Bishopricke, and that therefore this allegation serueth to no purpose, but to abuse the Reader, & to make him beleeue they say something, when they say nothing. The circumstances of the matter concerning Basilides, are these, layed down in Cyprians Epistles. Basilides & Martialis, had defiled themselues with some kind of consenting to Idolatry, & therefore the Clergy & people subiect to them, fearefull to communicate with them, write to Cyprian, & the African Bishops, for counsaile & helpe: they returne answer, that they are to withdraw themselues from them, & to proceede to the election of new Bishops. Hereupon the Bishops of the prouince comming to the place where Basilides was Bishop, Sabinus was elected Bishop by the Clergy, & people, with the liking of all the Bishops of the province, and ordained by them Bishop in the place of Basilides. After this Basilides goeth to Rome, mis-informeth Stephen the Bishop, and seeketh by his meanes, & the help of his Bishops, to recouer his place againe: they communicate with him; & so as much as in them lyeth, restore him to his former place & dignity againe. Cyprian condemneth the false & ill dealing of Basilides, and reproueth also the negligence of Stephen, that suffered himselfe so easily to be misled, taxing him, & such as consented with him, for cōmunicating with such wicked ones; and shewing, that they are partakers of their sins, & that they violate the Canon of the Church, which the Bishops of Africa, and all the Bishops of the world, yea euen Cornelius the predecessour of this Stephen, had consented on: to wit, that men so defiled with idolatry as Martialis & Basilides were, should be receiued to penitency, but bee kept from all Ecclesiasticall honour. Hereupon he exhorteth the brethren not to bee moued, if in these last times the faith of some men be shaken, or the feare of God faile in them, or if they hold not peaceable concord with their brethren: for that both the Apostle, and the Lord himselfe foretold, that such things should come to passe in the last times, the world decaying, & Antichrists reuelation drawing on; & cōforteth & encourageth thē to hold on in the good course they were in, for that the vigor of the Gospell, and the strength of Christian vertue, & faith, do not so wholly fall away in these last times, vt non super sit portio Sacerdotū, quae minimè ad has rerum ruinas & fidei naufragia succūbat: that is, that no remnant of Bishops should remaine which should no way sinke or fall in these ouerthrowes of things, and shipwrackes of faith, but full of the feare of God, couragiously maintaine the honour of the diuine maiesty and the dignity of the Priests. We know, saith he, that when the rest yeelded, Mattathias valiantly maintained the law of God: and that Elias stood and stroue zealously, when others forsooke the law of his God. Wherefore let them that either violate the Canons, or treacherously behaue themselues, looke to it: there are many, who still retaine a sincere and good minde. What if some haue fallen away from the faith? doth their infidelity make the truth of God of none effect? God forbid. For God is true, and euery man a lyer; and if euery man be a lyer, and God only true, what should the seruants and Priests of God do, but leaue the errours and lyes of men, and keepe the precepts of the Lord, and remaine in the truth of God? Wherefore, though some of our Brethren, and Colleagues thinke, they may neglect the discipline of God, and rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis; let it not trouble nor shake our faith, seeing the spirit of God threatneth in the Psalmes, saying, Thou hast hated discipline, and cast my words behind thy backe. If thou sawest a thiefe, thou rannest with him, and hadst thy portion with the adulterers. These are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle, wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis, and the inconsiderate course held by the Bishop of Rome, hastily communicating with them: whereby wee may see how wisely and aduisedly our Aduersaries alleage Cyprian to proue, that in ancient times, the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places againe, as were deposed by other. For thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any vse of it: Basilides & Martialis iustly put from their office and dignity, and others rightly and in due sort chosen into their places, flye to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, hoping by his meanes to procure the reuersing of that which was done against them. He, with such as adhered to him, though they could not restore them to their places, yet communicated with them. Cyprian offēded herewith, chargeth Basilides & Martialis with execrable wickednesse, for abusing Stephen, and misse-informing him: & Stephen with intollerable negligence & vnexcusable violatiō of the Canōs, for partaking with such wicked persons; & wisheth all his Brethren and colleagues cōstantly to hold on their course against them, notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents. Therefore the ancient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others: and were thought by the Fathers to haue power & authority so to do. Which kind of reasoning I thinke the Reader will not much like of.

Touching Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, Paule Bishop of Constantinople, and Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, deposed by the Orientall Synode, their complaints to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of the West, of the wrongs done vnto them; how the Bishop of Rome with the Westerne Bishops fought to relieue them, with how ill successe, and how litle this instance serueth to proue the thinge in question, I haue shewed Supra, cap. 35. before: as likewise Theodorets desiring Leo, with his Westerne Synodes to take knowledge of his cause. Soe that it is a vaine bragge of Bellarmine, that to these, and the like testimonies of Antiquity, nothing is, nor can be answered.

CHAP. 38.

Of the weakenesse of such proofes of the supreme power of Popes, as are taken from their Lawes, Censures, Dispensations, and the Vicegerents they had in places farre remote from them.

HAVING examined the pretended proofes of the illimited vniversality of the Popes authority and jurisdiction, taken from the power they are supposed to haue exercised in former times ouer other Bishops, by confirming, deposing, or restoring them; let vs come to their Lawes, Dispensations, & Censures, & see if frō thence any thing may be cōcluded. If they could as strongly proue, as they cōfidētly endertake, that Popes in ancient times made Lawes to bind the whole Christian Church, dispensed with such as were made by general Coūcels, & cēsured al men as subject to them; of necessity we must be forced to acknowledge the fulnesse of all power to rest in the Romane Bishops. But their proofes are too weake to make vs beleeue any such thing. For first, touching the decrees of Popes, they did not binde the whole Christian Church, but the Westerne Provinces onely that were subject to them, as Patriarches of the West. And secondly, they were not made by them without the consent and joint concurrence of the other Bishops of the West, assembled in Synodes, and sitting with them as their fellow Iudges, with equall power of defining and determining things concerning the state of the Church; as appeareth by the Decrees of Greg. l. 4. ep. c. 88. Gregory the first, who sitting in Councell with all the Bishops of the Roman Church, (the Deacons and inferiour Clergy-men standing before them) made Decrees, and confirmed them by their subscriptions, the rest of the Bishops and the Presbyters also, who sate in Councell with them subscribing in the very same sort that Gregory did. And of Decrees in such sort made, Leo speaketh, when he Leo ep. 1. requireth the Bishops of Campania, Picene, & Thuscia, to keepe and obserue the Decretall constitutions of Innocentius, and all other his predecessours, which they had ordained as well touching Ecclesiasticall orders, as the Discipline of the Canons, or otherwise to looke for no fauour or pardon. And in the very same sort are the words of Citat. á Bell. de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 19. Hilarius to be vnderstood, when he saith: That no man may violate either the divine constitutions, or the Decrees of the Apostolique See, without danger of losing his place. For this he spake sitting as President in a Councell of Bishops assembled at Rome, of things decreed by Synodes of Bishops, wherein his predecessours were Presidents and Moderatours, as he was now, but not absolute commaunders. But Bellarmine saith, that d Ibid. Pope Anastasius the yonger, in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour, willeth him not to resist the Apostolicall precepts, but obediently to performe what by the Church of Rome and Apostolicall authority shall be prescribed vnto him, if hee desire to holde communion with the same holy Church of GOD, which is his Head. Therefore the Pope had power to command and giue lawes to the Emperour, and consequently had an absolute supreme authority in the Church. Surely this allegation of the Cardinall is like the rest. For Anastasius doth not speake in any such peremptory and threatning manner to the Emperour, but acknowledging his breast to bee a Sanctuary of happinesse, and that he is Gods Vicar on earth, telleth him in modest and humble sort, that hee hopeth hee will not suffer the insolencie of those of Constantinople, proudly to resist against the Evangelicall and Apostolicall precepts in the cause of Acatius, but that he will force them to performe and doe what is fit, and in like humble sort beseecheth him, when he shall vnderstand the cause of them of Alexandria, to force them to returne to the vnity of the Church. The last instance of the Popes Law-giuing power, brought by Bellarmine, is the priviledge granted to the Monastery of Saint Medardus, by Ad finem ep. Greg. Gregory the first; in the end whereof we finde these words: Whatsoeuer Kings, Bishops, Iudges, or secular persons, shall violate the Decrees of this Apostolicall authority, and our commaundement, shall be depriued of their honour, driuen from the society of Christians, put from the communion of the Lords body and bloud, and subjected to Anathema, and all the wofull curses that Infidels & Heretikes haue beene subject to from the beginning of the world, to this present time. A strong confirmation of the priviledges graunted is found in these wordes, but a weake confirmation of the thing in question: for the priuiledges were graunted and confirmed in this sort, not by Gregory alone out of the fulnesse of his power, but by the consenting voyce of all the Bishops of Italy and France, by the authority of the Senate of Rome, by Theodoricus the King, and Brunichildis the Queene. So that from hence no proofe possibly can be drawne of the Popes absolute power of making lawes by himselfe alone, to binde any part of the Christian Church, much lesse the whole Christian world.

Wherfore let vs passe from the Popes power of making lawes, to see by what right they claime authority to dispense with the Lawes of the Church, and the Canons of Generall Councels. The first that is alleadged to haue dispensed with the Canons of Councels, is Gelas. ep. 1 Gelasius. But this allegation is idle, and to no purpose. For first, it cannot bee proued, that by dispensing he sought to free any, from the necessity of doing that the strictnesse of the Canon required, but those onely that were subiect to him as Patriarch of the West. And secondly, he did not dispense but vpon very vrgent cause, and driuen by necessity so to doe; and yet not of himselfe alone, but with the concurrence of other Bishops of the West, assembled in Synode. The other instances that are brought of the dispensations of Greg. li. 12. Epist. 31. Gregory the first, are nothing else but the instances of the ill consciences of them that bring them. For Gregory did not dispense with the English, to marry within the degrees prohibited (as the Cardinall vntruely reporteth) but only aduised Austine, not to put them that were newly conuerted, from such wiues as they had married within some of the degrees prohibited, in the time of their infidelity, lest hee might seeme to punish them for faults committed in the daies of their ignorance, and to discourage other from becomming Christians. Neither did he dispense with them of Sicilia, for the not keeping of the canon of the Nicene councell, requiring prouinciall Synodes to be holden twice euery yeare; but whereas they held not such Councels so much as once in the yeare, hee commaunded that they should not faile to meete in Councell once at the least every yeare; seeing the Canons require that these meetings should bee twice. These truly are very weake and insufficient proofes of the Papall power in dispensing with the lawes of the Church, and the canons of generall Councels: and yet these are the best, nay these are all that they canne make shew to bring out of all Antiquity.

Let vs therefore proceede to the censures that the ancient Bishops of Rome are reported to haue exercised, and see if they proue the vniuersality of power now claimed. The first allegation to this purpose, is the intent of Euseb. histor. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. Victor, Bishop of Rome, resoluing to haue reiected from his communion all the Churches of Asia, for keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Iewes did. For, saith Bell. de Pont. li: 2. cap. 19. Bellarmine, howsoeuer Irenaeus and others disswaded him from executing that hee intended, yet it appeareth his obseruation was right, in that it was afterwards confirmed by the Nicene Councell, and that hee had authority ouer all, in that hee went about to excommunicate those of Asia for dissenting from him in the obseruation of that Feast, and keeping it with the Iewes, though hee were content, for the avoiding of some inconueniencies, at the intreaty of Irenaeus to forbeare proceeding against them. For answere hereunto wee must obserue, that by reason of the custome of those of Asia, that kept the feast of Easter precisely at the same time the Iewes did, there was moued not a little contention throughout the whole world, and many Synodes in euery place called. For Euseb. hist. Ecclesiast. l. 5. c. 21. 22. 23. in Palestina a Synode was holden, whereof Theophilus of Caesarea, and Narcissus of Hierusalem, were Presidents; another at Rome, whereof Victor was President; and another, of the Bishoppes of Pontus, whereof Palmas as most auncient, was President: and in sundry other places, other Synodes were called. But the Synode of the Bishops in Asia, whereof Polycrates was President, stiffely maintayned the auncient custome that had long prevailed in those parts, and wrote an Epistle to Victor, and those of the Romane Church, to iustifie themselues in this behalfe. Victor and his Bishops much offended with this their pertinacy (as they construed it) would for this cause, haue reiected them from their communion. But Irenaeus, with some other of a milder spirit, and better temper, stayed them from such rash and violent proceedings; and Irenaeus wrote his letters to this purpose to the Bishop of Rome, and other his colleagues: so that here is nothing to proue the power of the Pope. For what was resolued on, both touching the right of the observation, and the proceedings against them that disliked it, was resolved by the Synodes of Bishops, and not by Victor alone: as likewise Irenaeus was not alone, but many other ioyned with him in the reprehension of Victor, whose number and multitude prevayled much with him, and stayed his proceedings as well as the perswasions of Irenaeus. And yet did not the Westerne Bishops take vpon them to excommunicate those of Asia, as the Cardinall vntruely affirmeth, but onely to reiect them from their communion and fellowshippe; there being a very great difference betweene excommunication properly so named, and the reiecting of men from our communion or fellowship. For excommunication properly so named, is a resolution to deny the Sacraments to such as are to receiue them of vs, the abandoning of all fellowship with them, and the requiring and commanding of others to refraine from all communicating with them in priuate or publique; and argueth him that so excommunicateth, to be superiour in authority, and greater in place then they are whom he excommunicateth. But reiecting from communion, or refusing to communicate with men, may bee found among them that are equall. So Act. Concil. Ephes. tom. 1. cap. 14. Cyril wrote to Nestorius, that if hee reuoked not certaine dangerous positions, hee would communicate no longer with him. So the Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7. Bishops of the East told Iulius Bishop of Rome, that if hee communicated with Athanasius, they would no longer communicate with him. And such was the proceeding that Victor intended against those of Asia; and therefore proueth not that he was their superiour, or had a commaunding authority ouer them. And yet surely, howsoeuer it be true, that his manner of observation was better then theirs, whom he disliked, his intention vpon such an occasion to haue made a breach in the Christian Churches, was justly with some bitternesse reprehended by Irenaeus, and his brethren. For howsoeuer Bellarmine would n Tert. de praescript in fine. make the Reader beleeue by alledging that of Blastus, who vrged the keeping of Easter with the Iewes, and sought to bring in Iudaisme, that Victor had reason to bee violent as hee was, as perceiuing some ill meaning in them that helde the Iewish observation; yet farre be it from vs to thinke that Polycarpus, and so many worthy and holy men, as aunciently kept that observation, were any way inclinable to Iudaisme. But this difference may be thought to haue growne not from any diuersity of Iudgement touching matters of faith, but for that in some places they thought it fit to keep this feast on the Lords day, for very important reasons mouing them so to doe; and in other places, though they could haue beene content to haue done so likewise vpon the same reasons, yet kept they it after the old manner, for the avoyding of the scandall of the Iewes, for the easier winning of them that were not yet gained to Christianity, and the holding of them in the loue & liking of Christian profession, that were already of Iewes become Christians. The next instance is of Nicephorus. li: 13. cap. 34. Innocentius the first, who after that he heard of the death of Chrysostome, whom Theophilus had deposed, & the Emperour Arcadius banished, excommunicated the Emperour & Empresse, and anathematized Theophilus in such sort that he should vtterly be excluded, & haue no place among Christians. But this report may very justly bee doubted of, the credit thereof resting onely on the authority of Nicephorus. Seeing the auncient Vide supra cap. 35. Historians, that report the proceedings of Theophilus and Arcadius against Chrysostome, & his complaints to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of the West, of the wrongs that had beene done vnto him, report also the answere of the Romane Bishop to haue beene, that hee greatly pittied his case, but saw no hope of remedy, nor meanes to releeue him, vnlesse a generall Councell might be called, to which purpose he would do his best with the Emperour; and that Chrysostome himselfe wished him not to proceede so farre, as to reiect them from his communion that were his aduersaries, for feare of further inconueniences; this being the contention almost of the whole world, and the Churches by occasion heereof every where brought vpon their knees. Yea all auncient Historians are silent, and say nothing of this excommunication, but report the Sozom. lib. 8. cap 18. repulse, which the messengers, the Romane Bishop sent to the Emperour to procure a Councell, receiued; and Theodoret. spe •… king of the iniury done to Chrysostome, hath these words. Alias virtutes authorum illius revere •… i cogor: qua de causa annitar, vt ipsorum nomina occultem. lib. 5. hist. Eccl. cap. 34. Theophilus (for ought I know) was euer holden a catholicke Bishop, both by Hierome and others to his dying day; notwithstanding these quarrells betweene him and Chrysostome. The excommunication of Leo the Emperour, by Gregory the third, whereof Zonaras writeth in the life of Leo Isaurus (which is a third instance of Papall censures, against the great men of the world) proueth not the matter in question: For Gregory did not anathematize Leo of himselfe alone, but with a Synode of Bishops; neither was he able by his owne authority to stay the Tribute that was wont to be payd to the Emperour, but by his sollicitation r Hierome wrote sundry Epistles to Theophilus, full of all due respects, and turned his three Paschall bookes into Latine. Vide Epistolas Hieron. tom. 2. procured a confederacie of the French and Germans against the Emperours of Constantinople, and by their meanes stayed the Tribute that was wont to be paid; wherevpon the Germans and French possessed Rome, and became Lords of it. The last example is that of Rhegino lib. 2. Otho. Frisingens. l. 6. c. 3. Sigebert. in Chronico. an. 862. Nicholas the first, excommunicating Lotharius King of France, and his concubine Valdrada, together with the Arch-bishops of Coleyn & Treuers, But the answere herevnto is easie. For first, this example proueth not the thing in q •… estion, to wit, that the Pope hath an vniuersall power ouer all the world, seeing all these were within the Patriarchship of the Bishop of Rome. And secondly wee say, these circumstances of this proceeding are vntruely reported by Bellarmine. For this is the true report which wee finde in Rhegino and others. Lotharius King of Lorrayne, falling in loue with Valdrada, which had beene his concubine while hee was yet a young man in his fathers house, beganne to dislike Thietberga his wife. Hereupon hee laboureth with the Bishops of Treuers and Coleyn, to finde some meanes to put her away. They call a Synode, wherein Thietberga is charged to haue committed incest with her owne brother, and thereupon pronounced an vnfit wife for the King. The King thus freed from his wife, professeth hee cannot liue single; they pronounce it lawfull for him to marry another wife, and he taketh Valdrada to wife, whom he had formerly kept as his concubine. Nicholas the first, Bishop of Rome, hearing of this, sendeth into France to learne the certainty. The Legates hee sendeth, come to the King to expostulate the matter with him. The King answereth, that he did nothing but what the Bishoppes of his kingdome in a generall Councell had assured him was lawfull to bee done. Whereupon the Bishops of Coleyn and Treuers were sent for to Rome, and the Pope called a Councell, in which the opinions and proceedings of these Bishops were condemned, and they degraded by all the Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons that were assembled in Councell. In all which narration there is no circumstance found, that any way proueth the Pope to haue the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction; but the contrary rather may from hence bee concluded, because nothing is done against these two Bishops, but by a Synode of Bishops assembled by their owne Patriarch. But, saith Bellarmine, Pope Nicholas excommunicated the King, and Valdrada his supposed wife; therefore he is vniuersall Bishop. The former part of this saying is most vntrue; for the Pope did not excommunicate the King, but Valdrada onely. And I thinke the excommunicating of one silly harlot, that had so grievously scandalized the Church of God, and whose cause was iudged before in a Synode, being brought thither, and there examined, by reason of the vniust proceedings of the Bishops of Coleyn and Treuers, against a lawfull Queene, in favour of her, will neuer by any good consequence proue the Pope to bee vniuersall Bishop; & yet these are all the proofes the Cardinall canne bring from the censures the auncient Bishops of Rome are reported to haue vsed: and therefore he De Pontif. l. 2. cap. 20. proceedeth to shew & demonstrate the Amplitude of the Popes illimited power & iurisdiction by the Vicegerents hee appointed in all partes of the Christian world, that were farre remote from him, to doe things in his name, & by his authority.

But for answere herevnto, we say, that neither this Cardinall, nor any other canne proue, that the Bishops of Rome had any such Vicars, Vicegerents, or Substitutes, but onely within the compasse of their owne Patriarchships: and that therefore from the hauing of them, nothing can be inferred for confirmation of their illimited power & authority. So Leo (as we reade in his Leo. Ep. 84. Epistles) constituted Anastasius Bishoppe of Thessalonica, his Vicegerent for the parts thereabouts, as other his predecessours had done former Bishops of that Church. Wh •… ch causing great resort thither vpon diuers occasions, may bee thought to haue beene the reason why the Councell of Canon •… 20. Sardica prouideth, that the Clergy-men of other churches shall not make too long a Greg. l. 4. cp. 52. stay at Thessalonica. So the same Epist. 87. Leo made Potentius the Bishop his Vicegerent in the parts of Africa; Hormisd. in cp. ad Salust. Hormisda, Salustius Bishop of Hispalis, in Boetica and Lusitania; and Gregory, Virgilius Bishop of Arle, in the regions of France: all these places being within the compasse of the Patriarchship of Rome, as Cusan. lib. 2. cōcord. cathol. cap. 7. ex Dist. 12. cap: Qui nesciat. & dist. 43. cap. Iuxta. Cusanus sheweth. And the same may be sayd of the Bishop of Iustiniana the first, who was appointed the Bishop of Romes Vicegerent in those parts, vpon signification of the Iustinian. Authent. Collat. 9. T •… t. 6. siue Nouella Const. 131. Emperours will and desire that it should be so. Neither doth the Cardinall proue any other thing, whatsoeuer he maketh shew of. For though Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, were the Vicegerent of Caelestinus, in the cause of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, yet was he not his Vicegerent in such sort as they were that were within his owne Patriarchship, as if he had had none authority of his owne, but that onely which Caelestinus gaue vnto him. But Caelest. ep. ad Cyril. Act. Concil. Ephes. tom. 1. cap. 16. Cyril. epist. ad Nestorium Ibid. cap. 14. Caelestinus hauing beene informed by Cyril of the impieties of Nestorius, and hauing in his Synodes of the West condemned the same, joyned his authority with the authority of Cyril, that so he might proceed against him, not onely as of himselfe, and out of the iudgments of his own Bishops, but also out of the consenting resolutions of them of the West. And therefore Euagr. lib. 1. cap. 4. Euagrius sheweth, that at or before the time appointed by the Emperour, Nestorius and Cyril came to Ephesus, where a Councell was to be holden: and that Iohn of Antioch with his Bishops, being not come, after fifteene dayes stay, Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, the greatest of all the Bishops that were present (who also supplied the place of Caelestinus) with the rest of the Bishops thought good to send for Nestorius, and to require him to appeare in the Synode, to answere to the crimes obiected to him. Whereby it is euident, that (Nestorius being to be iudged in a generall Councell) Cyril being the greatest of the Bishops that were present, (the Bishop of Rome neither comming nor sending at the first) was in his owne right, Relat. sanctae Synodi ad pientiss. Imp. inter epist. Synodales vocat Cyrillum caput congrega •… orum Episcorum. President of that assembly. But the Bishop of Rome, who could not come, (but hauing assembled his Bishops in the West, had iudged and condemned him) ioyned his authority with Cyril, the principall of the Bishops that were present, that so nothing might be wanting to the perfection of a generall Councell. So that it is most certaine, that Cyril was president of the Councell of Ephesus, not as a Vicegerent onely to the Bishop of Rome, but in his owne right, though he had the authority, direction, and consenting concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, and all the Westerne Bishops, ioyned with the power and authority, which he and the rest of the Bishops present had of themselues. And therefore Leo Epist 47. Leo saith in expresse wordes, that Cyril was President of the Councell of Ephesus, as likewise Photius de 7. Synodis. Photius and others affirme. The same answer may serue for Acacius. For Epist. 13. Gelasij ad Episc. Dardan. he was not Vicegerent of the Bishop of Rome, in hearing and determining the cause of Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who was an Eutychian Heretique) as hauing none authority of his owne: but there was a ioynt concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Constantinople, the later hauing besides his owne right and interest, the full power and authority of the other: and being likewise to vse the helpe of the Emperour for the reducing of the Church of Alexandria, to the vnity of the faith againe: in which businesse he failed: for though at first he condemned Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, yet afterwards he was content to cō municate with him. For which cause he was iustly reprehended as not answering the trust that was reposed in him, and as being a fauourer of heretiques and so in a sort an heretique himselfe. To these allegations which we haue already heard, Apud Iuellum pag. 277. Harding in his answer to Bishop Iewels challenge addeth another, of a Bishop of Alexandria being Vicegerent to the Bishop of Rome, out of the Epistle of Bonifacius the second, to Eulalius or Eulabius. But De Pontif. li. 2. cap. 25. Bellarmine refuteth that Epistle, and sheweth that it is counterfeit, and that there neuer was any such Eulabius, to whom Bonifacius might write: and therefore we will no longer insist vpon the examination of the same, but proceed to the proofes, which our Aduersaries bring from appeales made to Rome.

CHAP. 39.

Of Appeales to Rome.

FOR the clearing of the matter of Appeales we must obserue, that they are of three sorts: Of Lay-men, of inferiour Clergie-men, and of Bishops. Of the appeales of Lay-men there is noe mention in all Antiquity: and yet now the Bishops of Rome reserue all the greater causes euen concerning the Laitie to thē selues alone, forbidding the ordinary guides of the Church to intermedle with them: and very ordinarily admitte appeales of Lay-men to the infinite vexation of men, and the great hinderance of the course of all Iustice. Whereas it is most wisely and rightly ordered, each Bishop hauing his portion of the flocke of Christ committed to him, as Cyprian obserueth, that they that are committed to their charge should not bee permitted to runne hither and thither, but bee iudged there, where the thinges, for a Cypr. lib: 1. epist. 3. which they are called in question, were done, and where the accusers and witnesses may bee present.

Concerning inferiour Clergy-men the holy Bishoppes in the Councell of Mileuis speake in this sort: Conc. Mileuit. Canone. 22. It hath seemed good vnto vs, that if Presbyters, Deacons, & other inferiour Clergi-men complaine of the iudgements of their own Bishops, the neighbour Bishops intreated by them with the consent of their Bishoppes shall heare them and make an end; and if they thinke good to appeale from their iudgement, it shall not be lawfull for them to appeale, but onely to the Councels of Africa, or to the Primates of their owne Provinces. And if they shall make their appeale beyond the seas, no man in Africa shall receiue them to the Communion. This whole Councell Innocentius the first approued, as it appeareth by his Epist. 93. inter Epistolas Aug. Epistle, which we finde in the booke of the Epistles of S. Augustin. Hereunto, Bellarmine de Pon. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 24. saith, some answere with Gratian. 2. quaest. 6. cap. placuit. Gratian: who addeth to the Canon of this Councell, forbidding appeales to be made beyond the seas, an exception, vnlesse it be to the Sea Apostolique. But this exception, saith Bellarmine, seemeth not fitting, seeing the Africanes made this decree, that men should not appeale beyond the seas, especially in respect of the Church of Rome, and to restraine the making of appeales thither; there neuer being any appeale from the Africans to any other church but to the church of Rome only. And yet Controu. 3 de prim. subiect. potest. eccles. quaest 7. explicat art. Stapleton answereth the authority of this Councell as Gratian doth, and that out of Iulius and Fabianus, Bishops of Rome, as he saith. The Councell of Canone 17. Sardica (saith Bellarmine) decreed, that the causes of Presbyters and inferiour clergy-men appealing from the iudgements of their owne Bishops, should be determined and ended by the neighbour-Bishops: and Pope Zozimus, as appeareth by the sixth Councel of Carthage, and the Epistle of the same Councell h Bell vbi supra. to Bonifacius the Pope, required the same canon to be reuiued. August. Ep. 162. Augustine likewise sheweth, that it was not lawfull for those of the clergie vnder the degree of Bishops, to appeale out of Africa. Neither was this the peculiar priuiledge of Africa alone. For the Councell of Canone 9. Chalcedon ordained; that if a clergie-man haue ought against another of the clergy, the matter shall be heard by the Bishop, or by arbitrators chosen by both parties, with the Bishops allowance. But if he haue ought against his Bishoppe, he shall prosecute the same complaint in the Synode of the province. This canon of the Councell of Chalcedon the Iustin Nouell. Const. 123. c. 22. Emperour confirmed, saying, if any of the clergy complaine against his Bishop for any matter, let the cause be iudged by the Metropolitane, according to the sacred rules, and the imperiall lawes. And if any man appeale from his sentence, let the cause be brought to the Arch-bishoppe or Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him according to the canons, make a finall end. And yet, notwithstanding these canons aboue recited precisely forbidding inferiour clergy-men to appeale to Rome, we finde that the Vt patet ex Epist. Concil. j Africani ad Coelestinum. Bishops of Rome admitted the appeale of one Apiarius, iudged & condemned in Africa; which caused a great difference betweene the Africanes and him. Whereupon the Fathers in the Councell of Africa, wish the Bishop of Rome (as it beseemeth him) to reiect and repell the wicked and vnlawfull appeales, as well of Presbyters, as of other inferiour clergy-men; seeing the ending and determining of their causes, is by no decree of any Synode denied to the church of Africa, and the Nicene canons most clearely committe both inferiour clergy-men and Bishops to their owne Metropolitanes. Vbi suprá. Bellarmine, to cleare the Pope from intrusion, and to avoide the testimonies & authorities of the holy Bishops and Pastours of the church, which we haue produced to shew the vnlawfulnes of appeales to Rome; answereth first: that though they of the inferiour clergy were prohibited to appeale to the Pope, yet hee was not forbidden to admit their appeales; which is a most strange answere. For if they in appealing did ill, and violated the canons, hee could not but offend, in admitting such their appeales. And therefore Ep. praedict. Conc. Afric. c. 105. they of Africa tell the Pope, that it befeemeth him to repell such appeales; and that to admit them, is to bring in the smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church, professing that the ending of such matters belongeth to the Church of Africa, and complaining of intollerable wrongs and injuries done vnto them, when such appeales are admitted; whence it is consequent, that the Pope may not admit them. Secondly, he answereth, that the Bishop of Rome admitted not the appeale of Apiarius, but heard his complaints, and commaunded them of Africa more diligently to examine his cause: whereas it is most plaine and euident, that the Pope vpon his appeale, vnadvisedly receiued him to his communion, and restored him to his degree and place again. Besides that, to heare complaints, & to command a review, is in the judgement of all men of sense & vnderstanding, a kind of an admitting of an appeale; seeing no such thing can be done but by him that hath power to judge of their judgement, whom he cōmaundeth to review and reexamine that they haue formerly judged.

Concerning Bishops, the Canone 9. Councell of Chalcedon decreed, that if a Bishop haue ought against the Metropolitane, he shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of the Princely city of Constantinople, that there the matter may be examined and heard. And the Novel. 123 c. 22. Emperour confirming the same canon, decreed that if the Bishops of one Synode haue any matter of variance among themselues, either for Ecclesiasticall right, or any other occasions; first the Metropolitane, and the other Bishops of the Synode shall examine and determine the cause; and if either part dislike the judgment, then the Patriarch of that Diocese shall giue them audience according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons, and Imperiall lawes, neither side hauing liberty to contradict his judgment. This decree of the Emperour Greg. ep. l. 〈◊〉 . ep. 54 Gregory the first reciteth, and alloweth: onely adding, that if there be neither Metropolitane nor Patriarch, then the matter must bee ended by the Apostolicke See, which is the Head of all Churches. So that euen in his judgment, when there is a Patriarch, no Bishop may appeale frō him to Rome, but euery one is bound to stand to the end that he shall make. The eight Canone 26. generall Councell in like sort appointeth Bishops cōplaining of their Metropolitans, to go to the Patriarch, that he may make an end, & requireth either side to stand to the end that he shal make, seeing the more honourable Bishops out of sundry Provinces called together by him, sit in councell with him. Yet Epist. citat. 〈◊〉 Conc. Afric. sive Carthag. 6. Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Caelestinus Bishops of Rome, by their agents in the Councels of Africa vrged & claimed a pretended right, to admit appeales of Bishops from any part of the world, as frō the canons of the Nicene councell. But the worthy Bishops there present, looking into the decrees of that councell, & finding no such thing as was alleaged, lest haply those copies of the councell which they had, might be defectiue, imperfect, or corrupted, sent to the most reverend Patriarches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, for the authentical & indubitate copies: but could find no such thing in them when they came, as was alleaged by the agents of the Bishop of Rome. And therefore they wrote vnto him, & prayed him no more so easily to admit men comming to him with appeales and complaints, nor to receiue to his communion such as they should excommunicate because the Nicene councell hath forbidden all such admission, committing not onely Lay-men and inferiour Cleargy-men, but The Africanes though within the Patriarchship of Rome, disliked the appeales of Bishops to Rome, because they might haue right against their Metropolitanes, if they wronged them: in a generall Synode of Africk, wherein the P •… imate sate as President: for otherwise Bishop •… wronged by their Metropolitanes, might by the Canons appeale to their owne Patriarch. Bishops also to their owne Metropolitans: and requiring that Bishops put from the communion in their own Provinces, should not bee by other, hastily, suddainly, or vnduely restored to the communion. And farther, they besought the Roman Bishops to repell, as beseemeth them, the wicked appeales of Presbyters, & other inferiour Clergy-men, because no decree of any councell hath prejudiced the Church of Africa in this behalfe, but all the Fathers most prudently & justly decreed & determined, that all matters should be ended in the place where they arise, seeing no Province can lacke the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby the Bishops of Christ may be able both wisely to see, and constantly to maintaine the right; and especially for that it is lawfull for euery one that shall mislike the judgment of them that haue the hearing of his cause, to appeale to the councels of his Province, or to a generall Councell, vnlesse haply any man will thinke, that God will inspire the tryall of justice into one man alone, & that he will deny the same to a great number of Bishops assembled in Councell: and farther they adde, that these beyond-sea iudgments cannot be thought good, and of force, whereunto the persons of the witnesses necessary for the finding out of the truth, cannot bee brought, either in respect of the infirmity of their sexe or age, or by reason of some other impediment. And thus we see that the Bishops of Rome could not demonstrate their right to receiue Appeales of Bishops, refusing to stand to the iudgments of their owne Metropolitanes and Synodes, out of the Nicene Councell, but failed in the issue. Yet may we not hereupon charge them with falsification or mistaking, say the worthy Bell. de Rom. Pont. li. 2. c. 25. Proctors of the Romane Church. But wee must rather say with counterfeit Athanasius, in his Epistle to Faelix, that the coppies of the Nicene Councell were corrupted, or in his Epistle to Marke the Bishop of Rome, that they were burned; then that we should yeeld any such thing. And yet surely if they were corrupted, they were not burned: and if they were burnt, they were not corrupted: and that the Arrians should corrupt the coppies of the Nicene Councell in other things, and leaue it inuiolable in that part that toucheth them most, and condemneth their heresie, is strange and vnlikely. Ibidem. Bellarmine saith, the Magdeburgians doe laugh at the report of the burning of those coppies of the Nicene Councell that were kept at Alexandria, and seemeth to confesse they haue reason so to do. For (saith hee) the supposed burning happened in the time of Constantius the Emperour, when as Athanasius being driuen from thence, George the Arrian had gotten into his place as Athanasius testifieth in his Epistle ad omnes Orthodoxos; whereas it may be clearely proued out of the Chronicle of Hierome, that Marke the Pope was dead at that time. Besides, if Marke the Pope had sent the true coppies to Alexandria vpon this letter of Athanasius (as is pretended) why should not the coppies that were found at Rome, & they that were brought from Alexandria into Africa, haue agreed together? How came it to passe that the canon vrged for the Popes aduantage in the Councels of Africa, was not found in the coppies sent from Alexandria? but that that coppy altogether agreed with the other that came from Constantinople and Antioch. Bellarmine therefore passing by these Epistles, as being of no great credit, alleageth sundry things mentioned by the Ancient, as decreed by the Councell of Nice, which yet are not found in those twenty Canons now extant; to proue that it followeth not that the Bishops of Rome falsified the Councell of Nice, because they could not finde the things they vrged in the coppies sent out of the East, seeing they might be in some other, as well as those things that are mentioned by the Ancient, which are not found in these twenty Canons. The things alleaged by him out of the Ancient, as decreed by the Nicene Councell, which yet are not found in the Canons now extant, are in number seauen, whereof some were neither decreed in that Councell, nor reported by the Ancient to haue been decreed there. For Hier. praefat. in Iudith. Hierome doth not say that the Conncell of Nice, reckoned the booke of Iudith among the bookes of the Canon, but onely that some said it did; but that it did not, Bishop Lindan bringeth very good reasons, as I haue z elsewhere Booke 4. Chap. 23. shewed. The like may be said of the permitting of Clergie-men hauing wiues, to liue with their wiues. For the Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. histories do not say, the Councell passed a decree to that purpose, but that whereas the Fathers of the Councell were about to haue made a decree for the restraining of Clergy-men from Matrimoniall society with their wiues, they were by Paphnutius a worthy Bishop and holy Confessor, disswaded from so doing and induced to leaue it free as they found it. The obseruation of the feast of Easter vpon the Lords day, is the third instance giuen by the Cardinall. But if Zozimus, Bonifacius and Caelestinus could haue brought as good proofe, that the decree they vrged was passed in the Councell of Nice, as may be brought for the decree touching the keeping of Easter only on the Lords day, they had neuer bin resisted, though they could not haue found it in the canons. For the order that the Councell tooke for vniformity in the keeping of this feast, is mentioned in the Epistle of the Councell to the Churches of Aegypt, Lybia and Pentapolis; and all histories and writers do agree on it. Touching the hauing of 2 Bishops in one city, which August. epist. 110. Augustine saith, Valerius his predecessor knew not to be forbidden by the Councel of Nice, when hee caused him to be ordained Bishop, and to sit together with him, while he yet liued; it is strange that Bellarmine should deny it to be found among the twenty Canons we speake of, when as in the eighth Canon it is expressely prouided, that if a Nouatian Bishop returne to the vnity of the Church in any citty where there is a Catholique Bishop already, the Catholique Bishop shall looke out for him some place, in his Diocese, that he may bee a Chorepiscopus, or shall appoint him to be a Presbyter; that both he may remaine in the Clergie, and that yet there may not seeme to be two Bishops in one citty. That Atticus in the end of the Councell of Chalcedon saith, the manner of writing those letters, that were called Litterae formatae, was deuised in the Councell of Nice, no way proueth the thing in question. For we inquire not, what was there deuised, but what was there decreed. Lastly, that which the Canone 14. Councell of Africa hath, as out of the Councell of Nice, that none should celebrate the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, but such as are fasting: & Ambr. Epist. 82. Ambrose, that none should be taken into the Clergie that haue beene twise married, might by them be taken vpon vncertaine report, as that touching the booke of Iudith was by Hierome. But to what purpose doth Bellarmine insist vpon these allegations? and why doth hee so carefully labour to shew that all the decrees of the Nicene Councell, are not comprised within the twenty Canons now extant? Is it because he would thereby make vs thinke, the Nicen Councell did decree any such thing cencerning appeales, as was alleaged in the Coūcel of Africa by the Popes agents? Surely no. For he professeth, hee thinketh it very probable, that the pretended Canons were neuer made by the Nicene Councell, but that they were the Canons of the Councell of Sardica: and his reason is, because these Canons are in the Councell of Sardica, in the very words alleaged. And it is not likely the Fathers in that Councell would make the same Canons, the Councell of Nice did, and no way expresse it, that they did not make newe, but renew such as were made before. Which if it be so, it must needes be confessed, that the Bishops of Rome were deceiued and mistooke, when they alleaged Canons as made in the Councell of Nice, that were not made there but in the Councell of Sardica. Yet Bellarmine is vnwilling to yeelde so much to the trueth, though it bee very mighty and ready to preuaile with him: and therefore rather then he will confesse any errour or mistaking, hee affirmeth, that both these are to be esteemed but as one Councell: because many of the same Bishops were present in them both, and confirmed the same faith. A strange saying doubtlesse, and contradicted by himselfe. For in his book De Concil. lib. 1. c. 4. 5. & 7. De Concilijs, sorting Councels into three rankes, accounting some wholly rejected, some wholly approued, and some in part rejected, and in part approued: hee reckoneth the Councell of Nice among those of the second sort, and the Councell of Sardica among those of the third sort: because consisting of three hundred seuenty and sixe Bishops, the three hundreth Occidentall Bishops confirmed the Catholique faith: and they of the East diuiding themselues from them, cōfirmed the heresie of the Arrians: whereas here he will haue it to be the same with the Councell of Nice, for that it was a generall Councell approued, and not reckoned in number the second. But let vs pardon them this errour and mistaking, and see what it was the Councell of Sardica decreed. The words of the Fathers of the Councell are these: Concil. Sardic. Can. 3. & 7. It hath seemed good vnto vs, that if a Bishop shall be accused, and the Bishops of the same region shall judge him and degrade him; if hee that is so deposed or degraded, shall appeale and flye to the Bishop of Rome, and desire to be heard, if hee thinke good to renew the judgment, let him be pleased to write to the Bishops that are in the next Prouince, that they may diligently enquire into things, and judge according to trueth and equity. But if hee that desireth to haue his cause heard againe, shall moue the Bishop of Rome to send a Presbyter from his owne side, let him do what hee thinketh fit. And if he shall thinke fit to send some, who being present with the Bishops may iudge together with them, hauing his authority from whom they are sent, let him do as hee pleaseth. And if he thinke the Bishops to be sufficient to put an end to the matter, let him vse his owne discretion. For the clearing of this matter, and that we may the better discerne the force of this decree: first, we must marke that it was made after the diuision and parting of the Bishops of the East from them of the West, and so by the Westerne Bishops alone, &, as it may seeme, respectiuely to the Prouinces of the West, ouer which the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch. Secondly, that the Africans tooke no notice of it; and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Councell, so that in likely-hood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent acceptation, execution, and practise. Thirdly, that the Councell of Chalcedon, which was absolutely Oecumenicall, and wholly approued, & so of greater authority then this, that was not an approued Generall Councell, but in a sort onely, Canon •… 9. decreeth the contrary, and referreth the finall determination of all causes of Bishops, to the Primate or Patriarch, which the Emperour also confirmeth, and will haue no man to haue power to contradict the end which the Primate or Patriarch shall make. Lastly, that this canon maketh rather against them that alleage it, then any way for them. For by this Canon all matters must bee ended at home, or in the next Province to that wherein they arise; and the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to bee heard, but is onely permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter hauing his authoritie, and to put him in commission with the Bishops of the Province, that so hee and they jointly may reexamine things formerly judged. If this Canon were now obserued, I thinke there would not bee so great exception taken to the court of Rome, in respect of appeales, as now there is. Bern. l. 3. de consider. ad Eugenium. Quous que (saith Saint Bernard to Eugenius) non evigilat consideratio tua ad tantam appellationum confusionem? Ambitio in Ecclesia per te regnare molitur. Praeter ius & fas, praeter morem & ordinem fiunt: repertum ad remedium, reperitur ad mortem. Antidotum versum est in venenum: murmur loquor & querimoniam communem Ecclesiarum. Truncari se clamant & 〈◊〉 . Vel nullae, vel paucae admodum sunt, quae plagam istam aut non doleant, aut non timeant; that is, How long will it bee before thou awake to consider this so great confusion of appeales? Ambition striueth and seeketh busily to raigne in the Church by thy meanes, They are entred, prosecuted, and admitted, beside right & law, besides custome and order. That which was first found out for a remedie, is now found to bee vnto death. I doe but expresse the murmuring and common complaint of the Churches. They cry out that they are mangled and dismembred, and there are few or none found that doe not either already grieue at this plague, or feare the smart of this euill. Yet would not the Africans admit the canon of the councell of Sardica, but willed the Pope to send no more any of his clearkes, to dispatch causes at any mans suite. For that this was to bring in the smoakie puffe of worldly pride into the Church, and in very earnest sort besought him not to bee too easie in admitting any appeales brought from them. If within a little time after, the Bishops of Rome prevailed so farre, as that Bishops were suffered to appeale out of Africa to Rome, which was the thing claimed by Zozimus, but denied vnto him by the Africans; it is not to bee marvailed at, seeing they still enlarged the extent of their power, till they had ouerthrowne the jurisdiction of all the Bishops of the West, and alienated the affections of all other from them. So that there was a schisme in the church, the other foure Patriarches dividing themselues from the Bishop of Rome, and at their parting vsing these or the like words, as it is reported. Gerson. part. 4. serm de pace & unit 〈◊〉 , c •… nsid 〈◊〉 . Thy greatnesse wee know, thy covetousnesse wee cannot satisfie, thy encroaching we can no longer endure, liue by thy selfe. But here we shall find a great contrariety of judgment among the greatest Rabbies of the Romish church touching these Africans that thus withstood the claimes of Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus. For Harding against Bishop Iewels challenge in the Article of the supremacie, 〈◊〉 Harding apud Iuell. p. 29 •… saith, that the whole church of Africa withdrew it selfe from the church of Rome by reason of this difference, through the enticement of Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage, and continued in schisme by the space of an hundred yeares; during which time by Gods punishment they were brought into miserable captiuity by the barbarous & cruell Vandales, who were Arrians; till at length when it pleased Almighty God of his goodnesse to haue pitty of his people of that Province, hee sent them Belisarius that valiant Captaine that vanquished and destroyed the Vandales; and Eulabius that godly Bishop of Carthage, that brought home the Africanes againe, and joyned those divided members to the whole Body of the Catholique church. A publique instrument containing their submission, being made and offered to Bonifacius the second, by Eulabius in the name of the whole Province. Which was joyfully receiued; and whereof Bonifacius writeth to Eulabius Bishop of Thessalonica, desiring him to giue thankes to God for the same. But De Pont. l. 2. cap. 25. Bellarmine proueth at large, that notwithstanding this resistance and opposition of the Africans against the claimes of Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus, yet there neuer was any apparant breach betweene the Romanes and them. And for the Epistle of Bonifacius the second to Eulabius, wherein he saith very harshly (as De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 15 & li. cod. c. 17. Cusanus well noteth) that Aurelius sometimes Bishop of the church of Carthage, with his colleagues, beganne to waxe proude and insolent against the church of Rome, by the instigation of the divell in the dayes of his predecessours, (so condemning Augustine, Alipius, and two hundreth twenty fiue Bishops more, as set on by the diuell to resist the claimes of his predecessors, and the Epistle of Eulabius Bishop of Carthage, wherein hee condemneth his predecessours, and submitteth himselfe to the Bishop of Rome,) he professeth he greatly suspecteth they are forged & counterfeit. First, because that which is contayned in them cannot stand with that which is most certainely proued & known to be true touching the amity and friendship that was betweene the Romane Church and Augustine, Eugenius, Fulgentius, and other Africans, after the opposition about the matters of appeales. Secondly, for that there was no such Eulabius Bishop of Alexandria at that time, to whom Bonifacius might write, as it appeareth by the Chronologie of Nicephorus of Constantinople. Thirdly, for that Bonifacius in his Epistle doth signifie that hee wrote in the time of Iustinus the Emperour; whereas Iustinus was dead before Bonifacius was Bishop, as appeareth by all histories. So that we may see what grosse forgeries there haue beene in former times deuised onely to abuse the simple, and make the world beleeue, that all Bishops and churches subiected themselues vnto the church of Rome. And how shamelesse a defender of Antichristian tyrannie Doctour Harding was, that could not escape this censure of Bellarmine the Iesuite. But it is l •… sse to be maruailed at, that he should so harden his forehead, as not to blush when he brought into the light, and presented to the view of the world such rotten forgeries, that was not ashamed to become a proctor of the filthy stewes.

Wherefore, leauing him & his counterfeit and apocryphall stuffe, which he sought to vent vnto the world, let vs proceede from the appeales of Lay-men, inferiour Clergy-men & Bishops, to speake of the appeales of the chiefe Primates or Patriarches. For the clearing of which point, we must obserue, that it is a rule in Church-government, that the lesser and inferior, may not iudge the greater & superiour. And therefore the Bishops of the Prouince, may not iudge the Metropolitane, but may only declare in what cases he is iudged, excommunicated, suspended, or deposed, ipso facto, by the sentence of the Canon it selfe, and by separating themselues from him, & withdrawing themselues from being subiect to him, put him in a sort from his place, and depose him. But otherwise, if any Bishop haue ought against his Metropolitane, he must goe (as I shewed before) to the Patriarche, and his Synode, to complaine, as to fit and competent Iudges. For against the g •… eater person wee complaine, to the greater Iudge we must flie. If a Clerke haue ought against a Bishop, the matter may bee iudged in the Synode of the Prouince; but if Clerke or Bishoppe haue any complaint against the Metropolitane, the Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon prouideth (as I noted before) that they shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of the Princely City of Constantinople. From whence in like proportion it is consequent, that thòugh the Metropolitanes and Bishoppes subiect to a Patriarche, may declare in what cases hee incurreth the sentence of suspension, excommunication, deposition, or degradation, pronounced by the very Law and canon it selfe, and so withdraw themselues from his obedience; yet may they not by way of authority proceede against him, but must flie to another Patriarche, who in a Synode consisting of his n See these things as large in the Epistle of Nicholas the first to Michael the Emperour, Epistle 8. owne Bishops, and the Bishoppes of that Patriarch that is complained of, may iudge and censure him, so that hee bee a Patriarch, in order and honour greater then hee against whom they complaine; seeing the lesser may not iudge the greater. And therefore we finde that in the differences that fell out, between Cyrill of Alexandria, and Iohn of Antioche, Iohn was blamed, for that beeing but Bishoppe or Patriarche of the third See, hee tooke vpon him to judge Cyril, that was Patriarche of the second; and hauing but a fewe Bishoppes joyned with him, to judge Cyril with many. Soe likewise Dioscorus was condemned, not onely for fauouring the wicked heresie of Eutiches, and his violent proceedings in the second Councell of Ephesus; but specially for that being but Bishop of the second See hee tooke vpon him to judge Leo, that was Bishop of the first See. And this was that which Iulius in his Epistle reported by Athanasius in his second Apologie, blamed in the Bishops of the East; namely that they proceeded to the judging of Bishops of such Sees, as were Athanasius of Alexandria, and Paulus of Constantinople, without making him first acquainted with the same; that so their proceedings might haue taken beginning from him, as beeing in order the first among the Patriarches. And hence it was, that Vide supra, cap. 35. Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria taking himselfe to be Bishop of the second See, came to Constantinople, and there with other Bishops judged Chrysostome; and that Chrysostome, as being by vertue of the Canon of the Councell of Constantinople made Bishop of the second See, and set in order and honour before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioche, would haue taken vpon him to judge some matters concerning Theophilus: and in this sort did sundry Bishops of Rome in Synodes consisting of their owne Bishops, and the Bishops subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, judge and depose certaine Bishops of Constantinople. Whereupon Nicholas the first in his Epist. 2. Epistle to Michael the Emperour sayth, that scarce any Bishop of Constantinople can be found, that was orderly deposed and driuen from his Bishopricke, and whose deposition held as good and lawfull, without the consent of the Bishop of Rome: and therefore protesteth against the deposition of Ignatius as vnlawfull and vnjust, for that he was condemned by his owne Bishops: comparing the Synode that deposed him to the second of Ephesus, and affirming, that it was much worse then that. For that there Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria with his colleagues judged Flauianus, though most violently and disorderly. But here there was none of the Patriarches, nor any one Biof any the meanest cittie, that was not his owne Suffragan. By that which hath beene sayd it is euident, that the great Patriarches of the Christian Church, are not to bee judged but by some other of their owne ranke in order before them, assisted by inferiour Bishops; Gelas. epist. 13. ad episc. Dardaniae. that the Bishoppe of Rome, as first in order among the Patriarches, assisted with his owne Bishoppes, and the Bishoppes of him that is thought faulty, may iudge any of the other Patriarches: that such as haue complaints against them, may flye to him and the Synodes of Bishoppes subject to him, and that the Patriarches themselues in their distresses may flye to him and such Synodes for reliefe and helpe, though of himselfe alone he haue no power to do any thing.

Wherefore let vs proceed from the distinction and explication of the diuerse and different kinds of appeales, lawful, and vnlawfull, permitted and forbidden, to examine the allegations of our Aduersaries, and to see whether from any allowed practise and approued course of appeales made to Rome, in the Primitiue Church, they can inferre the Vniversality of Papall power and jurisdiction. The first example that De Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 21. Bellarmine bringeth, is very impertinēt. For whereas he should proue, that the Bishops subject to any of the foure Patriarches might lawfully appeale to Rome, & that there lay appeales from any part of the world thither: hee bringeth forth the testimony of Leo epist. 89. ad Episc. Galliae. Leo telling the Bishoppes of France, subject to him as Patriarche of the West, that of ancient time appeales were wont to be made out of France to Rome: which no way proueth the Bishoppe of Rome to bee vniuersall Bishoppe, vnlesse wee will acknowledge euery one of the Patriarches to haue beene soe too: it being lawfull to appeale vnto them, out of any the remotest Prouinces subiect to thē. From this ill-chosen example, hee proceedeth to a worse of Epiphan. haeres. 42. Marcion the heretique, who being excommunicated by his owne Bishoppe in Pontus, fledde to Rome that hee might be absolued of the Romane Church as he telleth vs out of Epiphanius. But surely it is most strange that he can be content thus to abuse himselfe and others. For he knoweth right wel, that Marcion did not appeale to Rome, and that if hee had so done, the act of a vile and execrable heretique should not bee drawne into example. The historie of Marcion (as we finde in Epiphanius) is this: Marcion was the sonne of a Bishop in Pontus, hee embraced virginitie in his first times, and seemed to liue a retired, solitarie, and Monasticall kinde of life; but in the end, casting the feare of God behinde his backe, hee abused a certaine virgin; and not onely fell himselfe, but drew her also away from the course of vertue and well-doing, into the fellowship of sinfull wickednesse. Heereupon hee was excommunicated and put out of the Church by his owne Father. For his Father was a right good and vertuous man, and carefull of the things that concerned his calling: and though after he was put out of his Church, hee sought very earnestly to be admitted to penitency, that so he might bee restored to the Church againe: yet his Father exceedingly grieued, not onely in respect of his fall, but also in respect of the dishonour and shame hee had brought on him, would by no meanes be induced to yeelde vnto it. Whereupon hee left that Citie whereof his Father was Bishop, and went to Rome in the time of the vacancie of that See, after the death of Hyginus, and after he had stayed there a certaine space, and conferred with the Presbyters of that Church, hee desired to be admitted to their assemblies. But they tolde him, they could not so doe without the consent of his honourable Father. For (say they) wee have one faith, and one consent, and wee may not contrary our good fellow-minister thy Father. Which their answere when hee heard, hee was filled with fury and madnesse, and professed in great rage, that hee would rent their Church in peeces, and cast a schisme into it that should neuer haue an end. This is the narration wee finde in Epiphanius concerning Marcion his going to Rome. Wherein there is nothing that any way proueth, that it was alwayes lawfull to appeale from all other Bishops to the Bishop of Rome. For first, it doth not appeare that Marcion went thither to complaine of his Father, but being put from the communion by him, and not obtaining reconciliation by any intreaty, as a runnagate he sought to other places, and among other went to Rome, hoping there to bee receiued into the Church. But the guides of that church knowing the canon, which forbiddeth one church to admit them another hath reiected and cast out, vtterly refused to permit and suffer him to communicate with them. And secondly, if hee had gone to Rome by way of appeale, it would most strongly ouerthrow all such courses, and proue that the Romane Bishop may not reverse and make voide the Acts and proceedings of other Bishops, seeing the gouernours of the Romane church at that time, freely professed vnto Marcion, and told him peremptorily, that it was not lawfull for them to admit him to their communion without his Fathers consent, by whom hee was excommunicated. But the truth is, he did not seeke by their authoritie as superiours, to reverse his Fathers censure and iudgement, or to bee restored to the communion of that church, out of which he was eiected (which had beene to appeale:) but being in Rome, desired onely to bee admitted to ioyne in prayers and other exercises of Religion, with them of that Church: which yet (as Epiphanius reporteth) was denied vnto him. The next example is of Cypr. l. 1. cp. 3 Fortunatus and Faelix in Africa, deposed by Cyprian (as Bellarmine would make vs beleeue) and appealing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome for releefe. But there is no word of trueth in that which this Cardinall writeth. For these men did not goe to Rome to complaine that they were vniustly deposed (as hee vntruely reporteth) but these are the circumstances of the matter, as we may reade in the Epistles of Cyprian. A company of wicked ones hauing made Fortunatus (one of the Presbyters that were suspended by Cyprian, and a great number of other Bishops) a Bishop in opposition to Cyprian, hasten to Rome to Cornelius with false reports of the number of Bishops that concurred in the ordination of Fortunatus; that so hee might be induced to admit of him, as a true Bishop, and hold communion with him. Which when Cornelius wisely refused to doe, he feared not to threaten grieuous things vnto him. With the suddennesse and strangenesse whereof Cornelius much moued, maruailed greatly that Cyprian had not before certified him of this schismaticall ordination, that so hee might haue beene the better prepared. Whereunto Cyprian answered: That it was not necessarie to be so carefull about the vaine proceedings of heretiques, that he had before giuen him the names of such Bishops as were found, to whō, and from whom hee might write and receiue letters. And that howsoeuer false & ill dealing by haste and preuention thinketh to gaine all, yet that is but for a little time, till trueth overtake it, and discouer it, euen as the darknesse of the night continueth till the Sunne arise. And farther hee sheweth, that these schismaticall companions had no reason to make such haste to Rome, to publish it and make it knowen, that they had set vp a false Bishop against a true. For that either it pleased them that they had so done, and then they continued, and went forward in their wickednesse: or they repented of that they had done, and then they knew whither to returne, and needed not to haue gone to Rome. For (saith he) whereas it is agreed among vs, and it is both iust and right, that euery man shall be heard there where his fault was committed; and all Pastours haue a part of the flocke of Christ assigned to them, which euery one is to rule & governe, as being to giue an account vnto the Lord of his actions; it is not fitte, nor to be suffered, that they ouer whom we are set should runne vp and downe, and by craftie and deceitfull rashnesse shake in sunder the coherent concord of brethren, but that they should haue their causes handled where they may haue both accusers and witnesses of their crimes. Vnlesse, a few desperate and wicked companions doe thinke, the Bishops of Africa that iudged them, haue lesser authority then others. A more cleare testimonie or pregnant proofe against appeales to Rome then this, cannot be had. And yet this is one of the principall authorities, the Cardinall bringeth to proue the lawfulnesse of appeales to Rome. To the next place alleaged out of Lib. 1. ep. 4. Cyprian, touching Basilides and Martialis Bishoppes of Spaine, I haue answered Chap. 37. already, and made it most cleare, that nothing could be alleaged more preiudiciall to the Popes claimes, and more for the aduantage of the trueth of that cause, which wee defend. So that it seemeth our Aduersaries haue turned their weapons against themselues, and whetted their swords, and made readie their arrowes, to wound themselues to death. How the facts of Athanasius, Chrysostome, Flauianus, and Theodoret, appealing to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synodes, for reliefe and helpe, when they were oppressed and wronged by the Easterne Bishops, proue not the illimited and vniuersall power of the Pope, I haue at large shewed before, to the satisfaction (I doubt not) of all indifferent Readers. z Supra. c. 35. & 37. And therefore there remaineth but onely one allegation of Bellarmine touching appeales to be examined. Gregory the first (saith he) put Iohn the Bishop of Iustiniana a Epist. li: 2. cp. 6. the first, from the communion, for that he presumed to iudge the Bishop of Thebes hauing appealed to Rome. The case was this. The Bishop of Thebes wronged by his fellow-Bishops, made his appeale to Rome. Hereupon Iohn Bishop of Iustiniana the first, who was the Bishop of Romes Vicegerent for certaine Prouinces neare adioyning, was appointed by the Emperour to heare the cause; which he did accordingly. But without all indifferencie, and (in sort) contrarie to the Canons; and though vpon the discerning of his vniust and partiall proceeding an appeale were tendered to him, yet gaue he sentence against the poore distressed Bishop. Gregory hearing hereof, putteth him from the communion for thirty dayes space, inioyning him to bewaile his fault with sorrowfull repentance and teares, Truely this allegation maketh a very faire shew at the first sight. But if wee remember that the Bishop of Iustiniana the first, and the distressed Bishop of Thebes, wronged by him, were within the Patriarchship of Rome (as Cusan. lib. 2. Concord. Cathol. cap. 〈◊〉 . Cusanus sheweth they were) you shall finde it was no more that the B of Rome did, then any other Patriarch in like case might haue done, within his owne precincts and limits. Neither can the Cardinall euer proue that the Bishop of Rome had any such Vicegerent as the Bishop of Iustiniana the first was, but onely within the compasse of his owne Patriarchship. But (saith hee) it was a Greeke Bishop, that Gregory thus proceeded against. It is true, it was so. But what will hee inferre from thence? Is it not knowne that many Greeke Bishops were subiect to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West? was not the Bishoppe of Thessalonica a Greeke Bishop? and yet I thinke no man doubteth, but that hee was within the compasse of the Patriarchship of Rome, as many other also were, howsoeuer in time they fell from it, & adhered to the Church of Constantinople, after the diuision of the Greeke and Latine Churches.

CHAP. 40.

Of the Popes supposed exemption from all humane Iudgement, as being reserued to the Iudgement of Christ onely.

OVR Adversaries finding their proofes of the Popes illimited power, taken from such appeales as were wont in auncient times to bee made to Rome, to bee too weake, flie to another, wherein they put more confidence; which is his exemption from all humane Iudgement: Christ (whose Vicar he is) having reserued him to his owne iudgement onely. If this exemption could bee as strongly proued, as it is confidently affirmed, it would be an vnanswerable proofe of the thing in question. But the proofe hereof will be more hard, then of the principall thing in controuersie betweene vs. Touching this point, I finde Bell. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. cap. 30. great contrarietie of opinions among Papists, as men at their wits ends, not knowing what to affirme, nor what to denie. For first, there are some among them that thinke that the Pope, though hee violate all lawes diuine and humane, though hee become publickly scandalous, and therein shew himselfe incorrigible, yea though hee be a professed and damnable hereticke; yet neither is deposed ipso facto, by the sentence of the canon, nor may be deposed by all the men in the world. Which opinion if we admit to bee true, the condition of the church, the beloued spouse of Christ and mother of vs all, is most woefull and miserable, in that hereby shee is forced to acknowledge a denouring wolfe, making hauocke of the sheepe of Christ redeemed with his precious bloud, to be her Pastor and guide. Secondly, some are of opinion, that the Pope, if hee become an open and professed hereticke, is deposed ipso facto, by the sentence of the canon, and that the church may declare, that he is so deposed. Thirdly, there are that thinke that an hereticall Pope is not deposed ipso facto, but that he may be deposed by the church. Fourthly, many worthy Diuines in the Romane church heretofore haue beene of opinion, that the Church or generall Councell may depose the Pope, not onely for heresie, but also for other enormous crimes. Of this opinion was Cardinall De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c, 17. Cusanus, Cardinall Camerac. in Concilio Constant. Cameracensis, Gers. de auferibilit. Papae consider. 16. Gerson Chauncellour of Paris, Almaine, and all the Parisians, with Vid. act. Conc. Constantiens. & Basiliens. all the worthy Bishops & Diuines in the Councels of Constance and Basill. Yet the Papists at this day for the most part dislike and condemne this opinion, and acknowledge no deposition of any Pope how ill soeuer, vnlesse it be for heresie. And Bellarmine (to make all sure) telleth vs farther, that the church doth not by any authoritie depose an hereticall Pope, but whereas he is deposed ipso facto, in that hee falleth into heresie, onely declareth the same; and thereupon largely refuteth the opinion of Cardinall Caietane, Caiet. in tract. de authorit. Pap. & Conc. c. 20. & 21. who thinketh that the Pope when he falleth into heresie, is not deposed ipso facto, but that deseruing to bee deposed, the Church doth truely, and out of her authority depose him. First, because, (as he saith) if the Church or Councell may depose the Pope from his Papall dignity, against his will, for what cause soeuer, it will follow, that the Church is aboue the Pope, which yet Caietane denieth. For as it will follow, that the Pope is aboue other Bishops, and of more authority then they, if he may depose them; so if the councell of Bishops may depose the Pope, they are greater then hee. Secondly, he saith, to be put from the Papacie vnwillingly, is a punishment; so that if the Church may depose the Pope, though vnwilling to leaue his place, it may punish him, and consequently is aboue him. For hee that hath power to punish, hath the place of a Superiour and Iudge. Thirdly, he that may restraine and limit a man, in the vse and exercise of his ministerie and office, is in authority aboue him; therefore much more he that may put him from it. By these reasons it is clearely demonstrated and proued, that if the Church or generall Councell haue authority in case of heresie to depose the Pope, at least in some sort, it is of greater authority then the Pope. And therefore to avoide this consequence (as Gerson loco supra citato. Gerson rightly noteth) they that too much magnifie the greatnesse and amplitude of Papall power, say, that an hereticall Pope, in that he is an Hereticke, ceaseth to be Pope, and is deposed by Almighty God. So that the Church doth not by vertue of her authority and jurisdiction depose him, but onely denounce and declare that he is so deposed by God, & to be taken for such a one by men, and not to be obeyed. This they endeauour to proue, because all Titus 3. 11. Heretickes are condemned by their owne iudgment, as the Apostle saith, and stay not as other euill doers, till the Church cast them out, but voluntarily depart of themselues from the fellowship of Gods people, and cut themselues off from the vnity of the Body of the Church; thereby ceasing to be members of it, and consequently losing all authority & commaund they formerly had. For the clearing of this point, wee are to obserue, that there are some who runne into errours so directly contrary to all Christianity, & the sense and judgment of all Christians, that by the very proposing thereof, they abandon and driue from them all such as dissent: and are abandoned of all. Secondly, there are some that runne not into errours so directly contrary to the sense and judgement of all Christians as the former, but with such fury, madnes, & pertinacy, that they vtterly reject, forsake, and depart from all such as doe dissent, or are otherwise minded. Thirdly, there are some, who though they be not carried with such violent fury into errour, as to condemne, reject, and depart from all that dissent, yet they runne into olde heresies formerly condemned, and so by force of the former condemnation, are rejected, & put out of the lap and bosome of the Church. Fourthly, there are some who fall into hereticall and dangerous errours, but neither directly contrary to the common sense of all right beleeuing Christians, nor formerly condemned by the consenting voice of the whole Church of God, nor with such pertinacy, as either to refuse to communicate with them that think otherwise, or to seeke to depriue, depose, degrade, or otherwise violently vexe and molest them that are vnder them, for not consenting to them in their errour. The three former sorts of men falling into errour and heresie, voluntarily cut themselues off from the vnity of the Body of the Church, depart from the fellowship of Gods people, and ipso facto cease to bee members of the Church, and lose all authority and commaund they formerly had. So that they neede not the Churches censure or sentence to cast them out, departing of themselues: but it sufficeth that their breaches and divisions from the maine body of the Christian Church, be published and made knowne, that so they may be avoided. So Act. Concil. Eph. tom. 1. c. 19. Caelestinus in his Epistle to Iohn of Antioch, saith, that if any one haue beene excommunicated, or depriued by Nestorius, or any of his adherents, since the time they first began to publish their impieties, he still continueth in the cōmunion of his Churches, neither doth he judge him to be remoued from his place: and the like hee hath in his Ibid. Epistle to the Clergy of Constantinople. But the fourth sort of men erring, doe not cease to be members of the Church, nor lose their places by so erring, till both the point of doctrine wherein they are deceiued be tryed and examined, and by lawfull & highest authority be found faultie: and their pertinacie such, as rather to suffer themselues to be rejected, and put from the communion of all that are otherwise minded, then to alter their judgements. August. lib. de Baptism. c. 18. Cyprian fell into an hereticall opinion, that the Baptisme of Heretiques is voyde, and that all that haue beene baptized by Heretiques, are to be rebaptized. Yet because this point was not examined and condemned in a generall Councell, nor his pertinacie therein vpon such examination and condemnation, found such, as rather to suffer himselfe to bee reiected from the communion of all them that thought otherwise, then to giue way and alter his iudgment, hee was no hereticke, neither did he lose his place of ministery in the Church of God. The question therefore is, whether if the Pope fell into such an errour, as that of Cyprian, by which he doth not actually, and ipso facto divide and cut off himselfe, the Church may examine it, and judge him to be rejected, and put from the communion, if he alter not his iudgement. If they say it may, then hath the Church power to iudge a Pope that is not an Heretique. For he is not an Hereticke till after such determination, he chooseth rather to be reiected from the cōmunion of the faithfull, then to alter his iudgement. If it may not iudge the Pope so erring, then might the Popes in former times haue taught rebaptization with Cyprian; the errour of the Chiliastes, with sundry of the Fathers: that all right beleeuers, how wickedly soeuer they liue, shall in the end be saued, with some of the Ancient; that the just shall not see God till the resurrection, and the like: and yet the Church haue had noe power to force them to forsake and condemne such errours, or to cease from perswading and inducing men, both by doctrine & example to erre in like sort. And then we may runne into their errour, who thinke, that though the Pope be an hereticke, yet hee is neither deposed ipso facto, nor may be deposed, but that the Church must acknowledge a deuouring wolfe making hauock of the flocke of Christ, to be her Pastor; which Bellarmine himselfe thinketh to be very absurd. Thus then we see, that all who fall into heresies, do not cut off themselues from the vnity of the body of the Church, nor lose the iurisdiction and authority they formerly had, ipso facto, as the Papists (to auoid the deposing of Popes by the authority of the Church) seeme to imagine; but that many doe soe fall into heresies, that they goe not out of themselues till they be rejected and cast out. But howsoeuer our Aduersaries must not defend, that Popes falling into heresies are deposed ipso facto, for if they do, they ouerthrow the whole building and fabricke of Popery. The constant opinion of almost all later Papists is, Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 3. Stapleton. Rel. Controu. 3. quaest. 4. that howsoeuer the Pope may personally erre and fall into heresie, or become an Hereticke, yet the prouidence of God ouer him is such, (because he is Christs Vicar, Peters Successour, heire of the Apostles, and head of the vniuersall Church) that hee cannot define or decree any heresie, or prescribe vnto all Christians to belieue amisse. Which conceipt cannot stand, but falleth to the ground, & is clearely ouerthrowne, if the Pope by becōming an hereticke, be deposed ipso facto. For doubtlesse if the Pope becomming an hereticke ipso facto cease to bee Pope, and to be soe much as a member of the Church, then doth not the prayer of Christ for the not failing of Peters faith extend to him any longer, neither is hee any longer any way priuiledged, by vertue of his succeeding blessed Peter, but that hee may runne into all extremities in most damnable sort, seeke to subuert the faith, to force all to belieue as he doth, and define and determine that all shall professe the same doctrine of Diuels, that himselfe doth; seeing when God forsaketh him, and putteth him out of his protection, the Diuell entreth into him as he did into Iudas the traytor. And how violent and strange the mouings of the euill spirit are, wee are not ignorant: for sometimes he casteth them that are possessed by him into the fire, and sometimes into the n Marke 2, 2 •… . water: sometimes into one extremity, and sometimes into another. Wherefore either the Papists must confesse, that the Pope may define for heresie, & then all their religion is ouerthrown: or else they must acknowledge, that he is not deposed ipso facto, by becomming an hereticke, but that he is to be deposed by the authority of the Church, and so make the Church of greater authority then the Pope: and then they are in worse case then before. For then, as the Church by her authority censureth him for heresie, lest he subuert the faith, misse-leade the People of God, and ouerthrow religion: so she may likewise censure him in other cases for the auoiding of the like danger: Seeing such may be his prodigious and hellish conuersation, and his execrable corruption & violence in doing wrong, in peruerting justice, in turning iudgement into wormewood, in violating all lawes and Canons, in ouerthrowing the jurisdiction of all other Bishops, and in making a scorne of all religion, as may be as hurtfull to the Church as heresie. Now that wee speake not of an impossible or strange thing, or neuer heard of before, when we speake of monsters, prodigious and hellish monsters, intruding themselues by sinister meanes into the holy chaire of blessed Peter, let the Reader peruse the Platina. in Ioanne 10. Benedicto, 4. Sergio 3. & Christophor. 1. Sigon. de regno Italiae lib. 6. in vita Formosi. Histories written of the Popes, by their owne friendes, and by the louers of the Church of Rome, which are full of the villanies of this kind of men, in which nothing is more ordinary, or more often repeated then those honourable titles of most wicked Popes, Monstra, teterrimamonstra: monsters, most hydeous and ougly monsters. Let him cast his eyes vpon the 50 Popes mentioned by Genebr. chronol. lib. 4. Saeculo: 10. Genebrard (that vassall of the Pope, and sworne enemy of all honest and good men) which are by him acknowledged to haue beene monsters, and Apostaticall, rather then Apostolicall: and among them vpon that monster of monsters, Iohn the twelfth, then whom a viler hell-hound neuer breathed vpon the earth, and who seemed to be a very Diuell incarnate.

Wherefore let vs passe from the case of heresie, to see whether the Pope may not bee deposed for other enormous crimes publickely scandalous. The chiefe and principall reason brought by our Aduersaries, to proue that hee may not be iudged of any, whatsoeuer hee doe, is because he hath soueraigne authority ouer all, and is Prince of the whole Church. But this reason (as de Rom. Pon. lib. 2. c. 26. Bellarmine confesseth) is Petitio principii, that is, a grosse begging of that which is in question; and besides, they who bring this proofe, runne round in a circle, and make themselues giddy by sophisticall circulation. For thus they dispute. The Pope hath an absolute soueraignty ouer all, & is Prince of the whole Church, because no man may iudge him; and if any man doubt, whether he may be iudged or not, they proue full wisely that he may not; because he hath an absolute soueraignty. Wherefore the Cardinall leaueth the prouing of this point by reason, and vndertaketh to demonstrate the same by authorities. But they are such as are not much to bee esteemed. For either they proue not the point in question, or else they may iustly be suspected of forgery & corruption.

The first testimony hee alledgeth, is out of the Councell of Sinuessa, which was called (as it is supposed) by the Clergy of Rome, in the time of Dioclesian the Emperour, to examine the fact of Marcellinus, that had sacrificed vnto Idols. Of the acts of this Councell, Binnius in his Annotations vpon the same, in the first Tome of the Councells, saith: That very many of the best learned Diuines, doe thinke them to be meere counterfeits, and of no esteeme or credit, and that they were but the deuice of the Donatists, seeking to blemish the blessed memorie of Marcellinus, whom all antiquity much esteemed and honoured. Whereupon Saint Aug. de vnico Baptismo cōtra Petilian. l. 1. c. 16. Augustine saith, that certaine Donatists obiected the fall of Marcellinus to the Catholickes, but that they could neuer yet proue any such crime to haue been committed by him, as they charged him with. Howsoeuer there are many most strong and forcible arguments to proue, that the acts of this Councell are meere forgeries. For first, whereas this Councell is said to haue beene holden at Sinuessa, in a certaine vault or caue vnder the ground, that was named the vault or caue of Cleopatra, there is no History, nor no Writer that mentioneth any such caue, nor any man that can tell of any the least memoriall of any such thing. Neither doth that answere satisfie men, that many famous citties haue beene made desolate by Earth-quakes, and many mountaines and plaines haue changed both their situation, place, and name. For howsoeuer they lost their old names, and are called by new, yet their old names remaine still in those auncient Writers, wherein formerly they were; but the name of this caue or vault cannot bee found in any auncient Writer whatsoeuer. Secondly, it is very strange, that in the time of Dioclesian, when the persecution was hottest, and the flame of that fire consumed and wasted all that came neere it, three hundred Bishoppes should bee assembled together, and meet in such a caue, whereinto they could not all enter; and so hide themselues, but only 50 at a time, leauing the rest abroad to be spied & apprehended: then which, what can be more vnlikely? For they are reported to haue made choice of a caue to meete in, that by hiding themselues they might decline the furie of their bloudy enemies, and yet this caue is described to haue beene in a citty, and of so small receipt and narrow compasse, that onely 50 could enter into it at a time. So that 250 were alwaies in open view abroade in the citty. Thirdly, in the accusation that is brought against Marcellinus, it is said, that Dioclesian brought him into the Temple of Vesta and Isis, and that he caused him to sacrifice to Saturne and Iupiter; whereas it is certaine that diuerse Gods and Goddesses among the heathen had their diuerse Temples, so that they neuer vsed to sacrifice to Iupiter in the Temple of Vesta, or to Vesta in the Temple of Iupiter or Mars. Fourthly, the Author of the Pontificall saith, Marcellinus did sacrifice, and a few dayes after repenting of that hee had done, was martyred. Now how 300 Bishoppes in so few dayes could bee brought together, I thinke neither the Authours nor the patrons of these forgeries can easily tell vs. These and the like reasons, are brought by Cardinall Baron. annal. Tom. 2. anno. 303. Baronius and others, who (thinking that to acknowledge that Marcellinus did sacrifice to idols, doth more disaduantage their cause, then any thing decreed in it doth helpe it) incline to say, that the acts of this Councell are counterfeite, and that all these things were devised by the enemies of the See Apostolicke. But others thinking that the fact of this Pope may be excused, and supposing that the Decree of this councell, that the first See is to be iudged of none, may much helpe their helplesse cause: and Binn. annot. in conc. Sinuessanum. for that otherwise they shall be driuen to discredite it, their Martyrologies, and their Breviaries, and Pope Nicholas the first, who vrgeth the saying of these supposed Bishops in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour, admit this Councell as if it were of credite, and vrge the authority of it to confirme things questioned betweene them and vs; though they bee not able to answere the reasons of the other side, to the satisfaction of any indifferent man: for this is the manner of these Iesuited Papists, to reject or admit nothing otherwise, then as they thinke it may make for them or against them. But to leaue them thus striuing and contending one with another, and to come to the saying alleadged by Bellarmine out of this supposed Councell, it no way maketh for them, but against them, and cannot stand with the grounds of their owne Divinity, vnlesse they will bee of their opinion, who think that the church must endure an hereticall Pope, & that he must be still taken to be a sheepheard of the sheep of Christ, though as a devouring wolfe, he make havocke of the flocke of Christ. For is not Infidelity as badde as Heresie? And did not Marcellinus as much endanger the Church of Rome, and the Religion of Christians, in making friendship with Dioclesian, by sacrificing to his Idoles, as Liberius did by subscribing to the Arrians wicked proceedings against Athanasius, and communicating with Heretickes? Was it lawfull for the cleargy of Rome, vpon the knowledge of Liberius his fact to depose him; and might not the same cleargy assisted with three hundred Bishops, judge and depose Marcellinus? But heere wee may see the partiality of these Papists, and that they write without all conscience. For Bellarmine being to justifie Felix to be a true Pope, who possessed the place while Liberius u De Pont. l. 4. c. 9. liued, saith, that in his entrance hee was a schismaticke (Liberius yet liuing, and continuing a Catholique Bishop:) but that after the fall of Liberius, for which the Church did lawfully depose him, hee was by the same church, admitted and taken for a true Bishop. Yea, though Liberius were not in heart an Hereticke, but was presumed to bee an Hereticke, onely because hee made peace with the Arrians, and so was an Hereticke in his outward courses and acts, of which men are to judge, and not of the heart. And yet touching Ib. cap. 8. Marcellinus, hee saith, hee thinketh hee lost not his Popedome, nor might not bee deposed from it for that most execrable externe act of idolatrie & infidelitie, because it might be thought he did it out of feare. Shall the vncertain coniecture of the motiue that made him doe so vile an act, excuse him from being proceeded against, as an Infidell that doth the workes of an Infidell? and shall not the like conjectures stay the proceedings against men as Heretickes, vpon their outward concurring with Heretickes in some things? Shall feare excuse Marcellinus? and shall not the impatience of Liberius (no longer able to endure such intollerable vexations as he was subject to) excuse him? was it not as strongly presumed, that impatience moued the one to doe that hee did, as feare the other? Yes surely much more. For if wee may beleeue the acts of this faigned Councell, Marcellinus was rather wonne with flattery and faire promises, then forced with terrours, the Emperour seeking to winne him with kindnesse, and not to force him with seuerity and extremity, being perswaded by Alexander, and Romanus, so to doe. For that if hee could insinuate himselfe into the affection of the Bishop, and assure him vnto himselfe, he might thereby easily gaine the whole city. Thus hauing examined the first testimony produced by the Romanists to proue that the Bishoppes of the Romane See may not bee judged, and found it to bee of no credite, let vs see if the next will bee any better.

The next is taken out of the Romane Councell vnder Pope Sylvester, consisting of 284 Bishops, wherein we finde these wordes: Cap. 20. Neque ab Augusto, neque à Regibus, neque ab omni Clero, neque â populo iudicabitur primasedes: that is, The first See shall not bee judged neither by Augustus, neither by Kings, neither by the whole Clergie, neither by the people. Before we come to answere this authority, we must obserue, that many things are most fondly and fabulously deuised and attributed to this Syluester, vnder whom this imagined Romane Councell is supposed to haue beene holden. For whereas Euseb. de vita Constantini. li. 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Eusebius, Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 3. Zozomen, and other Historians of credit report, that the conuersion of Constantine the great was partly out of those good lessons he had learned of his father, and partly by a strange apparition of the signe of the Crosse, with an inscription in it: in hoc vince, that is, in this ouercom, appearing to him in the aire when preparing himselfe to the warre against Maxentius, he carefully bethought himselfe to what God hee should betake him, and whose helpe among the Gods hee should specially seeke; and partly by a vision of Christ appearing to him: whereupon he sent for the Priests of that God that had so manifested himselfe vnto him, and learned of them what God he was. Those fond men Vide Acta Syluestri quae extant in epist. quadam decretali, Tomo 2. Epist. Pontif. item Action. 1. Concil. Niceni 2. & Baronium anno 324. num. 32. & Seq. & Binnium in not •… s in vita Syluestri. that published the faigned acts of Syluester, report, that Constantine after many horrible murthers of his nearest Kinsmen, and the parricide of his owne sonne Crispus, being stricken with leprosie, was wished by the South-sayers to whom hee sought for counsell and aduice, to take the blood of Innocents, and to bathe himselfe in it for the curing of his leprosie; but that discouraged from the effusion thereof by the piteous cries of their tender mothers, hee be thought himselfe better, and sought expiation of his grieuous crimes, which all other denying to him, for so grieuous offences, Hosius of Corduba told him that the Christians could purge him, and Peter and Paul appearing to him, told him, hee must recall Syluester out of his hiding place, whither he was gone for feare, and seeke baptisme of him; and that then he should be purged both from the impurity of his soule & body, which accordingly was done, and he recouered. In thankefull requitall whereof he cast downe the Temples of the false Gods, builded many Christian Churches, and gaue to Syluester the citty of Rome, with all Italy, and many other prouinces besides, making him temporall Lord of all those places. Whereas it is most certaine, that Constantine was not baptized till a litle before his death, as it appeareth by Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Constantini. cap. 61. 62. Eusebius, by Hieronym. in Chronico. Hierome, & by the Synodal Epistle of the Coūcel of Ariminum, written to Constantius, reported by Theodor. hist. lib. 2. cap. 26. Theodoret, Socrates lib. 2. cap. 29. Socrates, and Sozom. lib 4. cap. 17. Zozomen; and as certaine, that Constantine was a Christian Emperour, before Syluester was Bishop. For Euseb. hist. lib. 10, cap. 〈◊〉 . in the daies of Melchiades his predecessour, hee tooke notice of the differences among Bishops, in respect of Caecilianus, and rested not till hee had composed them; professing that hee so honoured the Catholique Church, that hee could not endure any schisme to be in it. Notwithstanding the same authors of lyes go forward, and tell vs, after the Baptisme of Constantine by Syluester, of a Councell holden at Rome by the same Syluester, consisting of 284. Bishops, brought thither, and maintained there at the Emperours charges. But there are many things that bewray it to be a mere counterfeit. For first it hath a sencelesse title; for it is named another Romane Councell vnder Syluester the first, whereas no man can tell of any besides this. Secondly, it is fronted with a briefe Epilogue in steed of a Preface. Thirdly, there is scarce any sence to bee made of any one sentence throughout the whole. Fourthly, it is sayd to consist of 139 Bishops out of the citty of Rome, or not farre from it, and the rest out of Greece; whereas all men know, the citty of Rome had but one Bishop, so that it was sencelesse to say, there were in that Councell 139 Bishops out of the citty of Rome, or not farre from it. And besides, all men see, how silly a thing it was to muster so many names of Bishops, without specifying the places whereof they were Bishops. Fiftly, whereas it is said to haue consisted of 284 Bishops out of the citty of Rome, and places neere to it, and out of Greece, as if it had beene a generall Councell; it is strange that the Histories reporting farre meaner Councels then this is supposed to haue beene, should neuer make any mention of this, nor the occasion of calling it. Sixtly, whereas the supposed Fathers of this Councel, do condemne (though in very sencelesse manner) certaine vnknowne heretickes, it is strange they should make no mention of the Arrians, who were famous, and This Councell was holden after the ending of the Nicene Councel, if we may beleeue the Epilogue befor •… i •… . at that time troubled all the East. Seuenthly, the end why these supposed Fathers met, was ridiculous. For thus it is expressed, i Vt Ecclesiae regia non vatieinentur, sed sit fi •… ma, & claudat ostium propter persecutorem. Or as another Edition hath it: Vt Ecclesia regia non vacilletur, sed sit firma, & claudat ostium propter 〈◊〉 Cap. 1. persecutorem. For why should these good men forbid the kingly Churches to prophecie? or why should they feare the shaking or tottering of them? or shut the doore for feare of the persecutor, after Constantine, was become a Christian, baptized by Syluester, and in requitall of his kindnesse, had giuen him all the Empire of the West? Lastly, whereas the manner of Councels was that the Bishops sate round in a compasse, the Presbyters sate behind them, and the Deacons stood before them: the Conci. Carth. 4. canone 34. Councell of Carthage forbiddeth a Bishop to sit, & suffer a Presbyter to stand: Hieron. Epist. 85. ad Euagrium. & Hierome sheweth, that euen in Rome, the manner was, that Presbyters did sit, and Deacons stand: here it is noted, that none sate but Bishops. These things being obserued touching the credit of this Councel, let vs come to the Decrees of it, by which the Pope would exempt himselfe from all iudgment of men, whatsoeuer villanyes he should chance to commit. Thus then the Decrees of this sacred Synode are passed in fauour of the Pope. First it is decreed, that no Presbyter à die onus Presbyterij (latine fitter for Hog-heards m Cap. 19. then Bishops) shall marry, and that if he do, hee shall loose his honour for 12. yeares. Secondly, it is ordered thus: That if any one shall do against this present hand-writing, hee n Cap. 19. & 20. shall be condemned for euer. For let no man iudge the first See: for neither shall the Iudge be iudged of Augustus, nor of all the Clergy, nor of Kings, nor People. These sencelesse Decrees of a fained & ridiculous Synode, our aduersaries (such is their pouerty in this cause) bring forth, as good authorities for the Pope. But I thinke the reader will not much be moued with them, vnlesse it be to pitty those that liued before vs, who were abused with such fooleries, and shamelesse forgeries: and to giue thankes to God that hath giuen vs meanes to descry the cozening deuices of Satans Agents. Neither doth it any thing assure vs of the truth of this Councel, that Pope Nicholas was cōtent to make vse of it in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor of Constantinople, seeing he citeth also in the same Epistle the Romane Synode vnder Sixtus the third, in the cause of Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem, whereas yet not withstanding Annot. in acta de Synodali accusat. & expurg. Polychronij. Tom. 1. Concil. Binnius saith confidently, that euery learned man wil pronounce the acts of it to be counterfeit, if he attend the names of the Consuls in whose times it is supposed to haue bin holden: the name of him that was accused, and other things described in those supposed & pretended acts.

To these they adde another authority (as it may seeme) of the same stamp, out of the Tomo 1. Conciliorum. Councell of Rome vnder Sixtus the third, which they endeuour to strengthen with certaine sayings out of a booke of one Euodius a Deacon, admitted, and allowed in the fifth Councell vnder Symmachus. The Romane Councell vnder Sixtus was called to examine a very foule fact, wherewith Sixtus was charged, which was the abusing of one Chrysogonet, a professed and consecrated virgin. In this Councell Sixtus presented himselfe, and professed that it was in his power & choice either to submit himselfe to the iudgment of the Councell, or to refuse it; & yet voluntarily referred his cause to be there heard: whence our Auersaries suppose they may inferre that all the world may not iudge the Pope against his will. The Barbarismes, & manifold senceles absurdities that are found in this Councell, may iustly make us suspect it of forgery. But admitting it to haue bin a lawfull Synode, no such thing can be concluded out of it, as our aduersaries dreame of. For it was but a Diocesan Synode, & there was neuer a Bishop in it, besides Sixtus, whom they went about to iudge. And therefore it was not to be maruailed at, if Sixtus said, it was in his power and choice whether hee would be iudged by the Presbyters & Deacons of his owne Church, or not: seeing no Bishop, be he neuer so meane, may be judged by the Clergy of his own Church, but by the Synode of the Bishops of the prouince: and therefore I greatly feare, they wil hardly draw a good argument frō hence, to proue, that the Pope may not at all be iudged. For I think it will not follow: Maximus the exconsul said, it was not lawful for those Lay-men, & inferiour Clergy-men thē assembled, to giue sentence against the B: of Rome; & the B: himselfe protested that he might chuse, whether he would be judged by them or not: therefore the whole Christian world may not judge the Pope. Wherefore let vs come to the sayings of Euodius, & see whether they confirme the Romish conceipt any better. The occasiō of the writing of this booke of Euodius, was this: Synod. Romana 3. sub Symmacho. in 2. Tom. Concil. Symmachus the Bishop of Rome, being charged with certaine grieuous crimes, was to bee judged in a Synode called by Theodoricus the King, not without his own cōsent. To this Councel he was willing to come, and to submit him selfe to the judgement of it; onely hee desired restitution of such things as had beene taken from him, till he were convicted: which he could not obtaine, and yet presented himselfe in the Synode. But such was the fury and violence of his enemies pressing in vpon him, that he was in very great danger of his life; and therefore after the first time, would come no more to the place where the Bishops sate. Whereupon they not knowing what to doe (for it was not fit to judge him being absent, & there was no reason to proceed against him as contumacious in refusing to come vnto them, seeing his refusall seemed to proceed from just feare of danger) vtterly refused & disclaimed the trying of his cause, and the judging of it; moued not a little so to doe, because great multitudes of the people communicated with him, and they had no president of such proceedings against former Bishops. The King somewhat offended herewith, tolde them, that if they did not discusse the cause, they would giue an ill example to all Bishops to liue wickedly, and at their pleasure, in hope of impunity; and yet left the matter wholly to them, who did nothing in it, but onely perswaded to vnity. Heereupon there grew some distraction among the Cleargy and people of Rome, and some thought the Bishops had done ill in leauing the matter vnexamined. Vpon which occasion one Euodius a Deacon, writeth a booke in defence of their proceedings, which they approue in their fifth Synode or meeting, wherein among other things hee hath these wordes: Lex probitatis & mentis est, quae hominem viventem sine lege castigat: propriè moribus impendit qui necessitati non debet disciplinam. Aliorum fortè hominum causas Deus voluit homines terminare, sed sedis istius Praesulis suo sine quaestione reservavit arbitrio. Voluit beati Petri Apostoli successores coelo tantùm debere innocentiam, & sublimissimi discussoris indagini iuviolatam exhibere conscientiam. That is, The Law of vertue and of the minde keepeth them in awe, who liue without any other law. Hee that is not otherwise inforced to liue well, will liue orderly for the loue of order and good life. Haply God would haue the causes of other men ended by men, but the causes of the Bishop of this See he reserued no doubt to his owne judgment: and his pleasure was, that the successours of blessed Peter should be accountable for their good or ill liuing to Heauen only, and present and exhibite their consciences kept inviolable to the examination of the most exquisite examiner. For answer to this allegation wee say, that neither the credite of Euodius is so great, that vpon his bare word wee should bee bound to beleeue him, nor the authoritie of these Fathers such, that whatsoeuer they approue and allow, must bee holden for good. Notwithstanding, admitting these sayings to bee true, their owne Canonists and Diuines in their Glosses, doe limite and restrain them with certaine exceptions. For first they say, the case of heresie must bee excepted, 1 Vide Ockam. dial. l. 6. part. 1. c. 62 there being no question, but that the Pope may bee judged and condemned by men, if he become an hereticke. Secondly, the case of Penitentiall confession, wherein he yeeldeth himself, as in duty bound so to do, to be judged, directed, and commanded for his soules good, by him to whom hee is pleased to reueale the estate of the same. Thirdly, the case of voluntary submission. It is in my power (saith Pope Sixtus) to bee judged or not, but let matters bee examined, and the trueth found out. And in like sort, Symmachus submitted himselfe to bee judged by the Councell of Bishops. Fourthly, the case of incorrigible wickednesse, when the Church is grieuously scandalized by the notorious ill life and wickednesse of the Pope, and hee is found incorrigible in the same. This case the Glosse excepteth, warranted so to doe by the very light of naturall reason, which teacheth vs, that when any member of the Body, after the cutting off whereof the body may liue and continue, infecteth and endangereth the rest, and is incurable, it may, and ought to bee cut off. Now though the Pope should in a sort be acknowledged to haue the proportion of the head in the body of the church, yet is he herein vnlike vnto a natural head, for that the body of the church dieth not when he is taken away from it; & therefore to stop the deadly infectiō of his impiety, and outragious wickednesse from spreading it selfe any further, he may bee cut off. So that this is the onely difference betweene the Pope and other Bishops, that other may be judged, though they be not incorrigible, but he is not to bee iudged of any other, without his owne consent and concurrence, when he may be induced to reforme and correct what is amisse, as being the chiefe of that company that is to judge of ill doers; but if he be incorrigible, hee may be proceeded against, euen against his will, as wee see by the example of Sigebert. Anno. 963. Otho. Frisingens. li. 6. cap. 23. Iohn the twelfth, who being prodigiously wicked, and after many and most earnest admonitions, intreaties and perswasions, of the Emperour and others, refusing any way to reforme himselfe, the Emperour called a Councell, and deposed him, and chose another to succeede him; & that this deposition was lawfull and good, it is euident, in that the succeeding Pope was holden to be a true and lawfull Pope while hee yet liued. But concerning Gregory t Otho Frising. lib. cap. 32. the Pope, Henry the third, did rather perswade him to yeeld, and to relinquish his place, then depose him, because he found him tractable.

Two other authorities our Aduersaries haue yet behind, to proue that the Pope may not be iudged. The first, is out of the Councell of Action. 3. Epi. ad Ma •… . & Valentinianum. Chalcedon, where the Fathers among many other reasons alledged why they condemned Dioscorus, vrge this also as one, that hee was so farre from repenting of his manifold euill doings, that he railed against the Apostolicke See, sought to excommunicate blessed Leo, and persisting in his wickednes, was wilfull against the whole Councell, & refused to answer to such things as hee was charged with. How it will be inferred from hence that the Pope may not be iudged by a generall Councell, I see not. For though it bee true that the inferiours may not iudge the greater and superiour; and that therefore Iohn of Antioch was condemned for iudging Cyril of Alexandria, and Dioscorus for iudging Leo, yet it is no way consequent that either Cyril or Leo, were free from all iudgement, or that they might not be iudged by a generall Councell, whatsoeuer they should doe. The other authority is out of the Romane Councell vnder Adrian the second, whose words recited in the eigth generall Councel are these: We reade that the Romane Bishops haue x Actione 7. iudged the Bishops of all Churches, but that any one hath iudged them, we doe not reade. For the better vnderstanding and clearing whereof, we must obserue, first that the person of the Bishop of Rome alone is not meant, when he is said to haue iudged the Bishops of all Churches; but he must be vnderstood to haue iudged them with his Synode, and the Bishops subiect to him, as Patriarch of the West. For otherwise he might not, nor did not iudge any B. of himselfe alone. 2, That being B. of the first See, he, with his associates, might iudge any other B. or Patriarch, but no particular Patriarch with his Bishops might iudg him & his, because Vide Ockam. Dialog. lib 6. part. 1. cap. 1. there is no particular person, or company of men, greater then he and his, being chiefe Patriarch of the world: but that both hee and his may bee iudged by a generall Councell, it appeareth by the eight generall Councell, wherein the words now vrged, are recited. For that Canone 21. Councell taketh order that all the Patriarches shall bee honoured and respected, and especially the Bishop of Rome, and forbiddeth any man to compose any billes or writings against him, vnder pretence of some crimes, wherewith they will charge him, as Dioscorus did: but that if there bee a generall Councell, and any question bee moued touching the Romane Church, they may in reuerent and due sort determine the same, though they may not proceede contemptuously against the Romane Bishop. And so first, the Councell of Canone 6. Nice gaue lawes, as to the other two Patriarches, so likewise to the Bishoppe of Rome, and included him within his owne bounds and limits. Secondly, the Councell of Actione 16. Chalcedon made the Bishoppe of Constantinople a Patriarch, and the Bishoppe of Romes Peere, notwithstanding the resistance of those that were there present on the behalfe of Leo, then Bishop of Rome, and the other Bishops of the West. And this decree in the end preuailed, so that after much contradiction, and long continued opposition, the Bishops of Rome were forced to yeeld vnto it. Thirdly, Cusan. Concord. cathol. lib. 2. cap. 1 •… . generall Councels reexamined and iudged againe thinges iudged by the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops, as the Councell of Chalcedon reexamined the iudgement of Leo against Dioscorus, and for Theodoret. And the sixth generall Councell, the iudgement of Pope Martine, with his Synodes against Pyrrhus, and Sergius: and the eighth, the judgments of Nicholas and Adrian against Photius. August. Epist. 152. Augustine speaking of the sentence of the 70. Bishoppes against Caecilianus, retracted and reuersed by Melchiades Bishop of Rome and his colleagues (whom vpon the suites of the Donatists, Constantine appointed to heare the matter) sayth, they therefore appealed to the judgements of the Bishops beyond the Seas, that if by any falsehood and slaunders they could preuaile, they might gaine the cause: if not, they might say (as all men that haue ill causes are wont to do) that they met with bad judges. But (sayth hee) let vs grant that those Bishops that judged the matter at Rome, were not good Iudges; yet there remained a generall Councell of the whole Church for them to flye vnto, where the matter might anew haue beene handled with the former Iudges; that their sentences might be reuersed, if they should haue beene conuinced to haue judged ill. Which thing if they did; let them make it appeare vnto vs. Wee proue they did not, because all the world communicated with Caecilianus, and not with Donatus and his adherents. So that either they neuer brought the matter to be scanned in a generall Councell, or else they were therein condemned also. Here wee See hee clearely acknowledgeth the generall Councell to haue power to reexamine and reuerse the judgement of the Bishoppe of Rome and his colleagues. Saint Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 38. Gregory likewise acknowledgeth the vniuersall Church to be greater then hee and his. For, professing to follow the direction of Christ (in the matter betweene him and the Bishop of Constantinople) who willeth vs, if our brother offend against vs, to go and admonish him betweene him and vs; & if then he heare vs not, to take two or three with vs, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses euery word may stand: and if he heare not them, then to tell the Church, he sayth, that he had first sent to the Bishop of Constantinople, and by his messengers admonished him in all gentle and louing sort; and that now he writeth vnto him, omitting nothing that in all humility he ought to doe: but that seeing hee is thus despised, there remaineth nothing, but that he vse the helpe of the Church, for the repressing of the insolencie of this man, soe preiudiciall to the state of the whole Church. Fourthly, generall Councels haue by their decrees ordained many things concerning the See of Rome, either enlarging or limitting the power of it, and the exercise of the same, as it seemed good vnto them: as we see in the Councell of Canone 3. & 17. Sardica. Hosius with the Bishops there assembled, resolued in the honour of the memory of Peter, to make a Decree, that Bishoppes condemned by the Bishoppes of their owne Prouinces, might appeale to the Bishop of Rome: and that it might be lawfull for him vpon such appeale to write to the Bishops of the next Prouince to reexamine the matter againe: And if hee pleased, to send some from himselfe to sit with them in joynt commission. Neither did the Bishoppes of Rome, Vt patet in Concilio Carthag. 6. Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus, vrge the law of Christ, or the right of Saint Peter, to justifie their claime of receiuing appeales out of Africa, but the Decrees of h Actione 16. the Nicene Councell. And this is farther confirmed in that the Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon say, the Fathers gaue the preheminence to the Bishop of Rome in ancient times, because it was the seat of the Empire: and that therefore now, they would giue the like to Constantinople, now become the seat of the Empire, and named new Rome. And as generall Councels gaue preheminences to the Romane Bishops, so also they restrained and limited them in the vse of their jurisdiction, when they saw them to incroch too much: as the Councell of Ca 16. & 17. Sardica tooke order, that they should not meddle with the causes of Presbyters and inferiour Clergy-men vpon any appeale, but leaue them to to their owne Bishops, and the Synodes of the Prouinces, and in the case of Bishops appealing, not to reuerse the acts of the Synode of any prouince without another Synode of the Bishops of the next Prouince. And the Councels of Actione 16. Chalcedon, and Constantinople the Canone 17. eighth decreed, that the Bishop This Councell of Chalcedon speaketh onely of the Patriarche of Constantinople in that restraint, but making him equall with the Bishop of Rome by the same Canon, restraineth the one as much as the other. Rome, and the other Patriarches shall confirme the Metropolitanes subject vnto them, by sending the Pall, or by imposition of handes, but shall not intermeddle in the ordination of Bishoppes. Fifthly, it appeareth that the Romane Bishops; are inferiour to the whole Church. First, in that their Legates Synod. general. 6. actione 1. rise vp when they speake in generall Councels. And secondly, in that in the councell of Act concil. Eph. tom. 4. c. 19. Ephesus, when they with others were sent by the councell to the Emperour, they were willed precisely to follow the directions and instructions giuen them. For that if they did not, all their proceedings should bee voided, and they rejected from the communion of the rest. Sixthly, in that the sixth generall councell particularly giueth lawes to the Church of Rome. For in the thirteenth canon it reprehendeth the Romane Church, because it forbiddeth Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, to liue in matrimoniall society with their wiues, and commaundeth it to leaue them to their owne libertie in this behalfe. And in the 55 canon it reprehendeth the same Romane Church for fasting on Saturdayes in Lent, and forbiddeth the continuing of that obseruation any longer. Seuenthly, the Cusan. conc. cath. l. 2. c. 13 Pope is but a Bishop, as appeareth in that hee is ordained by Bishops, and in that Dionysius acknowledgeth no higher dignity in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, then that of a Bishop. Now all Bishops, as Bishops, are equall. For howsoeuer Metropolitanes in Provinces, and Primates, or Patriarches in their larger circuites, are in all common businesses to be first sought vnto, that actions of that nature may take beginning from them; yet haue they no voyce neither affirmatiue nor negatiue, in determining or concluding things otherwise then as the maior part of those Bishops among which they are in order first, shall sway them; and therefore they haue not a more ample jurisdiction then other Bishops, but in the administration and exercise of the power of jurisdiction common to them and other, they haue the first place, and are in honour before others. Wherefore seeing the Pope hath not any dignity or ordination Ecclesiasticall, greater then that of a Bishop, and all Bishops by Gods Law are equall in the power of jurisdiction, howsoeuer in the execution and exercise thereof, some be before other, there is no question to be made, but that the Pope is subject to some censure and judgment. Eightly, tbe Pope being a Bishop, & the Councels making lawes generally to binde Bishops, it is not to be doubted but that the same Lawes and Canons doe binde him. Now many of those lawes and canons doe depriue them that shall offend against them, ipso facto, and other make them depriueable. Therefore he is subject to censure and judgement. To this our Adversaries answer, Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2, c. 27 That the lawes and canons of generall councels doe not extend to the Pope, but only to such as are subject to them, as inferiour Bishops, and such as are below the condition of Bishops. But this answer is easily refuted, because the Ex diurno libro dist. 16 c. 4 Popes anciently at the time of their admission, did by a solemne profession binde themselues to the obseruation of the Decrees of generall councels, in as precise and strict sort as any other Bishops. The forme of their profession was this: Sancta octo vniversalia Concilia usque ad unum apicem immutilata servare, & pari honore, & veneratione digna habere, & quae praedicaverunt & statuerunt, modis omnibus sequi & praedicare, quaeque condemnaverunt, ore & corde condemnare profiteor; that is, I professe to keepe inviolable the sacred eight general Councels, euen to the vttermost title and iota, and to esteeme them worthy of equall honour and reuerence, and by all meanes to follow and publish those things which they published and decreed, and to condemne with mouth and heart whatsoeuer things they condemned. But Bell. ubi suprá. Quoad directionem, non quoad coactionem. they will say perhappes, the Pope is in such sort bound to keepe the lawes of the church, and the canons of generall councels, that hee offendeth God, and shall bee punished by him if hee keepe them not. But that no man hath power to punish him for the not keeping of them, or to force him to keepe them. And that therefore though he neglect his owne saluation, s Dictum Bonifacii dist. 4. Si Papa. and the saluation of his brethren, yea, though hee draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell, there to perish euerlastingly with the diuell and his angels, yet no councel, nor company of mortall men vpon earth may presume to censure him, vnlesse he erre from the faith, because hee being to judge all, must bee judged of none. This answer wil be found very insufficient and weake; for seeing (as it is before proued) all Bishops are equall in the power of jurisdiction, one hath no more power to make lawes then another, neither can any one actiuely bind other to the observation of any thing more then any other may binde him. And therefore if other Bishops cannot bind the Pope by their lawes, he cannot bind them by his, and so by this meanes all shall be left free to doe what they will. For it is true of all Bishops that Cyp. in Conc. Cartha: & lib. 2. ep. 1. Cyprian speaketh of himselfe, and the Romane Bishop, that none of them seuerally hath power to iudge other, but they are accountant onely to God; yet is euery Bishoppe subject to the cōpanies of Bishops, whereof he is but a part; & if any one hauing none other dignity or ordination but that of a Bishop, may exempt himself from being subject to the Synodes of Bishops, euery one may, and so all shall be set loose and at liberty to doe what they list. But here perhaps some man will say, the Metropolitanes cannot bee judged by the Bishoppes of the prouinces, as being in a sort heads of those companies of Bishops, but by greater Synodes: therefore the Romane Bishop, being Primate of the chiefe part of the Christian world, as Patriarch of the West; and president of a generall Councell, as being the first among the Patriarches, is not to be iudged at all, there being no greater company of Bishoppes to judge him, then those of which hee is in a sort head and president. For answere whereunto, first wee say, that the Bishoppes of the Prouinces may judge the Metropolitanes in all those cases, wherein their places are made voide, and they put from all Ecclesiasticall honour, ipso facto, by force of the canon it selfe, that is, they may declare, that they are by the sentence of them that made the canon voided out of their places, and consequently, the Bishops of the West subiect to the Pope, as their Primate or Patriarch may iudge him, that is, declare and pronounce, that hee is deposed by the sentence of the canon, in all such cases, wherein Bishops are deposed, ipso facto. Secondly, wee say, that though ordinarie Bishops may not be deposed without consulting the Metropolitane, nor the Metropolitane without consulting the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch of a meaner See, without consulting them of greater and superiour Sees, because still there is an higher to whom to goe: yet hee that is the first and in order before all other, if by no other meanes he may bee induced to reforme himselfe, or voluntarily to relinquish his place (if his offence so require) may, in case of grieuous and scandalous wickednesse, wherein hee is found incorrigible, be deposed by them that are in a sort inferiour to him. Neither neede this to seeme strange in the deposition of Bishops, seeing the same falleth out in their ordinations. For ordinary Bishops may not be ordained without the Metropolitanes, who are in order and honour greater then they, nor Metropolitanes without the Patriarches, from whom they are to receiue imposition of hands, or confirmation by a Pall sent vnto them. But the Patriarches are ordained by their owne Bishops, and haue no imposition of hands of any that are greater then themselues, nor other confirmation then that which the meanest is to giue to the greatest, as well as the greatest to the meanest. But some man will say, is there then no difference betweene him that is the first among Bishops, and them that are of an inferiour condition? Is he no more exempted from judgement then they? surely no: yet, as some thinke, there is some difference between him and them, because they may be judged, though not incorrigible; but he as being in order and honour the first, is not to be iudged, if by any other meanes he may be induced to reforme himselfe, or voluntarily to relinquish his place, if his fault so require. And that in this case, as well as for heresie, the Pope may be deposed, we haue many of the best learned Papists consenting with vs: as Ockam. Dial. l: 6. part. 1. c. 62. Ockam, Cusan. concord. Cathol. l. 2. cap. 17. Cusanus, Cameracensis, Gers. de auferibilitate Papae, consid. 16. Gerson, Almain. Almaine, the Bishops and Diuines in the Councells of Constance and Basill, Dried. de dog. matib. extra can. script. sac. constit, l. 4. c. 4. Driedo; and in a word, all those that thinke the Councell to be of greater authority then the Pope.

CHAP. 41.

Of the titles giuen to the Pope, and the insufficiencie of the proofes of his illimited power and Iurisdiction taken from them.

SEEING the vniuersality of the Popes power and jurisdiction cannot be proued from any exemption hee hath from being judged; let vs proceede to consider the next proofe taken from the names & titles giuen to him, which is more weake then any other. For we shall finde that other Bishops in auncient times, writing to the Romane Bishop, sometimes call him brother, sometimes fellow-bishop and colleague, sometimes Bishop, sometimes Arch-bishop, sometimes Patriarch; but that they neuer gaue him any title whence he may bee proued to haue an vniuersality of illimited iurisdiction ouer all.

The first title that our Adversaries Bell. de Rom. Pont. li. 2. c. 3 •… . vrge is that of Pope, which (as I thinke) will hardly proue the Romane Bishop to haue power ouer all. For whereas Papa or Papas, among the Greekes signifieth a father, and is the appellation that little children beginning to speake are wont to giue to their parents; and in like sort among the Latines noteth a father or grandfather; hence the Christians in auncient times, did vse to call their spirituall Fathers and Bishops Papes or Popes. So that the name of Pape or Pope was a common name to all Bishoppes. Wherevpon Hier. in omnib Epist. ad Augustinum. Hierome writing to Augustine, calleth him Pope, and writeth, To the most honourable Pope; whereas yet hee was not vniuersall Bishoppe, but Bishop of little Hippo onely: and therefore the name of Pope doth no way proue every one that is so called, to be vniuersall Bishop. But they say, the Bishop of Rome is named absolutely Pope, and none other Bishop, & that whensoeuer the name of Pope was vsed absolutely without addition, all men vnderstood thereby the Romane Bishop to bee meant. Whence it may bee inferred, that hee was greater then all the rest, as being esteemed a common father of all. But for answere hereunto we say, that the Romane Bishoppe was neuer in auncient times named absolutely the Pape or Pope, without specification of his name, or the place whereof hee was Pope, but when by some other circumstance it might be knowne, what Pape or Pope it was men speake of, accordingly as men are wont to say no more, but, the Bishop did this or that, when by things going before, it may be knowne what Bishop they meane; and so the Vicars of Leo in the Councell of Actione 16. Chalcedon said: The most blessed and Apostolique man the Pope gaue them such directions, as they there specify, without adding of Rome, or the name of Leo, because all men knew, from what Pope they came, and whose Vicegerents they were in that Councell. For otherwise without some circumstances specifying the party, men would neuer haue vnderstood whom they had meant, if they had only named the Pope indefinitely. But the same vicars of Leo, in the Councell of Chalcedon, call him Pope of the vniuersall Church; Therefore, Vbi supr •… . saith Bellarmine, we may conclude him to be supreme and absolute commaunder ouer all, out of the titles given vnto him. If the Cardinall would but remember that euery Bishoppe is interessed in the care and gouernment of the whole Church (as I haue elsewhere shewed out of Cypr. lib 3. epist. 13. Cyprian) he would easily find the weakenesse of this consequence.

Wherefore let vs passe from the title of Pope to the next, which is Pater Patrum, that is, Father of Fathers, which Bellarmine saith is giuen to the Romane Bishoppe, and to none else; whereas yet hee knoweth the contrary to bee most true. For the relation made to Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the whole Synode assembled, beginneth in this sort: Relat. Concil. sub Menna. act. 5. Domino nostro sanctissimo, & beatissimo Patri Patrum, & Oecumenico Patriarchae, Synodus, &c. Where wee see that the Patriarch of Constantinople is called by a whole Synode, most holy Lord, most blessed Father of Fathers, & Oecumenicall Patriarch. And the Ibidem. Idem habetur in supplicat. Cleric. & Monachor. Antioch. ad Ioan. Patriarch. & Synod. Congregatam. Ibid. Epistle of the Bishoppes of the second Syria, to the same Iohn the Patriarch, beginneth thus: To our most holy Lord, and to the most blessed Father of Fathers, Oecumenicall Arch-bishop and Patriarch. So that the Title of Father of Father's is not proper to the Romane Bishop, as Bellarmine vntruly affirmeth. The title of summus Sacerdos, or high Priest, giuen to him by Saint Hierome, is common to all Bishops, in respect of Presbyters, and all Metropolitanes, in respect of Bishops, (although the third Councell of Canone •… 6. Carthage, to shew that Metropolitanes h Hier. in praef. Evang. ad Damas •… m. haue not an absolute command, will not haue them called high Priests, or chiefe priests, but onely Bishops of the first See) and therefore though the Pope should bee named, most holy Father, chiefest Pope, chiefe of Priests, or high Priest, yet nothing could be concluded from hence, that either we deny, or they affirme.

The title of Vicar of Christ is new, and not found in all Antiquity, the first in whom wee reade it being Bern. lib. 2. de Consid. Bernard; and therefore not much to bee stood on seeing the Auncient make all Bishops the Vicars of Christ, and doe neuer appropriate it vnto the Bishop of Rome. Yet will not Bernards appropriating of it proue the thing in question, seeing hee may bee thought to haue had an eye in so doing, to the chiefty of order and honour, (in respect whereof, he is in more speciall sort a Vicar of Christ, then some other) rather then to any vniversality of commission and authority. Head of the Church the Pope is neuer called among the Ancient, though the Cardinall be pleased vntruely so to report. But the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Actione 1. Chalcedon writing to Leo, who by Vicars was President of that assembly, say, he was ouer them, as the head ouer the members, not in respect of absolute commaunding authority, but of honourable presidencie onely, as it appeareth in that (notwithstanding the resistance of his Vicegerents) they passed a decree for the advancement of the Bishop of Constantinople. For otherwise Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome alloweth no man to be called Head of the Church. Greg. l. 4. ep. 38. Petrus (saith he) primum membrum sanctae & vniversalis Ecclesiae est: Paulus, Andreas, Iacobus, quid aliud quàm singularum plebium sunt capita? omnes tamen sub uno capite membra Ecclesiae sunt: that is, Peter is the first, and in honour the chiefest member of the holy and vniversall Church; Paul, Andrew, Iames, what other thing are they then heads of seuerall parts of Gods people? Yet so, that all notwithstanding are members of the Church vnder one Head. So that a Head of the Church, besides Christ, must not be acknowledged, because no one hath an vniversall commaunding power ouer all, but hee onely: Yet in a certaine sense the Romane Church is named the Head of all Churches; that is, the first and chiefest of all Churches, as the city of London may bee named the Head of all cities in this state & kingdome, though it hath not a commaunding authority ouer them, neither is the chiefe Magistrate thereof head ouer all other Magistrates in the kingdome. The authority of the Conc. Flor. Sess. ult. Florentine Councell, naming the Bishop of Rome, Father and teacher of all Christians, and the Councell of Conc, Lugd. cap. Vbi periculum de electione in 6. Lyons naming him the bridegroome of the Church, is not so great, that wee should neede much to insist vpon any thing that is alleadged out of them. And touching the latter title, wee know Ep. 237 Saint Bernard in his Epistles, wisheth the Pope not to take it on him, as being proper to Christ, but to thinke it honour enough to be a friend of the bridegroome. And yet if we should yeelde it vnto him, wee know what Gerson de auferibilitate Papae. Gerson hath written, to shew how this bridegroome may bee taken away from the Church the spouse of Christ, and yet the Church remaine entire and perfect.

The next glorious title of the Romane Bishop, is Bishop of an Apostolique See. But this is common to him with many others, as some of the rest also are: For, as not only the Romane Church, but the Churches of Ephesus, Antioch, Hierusalem, and Alexandria, which the Apostles founded, and in which they sate as Bishops, are named Apostolicall Churches, so the Bishoppes of all these are named Bishops of Apostolique Sees. Neither doe men know which of the Apostolicke Churches is expressed by the name of the Apostolique See, or which of the Bishops by the name of the Bishop of the Apostolique See, vnlesse by some circumstance the same be specified. As when Augustine said, Aug. ep. 106 there were relations made from the Councell of Carthage and Mileuis to the Apostolique See: all men vnderstood what Apostolique See he meant, because it was knowne to what Apostolique Church they vsed to make such relations. Neither doth the principalitie of the Apostolique chaire, which Augustine Ep. 162 affirmeth to haue euer flourished in Rome, argue the supremacie of the Pope, seeing the principality or chieftie of the Apostolique chaire, mentioned by Saint Augustine, may seeme to import the chieftie that the Apostolike chaire hath aboue those that are not Apostolique, or in which blessed Peter the chiefe of the Apostles did not sit. For though the chaires of the Apostles were in diverse places, yet Peters chaire was esteemed the principall of all the rest, which being the See and chaire of one, yet was in three places, and three Bishops did sit in it: Namely the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioche, as I haue shewed Chap. 3 •… before out of Gregory; yet was the principalitie, or chieftie of this chaire of Peter more specially in Rome then in the other places, and the Bishop of Rome in order and honour the first and greatest of the three.

The last title brought to proue the supremacie of the Pope, is that of Vniuersall Bisho •… , which though it be not giuen to Leo Bishop of Rome, by the whole Councell of C •… alcedon: yet is it giuen to him in the Concil. Cha. 〈◊〉 actione 3. Epistles of three seuerall Grecians, writing to h •… , as wee may read in the third action of that Councell: and Saint Greg lib 4. ep. 32. Gregory saith, it •… s offered to his predecessours in that Councell, and that they refused it. This title •… ill proue the supremacy of the Pope no better then the rest, being common vnto o •… er with him, and therefore no way arguing any thing peculiarly found in him alone. •… or wee shall finde that the Adrian. ad Tarasium, 7. Syn. actione 2. epist. Prae •… ul. Orient. ad eundem, actio. 3. Bishops of Constantinople are named vniuersall Bishops, •… nd Oecumenicall Patriarches, as well as the Bishoppe of Rome, and that not by one or two particular men, but by whole Councels, by Emperours, and Popes: and though Saint Gregorie justly disliked this name or title, as profane and prejudiciall to the dignitie of all other Bishoppes and Patriarches, when it importeth an vniuersalitie of jurisdiction, and generall commanding authoritie ouer all, yet might any one of the Patriarches be named an vniversall Bishoppe, as being one of those fiue principall Bishoppes, to whom all the Bishops and Metropolitanes in the world were subject.

CHAP. 42.

Of the second supposed priuiledge of the Romane Bishops, which is infallibilitie of judgment.

SEEING our Aduersaries cannot proue the vniversall and illimitted power and jurisdiction of their Popes, but the contrary is most clearely deposed by those witnesses which they produce to speake for them, affirmed by those Diuines, whom they cannot but acknowledge to be Catholique, and inferred out of their owne principles; let vs proceed to see whether they haue any better proofes of the infallibility of their judgment, which is the next supposed priuiledge of the Romane Bishops. Touching this point I finde foure opinions in the Church of Rome. The first is: that the Pope is so led into all truth, that hee cannot erre in such sort as to become an hereticke. And of this opinion was Hierarch. Eccles. l •… . 〈◊〉 . c. 8. Albertus Pighius. The second leaueth it doubtfull, whether he may be an hereticke or not, but pronounceth confidently that whether hee may or not, yet hee cannot define and decree any thing that is hereticall. And this is the opinion of almost all Bellar. l. 4. de pont. cap. 2. Caietan in opusc. de potest. Papae & Conc. Papists at this day. The third, that the Pope not onely as a particular Doctour, but euen as Pope, may bee an heretique, and teach heresie, if he define without a generall Councell. This was the opinion of Citat. à Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. & à Stapletono. cont •… . 3. qu. 4. Gerson, Almayne, and other Parisians; of Alfonsus à Castro, Pope Adrian the sixth, Cardinall Cameracensis, Cusanus; Occam, Durandus, the Fathers of the Councels of Constance and Basill, and many moe. The fourth that hee may erre and define for heresie, though he be assisted with a generall Councell. Of this opinion was Doctrinal. fidei. l. 2. art. 2. cap. 19. Waldensis, and sundry other, as appeareth by Theorem. 4. Picus Mirandula in his Theorems. So that it is not true, that vbi supr •… . Bellarmine saith, that all Catholiques consent, that the Pope with a generall Councell cannot erre. For these teach that onely the resolutions of the vniuersall Church (which is the multitude of beleeuers that are and haue beene) are to be receiued without any farther question or examination, as vndoubtedly true. These are the differences of opinions found among them that brag so much of vnity and make the ground thereof to be the submitting of their iudgments to the Pope. But because in so great vncertainty and contrariety of judgments, almost all Papists at this day endine to that opinion, that the Pope, whether he may erre personally or not, yet cannot define for falshood and erre; let vs first see, how they indeauour to confirme the same: and secondly how they can cleare those Popes from heresie, and decreeing for heresie, that are charged therewith.

To proue that the Pope cannot decree for heresie, Bellarm. de Pontif. l. 2. c. 3. they alleage in the first place the saying of Christ, who professeth that he Luke 2 •… . prayed for Peter, that his faith should not •… ile; and least we should mis-understand the words of Christ, they bring, vs the interpretations of Augustine, Chrysostome, and Theophylact: whereof the first saith, August. lib. de 〈◊〉 & gratia cap. 8. 〈◊〉 when Christ prayed, that Peters faith might not faile, he prayed that he might haue 〈◊〉 free, couragious, inuincible and resolute will, to continue in the true faith. The seco •… , Chrysost. homil 83. in Matthaeum. that Christ did not say to Peter, Thou shalt not deny mee; but I haue prayed, that 〈◊〉 faith shall not faile. For by his care and fauour it was brought to passe, that Peters fai •… should not faile, though for feare he denied his master. The third bringeth in Chri •… speaking to Peter in this sort: The •… phyl. in cap. 22. Lucae. Although for a little time thou shalt be shaken, thou ha •… notwithstanding the seedes of faith hid in thee; although the winde and violent blast of hi •… that setteth on thee, shall shake off the leaues, yet the roote shall liue, and thy faith shall not faile. So that all these so vnderstand the prayer of Christ for Peter, as that he should not onely rise againe after his fall, and be found faithfull in the end, but that he should neuer fall in respect of the perswasion of faith that was to rest immoueably in him, even in that most dangerous time of the temptation and triall of the Apostles, when Christ was deliuered into the hands of wicked men to bee crucified. For howsoeuer he denied Christ with bitter imprecations, yet hee did it out of feare, and not out of infidelity, the perswasion of his heart remaining the same that it was before. Wherefore hauing the words of Christ, and the meaning of them, let vs see whether the opinion which our aduersaries haue of the Pope his infallible discerning and constant defending of the trueth, may bee confirmed out of them. If they could proue the contrary to that which was found in Peter to bee found in the Pope by vertue of Christs prayer for Peter, they might easily make good their opinion. But otherwise neuer out of these words. For thus they must reason, if they will confirme the conceit they haue of the infallibility of the Popes iudgment, by Christs prayer for Pete •… Peters faith by vertue of Christs prayer for him, remained firme, immoueable, and most constantly setled in inward perswasion and affection, though it failed for a little time in outward profession: Therefore howsoeuer the faith of the Pope may faile in respect of the perswasion of his heart, yet it shall neuer faile in respect of outward profession. For though he become an heretique in heart, yet hee shall euer professe rightly concerning Christ, to all men that shall come vnto him, to enquire of him, & to bee resolued by him. This kinde of reasoning, I thinke, is not very forcible, and therefore it is much to be doubted, that the Romanists will neuer be able to perswade men that the Pope cannot erre, by vertue of Christs prayer for Peter: Nay that no such thing can be proued out of Christs words vnto Peter, it is most plaine and euident, because the words that Christ spake vnto Peter, when hee said vnto him, Luk. 22. 32. I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not, and when thou art conuerted, confirme thy brethren, are no way appliable to Peters successours. For that if they were, first they must euer bee right beleeuers in heart, notwithstanding whatsoeuer failings in outward confession. Secondly, they must deny Christ as he did, and afterwards repent of such deniall; and conuert and turne vnto God, that so they may confirme their brethren. For so it was in Peter. And. In bunc locum. Theophylact doth not attribute the confirmation of the brethren by Peter, which he is commaunded to performe, to his constancy in the true faith, and in the profession of it; but to the experience that hee had of the tender mercy and goodnesse of God towards him. Out of which hee was able t •… strengthen them that were weake, to comfort them that were sorrowfull, to put then in assured hope of finding mercie, that otherwise might despaire, and to confirm •… them that were doubtfull. For who will not (as the same Theophylact fitly obserueth be confirmed by Peter in the right perswasion of the mercies and goodnesse of Go •… towards repentant sinners, when he seeth him whom Christ had so much honoure •… , after so shamefull a fault, and so execrable a fact of the abnegation of his Lord and Master, the Lord of life, not onely receiued to mercy, but restored to the dignity of the prime and chiefe Apostle? To this obiection (as wee thinke) vnanswerable, De Pontif. l •… b. 4. cap. 3. B •… llarmine answereth, first, that it is not absurd, to referre the conuersion of Peter me •… tioned by Christ, after which he is to confirme his brethren, not to his turning fro •… sinne, but to his brethren, to aduise, admonish, and direct them; not making the sence to bee, thou being turned from sinne by repentance, confirme thy brethren, b •… thou whose faith shall neuer faile, when thou seest any of thy brethren wauering, turne thy selfe vnto them, and confirme them. Secondly, that it followeth not, that the successours of Peter must first fall, and after repent of their fall, if the wordes of Christ bee applyed vnto them, of confirming the brethren; seeing Peters fall was personall, but his confirming of his brethren is of office, wherein they are to succeede him, and not in the things that are personall. This answer of the Cardinall is insufficient. First, because the current of almost all Interpreters vnderstandeth the conversion of Peter mentioned by our Sauiour, of his turning from sinne, and not of his turning of himselfe to them, whom he was to advise, comfort, and confirme. And secondly, because in this his answer he contrarieth himselfe. For Eodem cap. elsewhere (which it seemeth in making this answer he had forgotten) he denieth that the words of Christ directed to Peter, of confirming his brethren, may be vnderstood of the vniversall Church, or the Bishops of it, and faith; Hoc certè non potest Ecclesiae toti convenire, nisi dicamus totam Ecclesiam aliquando esse pervertendam, ut posteà iterum convertatur: that is, This saying of Christ cannot agree to the whole Church, vnlesse we say, the whole Church shall at sometime be perverted, that afterwards it may be converted. Whereby it is cleare hee thinketh, that the latter part of Christs speech, of confirming the brethren, can agree to none, to whom the former doth not. So that we see, the wordes of Christ spoken to Peter, are no sufficient warrant vnto vs that the Pope cannot erre, and therefore the better to perswade vs of the same, our Adversaries bring the sayings of some great Divines, who conceiued that some such thing may be inferred out of the wordes as they dreame of; as Lucius r. in ep. ad Epis •… . Hisp. & Galliae. Lucius, Felix 1. ep. ad Benign. Felix, and Marc. ep. ad Athanas. de missione can. Niceni conc. Marke, ancient Bishops of Rome, and great Lights of the world in their times. If they could indeede bring vs the judgement and resolution of these ancient Bishops, they would doubtlesse greatly prevaile with vs. But seeing vnder these names they bring forth vnto vs the Authours of shamelesse forgeries, wee are thereby induced more to dislike their conceits then before. Now that they (who masked vnder the names and titles of ancient Romane Bishops, magnifie the greatnesse of the Romane Church, and pleade for the not erring of the Bishoppes thereof) are nothing else but ignorant authors of absurd and shamelesse forgeries, it will easily appeare out of that which I haue Chap. 3 4. elsewhere largely discoursed, to shew that the Epistles attributed to the ancient Popes, are forged and counterfeit; not onely by the judgements and opinions of the best learned on both sides, so censuring them, but by many reasons inducing vs so to thinke: among which one is, the likenesse of the stile found in these Epistles, arguing that they came all out of the same mint, and were not written by those different Popes, liuing at diuerse times, to whom they are attributed. Which similitude of stile will bee found in these Epistles that our Adversaries alleadge to proue, that the Pope cannot erre, as much or more then in any other. For in these wee shall finde the very same words. The agreeing of witnesses in the same substance of matter with some difference of wordes, argueth, that they speake truely; but their precise agreement in words and formes of speaking, argueth rather a compact and agreement to speake the same things, then a desire to vtter the trueth. So here, the precise vsing of the very same words by all these Popes liuing at diuers times, argueth that it was one man that taught them all to speake. But they will say, Pope Leo in his third Sermon of his Assumption to the Popedome, saith as much as they doe: and that therefore wee may not discredite their testimony. Surely if they can proue that Leo saith any such thing as the former Popes are taught to say, wee will most willingly listen vnto them. For wee acknowledge Leo to haue beene a most worthy Bishop, and the things that goe vnder his name, to bee his indubitate workes. Let vs heare therefore what he saith. His wordes in the place cited by the Cardinall are these: Christ tooke speciall care of Peter, and prayed specially for him, because the state of the rest is more secure, when the minde of him that is chiefe is not ouercome. In Peter therefore the strength of all is surely established, and God doth so dispence the helpe of his diuine grace, that the same firmenesse that he giueth to Peter, is by Peter conferred and bestowed on all. Here is nothing to proue that the pope cannot erre, which is that our Adversaries vndertake to demonstrate, nor that the Romane church cannot erre, which is that the former Popes affirme in their coūterfeit Epistles: but that the state of the rest is more secure, when he that is chiefe is not ouercome, which no man euer doubted of: and that Christ gaue, or at least promised to giue that assistance of his grace to Peter, which he meant to the rest, and to passe it by him vnto them, so as they should receiue it after him, but not from him. For thus the words of Leo must be vnderstood, seeing it is most certaine (which thing also Li. 1. de Pont. cap. 11. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth) that the Apostles receiued their infallibility of judgment, and their commission or authority immediately from Christ, and not from Peter. From Leo they passe to Agatho, who in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour, read and approued in the sixth generall Actione 4. Councell, sayth, that by the grace of God such hath beene the felicity and happinesse of the Romane, Church, that it can neuer be proued to haue erred from the path of the Apostolicall tradition, nor to haue fallen being depraued with hereticall nouelties, but the same faith it receiued at first, it holdeth still, according to Christs promise which he made to Peter, willing him to confirme his brethren. Which thing (saith Agatho) my predecessors haue euer done as is well knowne to all. These words of Agatho are not so farre to be vrged, as if simply neuer any of his predecessors had failed to defend the truth, and confirme his brethren, but that the Romane Church was euer so preserued from heresie, that howsoeuer some fewe in it for a time might neglect to do their duty, yet neither soe long, nor in such sort, but that that Church and the Bishops of it, were alwaies a stay to the rest in all the dangerous tryals that fell out in ancient times, euen as in the question concerning the two wils of Christ, about which the Councell was called, it was; wherein though Honorius failed, yet the rest that gouerned the Apostolicall throne with him, did not; and Agatho, who soone after succeded, shewed himselfe an orthodoxe and right beleeuer. For, that all the predecessors of Agatho did not alwaies confirme their brethren in the true faith of Christ, it is most euident, in that Marcellinus sacrificed vnto Idols (if we may beleeue the Platina in Marcellino. & acta Concil. Sinuessani. Romish stories) and was forced being conuicted thereof to professe himselfe vnworthy of the Papall office and dignity, in a Synod of Bishops; in that Athanas. ep. ad Solit. vitam agentes. Hier. in Chronico. & in Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. in Fortunatiano & Acacio. Da masus in vita Liberij. Liberius and Felix communicated with heretiques, and subscribed to the vnjust condemnation of worthy Athanasius; which was not to confirme the brethren, but to discourage, disharten and weaken them: and in that Epist. Agathonis ad Constantinum quae habetur Synod. 6. actio. 4. Agatho himselfe doth anathematize his predecessor Honorius as a Monothelite, with whom Leo the second concurreth in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour: who anathematizing Theodorus, Syrus, Sergius Pyrrhus, Paulus, and other Monothelites, addeth to them Honorius Bishop of Rome his predecessor; saying we accurse also Honorius, who did not lighten this Apostolicall Church with the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles, but sought to subuert the vndefiled faith by prophane perfidiousnesse. With whom also Pope Adrian agreeth, who in the Synode of Rome, called about the businesse of Photius of Constantinople, saith, that Habentur haec verba in Syno. 8. actione 7. the Romane Bishop hath judged of the Bishops of all Churches, but that wee reade not of any one that hath iudged him. For though Honorius were accursed after his death by those of the East, yet it was because he was accused of heresie, in which only case the lesser may iudge the greater; yet euen there it had not beene lawfull for any of them to giue sentence against him, had not the consent of the first See b In fine ejusd. Con •… ilij. gone before. So that wee see the Epistle of Agatho doth not sufficiently proue that the Popes cannot erre. Let vs therefore consider whether they haue any better proofes. Nicholas the first (saith Bellarmine) in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour pronounceth, that the priuiledges of the See of Rome are perpetuall, rooted and planted by Almighty God, in such sort, that men may stumble at them, but cannot remoue them; may pull at them, but cannot pull them vp; therefore he thinketh the Pope cannot erre, which is a very bad consequence. For the infallibility of iudgment in the Pope, is not mentioned among the inuiolable priuiledges of the Church of Rome, and therefore the priuiledges of that Church may be inuiolable, and yet the Pope subiect to errour: e Epist. ad Epis. Arelat. & habetur cap. maiores extra. de Baptis mo & eius effectu. neither hath Nicolas one word of the Popes not erring. The testimonies of Epist. ad Petrum Antioch. Leo the ninth, and Innocentius the third, as being late and partiall in their own cause, may iustly be excepted against, yet do they not proue the thing in question. For they speake of the See and throne of Peter, in which the faith may continue without failing (though the Popes erre and seeke to subuert the same) so long as any other, that are to gouerne the throne with them, perseuere in the true faith.

Wherefore from the prayer of Christ made for Peter, that his faith should not faile, they descend to other proofes taken from the promise made to Peter by Christ, Matth. 16. 18. that vpon him he would build his Church; and his mandate requiring him to Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. 17. feede his sheepe, and to feede his Lambes: which are too weake to perswade vs that the Pope cannot erre, or is more priuiledged then other Bishops in this respect. First, because it is most cleare and euident, and confessed by our aduersaries themselues, that the Church was builded vpon all the Apostles, as well as vpon Peter, and there is no kind of feeding of Christs sheepe and flocke that commeth not within the compasse of that office and commission, which the other Apostles had in common with him: as I haue Chap. 22. elsewhere shewed at large. Secondly, because Peter and his colleagues were foundation stones vppon which the Church was builded, in that their doctrine was receiued by immediate and vndoubted reuelation, without mixture of errour, vpon which the faith of all after-commers was to stay it selfe: none of which things agree to the Romane Bishop. So that it is no way necessary, that there should be the same infallibility of judgment in him that was in Peter, and in his colleagues. Thirdly, because we know, and all that are in their right wits do acknowledge, that a man may be a Pastor in the Church of God, and yet subject to errour: and that therefore Christs requiring Peter to do the duty of a Pastor, will not proue that the Pope cannot erre.

Wherefore from the Scriptures they passe to the Fathers: and among them first they produce Theodoret, who in his Epistle to Renatus a Presbyter, saith, that among other things, the reason why the Romane Church hath a kind of chiefety among other Churches, is because it hath euer remained free from heresie. From whence I thinke hardly any good proofe can be drawne, of the Popes not erring. For how will this consequence euer be made good? There are many things that make the See of Rome great, as the greatnesse of the city, the Empire, the sepulchers of those common Fathers and Doctors of truth, Peter and Paule, those two great lights, that rose in the East, & cast forth their beames into all parts of the world, but set in the West; and sundry other things, and among them the felicity and happinesse of it, that till the time of Theodoret no heresie euer preuailed in it: therefore the Bishop of Rome can neuer erre: Seeing Theodoret doth not dispute what may be, but sheweth only, what by the happy prouidence of God had beene: and besides speaketh not precisely of the Bishop of Rome, but of the Romane See, Cusan. de concord. cathol. l. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 1. cap. 14. including the whole company of the Bishops of the West adhering to him: which was a great part of the whole Christian Church, and more glorious then the rest, for that it was more free from hereticall novelties in those times then they. To Theodoret they adde Saint August. in Psal. contra. partem Donati. Augustine, who saith, the succession of Bishops from Peters chaire, to his time, is that rocke against the which the proud gates of hell cannot preuaile. His meaning is, that what all those Bishops haue constantly and successiuely taught as true, must needes be true: and what they haue impugned as false, must needes be false: seeing it is impossible that any errour, or the impugning of any trueth, should haue bin found successiuely in all the Bishops of that, or any other Apostolicall Church whatsoeuer. But what is this to the Popes not erring? Surely as litle as that of Gelasius in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour, that the glorious confession of the Apostle Peter, thou art the l Inter Epistol. Gelasij. Christ, the Son of the liuing God, is the roote of all the faith and piety of the whole world. & that therefore the Apostolique See carefully looketh vnto it, that no chinke be made in it, & that it be not spotted with any contagion; for that if it should, there were no meanes of resisting any errour. But because this maketh not for them, the Cardinall helpeth the matter with an vntruth, saying: that Gelasius proueth that the See of Rome cannot erre, because the confession of it is the roote of al the faith & piety that is in the world: whereas he neither goeth about to proue the one nor speaketh any word of the other: but of the excellencie of the confession that Peter made, the necessity of preseruing it inuiolable, and the care of the See of Rome, in and before his time, for the safe keeping of the same. Wherefore let vs come to the places that are cited to this purpose out of Gregories Epistles, which shew plainly, they are past shame that manage the Popes affaires, & defend his cause. For whereas Greg. lib. 4. ep. 32. Gregory saith, that if he that claimeth to be vniuersal B: doe fall, all the whole Church is ouerthrowne, and that therefore there must bee no such vniversall Bishop; and particularly sheweth by the grieuous heresies that prevailed in the Church of Constantinople, how ill it would haue beene for the Churches of God, if the Bishops thereof had beene vniversall Bishops, as they sought to be: they bring this place to proue, that the Pope cannot erre: whereas they should haue brought it to shew, how dangerous it is, that there should bee any one vniversall Bishop, such as their Pope desireth to be; and that therefore (as Epist. 67. Cyprian obserueth) Almighty God wisely foreseeing what euils might follow such vniversality of power and jurisdiction in one man, ordained that there should bee a great number of Bishops joyned in equall commission, that so if some fell, the rest might stand and keepe the people from a generall downefall. The next allegation is out of the Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, whereby the Reader may see with what conscience these Iesuited Papists doe cite the writings of the Fathers. The wordes of Gregory are these. Greg. l. 6. cp. 37. Your most sweete Holinesse hath vttered many things in your leters concerning Peters chaire, saying, that he yet sitteth in it in his successours: I truely doe acknowledge my selfe to be vnworthy, not onely to be in the number of those that sit as rulers, but of them that stand to bee ruled. But I therefore willingly accept whatsoeuer you say, because he hath spoken to me of Peters chaire, that sitteth in Peters chaire; and although it no way pleaseth or delighteth me to be specially honoured, yet I greatly reioyced, because what you attributed to me, you gaue to your selues. For who knoweth not, that the holy Church is firmely established in the soundnesse of the Prince of the Apostles? whose firmenesse his name doth shew: for he is named Peter of Petra a Rocke, to whom the voyce of Verity saith, I will giue to thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and thou being converted, confirme thy brethren: and againe, Simon Ioanna, Louest thou mee? feede my sheepe. Wherefore though there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the chiefty he had, the chaire of Peter chiefe of the Apostles grew to be in greater authority then the rest, which is the chaire of one Apostle in three places. For he exalted the See, in which he was pleased to rest, and to end this present life; he beautified that See, wherein he left the Evangelist his Disciple: and he firmely established that See, in which he sate seuen yeares, though with purpose in the end to leaue it, and to depart from it. Whereas therefore there is the See of one, and that but one, wherein three Bishops by Gods appointment doe sit to rule, whatsoeuer good I heare of you, I account it mine owne; and what you perswade your selues of mee, thinke that you also are worthy of the same. If this Epistle proue that the Pope cannot erre, it proueth likewise that the Bishoppes of Alexandria and Antioche are free from errour. For all these succeede that great Apostle Saint Peter (to whom Christ saide, To thee will I giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and thou being turned, confirme thy brethren: And againe, Louest thou me? feede my sheepe) as well as the Pope. All these sit in Peters chaire: Peters chaire is in Alexandria, and at Antioche, as well as at Rome: and whatsoeuer they that are Bishops of Alexandria and Antioche, attribute to the Bishop of Rome, they may lawfully assume to themselues: seeing they are worthy of the same, as Gregory in this place telleth vs.

Wherefore, seeing not onely Fathers and Councels, but euen Popes also (in whose defence he writeth) faile him, the Cardinall flieth for helpe to the Priests of Aarons order, and goeth about to proue, that the Pope cannot erre, because the high Priest had in his brest-plate Exod. 28. 30 Vrim and Thummim, light and perfection, or doctrine and trueth, as hee will haue the Hebrew word translated, importing (as hee supposeth) that he could not erre in the vnderstanding of the Law of God. Whereupon (as he thinketh) God commaunded all those that any way doubted of the meaning of his Law, to goe vp to the high Priest, and to seeke to bee satisfied by him, saying, Deut. 17. 9 They shall iudge true iudgment vnto thee. Lyra in his Annotations vpon this place, reporteth, that there was a certaine Glosse of the Hebrewes, that if the High Priest should tell them, that their right hand were their left, or their left their right, they were to hold it good and right. The like opinion it seemeth the Romanists haue of the Pope. But Lyra in that place condemneth the folly of those Iewes that so thought, because the sentence of no man of what authoritie soeuer hee bee, is to bee admitted, if it containe a manifest vntruth and errour; which hee saith is euident out of the very text it selfe, in that it is said, They shall iudge vnto thee true iudgement, Vers. 10. and thou shalt doe whatsoeuer they shall say vnto thee, that are ouer the place that the Lord hath chosen, and whatsoeuer they shall teach thee according to his lawes. Whereby it appeareth, that if they speake that which is vntrue, or manifestly depart from the law, they are not to be heard. The Author of the ordinary Glosse agreeth with Lyra, saying; Note that the Lord requireth thee to doe, whatsoeuer the Priests doe teach thee according to the Law, because otherwise thou art not to obey them, vnlesse they teach thee according to the Law. Whereupon Christ saith, Matth. 23. 2. the Scribes and Pharisees sit vpon Moses chaire, who yet (as the Author of the In eundem locum. Interlineall Glosse noteth) are not generally without exception to be hearkned vnto, but then onely, when they vtter and deliuer pertinentia ad Cathedram; that is, such things as beseeme him to vtter, that sitteth in Moses chaire. So that to conclude this point, neither the Vrim and Thummim in Aarons breast-plate, nor the Mandate of Almighty God to goe vp to the sonnes of Aaron to secke iudgement & iustice, proue, that they could not erre, and therefore the Pope is still in as bad case as euer he was.

Wherefore finding no helpe in the Tribe of Leui, nor in the house of Aaron, they betake themselues to experience, and are in good hope to proue out of the experience of former times, that the Pope cannot erre. First, because (as they say) whatsoever the Pope condemned at any time as hereticall, was euer holden to bee so by the whole Church; and many heresies were neuer condemned any otherwise, but by his iudgement onely. Secondly, because neuer any Pope was an Heretique, whereas all other principall Sees and Churches, haue had Bishoppes, not onely erring, but teaching and professing heresie. The instances, that Bellarmine, giueth of heresies and heretiques condemned by the Pope, and reiected for such by the Church, onely because hee condemned them, are the Pelagians, Priscillianists, Iouinian, and Vigilantius, and their heresies. It is hard (I see) for a Blackamoore to change his skinne, for a Leopard to put away his spots, or for a man, that hath long acquainted himselfe with false and vnfaithfull dealing, to learne to deale sincerely and truely. For touching the heretickes mentioned by the Cardinall, all the world knoweth they were condemned in Synodes by many Bishops, and not by the priuate censure of the Bishoppe of Rome alone. Nay, it is most certaine, that others shewed more care & diligence in suppressing some of these heretickes and their errours, then euer the Romane Bishop did, which I will make to appeare in the particulars, beginning with the Pelagians. August. de haeresib Beda de ratione temporum. Alfons. à Castro contra haeres. lib. 2. pag. 1 •… 9. Pelagius the founder of these hereticks, was borne in great Britaine, and becomming a Monke in the East parts of the world, after hee had sparsed his errours in other places abroad, returned home into his owne countrey, and infected it almost wholly with his heresie. Heereupon the Britaines sought helpe and direction of the French Bishoppes, because learning at that time flourished more among them, then it did among the Britaines; who willing to reach forth their helping hands to their neighbours and brethren in this time of their neede, sent vnto them Germanus and Lupus, Bishops and brethren, defenders of the Catholicke faith, who cleared the Ile from the Pelagian heresie, and confirmed it in the faith both by the word of truth, & signes and miracles. Besides this condemnation of Palagius by the French & Britaines, there were sundry Councels holden to condemne both him & his wicked heresies, in Palestina, at Carthage, at Mileuise, and at Arausicum: and it is most certaine, that the Church of GOD, and all posterities are more bound to Saint Augustine for clearing the points of doctrine questioned by the Pelagians, then to any Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer. So that it is most vntrue, that the Pelagians were condemned onely by the Bishop of Rome: for other were as forward in that businesse as he; yea the See Epist. 9 5. inter Epist. Augustini. Africans were more forward then the Romanes, and drew them into the fellowship of the same worke with themselues. The like may be said of the Priscillianistes; for it is more then euident out of the Councell of Bracar, that they were not condemned by the Bishop of Rome alone, but by many Synodes: for it is there reported, that Initio actorum Concil. Bracar. 1 •… Leo did write by Turibius notary of the See Apostolike, to the Synode of Galitia, at what time the heresie of the Priscillianistes began to spreade in those parts; and that by his prescription and appointment, they of Tarracon, of Carthage, of Portugall, and Boetica, met in Councell, and composing a rule of faith against the heresie of the Priscillianistes, containing certaine chiefe heades of Christian doctrine, directed the same patterne of right beliefe to the Bishop of Bracar, that then was: which heads of Christian doctrine were recited in the first Councel of Bracar, & the heresie of the Priscillianistes thereupō more distinctly and particularly condemned, then euer before. In all which proceedings, we may see that the Pope doth nothing of himselfe alone, but being Patriarch of the West, and hearing of a dangerous heresie spreading in some Churches subject to him, hee causeth the Bishops vnder him to meete in Councels, and to condemne the same. Which (as I thinke) will not proue, that the Pope alone condemned heresies, or that some heresies were rejected onely, because the Pope condemned them; or that the Pope cannot erre, which is the thing in question. Touching Iouinian and Vigilantius, their errours are so vncertainely reported, some attributing to them one thing, and some another, and some condemning them for things, for which they were not to be condemned, that it is hard to say, by what lawfull authority, or by whom they were condemned: but that in their errours justly disliked, they were condemned onely by the Bishops of Rome, and therefore taken to bee heretickes by the whole vniuersall Church, our aduersaries will neuer be able to proue. That the errours attributed vnto them are vncertainely reported, it appeareth, in that Aug. de haeres. cap. 82. Austine chargeth Iouinian with two dangerous and wicked assertions, touching the deniall of the perpetuall virginity of the blessed Virgin the mother of our Lord: and the parity of sins: whereof Hierome (who yet was not like to haue spared him) maketh no mention. And that they were in somethings vnjustly condemned, it is euident; first, in that Hier. contra Iouinian. lib. 1. Hierome blameth Iouinian for saying, that married persons, virgins, & widowes, if they differ not in other workes of vertue, and therein excell one another, are of equall merit; which the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoole-men do approue, as I haue Booke 3. chap. 30. elsewhere shewed at large. Secondly, in in that Hieron. cont. Vigilantium. he so bitterly inueigheth against Vigilantius for disliking the pernoctations in the Cemiteries and places of Saints buriall, vsed in ancient times; which a Concil. Elibertin. Canon. 34. 35. Councell for the same reasons that moued Vigilantius to dislike them, took wholly away, and forbade them to be vsed any more, & the Romane Churches haue long since disused. But that the Popes peremptorie cōdemning of an error in matter of faith, was not taken in ancient times to be a sufficiēt demonstration, that they were heretickes that defended such errors after his cōdemning of the same, it is euident, in that Aug. lib. 1. de Baptismo c. 18. Austine saith, that the Churches might doubt stil touching the matter of rebaptization, because in the times of Stephen who condemned it, and Cyprian who vrged it, there was no generall Councell to end the controuersie betweene them: and in that, after the peremptory forbidding and condemning of rebaptization by Stephen Bishop of Rome, Cyprian and his colleagues still persisted in the practice of it, and in vrging the necessity of it: and yet were neuer branded with the marke and note of heresie, but euer were and still are reputed Catholiques. De Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 7. Bellarmine, to avoid the force of this argument, feareth not to say contrarie to his owne knowledge, that Stephen and his adherents neuer determined the question of rebaptization. But that hee did (and that in most peremptory sort and manner) it is more cleare and euident, then that the Sunne shineth at noone. For Firmilian. ad Cyprian. inter Epistolas Cyprian ep. 75. Firmilianus a famous learned Bishoppe chargeth him, that hee caused great dissentions throughout all the Churches of the world, that hee grieuously sinned: in that hee deuided himselfe from soe many flockes of Christs sheepe: that hee was a schismaticke: that hee had forsaken the communion of Ecclesiasticall vnity: willing him not to deceiue himselfe, but to bee well assured, that in thinking hee could put all other from the communion, he had put himselfe out of the communion of all: that hee brake the bandes of vnity with many Bishoppes in all parts of the World, as well in the East, as in the South with the Africanes, not admitting such as came from them vnto him into his presence, or to any speech with him: and farther commanding the brethren, that none of them should receiue them to house. So that he not only denyed the peace of the Church, and the communion of Christians vnto them, but the entring vnder the roofe of any mans house, that would be ruled by him; and that thus he held the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace, rejecting them as damnable miscreants that dissented from him, and calling blessed Cyprian, a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceiptfull labourer or workman. And Euseb. Hist. l. 7. c. 4. Dionysius, a famous and worthy Bishop reporteth, that he wrote concerning Hellenus and Firmilianus, and all the Bishops in Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia, and all the bordering countries, that he would not communicate with them for the same cause of rebaptization: which yet (as hee saith) was agreed on in many very great Synodes of Bishops. If this bee not sufficient to proue, that Stephen determined the question of rebaptization, I know not what can bee. For first, he commaunded, that none should be rebaptized when they returned from the societies and prophane conventicles of heretickes, but that they should bee admitted with the onely imposition of hands. Secondly, he deliuered his owne opinion, that rebaptization was vnlawfull, confidently, as hauing so learned of his elders, & not in doubting manner. And thirdly, he rejected all them from his communion, that thought and practised otherwise then he did, as it appeareth by the testimonies of Firmilianus and Dionysius; so that it is strange, that Bellarmine should bee able so to harden his fore-head, as not to blush when he saith, that Stephen did not define any thing touching the question of rebaptization; that he did not make it a matter of faith, & necessary to be beleeued of all: and that he did not excommunicate those that were to her wise minded, but onely threatned them that he would so doe. It is true in deede, that Cyprian, howsoeuer hee definitiuely deliuered in a Councell of Bishops, what hee was perswaded men were to beleeue and practise touching rebaptization: and protested against Stephen, as a proud, ignorant, and vnadvised man: yet did not vrge this his decree so, as to reject from his communion all that should dislike it: but left euery Bishop to his owne judgement, as being to giue an account to God onely. But how the Iesuites can defend against all the former proofes, that Stephens proceedings were like to those of Cyprian, and that he also left euery man to his owne judgement, and rejected no man from his communion, for dissenting from him, I cannot see. By that which hath beene said, it appeareth, that the Ancients did not thinke euery thing to be heresie that the Romane Bishops defined to be so: and that therefore they did not thinke him free from danger of erring. Neither need we to marvaile (saith Bellarmine) if in former times men had not learned this lesson, seeing to this day they are not judged to be heretickes that thinke the Pope may erre. Yet so kinde is he to Cyprian, that (whereas Austine excuseth him in his errour, and thinketh his sinne was veniall) he Vbi supra. pronounceth he sinned mortally, and so without particular repentance (whereof there is little likelyhood) perished euerlastingly, notwithstanding his martyrdome. The reason of this difference of the censures of Austine and Bellarmine is, because Austine looked onely or principally to his errour, but Bellarmine to his contempt of the Bishop of Romes Decrees and determinations.

CHAP. 43.

Of such Popes as are charged with heresie, and how the Romanists seeke to cleare them from that imputation.

HAuing examined our Adversaries proofes of the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement, taken from the acceptation of his judgement as right and good by all the world, whensoeuer hee defined anything: let vs come to the other proofe of the same, taken from the felicity of the Romane See in former times. In exposit. symboli. Ruffinus saith, that before his time no heresie had euer taken beginning in the Romane Church, but our Adversaries proceede farther, and feare not to Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8 pronounce after sixteene hundred yeares, that no hereticke did euer sit in the See of Rome: which their proud bragge will bee found much more vaine then true, and many vnanswerable instances will bee brought of wicked heretickes possessing that chaire. Tertullian in his booke against Praxeas speaketh of a Bishoppe of Rome, but nameth him not, that admitted and allowed the prophecies of Montanus and his two Prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, and held communion with the Montanists till he was disswaded by Praxeas. Who (as he saith) caused the prophecies of Montanus and his Prophetesses to be banished, and brought in heresie, who banished their Paraclete, and crucified the Father. But because Tertullian was a Montanist, and wrote partially in things that concerned them (though Annotat. in Tert. contra Praxeam. Rhenanus say, the Bishop of Rome did Montanize) yet for my part (no other history reporting any such thing of any Romane Bishoppe) I will not vpon Tertullians bare word, charge any of them with any such heresie.

But (howsoeuer wee thinke of Tertullians report) we finde in the Councell of Sinuessa, in the In vita Marcellini. Pontificall, in the Epistle of Nicholas the first, to Michael the Emperour, in In Marcellino Platina and others, that Marcellinus did sacrifice vnto idols, and so at least in outward action shewed himselfe an infidell; which is a higher degree of impiety then heresie. If it be said, he committed that execrable act of idolatry, not out of any mis-perswasion of his minde, but feare of death, it will be replied, that if the passion of feare bee able to worke so ill effects in Popes, as the vtter abnegation of Christianity, and the professing of themselues to bee Pagan infidels, by publicke outward acts of idolatry, there is little reason to be giuen, but that some other sinister and vile affection may carry them as farre to make profession of heresie, a thing not so ill as Paganisme. Wherefore Annal. Ann. 303. num. 99. Baronius, to prevent the worst, and to make all sure, inclineth to deny, that euer Marcellinus committed any such act of idolatry, and discrediteth the report of the Councell of Sinuessa, in which he is said to haue beene condemned. Wherein hee doth as much disaduantage the Romane cause another way, in depriuing his friends of so good an authority as the resolution of that sacred Synode, that Prima sedes á nemine iudicatur, that is, that the first See is iudged of none; as hee advantageth it in the clearing of Marcellinus; and therefore hee is rightly blamed by Binnius for his inconsiderate rashnes in this behalfe. g Annot. in acta conc. Sinuessani.

But that wee may be assured, that Popes may be hereticks as well as infidells, wee haue the confession of as good a man as Baronius, acknowledging the same. For De Pontif. li. 4. cap. 9. Bellarmine saith, that Liberius (howsoeuer for a long time he continued constant in the profession of the true faith, so that for the same his constancie he was banished, and another by the Arrian faction put into his place) yet in the end weary of banishment, he was brought to subscribe to heresie, and was in his outward courses an hereticke whatsoeuer his heart was, whereof God onely is the searcher; so that iustly as an heretick he was condemned, & pronounced to be no Pope any longer by his own Clergie. This he proueth out of the testimonies of Athanas. in epist. ad solitar •… . vitam agentes. Athanasius and Hieron. in Chronico. & in Catalog. Script. Eccles. in Fortunatiano. Hierome, who say expressely, that being weary of his continuance in banishment, he was at last brought to subscribe to heresie: And Hil. in lib: aduers. Constanti •… Hilary (who speaking to Constantius the wicked Arrian Emperour) hath these wordes: Afterwards thou diddest turne the course of thy warre against Rome, whence thou tookest the Bishop, ô wretched Emperour! I canne hardly say, whether thy impiety were greater in sending him into banishment, or in sending him home againe. Thereby insinuating that he restored him vpon very ill conditions. And that he was not restored, but by some kinde of consenting with the Arrians, it is most cleare, in that Zozom. lib. 4. cap. 14. Zozomen reporteth, that the Arrian Bishops assembled at Sirmium, sent their letter to Felix, then Bishop of Rome, & the Clergy there, kindly to receiue Liberius, and that both Felix and he might sit as Bishops, and gouerne the Romane Church together: which they would neuer haue done, if they had not found him tractable & yeelding; yet could not these two Bishoppes endure one the other long, notwithstanding these letters. And therefore In Ch •… onico. Hierome saith, that Liberius impatient of any longer continuance in banishment, subscribed to hereticall prauity, and so returned to Rome as a conquerour, and cast out Felix who had possessed himselfe of the Episcopall chaire, and put divers other of the Clergie also out of the Church; and Vbi suprà. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, he hath seene in the Vatican Library, manuscript Epistles of Liberius, some written to the Emperour, and some to the Easterne Bishops, wherein he signifieth plainly enough, that in the end hee was content to yeeld to the will of the Emperour. And besides, if the Romanists doe not acknowledge that Liberius was a conuicted hereticke, (there being no other cause but heresie for which (as they thinke) a Pope may lawfully bee iudged and deposed) they must put Felix, who was Pope while Liberius yet liued, out of the number of Popes, whom yet their church doth worship as a Pope Saint, and a Martyr. So that wee see, Liberius was justly judged and condemned as an hereticke; and that, seeing a Pope, in that he becommeth an hereticke, ceaseth to be Pope, hee lost all the priuiledges that belong to Peters successours, and so might decree for heresie: yea, I thinke there is no reasonable man but will confesse, that his subscribing to heresie that is the head of the church, is a decreeing for heresie. Now that he subscribed to heresie, we haue the expresse testimony of Saint Hierome. Hieron. in Catalog. Script. Ecclesiast. in Acacio. After the banishment of Liberius by the meanes of Acatius, Bishoppe of Caesarea in Palestina, who was a great man with Constantius the Emperour, Felix, a Deacon of the church of Rome, was chosen Bishop, and appointed to succeed him. This Felix, (as Theodoret. hist. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 17. Theodoret testifieth) was a Catholicke, and held the profession of faith agreed on at Nice, but communicated freely with the Arrians. Wherevpon hee was so much disliked by those that were Catholickes, that none of them would once enter into the house of prayer while he was within. For that, though he were not in perswasion and vocall profession a full Arrian, yet by communicating with them, and being ordained by them, he consented to their wicked and hereticall courses. Neither doth it appeare by any history of credit, that euer he refused to communicate with the Arrian heretickes, during the time he quietly possessed and enioyed the Bishopricke of Rome. But the contrary is more then probable, because when Liberius subscribed, and was thereupon sent home with letters of commendation from the Arrian Bishoppes assembled at Sirmium, Sozom. l. 4. 14. they carefully prouided for Felix his continuance in the Episcopall office still, and desired that the violences and outrages committed in the time of his ordination (when the people for the loue they bare to Liberius were in an vprore, and some of them were slaine) might be forgotten, and that both of them might sitte and gouerne the church together, as Bishops of the place; which fauour the Arrian Bishoppes would neuer haue shewed to Felix, if he had disclaimed their communion. So that it is more then probable, that he neuer forsooke the communion of the Arrian hereticks. For Liberius returning as a conquerour, so soone as hee came to Rome, cast him out of the Church, and shortly after hee dyed; and therefore I cannot see what reason the Romanists haue to put this good man into the Kalender of their Pope Saints, whose entrance into the Episcopall chaire was not onely schismaticall (there beeing a catholicke Bishop yet aliue, & suffering banishment for the catholicke faith) but violent & bloudy also (for he got the place by the meanes of bloody heretickes, making himselfe guilty of all the sinnes of those heretickes with whom he communicated) and of whose relinquishing and abandoning the communion and fellowship of the Arrians, there is no mention found in any Authour of credit, but in the Authour of the In Felice. Pontificall only, who hath as many lies as words in his narration concerning Felix. For first, hee saith, he sate but one yeare, three moneths, and three daies, whereas it is reported by Theodoret. vbi suprà. Theodoret, that Liberius had beene more then two yeares in banishment before suite was made to the Emperour for his returne; all which time Felix was Pope. Secondly, he saith, Felix declared and published Constantius the sonne of Constantine to be an hereticke, and that Constantius was rebaptized, or the second time baptized by Eusebius Bishoppe of Nicomedia, neare vnto Nicomedia; which thing is most false, as Binnius annot. in vitam. Felicis. Binnius in his Annotations telleth vs, because both Athanas. lib. de Synodis. Athanasius and Socrates: lib. 2. cap. vlt. Socrates doe affirme, he was baptized by Euzoius an Arrian, when he was ready to die. And Hilarius after the time of this supposed baptisme inueyeth against him, for that not being baptized, he presumed to prescribe to the Church a forme of faith. Thirdly, he saith, Felix built a certaine Church, while he was a Presbyter, whereas it is certaine, that of a Deacon hee was made a Bishoppe, and neuer liued in the degree of a Presbyter. And fourthly, touching the death of Felix he is very vncertaine and doubtfull, z Hilar. lib. de Synodo. and others speake nothing of his martyrdome at all. Heereupon (as both De Pont. l. 4 c 9. Bellarmine, and Annot. in vit. Felicis. Binnius report) in the time of Gregory the thirteenth, in the yeare of our Lord 1582. where certaine learned men in Rome were deputed to correct the Martyrologe, they were doubtfull whether they should put his name into the new Martyrologe or not, seeing both his entrance into his Bishopricke was violent, bloudy, and schismaticall, and his end vncertaine, and they inclined to leaue it out; which they had done, if a certaine marble chest had not beene found in the Church of Cosmas and Damianus, the 28 of Iuly, the day before his wonted and accustomed feast, with this inscription in olde characters: Heere lyeth the body of Felix the Pope and Martyr, who condemned Constantius the hereticke. Whereby wee see how little reason the Roman Church hath to worship this Saint, and to admire the providence of God, in preseruing this See Apostolicke from heresie; in that, as they would beare vs in hand, Felix after he heard of the subscription of Liberius, who thereby ceased to bee Pope, condemned the Arrians, was admitted by the Catholickes, and became a true Bishop, suffering death vpon the returne of Liberius; as if the very See did change the mindes of all that sit in it, and make them good, how bad soeuer they were before; whereas Felix Ruffin. Eccl. hist. l. 1. c. 22. being in his entrance a schismaticke, in communion, if not in profession, an hereticke, and in his ordination which was voyde, no Bishop, and no history of credite reporting either his condemning Arrianisme, or his admission to bee a Bishop after the deposition of Liberius by the Catholickes, or what his end was; it appeareth that heretickes and schismatickes may possesse the chaire of Peter, and bee worshipped for Pope Saints after their death. But whatsoeuer became of Felix, they say, Liberius after the death of Felix became a Catholicke, and got the loue of the Catholickes; and so by their acceptation of him, became a true Bishop againe, and in that state dyed. Thus doe our Adversaries seeme to carry this matter very fairely, as if all were safe & well, whereas indeed they are in a very great straite, for either Liberius was an heretick before his returne home, and justly deposed for heresie, or else Felix was neuer true Bishop, and then their Church hath worshipped a schismaticke as a Pope-Saint for the space of a thousand yrares: if he were an hereticke, and justly deposed (as to iustifie Felix, they must be forced to confesse) hee could neuer bee restored to the Episcopall office and dignity againe. For the Hier. contra Luciferianos. Cypr. l. 2. cp. 1 Canon of the Church is, that no Catholicke becomming an hereticke, and being condemned by the Church for such a one, shall euer bee receiued to Ecclesiasticall honour againe: so that hee could not dye true Pope, as our Adversaries dreame he did. Let them shew vs how they can cleare themselues from sundry absurd contradictions in this point, and we will rest satisfied. For wee doe not deny, but that hee might repent of his subscribing to heresie, and dye a Catholicke, though some of the testimonies that Bellarmine bringeth, will scarse proue it.

The next Pope that we finde to haue beene touched with any suspition of heresie, is Anastasius the second, whom the Author of the In vita Anastasii 2. Pontificall taxeth. First, for that he communicated with Photius, a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica, that had communicated with Achacius, Bishop of Constantinople, without the counsell of the Bishops and Presbyters of the Catholique Church; which his inconsiderate action, made many of the Presbyters and Cleargy refuse to communicate with him. Secondly, for that he sought to restore Achacius, whom Felix and Gelasius his predecessours had condemned: for which fact hee was suddenly stricken of God, in such sort that he dyed. To these Dist. 19. ca. Anast. Gratian addeth another taxation, reprehending him for that hee allowed the baptisme and ordination of such as were baptized and ordained by Achacius after he was become an hereticke. But because the baptisme and ordination of heretickes is holden good, and it appeareth by the Epistle of Anastasius to Anastasius the Emperour, that Achacius was dead before he was Bishop, and that hee desired to haue the name of Achacius razed out of the Diptickes of the Church, after his death: I will passe by this censure of the Authour of the Pontificall, and Gratian as doubtfull, and leauing Anastasius, come to Vigilius; who (as In Breviario c. 22. Liberatus reporteth) to get the Popedome like a notable dissembling hypocrite, pretended at Rome to be a Catholicke, but in his letters to Theodora the Empresse, who was an hereticke, condemned the Catholicke faith: and promised that if Syluerius might be thrust out, and hee put into his place, he would restore Anthemius Bishop of Constantinople, reiected by Agapetus for heresie. Which being brought to passe by Theodora the Empresse, and Syluerius vniustly banished, he sate for a while as an Anti-pope and an heritique. But when as Syluerius was dead, he professed himselfe a Catholique, and refused to performe that hee had promised to Theodora. Whether this man being an hereticke in his outward profession at his entrance, and by such profession getting the Popedome vnjustly, schismatically, and as an Anti-pope, could euer after be true Pope, let our Aduersaries giue vs answere, when they haue aduisedly thought of it.

The next Pope that is charged with heresie, is Honorius the first, whom the Christian world, and not a fewe particular men onely condemned as a Monothelite. For in the Actione 13. sixth generall Councell, his Epistles to Sergius the heretique are publikely read and condemned, and he accursed as an hereticke. The Actione 7. seauenth generall Councell likewise doth anathematize Honorius, Sergius, Syrus, and the other Monothelites. In the Actione 7. eigth generall Councell, called about the matter of difference betweene Ignatius and Photius, the acts of the Councell of the West vnder Adrian the second, are read and allowed; wherein Adrian professeth, that none of the inferiour Sees may judge the greater, and specially Rome, vnlesse it be in case of heresie; in which case they of the East did anathematize and accurse Honorius: which yet (he sayth) they would not haue aduentured to do, if the Romane Church had not gone before them in such condemnation of her owne Bishop. Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour, which wee finde in the end of the sixth generall Councell, accurseth the same Honorius as an heretique and a wicked one, that defiled and polluted the Apostolike chaire with heresie. With Leo consenteth In Synod. 7. actione 3. Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, In Epistolâ Synodicâ quae habetur in eâdem. 7. Synod. actione 3. Theodorus Bishop of Hierusalem; Synod. 7. actione 6. Epiphanius in his disputation with Gregory, in the sixth Action of the seuenth generall Councell: In Carm. de 7. Synodis. Psellus, De 6. aetatib. in vita Constantini. 4. Beda, and the In vita Leonis. Author of the Pontificall. These authorities may seeme very sufficient to proue, that Honorius was an heretique: yet so well are our aduersaries affected to him, that they will rather discredit them all then suffer him to be spotted and disgraced: and therefore some of them say, that the sixth generall Councel is corrupted; & likewise the Epistle of Leo the second, in the end of it: & that the Fathers in the 7th Councell were deceiued by the 6th, as likewise Pope Adrian with the whole Romane Synode, and the other Authors, that concurre with them in the condemnation of Honorius. Others thinke that indeede the 6th Councell condemned Honorius, but vpon false information, and so erred in a matter of fact. Which conceipt is no way probable. For that the Fathers of the Councel proceeded not rashly, Actione 12. but caused the Epistles of Honorius written to the heads of the faction of the Monothelites (for which he was suspected,) to be openly read and examined. But (say they) first, these Epistles haply were counterfeit, 2ly If they were not counterfeit, there is nothing in them contrary to the truth. Neither of these answeres is sufficient. For first, that the Epistles were not coūterfeit, it appeareth by Maximus, Disp. Maximi cum Pyrrho in 2 Tom. Concil. apud Binnium. who answereth a place brought out of one of thē, & sheweth the meaning of it, as frō the Secretary that wrot it, then liuing. 2ly, If these Epistles had bin coūterfeit, the Legates of Agatho present there, would haue taken exception to thē, & not haue cōsented to the condemnation of one of his predecessors vpon coūterfeit euidence. Neither is the 2 answere better thē the 1st: for that the Fathers assēbled in a generall Coūcel, should not be able to vnderstand the Epistles of Honorius, & judge whether they were hereticall or not, as well as the Iesuites now liuing, is very strange. But let vs suppose the Iesuites to haue more wit thē all those worthy Bs & Fathers that were assembled in the sixt Councel, & let vs see by taking a view of the Epistles themselues, whether they may be cleared frō the error they haue bin charged with, or not. It is not to be denied, but that Honorius in these his Epistles Actione 12. Synod: 6. & act. 13. confesseth, that the nature of God in Christ, worketh the things that are diuine: & the nature of man, the things that are humane, without diuision, confusion, or conuersion of one of thē into another: & that the differences of these natures remaine inuiolable. But in that he denyeth, that there are two actions in Christ, the one of Deity, and the other of Humanity; in that he saith, it is absurd to thinke, that where there are more natures then one, there must be more actions then one: and alloweth of Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, and Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who were Monothelites, rather then of Sophronius Bishoppe of Hierusalem, a right worthy and learned Bishop (who defended the truth against them both, and whose learned Epistle to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, we finde in the Actione 11. sixth generall Councel:) it cannot be avoided but that he erred in matter of faith, in such sort, as by consequence it ouerthroweth that distinction of the two natures of God & man in Christ, which hee seemed to acknowledge. Neither can it be cleared from suspition of hereticall & bad meaning, that he maketh it but a curiosity of philosophers to acknowledge a twofold action in Christ, & denieth that the fathers euer defined any such thing; whereas Pope Martine the first in the Concilior. Tomo 2. Synode of Rome saith, it is cleare by the determination of the Fathers, that the two natures of Christ remaine vnconfounded in the vnion, & vndiuided, as also his two wills, and the two distinct actions, & naturall properties of them. Maximus in his disputation with Pyrrhus, found in the second Tome of the Councells, cleareth one sentence of Honorius, wherein hee seemeth to acknowledge but one will in Christ; affirming out of the testimony of him that wrote that Epistle for Honorius, that hee meant it of one will of the humane nature of Christ; thereby shewing, that there was no such contrariety of desires found in him as in vs. But what is that to the other things that are obiected to him? Two obiections our Aduersaries haue against them who thinke that Honorius was condemned for heresie. The first is, that the sixth generall Councell could not condemne him, without being contrary to it selfe, in Actione 4. allowing the Epistle of Agatho, wherein he saith; that the faith neuer failed in Peters chaire, and that his predecessours did alwayes confirme their brethren. The second, that some Writers speaking of the Monothelites, and naming diuers of them, omit him; that 2. Tomo. concil. apud Binnium. Maximus in his Dialogue against Pyrrhus, Theophanes Isaurus in his History, cited by In vitâ Honorij apud Platinam. Onuphrius, and Emmanuel Chalica in his booke in the defence of the Latines against the Greekes, affirme, he was euer a catholicke; & some other, as Beda, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Blondus, Nauclerus, Sabellicus, & Platina, doe speake of him as of a Catholicke Bishop. The first of these obiections I haue answered else-where, shewing that some of Agathoes predecessours, might b Chap. 42. for some short space faile to doe their duty, in confirming their brethren, & swarue from the trueth; and yet that be true he saith in that Epistle, that in the See it selfe the faith neuer failed: and that his predecessours fell not either so many, or in such sort, but that the Bishoppes of that Church did euer reach forth their helping hands to other, either in the beginning of each heresie, or before it was vtterly extinct and suppressed; as it fell out in this, both in respect of Pope Martine and others before, and of himselfe now. To the second wee say, that it doth not seeme to be strongly proved, that Honorius was no hereticke, by the silence of some few. That Maximus doth not cleare Honorius generally, but one sentence of Honorius onely. That Theophanes Isaurus doth not goe about to cleare Honorius from heresie, but saith onely, that the Canons of the sixth Councell were not made by the same Fathers that were at first assembled, but by others. So speaking nothing of Honorius, who was condemned in the Councell, and not in the canons; and that the rest, to wit, Chalica, and some few other liuing long after the time of Honorius, are no sufficient proofe against that cloud of witnesses, which wee produced in the beginning. And therefore there is yet nothing brought to reproue the testimony of onr witnesses, or to make good that hee was alwayes a catholicke, which is the thing to be proued.

With Honorius wee may joyne Gregory the third, who in his Decret. part. 2. causa 32. qu. 7. Cano. proposuisti. Epistle to Bonifacius, giueth leaue to a man, whose wife falleth into some such infirmity, as maketh her vnfit to company with him, to marry another; so that hee giue her maintenance. And that he speaketh not of any impediment before marriage not knowne, which maketh the contract voyde from the beginning, but of such infirmities as fall out afterwards, it is evident. First, in that he saith: If any mans wife shall be taken with such infirmity, &c. Secondly, in that he prouideth: That the husband shall prouide for her maintenance; which in case of a voyde contract from the beginning, is no way reasonable. Thirdly, in that he saith: He shall thus prouide for her, seeing infirmity, and not wickednesse driueth him from her. Fourthly, in that he saith: It were better he should containe; seeing in case of abuse by vnknowne defect and impediment, making the contract void from the beginning, there is no more cause why a man so abused, should containe and refraine from marriage, then any other. Now to permit marriage by reason of any defect or infirmity ensuing after the first marriage, I thinke our Adversaries will not deny to be erroneous, seeing the contrary is defined in the Sess 24. c. 2. Councell of Trent. Neither doth it excuse this errour of Gregory, that Bellarmine alleadgeth out of Lib. 1. de sermone Dom. in monte c. 29. Austin, who maketh some doubt whether the wife with her husbands consent, yeelding to the wicked desires of him in whose hands he is, to saue his life, bee excusable from sin; seeing he doth but vpon a particular accident propose a disputable question; and the other resolueth and giueth warrant for the practise of an vnlawfull thing, and that as a Pope in his directions to Bonifacius, hauing newly converted certaine barbarous people to the faith of Christ.

Wherefore let vs proceede to see whether therebe any moe Popes that may justly be charged with errour or heresie. Wee reade in the Sigebert. in Chronico anni 900. & Seq. Platina. in Stephan. & Sergio. stories of the Church, that one Formosus, Bishop of Portua, being hardly thought of, and suspected by Iohn the Pope, left his Bishopricke, and fled for feare of him; that being called backe by Iohn, & refusing to returne, he was anathematized by him; & that at last comming into France to satisfie the Pope, he was degraded, and put into a Lay habite, and made to sweare neuer to enter into Rome any more, nor euer to communicate but as a Lay man: yet afterwards by Martinus, Iohns successour, he was restored to his Bishopricke, absolued from his oath, came to Rome, and in the end obtained to be Pope, contrary to the mindes of many of the Romanes, who desired rather to haue had one Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, but prevailed not. Whereupon there grew great question with much scandall, some affirming that his consecration, and the consecration of such as he ordained, was voyde: others, that whatsoeuer were thought of Formosus, yet for the dignity of his Bishoply office, and the faith of those he ordained, their ordinations were to be holden for good, especially seeing he was absolued from his perjury by Martinus the Pope. The next Pope (saue one) that succeeded Formosus, was Stephen, who sate but foure moneths, yet was not idle, but though hee had beene ordained Bishop of Anagnia by him, persecuted him with deadly hate, and pronounced the ordinations of all such as he had ordained to bee voide. After him succeeded Romanus, and after Romanus, Theodorus, who being contrarily minded to Stephen, reconciled those whom Stephen had degraded, but presumed not to consecrate or ordaine them againe. After Theodorus, followed Iohn, who, to confirme the ordinations of Formosus, pronounced voide by Stephen, called a Councell of 72 Bishops, the Archbishops of France, and the King being present: and in the sight of them all, caused the Acts of the Synode which Stephen held for condemnation of Formosus, to be burned. After Iohn succeeded Benedictus, and aftet him Sergius the Deacon, that missed the Popedome when Formosus got it. This Sergius in revenge of his former repulse, forced the Romanes with threates and terrours, to account the ordinations of Formosus voide, and (which is not to be spoken) drew him out of his graue after hee had rested in it a good space: put vpon him the Papall vestures, set him in Peters chaire: commaunded him to bee beheaded, and then cutting off three of his fingers, caused him to bee cast into Tiber, degrading all that he had ordained. Heere we see Popes clearely convinced of heresie, and defining and decreeing for heresie. For seeing Formosus was sometime vndoubtedly a true Bishop, it was an errour in faith to say, that his ordinations were voide. This is so cleare, that De Pont. lib. 4. c. 12. Bellarmine denyeth it not, but saith onely, that neither Stephen, nor Sergius published any decree, that their ordinations were voide, whom Formosus had ordained, and that they were to be re-ordained: but did onely so re-ordaine, de facto, in their fury, & distempered passions: wherein he is clearely refuted by Anno 902 Sigebert, who saith expressely, that they decreed omnes ordinationes eius irritas esse debere: that is, That all his ordinations were to be taken and reputed for voide.

To Stephen and Sergius we may adde Caelestinus the third, who (as De haeres. lib. 1. c. 4. Alfonsus á Castro truly affirmeth) cannot by any meanes be excused from heresie, in that hee taught, that the bond of marriage is so dissolued by heresie, that he whose wife falleth into heresie, may lawfully leaue her and take another. This decree of Caelestinus is not now to be found in the Decretals, but it was in the ancient; & Alfonsus, professeth he read it In Decretal. cap laudabilem de conuersione Infidelium. there himselfe. Now that it is hereticall in the judgment of our aduersaries, it is euident, in that Cap. Quanto de diuortijs. Innocentius the third teacheth the contrary, and the Sess. 24. can. 5. Councell of Trent defineth otherwise. Neither doth Bellarmines answere, that he did not passe any Decree, but only deliuer his owne priuate opinion, helpe the matter. For Alfonsus à Castro. contra haeres. lib. 1. c. 2. Gratian maketh the Decretals equall in authority with the Canons of Councels, and our aduersaries are wont to proue the Popes power by his Decretals, as if all they were subject to him, and bound to obey him to whom he writeth them.

The next Pope that is charged with heresie, is Nicholas the fourth, who Cap. exijt de verb. signif. in Sexto. defineth, that Christ taught both by word and example most perfect pouerty, consisting in the abandoning of al propriety in things, and right or claime to them, either in particular, or in respect of the whole Colledge & company of men living together, and that such pouerty is pleasing to God, and meritorious. For the better vnderstanding of this matter we must distinguish the vse of things, and the proprietie in them, or right & claime to them. Ockam oper is 90. dierum. c. 2. The proprietie in things, and the right and claime to them, is two-fold; either absolute, when men may judicially challenge a thing as their own, and vse it how, & in what sort they will, so that it be not prohibited by the law of God and nature; or restrained and limited: as Clergy-men may chalenge the possessions & lands belonging to them, & judicially recouer them if they be with-holden from them; yet may they not so freely dispose of them, as Lay-men may of theirs. The vse of things is two-fold. For there is vsus juris, & vsus facti. Vsus facti is when one hath the vse of a thing, but so, that he hath no right to vse it, warrantable by any positiue or humane law; & if any one will depriue him of it, he cannot by law hinder him. Vsus juris, is the right one hath to vse a thing, leauing the claime of the possessiō of the substance of it to the owner thereof. This kinde of vse is likewise two-fold: nudus, and vsus-fructus. The former is when one hath right to vse a thing; but so limited and restrained, that he may neither sell, let, nor giue the same right. The later when he may. The Franciscan Friars imagining the height of Christian perfection to consist in extreme pouerty, by their vow of pouerty abandon, not only in particular, as do other Religious, but in generall, euen in respect of their whole company and society, all interest, right and claime to lands, liuings and possessions, or to the vse of any such thinges leauing nothing to themselues, but the bare vse of such things as by free gift, begging, or labour, come to their hands; without all right to vse them pleadable and justifiable by any course of humane law. So that if any one will take the bread out of their handes, before it come to their mouthes, or the clothes from them, wherewith they hide their nakednesse, they may not complaine of him for so doing, nor prosecute any suite against him for it. This kinde of pouerty Pope Nicholas affirmeth Christ taught, both by word and example, and willeth the Franciscanes according to their rule, strictly to obserue the same. And for their safety and security taketh order, that all moueables giuen to them for vse, shall in respect of right belong to the Church of Rome, as likewise their Oratories, and Cemiteries But their dwellinges not so, vnlesse the giuer expresse an absolute gift (which yet must not be to the Fryers, but to the Church) and the Church expressely accept the same. For otherwise the owner may at his pleasure take them away againe. Farther he ordereth, that such such things as are giuen to them, and they haue the vse of, they may either of themselues change them for such other things as they neede or desire, or cause the gouernour and disposer of them appointed by the Pope, to sell them, and with the money to buy such things as they neede, and let them haue the vse of them, as bookes and the like. For with money they themselues may not meddle. Pope Iohn the two and twentieth, following Nicholas, and finding by experience, that these Fryers did but abuse the world with their faire shewes of perfection, In extrauagant. ad Conditorem Canonum. condemned their hypocrisie, and would be no patron of it, as his predecessour was. First, therefore hee shewed, that perfection consisteth essentially in charity, wich Paule nameth the bond of perfection, & that the abandoning of propriety in things maketh nothing to perfectiō, farther thē it excludeth the care that is wont to be found in men, in getting, keeping, & disposing of them, weakning the act of diuine loue, So that if there be as much carefulnesse in men after the disclaiming of propriety in things, as before, their seeming pouerty maketh nothing to Christian perfection. Now he sayth, that after the ordination of his predecessour, these Fryers were no lesse carefull in getting and keeping things both by begging, judiciall suing, and the like meanes, then any other mendicants that haue some things as their owne in common. And that therefore howsoeuer they pleased themselues, their obseruation was of no more perfection then theirs that had something of their owne in common. Secondly, he shewed, that these mendicants hauing the vse of such things as are giuen to them, and the Church of Rome the propriety (in name and title, but not in deede, being onely to secure them in the vse thereof, and to make no benefit) that it is but a single right the Church hath, and that they are in trueth and indeede no poorer then they that haue thinges of their owne; seeing they may change the vse of one thing for another, or at least cause the procurator, designed by the Church of Rome, to change things into money, and buy for them such as they rather desire to haue, making vse of all things that come to their hands at their pleasure, as much as they that haue them of their owne. Thirdly, hee pronounced, that to thinke that Christ and his Apostles had nothing of their owne in speciall or common, and that they had no right to vse such things, as they had, to sell them, giue them, or with them to buy other, is contrary to the Gospell, condemneth Christ and his Apostles of iniustice, and ouerthroweth the whole Scripture. Yet Pope Nicholas defined, that Christ & his Apostles had nothing of their own, either in speciall or common, and that the hauing of a common bagge no way contrarieth this conceit, seeing that was but by a kinde of dispensation in the person of the weake and imperfect; and to shewe, that he disliketh not them that come short of his perfection. Thus we see Pope Nicolas erred in a matter of faith, patronized hypocrites in their faignes shewes of counterfeit perfection, & was disliked and contraried by his owne successour Iohn the two and twentieth for the same; by reason whereof there grew a maine difference betweene Pope Iohn and the Franciscan Fryers, hee charging them with heresie and persecuting them from place to place: and they likewise disclaiming him as a damnable heretique, and no Pope. The principall men on the Fryers part were Vid. litera •… Michael. Caesen. in fine Diolog. Occami. Michael Caesenas, and Occam. in opere 90. dierum & alibi. Occam the great Schoole-man, who hath written much against Pope Iohn, touching this argument.

Neither is Pope Iohn (though in this point of Christian perfection hee were of a sounder & better judgment then his predecessor) & any happier thē he. For he is likewise charged with errour in matter of faith (& that not vniustly) by the same Friers, that he so much hated & persecuted. For (as Occam testifieth in his 2. partis tract. 1. in initio. Dialogues) hee taught, that the soules of the just shall not see God till the generall resurrection: and that not faintly, or doubtingly, but in such passionate and violent manner, as not to endure those that thought otherwise. Part. 4. operum ejus. With Gerson agreeth Adrian. 6. in q. de Confirmat. circa finem. Gerson likewise in his sermon vpon Easter day, before the French King and his Nobles, sayth, That the theefe on the crosse in that very hower that Christ spake vnto him, was made happy, and sawe God face to face, according to the promise of Christ made vnto him, This day shalt thou bee with mee in Paradice; and that thereby the doctrine of Iohn the two and twentieth is proued false, that was coudemned by the Diuines of Paris with the sound of trumpets, before King Philip, vncle to the King before whom then he spake; the King rather believing the Diuines of Paris, then the Court of Rome. De Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 14. Bellarmine, to deriue the hate of this matter from the Pope to others, would willingly fasten this errour on Caluine, and to that purpose alleageth Instit. lib. 3. c. 20. & 24. two places out of him. But neither of them proueth any such thing. For in the first, he speaketh not of any stay of the Saints departed without, in outward courts, out of heauen till the resurrection (as the Cardinall strangely misunderstandeth him) but sheweth by a most apt comparison, that as in the time of MOSES Law, the high Priest onely entred into the Holiest of all to make an attonement, and all the people stayed without: So none but Christ goeth into the presence of God, to make peace, and to worke the great worke of reconciliation, and that all the sonnes of men are to expect without, till hee bring them assurance of fauour and acceptation. And in the second place where saith, that the dead are joyned with vs that liue in the vnity of the same faith, his meaning is not, that faith opposite to sight is found in the Saints after death, as it is in vs, but that they haue a cleare view, and present enjoying of those things which we beleeue. Neither is there any thing found in Caluine that may any way excuse the errour of Pope Iohn. Thus then (I hope) it doth appeare by that which hath beene saide, that Popes are subiect to errour, that they may become Heretiques, and define for heresie, and that therefore the second supposed priviledge of the Roman Bishop, which is infallibility of judgment, is found to haue no proofe at all. Wherefore let vs proceede to the third, which is his power to dispose of the kingdomes of the World, and to ouer-rule the Princes and Potentates thereof.

CHAP. 44.

Of the Popes vniust claime of temporall dominion ouer the whole world.

TOuching the right and interest of Popes in intermeddling with secular affaires, and disposing of the Kingdomes of the world, there are three opinions among the Romanists. The August. Triumphus. Alvarus Pelagius, & alii cit. à Bellarm. first is, that the Pope is soueraigne Lord of all the world, or at least of all the Christian world; and that the Princes of the Earth are but his Vicegerēts and Lieuetenants. The Bellar. & alii second, that the Pope is not soueraigne Lord of the world, nor of any part thereof: and that therefore hee may not at his pleasure intermeddle with the affaires of Princes, but only in case of some defect foūd in them, as when they faile to doe their duty, or seeke to hinder the common good, especially of the Church. The Waldensis, Gerson, Hart, & many other cited in the examination of Blackwell. third, that hee may not at all intermeddle with the disposition of earthly kingdomes, or restraine, or depose Princes, how much soeuer they abuse their authoritie.

The first of these three opinions, had anciently, and hath presently, great patrons and followers. Yet De Pont. l. 5. c. 2. 3. & 4 •… . Bellarmine very confidently and learnedly refuteth the same. First, shewing that the Pope is not soueraigne Lord of the whole world. Secondly, that he is not Lord of the Christian world. And thirdly, that hee is Lord of no part of the world. That he is not Lord of the whole world, he proueth, because not of those Provinces that are possessed by Infidels, which hee demonstrateth. First, because Christ committed none but onely his sheepe to Peter; and therefore gaue him no authoritie ouer Infidels which are not his sheepe; whereunto Saint Paul agreeth, professing that hee hath nothing to doe to iudge them that are without. Secondly, because dominion and the right of Princes is not founded in grace or faith, but in free will and e 1 Cor. 5, 12. reason, and hath not sprung from the written Law of Moses, or Christ, but from the law of Nations and Nature. VVhich is most cleare, in that God both in the Olde and New Testament approueth the Kingdomes of the Gentiles and Infidels, as appeareth by that of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar: Dan. 2 37. O King, thou art King of Kings, For the God of Heauen hath giuen thee a kingdome, power, and strength, and glory, and in all places where the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowles of the heauen hath hee giuen into thine hand, and hath made thee a ruler ouer them all. And that of Christ, Matth. 22. 21, Giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars. With whom the Apostle agreeth, requiring the Christians of his time, not only to pay tribute to Heathen kings; but also Rom. 13. 5 to obey them for conscience sake; which men were not bound to, if they had no authority and right to commaund. Neither can it be said, that heathen princes are the Popes Lieuetenants, and theresore to be obeyed for his sake, though not for their owne, seeing the Pope would haue no such Lieutenants, if it lay in him to place them, or displace them. Lastly hee proueth, that the Pope hath no such soueraigne right of commaunding ouer all, as is pretended, seeing it had beene vaine for Christ to giue him a right to that, whereof hee should neuer get the possession. And hauing thus proued, that Infidels were truely and rightly Lords of the countries subiect to them before the comming of Christ, that he found no nullitie in their titles, nor euer seized their kingdomes and dominions into his owne hands, as some fondly imagine that he did, hee proceedeth to proue, that Princes when they become Christians, lose not the right that they formerly had to their kingdomes, but get a new right to the kingdome of heauen. For that otherwise Christs grace should destroy nature, and his benefits be preiudiciall to such as are made partakers of them. Whereas Christ came not to destroy and ouerthrow things well setled before, but to perfect them: nor to hurt any, but to doe good to all. For confirmation whereof hee alleageth part of the Hymne of Sedulius, which the whole Church doth sing. Hostis Herodes impie, Christum venire quid times? Non eripit mortalia, Qui regna dat coelestia; that is, O impious enemie Herod, why doest thou feare Christs comming? He will not depriue thee of thy transitorie kingdome vpon earth, that giues an eternall kingdome in heauen. Whence it followeth, that Christ imposed no such hard condition on those kings that were to become Christians, as to leaue their crownes & dignities.

And so he commeth to his second proposition, that the Pope is not temporall Lord of the Christian world, which he confirmeth. First, because if the Pope were soueraigne Lord of all the Christian world, Bishops should be temporall Lords of their cities, & the places adioyning subiect to them. Which neither they will graunt, that contend for the soueraigntie of the Pope, nor can stand with that of Saint Ambros. in Oratione de tradend. Basilicis. Ambrose, who saith, If the Emperour aske tribute, we deny it him not. The Church lands doe pay tribute. And againe, Tribute is Caesars, it is not denied him, but the Church is Gods, and may not be yeelded to Caesar. And that of Hosius Bishop of Corduba, who (as we reade in In epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes. Athanasius) telleth the Emperour, that God hath giuē him the Empire, but that he hath committed to Bishops, those things that pertaine to the Church. Secondly, out of the confession of Popes, Leo epist. ad Martian. 38. & 43. Pope Leo confessing, that Martianus the Emperour, was appointed to the Empire by God, and that God was the authour of his Empire: And Epi. ad Anastas. quae habetur. Dist. 96. ca. duo sunt. Gelasius writing to Anastasius the Emperour, and acknowledging that there are two thinges by which principally the world is guided, to wit, the sacred authority of Bishoppes, and the regall power of Princes; with whom Gregorie agreeth when hee saith, Greg. lib. 2. epist. 61. ad Mauritium. Power ouer all is giuen from heauen to the piety of my Lord.

And from hence hee inferreth his third proposition, that the Pope is temporall Lord of no part of the world, in the right of Peters successour, and Christs Vicar. For, if there were no nullitie in the titles of infidell kings and princes, nor no necessity implied in their conuersion, of relinquishing their right when they became Christians, but that both infidels & christians, notwithstanding any act of Christ, continued in the full possession of princely power & right, it could not be, that Christ should inuest Peter, or his successours, with any kingly authority, seeing hee could giue them none, but such as he should take from others.

Nay, hee proceedeth farther, and sheweth, that Christ himselfe, while hee was on the earth, was no temporall Lord or King, and therefore much lesse gaue any temporall dominion or kingdome to his Apostles. That he was no temporall king, he proueth, because the right to bee a King or Lord in such sort as men are Kings or Lords, is either by inheritance, election, conquest, or speciall donation and gift of Almighty God. Now that Christ according to the flesh, was a King by right of inheritance, hee saith, it cannot be proued, because though hee came of the kingly familie, yet it is vncertaine whether he were the next in bloud to Dauid or not. And besides, the kingdome was taken away from Dauids house, before Christ was borne; & God had foretold, that of the house of Ieconiah, of which Christ came (as we may reade in the Vers. 12. first of Saint Matthew) there should neuer be any temporall King such as David, and the rest that succeeded him were, saying; Ierem. 22. 30. Write this man barren, a man that shall not prosper in his dayes; for there shall bee no man of his seede to sitte vpon the throne of Dauid, & to haue power any more in Iudah. And whereas it might be obiected, that the Angell prophecied, that Luke 1. 32. the, Lord God should giue vnto Christ, the seat of Dauid his father, the Cardinall answereth out of Hierome, vpon the place of Hieremie: and Ambrose vpon Luke, that the words of Almighty God which we read in Hieremie, are to be vnderstood of a temporall kingdome, and the words of the Angell of a spirituall and eternall kingdome. That Christ was not a temporall King by right of election, hee proueth by that of Christ himselfe, when he saith, Luke 12. 14. O man, who hath made me a judge, or a diuider among you. And by that of S. Iohn where he saith, that Ioh. 6. 15. When Christ knew they meant to come & take him, & make him a King, he fled againe himselfe alone into a mountaine. So that he neither was chosen, nor would haue accepted of any such choise. That by right of conquest and victory hee was not a temporall King, it appeareth, in that his warre was not with mortall Kings, to depriue them of their kingdomes, but with the prince of darkenesse; according to that of the Apostle: 1. Ioh. 3. 8. To this purpose did the Sonne of God appeare, that he might dissolue the workes of the Diuell. And that againe, Ioh. 12. 31. Now is the Prince of this world cast out. And that of Saint Paule, who speaking of Christ, sayth, Colos. 2. 15. That spoyling principalities and powers, hee made a shew of them openly, triumphing ouer them in himselfe. So that his warrefare was not, by carnall weapons to get himselfe an earthly kingdome, but by spirituall weapons, mightie through God, to get a spirituall kingdome, that hee might reigne in the hearts of men, by faith and grace, where Sathan reigned before by infidelity, disobedience and sinne. Lastly, that he was no temporall king by any speciall gift of God his Father, it is euident out of his owne words, when he saith, Ioh. 18. 36. My kingdome is not hence: For as the Chrysostom. Theophylact. Cyril. & Aug. in hunc locum. Ambros. li. 3. in Lucam, prope finem. Fathers note vpon these words, Christ meant by so saying, to put Pilate out of doubt, that he affected no temporall kingdome. And therefore the sence of his words, must needes be this, I am a King, but not in such sort, as Caesar and Herod: My kingdome is not of this world, that is, The supports of it, are not things of this world, it doth not consist in honour, riches, and power of this world. This thing the Cardinall farther proueth to be true, because he came to minister, and not to be ministred vnto: to be judged, and not to judge: and by his whole course of conuersation, shewed the same, neuer taking vpon him to do any kingly act. For whereas hee cast out the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, it rather pertained to the Priestes office, then the kings, according to that, which wee read in the old Testament, that the 2. Chron. 26. 20. Priest draue the king himselfe out of the Temple, when disorderly he presumed to do things not pertaining to him: and yet he did it not by any Priestly or kingly authority, but after the manner of Prophets, by a kind of diuine zeale, like that wherewith Num. 25. 7. Phinchees was moued to kill the adulterer and adulteresse, and 1. King. 18. 40. Elias to slay the Prophets of Baal. This most true opinion of the Cardinall, that Christ was no temporall king, is farther confirmed, in that such a kind of kingdome had not beene necessary. Nay, it had beene an hinderance to the worke he had in hand, which was to perswade to the contempt of glorie, honour, riches, pleasures, and all such other earthly things, wherewith the Kings of the earth abound: and by suffering death, to ouercome him that had the power of death; and to reconcile the world vnto God. And besides, in that all the places, where any mention is made of the kingdome of Christ, are necessarily vnderstood of a spirituall and eternall kingdome. So in the Psalme, Psal. 2. I am apointed of him a King, to preach his commandement. And againe, in the booke of Daniel: Dan. 2. 44. In their dayes shall God raise vp a kingdome, which shall not be destroyed for euer. And of his kingdome there shall be no end. Whereas the kingdomes of men, continue but for a time: and therefore if Christ had beene a King in such sort while he was vpon the earth, as men are, he had ceased to be so, when hee left the earth. And then it could not haue beene true, that of his kingdome there should be none end. Nay seeing the kingdome of the Iewes was possessed by the Romanes, at, or immediately after the time of the departure of Christ out of the world and afterwards by the Saracens, and Turkes: how could that of Daniel haue beene fulfilled, that his kingdome shall not be giuen to another people, if his kingdome had beene like the kingdomes of men? So it is true, that Christ came into the world to be a king, and that GOD gaue him the seate of Dauid his father. But this kingdome was diuine, spirituall, eternall, and proper vnto him, in that hee was the Sonne of God, and in that he was God and Man. But a temporall kingdome, such as the sonnes of men haue, he had not. And heereupon Saint Augustine bringeth in Christ speaking in this sort, Aug. in 15 Ioannis. Audite Iudaej & Gentes, audi circumcisio, audi praeputium, audite omnia regnae terrena, non impedio dominationem vestram in hoc mundo, &c. that is, Heare O Iewes and Gentiles, heare circumcision, and vncircumcision, heare all ye kingdomes of the earth, I hinder not your dominion and rule in this world, because my kingdome is not of this world. Feare not therefore with that most vaine and causelesse feare, wherewith Herod feared, and slew so many innocent babes, being cruell, rather out of feare then anger, and so forward: shewing that the Kingdome of Christ is meerely spirituall, and such as no way prejudiceth the kingdomes of men. Which the Gloss. super illud Matth. 21. Benedictus qui venit. Glosse confirmeth, noting that Christ, while hee was yet to liue longer in this world, when the multitudes came to make him a King, refused it: but that when hee was ready to suffer, he no way reproued, but willingly accepted the hymnes of them, that receiued him in triumphant manner, and welcommed him to Hierusalem, honouring him as a King; because hee was a King, not hauing a temporall and earthly kingdome, but an heauenly. Whereunto Leo agreeth, shewing that Herod, when hee heard a Prince was borne to the Iewes, feared a successour; but that his feare was vaine and causelesse, saying, Leo serm. de Epiphania. O caeca stultae aemulationis impietas, quae perturbandum putas divinum tuo furore consilium! Dominus mundi temporale non quaerit regnumqui praestat aeternum. that is, Oblinde impietie of foolish emulation, which thinkest to trouble and hinder the Counsels of God by thy furie. The Lord of the World, who giueth an eternall Kingdome, came not into the World to seeke a temporall kingdome. And Fulg. serm. de Epiph. Fulgentius accordeth with him, saying, The golde which the Sages offered to Christ, shewed him to bee a King, but not such a King as will haue his Image and superscription in the coyne, but such an one as seeketh his image in the sonnes of men. Whence it followeth, he was no temporall or mundane King: seeing they haue their images and superscriptions in their coyne, that are kings after the manner of the World. This assertion may be proued by many vnanswerable reasons. The first is this, Christ standing before Pilate, and being asked by him if he were a King, aunswered, Ioh. 18. 36. That his Kingdome was not of this world. Therefore he was not temporall or mundane King. This consequence fome deny, affirming that Christ intended not in his answer to Pilate, to deny his kingdome to be a temporal, earthly, & mundane kingdome, but that he meant onely to let him know that he had receiued his kingdome of God, & that the World neither gaue it him, nor chose him to it. And therefore he saide, Regnum meum non est hinc, and not Regnum meum non est hic, that is, My Kingdome is not hence, and not, My Kingdome is not here. This was the evasion of Pope Iohn the two and twentieth (as Ockam oper •… s 90. dier. c. 53 Ockam testifieth) but hee refuteth the same by most cleare circumstances of Scripture, and euidence of reason, shewing that Christ being accused vnto Pilate as an enemy to Caesar, in that he made himselfe a King, so cleared himselfe, that Pilate pronounced that he found nothing against him; which he could not, nor he would not haue done if he had confessed his Kingdome to be a mundane Kingdome, though hee had deriued the right and title of it from Heauen. For Caesar would not haue endured any claime of such a Kingdome, though fetched from Heauen. Neither durst Pilate haue pronounced him guiltlesse that had made such a claime, and therefore Christ, when hee saide, his Kingdome was not of this World, meant not onely to deny the receiuing of it from the World, but also the dependance of it vpon any thing in the World: the supports of it not being things earthly, but heauenly and diuine, it no way consisting in riches, honour, power, & worldly greatnesse, as doe the kingdomes of men, but in the power of God. Which thing is aptly expressed by Christ himselfe, when he saith, Ioh. 18. 36 If my Kingdome were of this world, my Souldiers would fight for mee. The second reason is this. He that is no judge of secular quarrels, nor divider of inheritance, is no King. For these things belong to the office of a King. But Christ was no judge of such quarrels, and differences; therefore hee was no King. That hee was no judge of secular quarrels, nor divider of inheritances, it is evident by his owne Luk. 12. 14. deniall thereof. Which Saint Ambrose excellently expresseth, saying; Ambros. in eum locum. Be •… terrena declinat, qui propter diuina descenderat; nec iudex dignatur esse litium, & arbiter facultatum, viuorum habens mortuorumque iudicium, & arbitrium meritorum: that is, Hee doth well decline things earthly, who descended and came downe for things divine. Neither doth hee vouchsafe to bee a judge of quarrels, and an arbitratour to determine the differences of men about their possessions, who is appointed to bee judge of the quicke and dead, and to whom it pertayneth to discerne betweene the well and ill doings of men. And againe; Meritò refutatur ille frater, qui dispensatorem coelestium gestiebat terrenis occupare: that is; That brother is worthily reiected, and hath the repulse, who sought to busie him whom God hath appointed the disposer of things heauenly, with things that are earthly. The third is, because Christ refused to be a King when it was offered him, and told his disciples, that Math. 20. 25. The kings of the nations haue dominion ouer them, and they that are great, exercise authoritie. But that it should not be so with them, but that whosoeuer would be great among them, must be their minister. The fourth; hee that is a King and will neuer meddle with the things that belong to a King, is justly to be charged either with wickednes, or negligence. But Christ neuer medled with any thing pertaining to the office of a temporall king in this world; therefore either he was no such king, or he may be charged with malice or negligence. But neither of these two latter may be admitted; therefore hee was no such king. The fifth; there cannot be two kings of one kingdome, vnlesse either they hold the same ioyntly, or the one acknowledge to hold the same, as of and from the other. But Caesar and Christ, neither held the kingdome of Iudaea ioyntly, neither did Caesar hold it as from Christ, nor Christ as from Caesar. Therefore either Caesar was no true king, or Christ was no secular king of that kingdome. But that Caesar was a true king, it appeareth by the testimony of Christ himselfe, saying; Math. 22. 21. Giue, or rather render, to. Caesar the things that are Caesars. Now Caesar claimed tribute as Lord of the countrey, and therefore hee was truely Lord and King of it. That Caesar held not of or from Christ as man, it is euident; and much more, that Christ, who wholly refused to be a king, did neuer acknowledge to hold any kingdome from mortall man. The sixth; that was the kingdome of Christ whereof the Prophets prophesied: But they prophesied not of any earthly kingdome; therefore Christs kingdome was not earthly. That they prophesied not of any earthly kingdome, it is euident, in that the kingdome they prophesied of, was to be confirmed and restored by him: but the earthly kingdome of Iudaea was not confirmed by the comming of Christ, but vpon the refusall of him vtterly ouerthrowne; therefore it was not that the Prophets prophesied of. That the kingdome they prophesied of, was to be confirmed, restored and bettered, the words of the Prophets are proofe sufficient. 〈◊〉 . 2 •… 5. &c. Behold the day commeth (saith the Lord) and I will raise vp vnto Dauid a righteous branch, and a king shall reigne, and he shall bee wise, and shall doe iudgement and iustice in the earth. In those dayes Iudah shall be saued, and Israel shall dwell boldly. And this is the name that they shall call him by: The Lord our righteousnesse. And againe, Esay 9 6. A little child is borne vnto vs, and the principality or rule is on his shoulders. His name shall bee called wonderfull, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace, the increase of his gouernement and peace shall haue no end. Hee shall sitte vpon the throne of Dauid, and vpon his kingdome to order, and to stablish it with iudgement, and with iustice from henceforth euen for euer. Now that the kingdome of Iudaea was not established, but vtterly ouerthrowne immediatly after Christs departure hence, vpon and for the refusall of him, the words of Christ foretelling it, and the euent of things answering vnto his prediction, are proofe sufficient. Luk. 19. 43. The day shall come vpon thee (saith Christ to Hierusalem, the chiefe citie of that kingdome) that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and hold thee in straight on every side, they shall cast thee to the earth, and thy children that are in thee, and shall not leaue a stone vpon a stone, because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Thus we see it strongly proued, that To which pur pose see Wal. dens. Doctr. lib: 2. art. 3. cap. 76. & 77. Christ himselfe was no temporall or earthly king, and therefore much lesse Peter or the Pope, that pretendeth to be Christs Vicar, and Peters successour. Notwithstanding, they that are otherwise minded, endevour to proue, that Christ was a temporall king, and that hee left a kingly power to Peter and his successours. First, out of Scripture strangely wrested. Secondly, out of the testimonies of Popes. (For better authorities they haue none.) The principall text of Scripture which they alleage, is in the Gospell of Saint Matthew, where our Sauiour saith, Math. 28. 18. All power is given me in heauen and in earth. But De Pontif. l. 5. cap. 5. Bellarmine telleth them, and the best Diuines agree with him, that that place is not to bee vnderstood of a temporall power, such as earthly kings haue, but either of a spirituall, whereby Christ so raigneth in earth, in the hearts of men by faith, as hee doth in heaven in the presence of his glorie among the Angels; or a diuine power ouer all creatures, not communicable to mortall men. The former of these interpretations the Authour of the Interlineall Glosse followeth, the later Lyra vpon this place: his words are; Licèt Christus, quantum ad diuinitatem ab aeterno haberet hanc potestatem, & in quantum homo, ab instanti conceptionis, haberet potestatem in coelo, & in terra, authoritativè, tamen executivè non habuit ante resurrectionem suam, sed voluit esse passibilitati subiectus propter nostram redemptionem; that is, Although Christ, in that he was God, had this power from all eternity, and in that hee was man, had power both in heauen and in earth, from the first moment of his conception in respect of authority, yet in respect of the execution and performance of the acts of it, he had it not before his resurrection, but was pleased to bee subiect to passibilitie for our redemption. Let vs come therefore from the Scripture to the testimonies of later Popes; for Fathers, auncient Councells, or auncient Bishops of Rome, they haue none to speake for them. The first Pope that they alleage, is Pope Nicholas, in a certaine Epist. Nichola •… citat. 〈◊〉 Gratian. Dist. 22. cap. omnes. Epistle of his, where he saith (as they tell vs) that Christ committed and gaue vnto blessed Peter, the Keybearer of eternall life, the rights both of the earthly and heauenly Empire. To this authority first wee answere, that Pope Nicholas hath no such words in any Epistle; howsoeuer Gratian, who citeth them as the words of Nicholas, mistooke the matter. Secondly, that supposing the words to be the words of Nicholas, his meaning may bee, that the spirituall power of binding and loosing, which Christ left to Peter, is not onely of force in earth, but in heauen also, that being bound in heauen that is bound on earth, and they beeing repulsed from the throne of grace in heauen, and excluded from Gods fauours, that are reiected from the holy Altars, and put from the Sacraments of the Church. Wherevpon Homil. 〈◊〉 . de verb. Esaiae. Vidi Dominum. Chrysostome saith, that the power of the church directeth and commaundeth the very Tribunall of heauen, and addeth, that heauen taketh authority of judging from the earth: For that the Iudge sitteth on earth, and the Lord followeth the sentence of his servants, according to that of Christ, Math. 16. 19. Whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth, shall be bound in heauen. Others expound the supposed words of Pope Nicholas of the spirituall power of Peter ouer the good and bad in the visible church, the good being named the kingdome of heauen, and the bad an earthly kingdome or company. But howsoeuer, it is most certaine, that Pope Nicholas in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour, hath the cleane contrary to that which some would charge him with. For there hee sheweth that howsoeuer before Christ, some were both kings and priests, as was Melchisedeck, and as likewise some other among the Pagans were, yet after Christ none were so. Neither did the Emperour take vnto him the rights of the chiefe Priesthood, nor the chiefe Priest the name of the Emperour. Sed mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus, sic actibus propriis & dignitatibus distinctis, officia potestatis vtriusque discreuit, vt & Christiani Imperatores pro aeterna vita pontificibus indigerent, & Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodò rerum Imperialibus legibus vterentur; that is: But the Mediatour of God and men, the man Christ, did so distinguish and seuer the duties and offices of either of these kinds of power by their proper actions, & distinct dignities, that both Christian Emperours should stand in neede of Bishops, for the attaining of eternall life; and that Bishoppes should vse the lawes of Emperours, for the course of temporall things onely: that so both the spirituall action and employment might be free from carnall turmoyles, and that he who goeth on warfare vnto God, might not at all bee entangled with secular businesses: and that on the other side, he might not seeme to bee set ouer the things that are Diuine, whom the businesses of this world should possesse: that both the modestie of each of these orders and degrees might bee preserued, and that also, no one hauing both these kindes of power should be lifted vp too high. The next authoritie is that of Bonifacius the eighth, who hath these words (speaking of the Church, which is one, and whereof he supposeth the Bishop of Rome to be the head) Bonifac. 8. in extravagant. unam Sanctam de Maioritate & obedientiâ. Wee are instructed by the Evangelicall sayings, that in this Church, and in the power of it there are two swords, to wit, a spirituall, and a temporall. For when the Apostles said, Beholde heere are two swords, to wit, in the Church (because they were the Apostles that spake) the Lord did not answere that it was too much, but that it was enough; and therefore surely, whosoeuer denyeth the temporall sword to be in the power of Peter, seemeth not well to consider the word of the Lord commaunding him to sheathe his sword. The answer vnto this authority is easie. For Bonifacius (as Duaren. de Sac. Eccl. Minist. & Benef. l. 7. c. •… 0. Duarenus noteth) was a vaine, busie, turbulent, arrogant, and proud man, presuming aboue that which was fit, and challenging that which no way pertained vnto him; and therefore we may justly reject both him and his sayings. But for the words of our Sauiour it is euident, that they proue no such thing, as this Pope would inforce out of them. Some (saith In 22 Lucae. Maldonatus) frō these words would proue, that the Church hath two swords, the one spirituall, the other temporall; which, whether it haue or haue not, cannot be proued out of this place, where other swords are meant then either of Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall authority. Our Sauiour telleth his Disciples, the times approaching will be such, as that a man had neede for his owne defence to sell his coate to buy a sword. Whereupon the Disciples supposing they should vse materiall swords in their owne defence, answere, that they haue two swords. To whom Christ replyeth, that it is enough, not confirming their erring opinion, but answering them Ironically, as Theophylact and Euthymius thinke. Or otherwise letting them vnderstand, that though the times would be such, as that many swords would not suffice to defend them, yet that these two were enough, because he meant to vse none at all, but to suffer all that the malice of his enemies could doe vnto him. This, Maldonatus deliuereth to be the literall sense of Christs wordes, & sheweth a mysticall sense of them also out of Beda, much more apt then that of Bonifacius. Duo gladii (saith Beda) sufficiunt ad testimonium sponte passi Salvatoris. Vnus, qui & Apostolis audaciam pro Domino certandi; & evulsàictu eius auriculâ, Domino etiam morituro pietatem, virtutemque doceret inesse medicandi. Alter, quinequaquam vaginâ exemptus, ostenderet eos nec totum quod potuere, pro eius defensione facere permissos: that is, Two swords are sufficient to giue testimony vnto our Sauiour, that he suffered willingly. The one of which might shew, that the Apostles wanted no courage to fight for their Master: and by the eare that was cut off by the stroke thereof, and healed againe by the Lord; that he wanted neither piety to compassionate the miserable, nor vertue and power to make him whole that was hurt, though now hee were ready to dye. And the other, which neuer was drawne out of the sheath, might shew, that they were not permitted to doe all that they could haue done in his defence. It is not to be denyed, but that S. 〈◊〉 . 4. de consid. ad Eugen. Bernard mystically expounding the words of Christ, saith; the Church hath two swords of authority. But he thinketh it hath them in very different sort. For it hath the vse of the one, and the benefite of the other, The one is to bee drawne by it, the other for it. So that this is all that hee saith, that the sword of ciuill authority is to be vsed by the Souldiers hand, at the commaund of the Emperour, by the direction, and at the suite of the Church. From Bonifacius they passe to Cap. Licet de foro compe •… enti. Innocentius the third, who in the vacancy of the Empire, willed those that were wronged in their rightfull causes, to haue recourse either to some Bishop, or to himselfe: And Clemens the fifth, who Clem •… n lib. 2 Tit. 11. de Sententia & re judicat •… . professeth to intermeddle with certaine secular businesses & affaires, and to determine certaine ciuill causes vpon three seuerall grounds. Whereof the first is, his greatnesse, making him superiour to the Emperour. The second, his being in steed of the Emperour, in the vacancy of the Empire. And the third, the fulnesse of power, which Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords gaue vnto Peter, and in him to his successours. Whatsoeuer wee thinke of the former of these two Popes, who seemeth to ground his intermedling in ciuill affaires vpon some law of the Empire, and concession of ciuill Princes, accordingly as we reade of Decreti part. 2. causa 11. quaest. 1. ca. Quicunque. Theodosius, that he permitted any Lay-men hauing ciuill differences among themselues, to referre the same to Ecclesiasticall Iudges if they listed. (Which concession proceeding ex pietate, not ex debito, that is, out of piety, and not out of any right or necessity that it must bee soe, is long since growne out of vse; the state of Church-men beeing much changed from that it was, when hee granted them that priuiledge as De Sacr. Eccl. Minist. & benef. lib. 1. c. 2. Duarenus sheweth.) Yet Pope Clemens can by no meanes be excused from hereticall impiety, affirming that which is most vntrue, as may appeare by the many fold reasons brought before to proue the contrary; nor from Antichristian pride, in seeking to tread vnderneath his feete, the crownes and dignities of Kings and Princes, and to lift himselfe vp aboue all that is called God.

CHAP. 45.

Of the Popes vnjust claime to intermeddle with the affaires of Princes and their states, if not as soueraigne Lord ouer all, yet at least in Ordine ad spiritualia, and in case of Princes failing to do their duties.

THAT Christ was no earthly King, that he left no Kingly power to Peter, and that the Pope hath no meere temporall power, in that he is Christs Vicar, or Peters successor, it is most euident out of the former discourse, and the Cardinall Iesuite confesseth so much; and yet Bellar. de Pon. Rom. lib. 5. c. 6. he thinketh the Pope hath a supreme power to dispose of all temporall states and things, in ordine ad bonum spirituale, that is, in a kinde of reference to the procuring and setting forward of the spirituall good. But this fancy is most easily refuted by vnanswerable reasons presupposing his former concession.

For first, no man can take away, limit, or restraine any power, or the excercise of it, but he in whom it is in eminent sort, and from whom it was receiued. But the ciuill power that is in Princes, is not in the Pope, neither did it proceede and come originally from him; therefore it cannot be restrained, limited, or taken away by him. The maior proposition is euident: the assumption is proued, because ciuill power is in heathen infidels, who no way hold of the Pope. Secondly because it is agreed by all Diuines of worth and learning, that the ciuill power in the first originall of it, is immediately from God: or if not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof, yet by no other mediation then that of the law of nature and nations. Tert in Apol. aduersus Gentes. cap. 30. The Emperours know (saith Tertullian) who gaue them the Empire, they know that it was euen the same God, who gaue vnto them to be men, and to haue humane soules. They well perceiue, that he onely is God, in whose onely power they are: à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes & super omnes Deos: that is, After whom, they are in order the second, but among all other the first, before and aboue all Gods. And againe, Inde est Imperator, vnde & homo antequam Imperator; inde potest as illi, vnde & spiritus: that is, From thence is the chiefe ruler and Emperor, whence he was a man before hee was an Emperour: from thence hath hee his power, from whence he receiued the spirit of life. The Author of the answer to the reports of a great and worthy Iudge among vs, who hath lately written in the defence of the Popes ouerspreading greatnesse, seemeth in part to agree with Tertullian, and telleth vs, Ans. to the reports of Sir Ed. Cook. chap. 2. pag. 26. that ciuill power is receiued from God, not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof, but mediately rather by the mediation of the law of nature and nations. For by the law of nature God hath ordained that there should be politicke gouernment, which the law of nations assuming, hath transferred that gouernment to one, or more, according to the diuers formes thereof. And Diolog lib. 2. tractat. 2. part. 3. cap. 22. Occam proueth at large, that Imperiall power is not from the Pope, and that it is hereticall to say, that all lawfull ciuil power is from the Pope.

Our second reason is this: Absolute & soueraigne ciuill Princes while they were infidels, had true dominion, rule and authority, holding it as immediatly from God, not depending on any ruler of the church, as hath beene shewed before. But when they become Christians, they still remaine in the same fulnesse of authority, in as ample & independent sort as before, because the benefite of Christ tendeth to no mans hurt, & grace ouerthroweth not nature: therefore still they remaine independent and subiect to none in the same power, and in the exercise of it. If they shall say, they are subject to none while they vse their authority well, but that if they abuse it, they lose the independent absolutenesse thereof; their saying will bee found to bee heteticall. For if vpon abuse of independent authority, they that haue it, lose and forfeit it ipso facto, then authority and abuse of authority, or at least extreme abuse of it, cannot stand together; which is contrary to that of Saint Augustine, where he saith: Aug. de Bono Coniugali. c. 14 Nec tyrannicaefactionis perversitas laudabilis erit, si regia clementia tyrannus subditos tractet, nec vituperabilis ordo regiae potestatis, si Rex crudelitate tyrannicâ saeuiat: aliud est namque iniustâ potestate iustè velle vti; & aliud est iustâ potestate iniustè velle vti: that is, Neither shall the peruersnesse of tyrannicall vsurpation euer be praise worthy, though the tyrant vse his subiects with all Kingly clemency, nor the order of Kingly power euer be subiect to iust reprehension, though a king grow fierce and cruell like a tyrant. For it is one thing to vse an vnlawfull power lawfully, and another thing to vse a lawfull power vnrighteously & vniustly.

The third reason may bee this. If God did giue to the Pope authority to depose Princes, erring and abusing their authority, hee would giue them the meanes to execute that their authority reacheth vnto, to wit, ciuill greatnesse, armies of Souldiers, walled cities, towers, and strong holds, both for defence and offence, and all other thinges necessary for the putting downe of wicked Kinges. But the Pope as Christs Vicar hath none of these, neither was hee at any time as a temporall Prince, the greatest monarch of the world, and so able to represse the insolencies of all hereticall, pagan, and wicked Kings, hindering the peaceable proceeding of the Gospell of Christ: therefore he hath no such authority. For to say, that God giueth authority, & not the meanes whereby it may execute and performe that which pertaineth to it, is impious. The onely meanes the Pope hath to depose Princes, are two; but neither of them within the compasse of his power to dispose of. The first, is the raising of subjects against their Prince. The second, is the raising of neighbour Princes. The former of these meanes is very defectiue, seeing (as De Pont. lib. 5. cap. 7. Bellarmine rightly obserueth out of Ecclesiasticus) Ecclus. 10 7. Such as the Ruler of a citie is, such are they that dwell in it: And therefore if the King bee an hereticke, the most part of his people will bee so too, and rather assist him for the maintenance of his heresie, then resist against him for the suppressing of it. Which thing (as he saith) experience teacheth: For when 1. King. 12. 30 Ieroboam became an Idolater, the greatest part of the kingdome worshipped Idols. When Constantine reigned, Christian Religion flourished: When Constantius reigned, Arrianisme prevailed, and ouerflowed all: When Iulian swayed the Scepter, the greatest part returned to Paganisme. So that Socrates. lib. 3. cap. 19. Iouian being chosen after his death, refused to bee Emperour, protesting that being a Christian, hee neither could, nor would bee Emperour ouer infidells. Whereupon they all professed, that howsoeuer they had dissembled before, yet they were still in heart Christians, and now would shew it againe. So that wee see, the first meanes for the suppressing of erring Princes, is no meanes, or a very vncertaine one. And a second is worse then the first: For I neuer read in any Diuine, of what religion soeuer, that one King is bound to make warre vpon another, vpon the Popes command, for the suppressing of heresie. And therefore the Pope may breath out excommunications till he be breathlesse, but can goe no farther by any meanes that God hath giuen him.

Fourthly, thus we reason. Either the power of the Pope is meerely Ecclesiasticall and spirituall, or it is not. If it bee not, then hath hee ciuill authority from Christ, which they deny. If it be, then can it inflict no punishments, but meerely spirituall, and Ecclesiasticall. For of what nature each power is, of the same are the punishments it inflicteth. The temporall power inflicteth onely temporall, outward, and corporall punishments, as losse of goods, imprisonment, banishment, or death. The spirituall only spirituall, as suspension, excommunication, and the like. Now I suppose the losse of a kingdome, with all the riches and honour of it; & captivity, banishment, or death, vpon resistance against the sentence of deposition, is a temporall and externall punishment of the worst nature and highest degree that may be.

Lastly, if soueraigne Kings may bee put from their Kingdomes vpon abuse of their authority, either they forfeit and lose the right of them ipso facto, and are depriued by Almighty God: and then the Pope can but declare what God hath already done, as any man else may vpon perfect vnderstanding of the case: or else other neighbor Kings, or their owne subjects are to depose them, and the Pope is onely to put them in mind of their duty, and as a spirituall pastour to vrge them to the performance of it: and then he deposeth thē not, but they. Or lastly, the power of assuming their authority to himself, vpon their abuse thereof, pertaineth vnto him: and then in ciuill authority he is the greatest and ouer all; which yet these men deny. For hee that is to judge of Princes actions: and vpon dislike, to limite, restraine, or wholly take their power from them, is supreme in that kinde of authority. And if he may take ciuill authority from other, and giue it to whom he pleaseth, there is no question but hee may giue it vnto himselfe, and so hath power vpon all defects of Princes, to take into his owne hand that which formerly pertained to them, and to doe the acts that were to be performed by them.

Now as these reasons strongly proue, that the Pope cannot depose Princes in ordine ad spiritualia, so the weaknes of the reasons brought to proue it, will much more confirme the same. Their first reason is taken frō the perfection and excellency of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall power, which they say is greater and farre more excellent then that which is ciuill. Whereunto we answer with Doctrin. fid. l. 2. art. 3. c. 78. Waldensis, that though the spirituall power be simply more perfect & excellent then the ciuill, yet either of these in the performance of things pertaining to them, is greater then the other, and each of them independent of the other. Ambrose was greater then Theodosius in respect of the administration of diuine things, & might either admit him to, or reiect him from the Sacraments. But Theodosius in respect of all temporall things was greater then hee, and might cōmand him, send him into banishment, or take away all that he had. The Sun is more excellent then the Moon, & the influence thereof more powerfull; yet is there a kind of influence vpon the waters, wherein the Moon is more excellent then the Sun. In like sort, the power which is spirituall may do greater things then that which is temporall, & yet the temporall may do those things the spirituall cannot do. And therfore it will not follow, that the Ecclesiasticall state, & the principall Ministers of the Church may take vnto themselues the authority of Kings, or take vpon them to do the things that pertaine to Kingly offices, because they are greater in dignity, and haue a greater power; vnlesse they had a greater dignity & power in the same kind. Nowthey who most amplifie the greatnes of Ecclesiasticall power, preferring it before the other which is ciuill, neuer make the greatnes of it to consist, in that in ciuill affaires it may do more then that; but in that it hath a more noble object, & more wonderfull effects. Nazianz. orat. ad Ciues trepidantes. We also (saith Nazianzen) haue power and authority, & that farre more ample and excellent then that of ciuill Princes, insomuch as it is fit the flesh should yeeld to the spirit, & things earthly to things heauenly. Chrys. hom. 5. de verb. Esaiae VidiDominum. Priesthood (saith Chrysostome) is a Princedome, more honourable & great then a Kingdome; tell not mee of the purple, diademe, scepter, or golden apparell of Kings, for these are but shadowes, and more vaine then flowres at the spring time. If you will see the difference betweene them, & how much the King is inferiour to the Priest, cōsider the manner of the power deliuered to them both, & you shall see the Priests tribunall much higher then that of the King, who hath receiued only the administratiō of earthly things. But the Priests tribunal is placed in heauē, & he hath authority to pronoūce sentence in heauēly affairs. And again, Hom. 4. Earthly Princes haue power to bind but our bodies onely, but the bands which Priests can lay vpō vs, do touch the soul it self, & reach euen vnto the heauēs, so far forth, as that whatsoeuer Priests shal determin here beneath, that God doth ratifie aboue in heauen, and confirme the sentence of his seruants vpon earth. Petrus Blesen. Epist. 146. When king Richard the first returning from the holy land, was taken and holde as a prisoner by Duke Leopold of Austria, and the Emperour Henry the sixth; Queene Elenor his mother seeking all meanes to procure his deliuerance, among other thinges, wrote a letter to the Bishop of Rome, intreating him to interpose his authority. The words of her letter are these, expressing the passion and earnest desire of her heart. This onely remaineth (ô Father) that you draw forth the sword of Peter against malefactors; which sword, God hath appointed to be ouer nations and kingdomes. The Crosse of Christ doth excell the Eagles that are in Caesars Banners, the spirituall sword of Peter is of more power then was the temporall sword of Constantine the Emperour, and the See Apostolicke is more potent then any Imperiall power or authority: and I would aske whether your power be of God, or of men? did not the God of Gods speake to you in Peter the Apostle, saying: Whatsoeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound in heauen; and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall bee loosed in heauen? and why then do you so negligently, or rather cruelly delay, for a long time, to lose my sonne? or why dare you not do it? perhaps you will say, that the power giuen you by God of binding and losing, is for soules and not for bodies. Let it bee so, truly it is sufficiont for vs if you will binde the soules of those that hold my sons body bound in prison. By all these sayings of them that most admired the excellency of Priesthood, it appeareth, that the excellencie thereof aboue princely power is in respect of the object thereof, which is more noble; & the effects thereof, which are more wonderfull: & not in respect of greater power, authority & right to dispose of temporal affaires & businesses, either simply, or vpon any abuse or negligence of ciuil Princes. So that from hence it cannot be inferred, that the chiefe ministers of the Church may depose the Princes of the world. Lib. 2. de. Sacrament. part. 2. c. 4. Hugo de sancto Victore sayth: There are two kinds of power, the one terrene, the head whereof is the King: the other spirituall, the head whereof is the pope. To the Kings power those things pertaine that are terrene: to the Popes, those that are spirituall: and looke how much the spirituall life is better then the earthly, so much doth the spirituall power excell the earthly in honour and dignity: For the spirituall power doth constitute the terrene power, that it may be; and iudgeth it whether it proceede aright, or not. But it selfe was first instituted of God, and when it goeth aside, can bee judged of none but of God onely. From hence (as Doct. Fid. li. a. art. 3. ca. 78. Waldensis sheweth) some men tooke an occasion of errour, affirming, that the roote of terrene power, doth so farre fotrh depend vpon the Pope, that by commission from him, the execution of things pertaining thereunto, is deriued vnto the Prince: and that when the Prince goeth aside or faileth to do his duty, the chiefe Bishop may manage the ciuill affaires; because, hee saith, the spirituall power doth institute the ciuil power, that it may be. But these men presume too farre, and in so doing offend, because the terrene power of Kings is not reduced into any other originally, as hauing authority ouer Kings, but vnto Christ onely: and yet notwithstanding, as the Priest joyneth the man and his wife in marriage, and blesseth them that they may be man and wife, and joyfull parents of happy children; and judgeth afterwards, whether they performe the duties of marriage or not. So the chiefe Priest setteth the crowne vpon the head of the Empreor, anointeth him with holy oyle, taketh an oath of him for the defence of the Christian faith and religion, putteth vpon him the royall robes, and thereby inuesteth him with royall power, & putteth him in possession of his Imperiall state and dignity. But it is not to be imagined (saith Waldensis) that the imperiall power is from the power of the Church, or dependeth of it, though certaine solemnities bee vsed by Bishops in the inauguration of Kings and Emperours; neither may the chiefe Ministers of the Church any more challenge the disposing or managing of ciuill affaires, vpon any defect or failing of ciuill Princes, then they may, the administration and dispensation of holy things, vpon the defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers. Yet in case of necessity, either of these two states may and ought to helpe and succour the other; not (as he sayth) vt vtens potestate, sed fraternitatis accessu: that is, Not as hauing authority, or by vertue thereof presuming to doe any thing; but as one brother maketh hast to helpe another in danger, reaching forth the hand to stay him that is standing, and to raise him that is fallen. Both the brethren, (sayth Waldensis) both Simeon and Leui, Priest-hood and knight-hood, Bishoply power, and that which is Princely, must rise vp together for the rescuing of Dinah their sister, out of the hands of him that seeketh to dishonour her: Vi charitatis etsi non authoritatis: that is, By force of charity, though not of authority. So that according to his opinion, the chiefe Ministers of the Church inuest the Princes of the world with their royall authority, according to the saying of Vbi supra. Hugo; but giue them not their authority: they may iudge of the actions of Princes, but they may not praeiudicare, they may not preiudice Princes. They may in the time of neede come to the succour, and in the time of danger reach forth the helping hand to the ciuill state, shaken by the negligence or malice of ciuill princes: but it must bee by way of charity, not of authority; as likewise the ciuill state may, and ought to bee assistant to the Ecclesiasticall in like danger, defect, or failing of the Ecclesiasticall ministers.

The next argument that our Aduersaries bring, is taken from a comparison between the soule and body, expressing the difference betweene the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state, found (as they say) in In Orat. ad populum timore perculsum & Imp. •… ascentem. Gregory Nazianzen. But that we may the better vnderstand the force of this argument, we must obserue, that in the comparison which they bring, they make the Ecclesiasticall state and spirituall power, like the spirit, and diuine faculties thereof: and the ciuill state like the flesh, with the senses, and sensitiue appetite thereof. And as in Angels there is spirit without flesh, in bruit beasts flesh and sense without spirit; and in man both these conjoyned: so they will haue vs graunt, that there is sometimes Ecclesiasticall power without ciuill, as in the Apostles times, and longe after; sometimes ciuill without Ecclesiasticall, as among the heathen, and sometimes these two conjoyned together. And as when the spirit and flesh meete in one, the spirit hath the command; and though it suffer the flesh to do all those things which it desireth vnlesse they be contrary to the intendments, designes, & ends of it: yet when it findeth them to be contrary, it may, and doth command the fleshly part to surcease from her owne actions, yea it maketh it to fast, watch, and do and suffer many grieuous and afflictiue things, euen to the weakning of it selfe. Soe in like manner they would inferre, that the Ecclesiasticall state being like to the spirit and soule, and the ciuill to the body of flesh, the Church hath power to restraine, and bridle ciuill Princes, if they hinder the spirituall good thereof, not onely by censures Ecclesiasticall, but outward inforcement also. This is the great and grand argument our Aduersaries bring to proue, that Popes may depose Princes: wherein first wee may obserue their folly, in that they bring similitudes, which serue only for illustration, and not for probation, for the maine confirmation of one of the principall points of their faith: Bellar. in Epist. ad Blackwellum. which whosoeuer denyeth, sinneth in as high a degree as, Marcellinus that sacrificed vnto Idols: and Peter, that denied his maister. Secondly, we see how much Princes are beholding vnto them that compare them to bruit beasts, and at the best, to the brutish part that is in men, common to them with bruit beastes. If they say, Nazianzen so compareth them, they are like themselues, and speake vntruly: for he compareth not Princes & Priestes to spirit and flesh, but going about to shew the difference of the objectes of their power maketh the spirit to be the obiect of the one of thē, & the flesh of the other. Not as if Princes were to take no care of the welfare of the soules of their subjects, as well as of their bodies, but because the immediate procuring of the soules good, is by preaching, & ministration of the Sacraments, & Discipline, which the Prince is to procure, and to see wel performed, but not to administer these things himselfe: as also because the coactiue power the Prince hath, extendeth onely to the body, and not to the soule, as the Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing doth. Thirdly, we may obserue, that if this similitude should proue any thing, it would proue, that the ciuill state among Christians hath no power to do any act whatsoeuer, but by the command or permission of the Ecclesiasticall. For so it is between the spirit & the body, & sensitiue faculties that shew themselues in it. The Philosophers note, that there is a double regiment in man: the one politicall or ciuill, the other despoticall; the one like the authority of Princes ouer their subjects that are freemen, the other like the authority of Lords ouer their bondmen and slaues. The former is of reason in respect of sensitiue appetite, which by perswasion it may induce to surcease to desire that which it discerneth to be hurtfull, but cannot force it so to doe: the other of reason and the will, in respect of the loco-motiue facultie; and this absolute, so that if reason cannot winne a desisting from desire in the inferiour powers that shew themselues in the body, yet the will may command the loco-motiue faculty, & either cause al outward action to cease, how earnestly soeuer sensitiue desire carry vnto it, or to bee performed how much soeuer it resist against it: as it may commaund and force the drinking of a bitter potion, which the appetite cannot be wonne vnto, and the rejecting & putting from vs those things that are most desired. Neither can the appetite and sensitiue faculties performe any of their actions without the consent of the will & reason: For if the will commaund, the eyes are closed vp and see nothing, the eares are stopped and heare nothing, how much soeuer the appetite desire to see and heare. Neither onely haue the soules higher powers this commaund ouer the inferiour faculties, in respect of things that may further and hinder their own good and perfection, as they may command to watch or fast, for the prevention and mortification of sin; but they may also at their pleasure, hinder the whole course of the actions of the outward man, withdraw all needfull things from the body, and depriue it euen of life it selfe, though there be no cause at all so to doe. So that if the comparison of the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state to the soule and body do hold, from thence may it be inferred that the Church hath power to commaund in all things pertaining to the common-wealth, and that the ciuill magistrates haue none at all. For the lower faculties neither haue, nor ought to haue any commaund further then they are permitted by the superiour; neither can they doe any thing contrary to the liking of the superiour, though neuer so just & reasonable. And so we see how silly a thing it is to reason from these similitudes, and that they that so do, build vpon the sands, so that all the frame of their building commeth to the ground.

The third reason brought by our Adversaries, is this: Euery cōmon-wealth must be perfect in it selfe, & able to defend it self frō all injuries that any other may offer vnto it, & if it can no other way free it selfe, it must haue power to depose the Prince, and change the gouernment. Therefore the Church must be able to defend it self against all injuries of wicked Kings, whether Infidels, Heretickes, or Apostataes: & if otherwise it cannot defend it selfe frō their violences and wrongs, it must haue power to depose them. This consequence I thinke will neuer be found good in the judgement of any indifferent Reader. For the kingdomes and cōmon-wealths of the world, the good, prosperity, & happines whereof is outward, must haue outward meanes to represse the insolencies of all such as seek to impeach or hinder the same; But the Church being a society, the happines & good wherof is not outward, but inward, cōsisting in the graces of God, & the hope of a better life in the world to come, may be perfect in it selfe, though it want meanes to represse outward violences & insolencies. The Apostle himself, who was a chief cōmander in it, professing that the 2 Cor 10. v. 4 weapons of his warfare were not carnall, but mighty through God, for the casting down of proud thoughts; but not for the ouerthrow of cities & townes, or the subduing of the Princes of the world. So that the perfectiō of this society or cōmonwealth standing in the inward graces of the spirit, & the expectatiō of future happines, she may attain her own end, enioy her own good, & flourish in the midst of all pressures, more thē in any state of outward prosperity; & so vndoubtedly she doth. For as the gold is more pure the more it is tried in the fire; as the cammomill smelleth the sweeter the more it is troden on; as the palme tree spreadeth the further the more it is pressed down; as the ark of Noe rose the higher the more the flouds did swell: so Gods Church did then most grow, increase & prosper, when the persecutiōs were hottest. And therfore S. Austin saith (speaking of the primitiue Christians) Includebantur, ligabātur, torquebātur, trucidabātur, & multiplicabātur; x Aug. de Ciu. Dei. lib. cap. that is, they were shut vp in prisons and dungeons, they were bound in fetters and chaines, they were tortured & racked, yea, they were slaine with the sword, and yet they increased and multiplied. And Serm. 33. in Cantica. S. Bernard distinguishing three seuerall times of the Church, in all which shee complained of bitternesse, the first vnder persecuting heathen Emperors; the second, in the conflicts with heretickes, & the third, when she had rest from both these; saith, the state of the church was worst in her peace, & bringeth her in complaining and saying: Amarissima amaritudo mea in pace mea; that is, My bitternesse is most bitter in the daies of my peace. For now omnes amici, omnes inimici, omnes domestici, nulli pacifici; serui Christi seruiunt Antichristo: that is, All are friends, & all are enemies, all are of my houshold, but none are at peace with me; the seruants of Christ serue Antichrist. So that it followeth not, that if the church must haue meanes to attaine her owne end, and enioy her owne wished good, that she must haue power sufficient to procure her outward peace, and represse the insolencies of outward enemies. And yet besides, this reason chargeth Christ with want of care of his Church, who left it without meanes to defēd it selfe against outward violence for the space of 300 yeares together, during the time of the heathen Emperors; & afterwards also vnder the reigne of Apostataes and heretickes. For De Pont. lib: 5 cap. 7. Bellarmine saith, that the primitiue Christians did not depose Nero, Dioclesian, Iulian the Apostata, Valens the Arrian, and other like, because they wanted temporall forces.

The next reason is more strange then this. For first, forgetting what they are to proue, in steed of prouing that the Pope may depose Princes, they endeuour to proue, that the people may depose Princes when they fall into heresie, and that the Pope is to iudge of heresie. Secondly, they conclude, that Christian people may not endure their King if he fall into heresie, because they may not chuse a king that is an infidell or hereticke. That they might not chuse an hereticke (which no man denieth) they proue, because the Deut. 17. 15. 16. Iewes might chuse none to be their king that was not of their brethren, lest he should draw them to idolatry. But the consequence they goe not about to proue, which we deny, and they will neuer be able to confirme. For there is no question but people are bound to bee subiect to such a king, as in conscience they might not chuse, if they were free & to make choice. Exod. 18. 21. When Moses was counselled by Iethro, to chuse Elders & rulers to assist him, he told him what maner of mē they should bee, to wit, men fearing God, dealing truely, hating couetousnesse: and none but such ought electors, hauing freedome of choice, to chuse: and yet I thinke, though a king bee couetous, hee is not presently to be deposed. And therefore Vbi supr •… . Bellarmine (like an honest man) confuteth his owne argument, and saith, that infidels that had dominion ouer people before they became Christians, are to be tollerated by Christians, if they seeke not to draw them to idolatry, whom yet I thinke Christians might not chuse to reigne ouer them if they were free. Besides this, if Bellarmine say true, that subiects sinne as much in tollerating kings that are infidels, Apostataes, or heretickes, as in chusing such to rule ouer them when they were free, all the primitiue Christians that tollerated Nero, Dioclesian, Iulian the Apostata, Constantius, Valens, & other heretickes sinned damnably in so doing. Neither will Bellarmines answere that they are to be excused, though they did not depose thē, because they wanted strength, auoid the same. For it is euident by Tertullian, that they wanted not strength if they had thought it lawfull. In Apologet. aduersus Gentes, cap. 37. If we should goe about to auenge our selues (saith Tertullian) we should not want meanes. For behold, we are more in number, and greater in strength, then any one nation & people of the world. We are strangers vnto you, and yet behold, we haue filled all places pertaining vnto you, your Cities, your Isles, your Villages, your Towns, your Councel-houses, your Castles, & strong Forts, your Palaces, your Senates, & your market places: only your Idoll Temples we haue left free vnto you. What warre should not we be able to take in hand? or what attempt should seem hard vnto vs? though we were too weake who so willingly are slaine, if it were not more lawfull to be killed then to kill in our profession. Nay, though wee should neuer arme our selues, nor lift vp our hands against you, but only depart away, and withdraw our selues into some remote parts of the world, how should we confound and amaze you? How could you endure so great a losse? How would your cities be left desolate, & none found to dwell in them? So that it was not want of strength that held the Primitiue Christiansin subjection to their heathen & persecuting Emperors, but the perswasion they had, that it was their duty so to be subject, perswading themselues they had their power from heauen: and therefore Ibid. cap. 30. Illuc suspicientes (saith Tertullian) manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite nudo quia non erubescimus; denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus precantes sumus omnes semper pro omnibus Imperatoribus, vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum & quaecunque hominis & Caesaris sunt vota: that is, Looking vp thither, with handes lifted vp and spread out, because innocent, with bare heads, because we are not ashamed, and without a remembrancer, because our prayers proceed from the desires that lodge within in our breast, wee all pray alwaies for all Emperours and rulers, desiring God to grant vnto them a long life, a secure reigne, a safe house, valiant armies, a faithfull Senate, good people, a quiet world; and all the good things that the heart either of a priuate man, or of Caesar can desire. O silly erring Christians, durst you pray for the prosperity of them, whom you should haue persecuted with fire and sword, and vtterly haue destroyed? But it is not to bee maruailed at, if you thus erred: for you were Christians, and had no Iesuites among you, from whom these mysteries of deposing Princes might haue beene learned: so that we may hope that ignorance did excuse you, and that ye are not gone to hell for this neglecting of your duty. But some man perhaps will say, Tertullian might be deceiued in this point. Let vs heare therefore whether others were of his mind or not. Iulianus Imperator (saith Citat. â Gratiano Decret. 2. part. causa 11. qu. 3. cap. 94. Ambrose) quamuis esset Apostata, habuit tamē sub se Christianos milites, quibus cum dicebat, producite aciem, pro defensione Reipublicae obediebant ei. Cumautē dicer •… eis, producite arma in Christianos, tunc cognoscebant Imperatorem Caeli; that is, Iuli •… the emperour, though he were an Apostata, yet had vnder him Christian souldiers, who when he said vnto them, bring forth your armies for the defence of the commonwealth, willingly obeyed him. But when he said vnto them, bring forth your forces, and fight against the Christians, tooke knowledge of the Emperor in heauen, and not of him. And S. Citat. ibidem cap. 98. Augustine saith to the same purpose, that Iulian the Emperour was an Infidell, an Apostata, a wicked man, & an idolater; & yet there were Christian souldiers that serued this vnbelieuing Emperour, when they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged none other Emperor, but him only, whose throne is in heauē. When he required them to worship Idols, or to burne incense, they preferred God before him. When he said, bring forth your armies, & go against such a nation, they presently obeyed him: so did they wisely distinguish between the eternall and temporall Lord, & yet they were subiect to the temporall Lord for the eternall Lords sake. Neither was this the priuate conceipt of these men alone, but all other the worthy Fathers, and Bishops of the Church were of the same minde, and perswaded themselues, that they owedall dutie to kings and Emperours, though they were heretiques or infidels. And therefore Athanasius (whēsome charged him, that he had spoken euill of Constantius the Arrian heretick to Constance his brother, & sought to make variance between thē) in his Apology to Constantius, calleth God to witnesse against his own soule, that he had neuer don any such thing; and telleth the Emperor, he was not mad, nor had not forgotten the saying of the wise man. Eccles. 10. 20. Curse not the King in thy secret thought, and speake not euill of the rich and mighty in the retired places of thy chamber. For the fowles of heauen will carry forth thy voyce, and that that hath wings will make report of thy words.

The fifth reason that they bring, to proue that Christians may depose mis-beleeuing Emperors and Kings, if they haue meanes so to do, is, because the Apostle 1. Cor. 6. willeth the Corinthians that were become Christians, to appoint new iudges of their controuersies about temporall affaires & businesses, that they might not be forced to bring their pleas before heathen magistrates that were their enemies, to the scorne of their profession: which is so silly a reason, that I cannot perswade my selfe they propose it in earnest, but only for fashions sake to helpe to make vp a number. For they know right well, these Iudges the Apostle speaketh of, were but onely arbitrators chosen by the agreement of the parties, & not absolute rulers ouer them with abrogation of the magistracie of those heathen rulers, to whom they were subject, and therefore notwithstanding any thing the Apostle writeth, there were Ockam. 8. quaest. super potest. & dignit. Papali. quaest. 1. c. 11. three cases, wherein the faithfull and beleeuing Corinthians might lawfully come before the Heathen Iudges. The first, if the Infidels in the controuersies they had with them about secular things, drew them thither. The second, if a beleeuer being contenitous, drew them to those tribunals, refusing to haue things determined otherwise. The third, if the beleeuer had none other meanes to recouer his right, which he was bound in conscience to recouer and preserue, for in such a case he might become a plaintife before Heathen Magistrates.

But (saith De Pont. l. 5. c. 7. Bellarmine) the beleeuing husband, whose wife being an Infidell, will not dwell with him without continuall blaspheming of God the Creator, and solliciting him to Infidelitie and Apostacie, is freed from his wife: and likewise the beleeuing wife from her vnbeleeuing husband, so continuing to blaspheme Christ, and to sollicite her to Idolatrie, therefore by like reason the beleeuing people are freed from the yoake of an vnbeleeuing King, seeking to draw them to Infidelity. This argument drawne from comparison, faileth many wayes. For first, according to De Matrim. Sacram. lib. 1. controv. 4. c. 12 Bellarmines opinion, the beleeuing party is free from the other remaining in Infidelitie, though the Infidell doe neither depart, nor sollicite, or perswade to Idolatrie, if there be not a present conversion: so that the beleeuer may dismisse his wife which hee married in infidelitie, if she continue an infidell, though she neither depart from him, nor seeke to win him to infidelitie. But touching a King who is an vnbeleeuer, hee thinketh (though 2 a 2 dae q. 10. art. 10. Thomas be of another opinion) that the people converting to Christianitie, cannot shake off his yoake, vnlesse he seeke to draw them backe to infidelitie; and therefore all that, is not lawfull to the people, in respect of an vnbeleeuing King, that is lawfull to the husband, in respect of his vnbeleeuing wife, or to the wife, in respect of her vnbeleeuing husband. Secondly this comparison if it proue any thing, mainely ouerthroweth the opinion of Bellarmine. For if the husband and the wife were Christians when they were married, and afterwards one of them fall into heresie, apostasie, atheisme, or whatsoeuer else, and seeke neuer so violently to draw the right beleeuer to the same euils; yet the bond of marriage remaineth inviolable, and is not, nor may not be dissolued: and therefore if this comparison hold, a Christian King falling into heresie, apostasie, or atheisme, and seeking to draw his people to the same, doth not lose the right of dominion he hath ouer them. Thirdly, in Bellarmines opinion it is not refusall to dwell together, nor sollicitation to idolatrie that could make a separation, if the band of matrimony contracted betweene Infidels were simply firme and indissoluble, as that of Christians is. But heathen Princes haue as good interest in their Kingdomes (which are not founded vpon grace or faith, but vpon the light of reason, the freedome of will, and the Law of Nature and Nations) as beleeuers: therefore their solliciting to infidelity and idolatrie, cannot make their titles to their kingdome voide. Lastly, malitious desertion or refusall to dwell with the beleeuer, vnlesse he some way at lest by silence consent to the blasphemies of the Infidell, is directly contrary to the nature, essence, end, and intendment of marriage, and therefore dissolueth marriage: but the abvse of sacred authority to the promoting of impiety, and suppressing of true Religion, is not contrary to the nature and essence of authority, but to the right vse of it; and therefore it doth not make voide the title of magistrates, seeing it is certaine that lawfull authority may stand with most horrible abuse of the same.

Wherefore let vs proceede to their seuenth proofe. When Princes (say they) come to the Church, and are admitted to the Communion of the faithfull people of God, they are not admitted but vpon promise and agreement, that if they forsake the faith, or hinder the good of GODS people, they will bee content, and it shall bee lawfull for the Gouernours of the Church to take their authoritie from them; therefore when Princes become heretiques or Apostataes, it is lawfull by their owne agreement and consent for the Gouernours of the Church, to depose them. The antecedent of this Argument, I thinke, will neuer bee made good. For what Prince in his admission 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 to bee a Christian, did euer thus condition with the Church, either expressely, or by necessary implication? examples of any such stipulation, I am perswaded they canne bring vs none. It is true indeede, that the very vow of a Christian made in Baptisme, implieth in it a resolution and promise, rather to depart with any thing, and lose all, then to forfeit the inheritance he is entitled vnto, to dishonour God, or any way to hinder the good of his church: but this vow and promise is made to God, and not to the church; and therefore God may take from Christian kings their kingdomes, when they become heretiques, and seeke to misleade the people, as forfeited vpon their own agreements; but the Church hath nothing to doe with them, more then the great Turke, vpon any such forfeiture made vnto Almighty God. It is true, that all infidels, and wicked ones, haue forfeited their kingdomes to God; but yet in the title of mundane iustice, they haue right to them still, and may not bee dispossessed of them by mortall men, vnlesse they bee specially authorised by almighty God, as the Israelites were to cast out the Canaanites. And this was the meaning of Wickliffe, when he affirmed, that a Prince being in state of mortall sinne, ceaseth to bee a Prince any longer, namely in respect of any title he canne plead to God, if hee be pleased to take the advantage of the forfeiture; but in respect of men, he hath a good title still, in the course of mundane iustice. So that whosoeuer shall lift vp his hand against him, offereth him wrong. The Church therefore may proceede no further then to admonish Princes, when they offend, and for grieuous and scandalous faults, to deny vnto them the benefit of her Communion.

The last proofe they bring for deposing Princes, when they become heretickes, is taken from the office of a Pastor, to whom it pertaineth to driue away wolues, to restraine and keepe the Rammes, and great leaders of the flockes, from hurting those sheepe that are more weake. This reason as it is the last, so it is the worst of all. For each Pastour must doe these things according to the nature and quality of his Pastorall office, and therefore a spirituall Pastour must performe them by spirituall and ecclesiasticall censures, driuing away the wolues from his flockes, by suspension, excommunication, and anathema, and restraining the Rammes from hurting the rest, by the same meanes, so binding them with bands that exceed all the bands of restraint, vsed by the secular powers.

CHAP. 46.

Of examples of Church-men deposing Princes, brought by the Romanistes.

HAuing examined the reasons brought to proue that the chiefe gouernours of the Church may depose Princes erring from the faith, and hindering the course of religion; let vs see what examples our Aduersaries produce of the practise of deposing them. The first is the example of Samuel 1. Sam 9. appointing Saul to be a king, and afterwards 1. Sam. 15. 23 deposing him for his disobedience. But in this example they are grossely deceiued. For first, Samuel was neither high Priest nor Priest at all, not being of the posterity of Aaron. Secondly, Samuel did not appoint Saul to be king, as being of higher authority, but as obeying and executing the mandate of God, as the meanest man in Israel might haue done: as we reade in the second of the Kings, of 2. Kings. 9. 1. one of the sonnes of the Prophets, who at the commandement of Elizeus annointed Iehu king ouer Israel, yet was neither Elizeus, nor he, greater in dignity then Kings. Thirdly, we doe not reade in the sacred History, that Samuel deposed Saul, but that God deposed him, and that Samuel was the messenger sent from God to let him know it. Because (saith Samuel) thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, the Lord hath cast thee away that thou shalt not reigne. And againe, the Lord hath cut away the kingdome of Israel from thee this day. Yea so farre was Samuel from deposing Saul, that he mourned for him, till God blamed him, saying. 1. Sam. 16. 1. How long dost thou mourne for Saul? whereas I haue cast him away that hee should not reigne ouer Israel.

The next example is that of Hieremy the Prophet, to whom the Lord said, Ierem. 1. 10. I haue set thee ouer nations and people, to plucke vp, and to roote out, and to destroy, and throw downe, to build and to plant. Whence they inferre, that the chiefe Priest is ouer the kingdomes of the world, and may giue them to whom hee will. But first, wee must obserue, that Hieremy was not the high Priest, but one of an inferiour ranke; & that therefore if we will conclude any thing from hence, touching the power of disposing kingdomes by Priests, every Priest must haue this power. Secondly, we must know that Hieremie was set ouer the kingdome of Iudah and other kingdomes, not to rule them, but prophetically to denounce vnto them and foreshew the things, that afterwards should fall out. Whereupon Lyra interpreteth the words of Almighty God in this sort. Lyra in hunc locum. Constitui te super Gentes, & super regna, vt euellas, id est, euellendo denuncies, transferendos inde habitatores; & destruas, quantum ad occidendos; & disperdas, quantum ad fugientes per diuersas vias; & dissipes, quantum ad morientes in fuga vel captiuitate; & aedifices & plantes, id est, denuncies Iudaeos reaedificandos, & plantandos in terrasua, &c. that is; I haue set thee ouer nations, and kingdomes, that thou mightest plucke vp, that is, that thou mightest denounce and foreshew, that the inhabitants being plucked vp out of their places, shall bee carried into another place; that thou mayst destroy, that is, denounce the destruction of such as shall be slaine. That thou maist scatter, that is, denounce and foreshew the dispersion of such as shall flie diuers wayes. That thou maist ouerthrow, that is, declare and foreshew the ouerthrow of them that shall die in flight or in captiuitie. That thou maist build and plant, that is, foreshew, that the Iewes shall be builded and planted againe in their owne land; which was fulfilled in the time of Cyrus, who gaue liberty to the people to returne into their owne countrey, and to reëdifie the temple; and in the time of Artaxerxes, who gaue leaue to Nehemiah to reëdifie the citie of Hierusalem, as we may reade in the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah. The authour of the interlineall Glosse interpreteth the words in this sence: that the Prophet was appointed by almighty God, ouer kingdomes and people, to plucke vp vices and sinnes, to destroy the kingdome of the Divell, and to build the Church of God. Saint Hierome likewise interpreteth the words in the same sort: Hieronym. in eundem locum. Considerandum est (saith he) quòd quatuor tristibus, duo laeta succedunt. Neque enim aedificari poterant bona, nisi destructa essent mala; nec plantari optima, nisi eradicarentur pessima, &c. that is; Wee must consider, that two joyfull & happy things succeed foure grievous and sorrowfull thinges. For neither could good things be builded, if euill things were not first destroyed; nor the best things bee planted, if the worst things were not first pluckt vp by the rootes. For euery plant which our heauenly Father hath not planted, shall be plucked vp by the rootes. And euery building which hath not a foundation vpon the Rocke, but is builded vpon the sand, is digged downe and destroyed by the word of God; and Iesus shall consume it by the spirite of his mouth, and destroy it by the comming of his presence that is; hee shall destroy for euer all sacrilegious and peruerse doctrine, and that also which is lifted vp against the knowledge of God, and the confidence that men haue in their owne wisedome he shall-scatter, destroy, and cast downe; that in steed of these things, the things that sauour of humilitie may be builded; and the thinges which agree with Ecclesiasticall veritie may be builded and planted in the place of the former thinges, which were destroyed, and pluckt vp. Here is pulling vp of all false doctrine, and throwing downe whatsoeuer is lifted vp against the knowledge of God, that those things that sauour of humilitie, and are agreeable to Ecclesiasticall verity, may be builded and planted. And thus to plucke vp and to plant, to cast downe, and to build vp, pertayneth to Hieremies office and calling; but for deposing of Kings, and transferring kingdomes, no auncient write •… could euer finde any thing in this place.

The third example that they produce, is that of 2. Chon. 26. Vzziah, who after much prosperitie in all that hee tooke in hand, and many glorious victories obtayned, not contenting himselfe with the honour of a King, but presuming to come into the Temple to offer incense, and intruding vpon the Priests office also, was by them resisted, & told it would be displeasing to allmighty God, that he did. But he waxing angry, would not desist, till beeing stricken with leprosie, and the verie earth trembling and quaking for horrour of so vile a fact, hee was by the Priests; and the remorse of his own conscience forced to goe hastily out of the Temple. This leprosie departed not from him till his dying day, and therefore hee was by vertue of Gods lawe constrained to departe from the society of men, and to dwell apart; and Iotham his sonne ruled ouer the kings house, and iudged the people of the land. How this place will proue, that the deposing of Kings belongeth to Priests, I knowe not, for surely Vzziah was not deposed, but being forced to liue in an house apart by himselfe, and in that respect vnfitte for the gouernment, his sonne supplied his place in iudging the people of the land: but hee continued king still; and if hee had beene cleansed from his leprosie before his death, no doubt, might, and would haue resumed his kingly dignitie, and the publique administration of iustice. Wherevpon wee shall finde that Iotham is said to haue reigned no more but 2. King. 15. 33. 16 yeares, because after his fathers death in his owne right he reigned no more. Though otherwise wee finde mention of things that fell out in the 2. Kings 15. 30 20 yeare of his reigne. So including the time of his ruling for his father in his right. So that here was nothing done by the Priests, but that which pertained to their priestly office, which was to keepe the holy places, & attend the Altars, & to iudge of the plague of leprosie. But for deposing the King, they medled not.

The fourth example is of Iehoiada the high Priest deposing Athaliah, and setting vp Ioash, as they tell vs. The storie is this. 2. Chron. 21. 22. & 23. Iehosaphat dieth, and Iehoram his sonne succeedeth him. This Iehoram marrieth Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, the sonne of Omri; and hee walked not in the wayes of Iehosaphat and Asa kings of Iudah, but of wicked Ahab, whose daughter hee married. Whereupon God stirred vp the spirite of the Philistines, and Arabians, and they came, and tooke away all the substance that was found in his house, and his wiues and sons, so that none was left him, but Iehoahaz or Ahaziah his youngest sonne. After this Iehoram dieth, and Ahaziah reigneth in his stead, who followed the counsell of Athaliah, and did wickedly in the sight of the Lord. This Ahaziah going to Iehoram the sonne of Ahab, and being found with him when Iehu came to execute iudgement against the house of Ahab, was there slaine by Iehu. After his death Athaliah his mother, destroyed all the Kings seede of the house of Iudah, and vsurped the kingdome: But Iehoshebeath the wife of Iehoiada the Priest, sister to Ahaziah, stale away Ioash the Kings sonne, from among the Kings sonnes, that hee should not be slaine; and hee was hid in the house of God sixe yeares, all which time Athaliah reigned. But in the seauenth yeare Iohoiada waxed bold, tooke the Captaines of hundreds in couenant with him, and went about in Iudah, and gathered the Leuites out of all the cities of Iudah, and the chiefe-fathers of Israel; & they came to Ierusalem: and all the congregation made a couenant with the King, & said, The Kings sonne must reigne, as the Lord hath said of the sons of Dauid. Hereupon the King is proclaimed, Athaliah is slaine, the house of Baal destroied, & the Altars and idols that were in it broken down. In all this narration there is nothing that maketh for the chiefe Priests power of deposing lawfull kings, if they become heretiques: For first, Athaliah was an vsurper & no lawfull Queene. Secondly, here was nothing done by Iehoiada alone, but by him, and the Captaines of hundreths, and the chiefe Fathers of Israel, that entred into couenant with him. Thirdly, there is great difference betweene the high Priest in the time of the Lawe, and in the time of Christ. For before the comming of Christ, the high Priest euen in the managing of the weightiest ciuill affaires, and in iudgement of life and death, sate in the Councell of State, as the second person next vnto the King by Gods owne appointment. Whereas our Aduersaries dare not claime any such thing for the Pope. And therefore it is not to bee maruailed at, if the high Priest, beeing the second person in the kingdome of Iudah, by Gods owne appointment, and the Vnckle and Protectour of the young king, whom his wife had saued from destruction, bee the first mouer for the bringing of him to his right; and when things are resolued on by common consent, take on him not onely to commaund and direct the Priests and Leuites, but the Captaines & souldiers also, for the establishing of their King, & the suppressing of a bloody tyrant and vsurper. For all this might be done by Iehoiada, as a chiefe man in that state: and yet the Pope be so farre from obtaining that he claimeth (which is to depose lawfull kings for abusing their authority) that hee may not presume to do all that the high Priests lawfully did, and might doe: as not hauing so great preeminence from Christ, in respect of matters of ciuill state in any kingdome of the world as the high Priest had by Gods owne appointment in the kingdome of Iudah & Israel. In the old Law (saith De potest. & dignitate Papali, qu. 1. c. 10. Occā) the high Priest meddled in matters of warre, in the judgment of life and death, & the losse of members, & vengeance of blood &; it beseemed him well so to do: But the Priests of the new Law may not meddle with things of this nature. Wherefore from the power & dominion, which the high Priest of the old Law had, it cannot be concluded, that the Pope hath any power in tēporal matters.

The fifth example is of Ambrose, repelling Theodosius the Emperour from the communion of the Church, after the bloody and horrible murther, that was committed at Thessalonica by his commandement. The story is this Sozomen. li. 7. c. 24. Theodoret. li •… . 5. ca. 16. & 17. The coach-man of Borherica, the Captaine of the souldiers in that towne, for some fault was committed to prison. Now when the solemne horse-race and sporting fight of horsemen approched, the people of Thessalonica desired to haue him set at liberty, as one of whom there would be great vse in those ensuing solemne sports. which being denied, the citty was in an vprore, and Botherica, and certaine other of the magistrates were stoned to death, and most despitefully vsed. Theodosius the Emperour hearing of this outrage, was exceedingly moued, and commaunded a certaine number to be put to the sword, without all iudiciall forme of proceeding, or putting difference betweene offendors and such as were innocent: So that seauen thousand perished by the sword, and among them many strangers (that were come into the citty vpon diuerse occasions, that had no part in the outrage, for which Theodosius was so sore displeased) were most cruelly and vniustly slaine. Saint Ambrose vnderstanding of this violent and vniust proceeding of the Emperour, the next time he came to Millaine, and was comming to the Church, after his wonted manner, met him at the doore, and stayd him from entring with this speech: Thou seemest not to know, O Emperour, what horrible and bloudy murthers haue beene committed by thee; neither dost thou bethinke thy selfe now thy rage is past, to what extremities thy fury carried thee: perhaps the glory of thine Imperiall power, will not let thee take notice of any fault, & thy greatnesse repelleth all checke of reason controlling thee: but thou shouldest know the frailty of mans nature, and that the dust was that beginning whence we are taken, and and to which we must returne. Let not therefore the glory of thy purple robes make thee forget the weakenesse of that body of flesh that is couered with them: Thy subjects O Emperour are in nature like thee, and in seruice thy fellowes, for there is one Lord and commander ouer all: the maker of all things. Wherefore with what eyes wilt thou behold his temple, or with what feete wilt thou treade on the sacred pauement thereof? wilt thou lift vp to him those hands, from which the bloud yet droppeth? wilt thou receiue with them the sacred body of our Lord? or wilt thou presume to put to thy mouth the cup replenished with the precious bloud of Christ, which hast shed so much innocent bloud by the word of thy mouth, vttering the passion of thy furious minde? Depart therefore, adde not this iniquity to the rest, and decline not those bands, which God aboue approueth. With these speeches the Emperour was much moued: and, knowing the distinct duties, both of Emperours and Bishops (for that he had bin trained vp in the knowledge of heauenly doctrine) returned to the Court, with teares & sighes. A long time after (for eight moneths were first past) the solemne feast of the Natiuity of Christ approached, and all prepared themselues to solemnize the same with triumphant ioy. But the Emperor sate in the Court, lamenting & powring out riuers of teares: which when Ruffinus, maister of the pallace perceiued, he came vnto him, and asked the cause of his weeping: to whom (weeping more bitterly then before) he said, O Ruffinus, thou makest but a sport of these things, for thou art touched with no sence of those euils, wherewith I am afflicted, but the consideration of my calamity maketh me sigh and lament: for that whereas the doores of Gods Temple are open to slaues and beggars, and they goe freely into the same to make prayers vnto their Lord, they are shut against me; and, which is yet worse, the gates of heauen are shut against me also; for I cannot forget the words of our Lord; who saith, Whomsoeuer ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heauen. To whom Ruffinus replied, I will runne, if it please thee, O Emperour, to the Bishop, and intreate him to vnloose these bands, wherewith hee hath bound thee. No (saith the Emperour) it is to no purpose so to doe, for he will not bee intreated. I know his sentence is right and iust, and that he will not transgresse the law of God, for any respect of imperiall power. Yet when Ruffinus was earnest, and promised confidently to pacifie Ambrose, he bade him goe with speede, and himselfe followed after in hope of reconciliation, trusting vpon the promises of Ruffinus. But when Ambrose saw Ruffinus, he sayd vnto him: O Ruffinus, thou doest imitate the impudencie of shamelesse dogges; for hauing beene the aduiser and counsellor to so vile murthers, thou hast hardned thy forehead, and hauing cast away all shame, blushest not, after the committing of so great and horrible outrages, against men made after the image of God. And when he was importunate with him, and told him the Emperour was comming, full of fierie zeale, he brake forth into these words: I tell thee Ruffinus, I will not suffer him to passe the thresholds of Gods house; and if of an Emperour he become a tyrant, I will ioyfully suffer death, Whereupon Ruffinus caused one to runne to the Emperour, & to desire him to stay within the Court. But the Emperour being on the way when the messenger met him, resolued to come forward, and to endure the reproof of the Bishop. So hee came to the sacred railes, but entred not into the Temple; and comming to the Bishoppe, besought him to vnloose him from the bands wherewith hee was bound. The Bishop somewhat offended with his comming, told him, the manner of his comming was tyrant-like; and that being mad against God, he trampled vnder his feete the lawes of God. Not so (said the Emperour) I presse not hither in despite of order, neither doe I vniustly striue to enter into the house of God. But, I beseech thee, to vnloose me, to remember the mercifull disposition of our common Lord, and not to shut the doore against me, that hee would haue opened to all that repent. What repentance therefore (saith the Bishoppe) hast thou shewed, after so grieuous an offence? what medicines hast thou applied to cure thy wounds? It pertaineth to thee (sayth the Emperour) to prepare the medicines, that should heale mee, and to cure my wounds; and to me to vse, that thou prescribest. Then (sayd Ambrose) seeing thou makest thy displeasure iudge, and it is not reason, that giueth sentence, when thou sittest vpon the throne to doe right, but thy furious proceedings; make a law, that when sentence of death and confiscation of goods shall bee passed, there may passe thirty dayes before the execution of the same, that so, if within that space it be found vniust, it may be reuersed; or otherwise, it may proceede. This law the Emperour most willingly consented to make, and thereupon Ambrose vnloosed him from his bands; and he entred into the Temple, and prayed vnto God, not standing, nor kneeling, but prostrate vpon the earth, and passionately vttering these words of Dauid. Psal 119. •… 5. My soule cleaueth to the pauement, Lord quicken me according to thy word. Here we see an excellent patterne of a good Bishoppe, and a good Emperour; and it is hard to say, whether Ambrose were more to be commended for his zeale, magnanimous resolution and constancie, or the Emperour for his willing and submissiue obedience. But of deposing Princes here is nothing, Ambrose being so farre from any thought of lifting vp his hand against the Emperour, that he resolued to subiect himselfe vnto him, euen to the suffering of martyrdome, if neede should require. But (saith Bellarmine) Ambrose exercised ciuill authority, in that hee tooke notice of this murther of the Emperour, beeing a criminall cause, and forced him to make a ciuill law, for the preuenting of furious and bloodie proceedings in iudgment. This surely is a weake collection: for the Church hath power, by vertue of her Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to take notice of such horrible crimes as murther, & to punish them with spirituall punishments. Neither was the inducing of Theodosius to make a ciuill law for the preuenting of such like euils, as he was now censured for, before he would reconcile him to the Church, an act of ciuill authoritie: But such testimonies as this is, they that haue no better must be forced to vse.

That which followeth of In fine epist. Greg. Gregories confirming the priviledges graunted to the Abbey of Saint Medardus, in such sort, that whatsoeuer Kings, Iudges, or secular persons should go about to violate them, should be depriued of their honour, proueth not the thing in question. For it is evident, that the confirmation of these priviledges was passed, not by S. Gregory alone, but by a whole Councell, and more specially by Theodoricus the King, and Brunichildis the Queene, who might binde their successours, and other inferiour secular Rulers vnder paine of deprivation, though neither Gregory of himselfe, nor yet a councell of Bishops, could doe any such thing by their authoritie alone.

Wherefore let vs proceede to the next example. Zenaras in vita Leonis Isauri. Gregory the second (saith Bellarmine) excommunicated the Emperour Leo the third, who was an enemy to Images: he forbade any tribute to be payde him out of Italy, and consequently depriued him of part of his Empire. Surely if Greg. the second of himself alone had had such power, as to forbid all Italy vpon his dislike to pay any more tribute to the Emperour, there were some good shew of proofe in this allegation. But if wee examine the stories, we shall finde the case to haue beene farre otherwise then Bellarmine would beare vs in hand it was. For first, Gregory did not excommunicate Leo of himselfe, but called a Synode to doe it. Secondly, he did not forbid the paying of tribute out of Italy, to the Emperour: but the circumstances of the History are these. Leo seeking to win the Bishop of Rome, and the people of Italy to the casting downe of Images in the West, as he had done in the East, Gregory the Bishop did not onely refuse to obey him, but admonished all other to take heed they did no such thing for feare of any Edict of the Emperour. By which exhortation the people of Italy already mis-conceited of the Emperours governement, were so animated, that they were likely to haue proceeded to the election of a new Emperour: and Naucler. in Chron. vol. 2. Gener. 25. pag. 654. Nauclerus sheweth, that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome, disswading the people of the West from obeying the Emperour, in casting downe of Images, were of so great authoritie, that the people and souldiers of Ravenna first, and then of Venice, beganne to make shew of rebellion against the Emperour, and his Exarche or Lieutenant, and to inforce the Bishop of Rome, and the other people of Italy, to disclaime the Emperour of Constantinople, and to chuse another in Italy. And that this rebellion proceeded so farre, that euery city putting downe the Magistrates of the Exarch, set vp Magistrates of their owne, whō they named Dukes; but that the Bishop of Rome at that time pacified thē, and by his perswasions stayed them from chusing any new Emperour, in hope that he would amend. So that we see, the Bishop of Rome with his Bishops, by their authority did nothing but stay the people from obeying the Emperours vnlawfull Decrees, as they iudged them; but no way went about to depose the Emperour, or to depriue him of any thing that of right pertained to him. But the people of Italy moued against the Emperour, proceeded further then the Bishop of Rome would haue had them to haue done. For they put downe the Magistrates appointed by the Emperour, and set vp other of their owne; and would haue forced the Bishop of Rome, and the other people of Italy, who yet consented not vnto them, to disclaime the Emperour of Constantinople, and to chuse another in Italy. And therefore, if at that time they forbare to pay any more tribute, (as Vbi suprà. Zonaras saith they did) it was not because the Pope forbade them so to doe (as hauing supreme power in ciuill things) but being averse from the Emperour, as for other dislikes, so by the Popes perswasions, they stayed the tribute of themselues, as of themselues they put downe the Magistrates of the Emperour, without the liking of the Bishop of Rome. That which Lib. 5. cap. 18. Chronici. Otho Frisingensis hath, that the Pope hauing often admonished the Emperour, and found him incorrigible, perswaded the people of Italy to depart from the Empire, seemeth to bee contrary to the reports of Lib. Chron. ab initio mundi cum figuris & imaginibus in 6. aetate mundi. the Authour of the great Chronicle, Vbi suprà. Nauclerus, Chron. lib. 1. Rhegino, and others; but yet maketh the Pope onely a perswader, and the people of Italy the doers of that was done. And in like sort it must bee vnderstood that Zonaras saith, the Bishop of Rome stayed the paying of tribute to the Emperour, namely, that his dislike of the Emperours courses, together with their owne distast of his actions, did so auert the minds of the Italians from the Emperour, that they refused to pay him tribute; that being attributed to him, as done by him, which his perswasions (though tending to another purpose) did worke without his liking, and against his will. And in the same sence it is, that Chronic. anni. 731. Sigebert saith, Gregory charged the Emperour with errour, blamed him for it, and turned away the people of Rome, and the tribute of the West from him.

The third instance of Popes intermedling in the disposition of the kingdomes of the world, is that of Zacharias the Pope, of whom Gregory the seuenth, in his Epistles writeth thus: Gregor. 7, lib. 8. epist. 21. Another Romane Bishop also, to wit, Zacharias, deposed the French King from his kingdome, not so much for any fault done by him, as for that he was vnfit to sway so great power; and put Pipine, the father of Charles the great, afterwards Emperour, into his place, freeing and absoluing all the Frenchmen frō their oath of feaultie. Which words of Gregory are found likewise in the decrees. To this allegation Dialog. lib. 1. tract. 2. 3. part. cap. 18. Occam b Part. 2. Causa 15. c. 6. answereth, that Zacharias did not depose Childericke the French King (as Gregory the seuenth vntruly reporteth) but onely gaue allowance of the Peeres doposing of him. And to that purpose alleageth the Glosse vpon the decrees, wich sayth, Gloss. super. cap. allegat. Dicitur deposuisse quia deponentibus consensit: that is, The Pope is said to haue deposed the King, because hee gaue consent to those that did depose him, and allowed their act. But he noteth also, that there are others, that doe not soe excuse the Pope, but do thinke he put his sickle into another mans haruest, and tooke vpon him to do that hee had no authority to doe; which other Popes likewise haue not feared to doe, in prejudice of the right of the laity, as they shew out of another Gloss. extra. de foro competenti. Ca. Siquis Clericus. Glosse. Soe that the Cent. 8. c. 10. Century writers are not alone in the reprehension of this fact of Zacharias, (as De Pontif. l. 5. c. 8. Bellarmine vntruly anoucheth) notwithstanding I rather follow the judgment of the author of the Glosse, and thinke, that he did but giue his opinion, what might be done, and approue the act when it was done. For confirmation whereof, I will lay downe the circumstances of the narration touching the proceedings in this matter, as I find them reported by ancient writers. First, all Lib. Chron: Aetate. 6. in Pipino. Historians agree, that the Kings of France in those times, giuing themselues to idlenesse and pleasures, wholly neglected the gouernment: that they were seene but only once in the yeare of their subjects; and that the gouernor of the Kings house ruled all. Neither did things stand thus for a short space, but Chron. anno. 750. Sigebert saith, they continued so 88 yeares. In this office of a prefect or gouernor, Pipine incceeded his auncesters, but exceeded them in the greatnesse of worthy exploits; neither did any thing hinder the course of his great and honourable actions, but that hee was forced to suffer & endure a king almost witlesse & mad with diuers sencelesse fooleries. Wherefore they who write the histories of France report, that the Nobles and people of that nation duely weighing the vertue of Pipine, and the witlesse follies of Childericke the King, consulted Zachary then Bishop of Rome, & desired him to tell them, whether he thought so foolish and vnworthy a King were any longer to be endured; or Pipine to be defrauded of royall dignity which he deserued, & was right worthy of. Who when they had receiued answere from the Pope that he was to be estemed the King, who knew best how to performe kingly duties: the French by the publique and common aduice and counsell of the whole nation, proclaimed Pipine King, and shore the head of Childericke, and made him a Clearke. Naucler. Chronol. vol. 2. Gener. 20. Nauclerus saith, the French men anciently had their kings descended of an ancient stocke, who of Meroueus the sonne of King Clodius the second, were called Merouingians: the race of which kings continued till Childericke, and in him ended. For long before, they were of no esteeme or authority, neither had they any thing, but the vaine and empty title of Kings, for the riches and power of the kingdome were in the hands of the prefects of the pallace, who were called the chiefe of the Kings house, and swayed the vvhole kingdome, vvho at that time vvere the successors of Charles Martell, and vvere named Dukes. Neither vvas there any other thing permitted to the King, but that contenting himselfe vvith the bare name of a King, hauing long haire and a long beard, hee should sit vpon the throne, and haue some shew of a ruler and heare Embassadors comming from all parts, and giue such answers vnto them (as out of his owne power) which he was taught and commanded to giue. Hee had nothing to liue on, but such a stipend and allowance, as the Prefect was pleased to allow vnto him. Hee possessed nothing but one little village: once onely in the yeare, hee was seene of his subiects in a publique and solemne assembly, & hauing saluted them all, returned againe into his priuate course of life, leauing the gouernment of all to the Prefect. Pipine therefore, who then supplied that place, as succeeding his ancestors in the same, considering the slouth and idlenesse of these Kings, who neglecting the common-wealth did hide themselues in their owne priuate houses: and that both the Nobles & people tooke notice as well of his vertues, as of the sencelesse follies of Childericke, consulted the Pope (as we heard before:) vpon whose answere (that he was to be reputed King, that could best do the duty of a King) the French by a publique decree of the whole nation, chose Pipine to be King, which thing Zachary approued. Chroni. lib. 〈◊〉 . cap. 21. & 22. Otho Frisingensis saith, that the French se nt messengers to Rome sciscitandi gratia, to aske the Popes aduice, and to be resolued by him: vpon whose answere, and by whose authority (warranting them it was lawfull so to do) Bonifacius Arch-bishop of Mentz, & the other Princes of the kingdome, met together, and chose Pipine King. And Rhegino saith, Pipine was chosen King according m Lib. 2. to the manner and custome of the French, and being annointed by the hands of Bonifacius Arch-bishop of Mentz, was by the French lifted vp into the royall throne, and Childericke who was but in title onely a King, was shorne, and thrust into a Monastery. With these agreeth Loco citato. Sigebertus, and the rest. Wherefore to conclude this point, touching the deposition of Childericke, we must obserue. First, that hee was not deposed for heresie, or any way going about to hinder the course of religion; and that therefore the Pope could not depose him, vnlesse Princes be subiect to such censures for defects of nature, and negligence in doing their duties. Secondly, that hee and his predecessours for almost an hundred yeares, were put from all gouernement, and were but in name onely Kings, others hauing the authority, and that with the allowance of the whole state. So that it is the lesse to be maruelled, if the Pope beeing consulted as a Diuine, answered, it was fit rather that hee should haue the name, title, and inauguration of a King, that was to do the duty, then hee that was to be but a shadow onely. Yet do I not say, that hee spake like a good Diuine. Thirdly, that in those times the Vniuersity of Paris was not yet founded: and the kingdome had few learned men, and that therefore they sought to forrainers. For otherwise wee know that afterwards the Kings and Princes of France rather Gerson in Serm. de paschate part. 4. operum eius: beleeued the Diuines of Paris then the Court of Rome, in greater matters then this. Fourthly, that the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, was the chiefe Bishop in these parts of the world, and therefore not vnfitly consulted in a matter of such consequence as this was.

Wherefore let vs now proceed to the fourth instance, which is that of the translation of the West Empire, from the Emperours of Constantinople to Charles the Great, which our Aduersaries say, was done by Pope Leo the third. But surely whosoeuer shall looke into the course of Histories shall find, that this instance maketh rather against them, then for them. For it is most certaine, that the Pope by his papall power did not translate the Empire. Sigebert anno 801. The Romanes, sayth Sigebert, (who long before in their hearts were fallen away from the Emperour of Constantinople, now taking the opportunity of the occasion offered, while a woman hauing put out the eyes of Constantine the Emperour her sonne, tooke vpon her to rule ouer them) with one consent proclaimed Charles the King their Emperour, and by the hands of Leo the pope set the Crowne vpon his head, and gaue him the title of Caesar and Augustus. With Sigebertus the author of Aetate. 6. in Leone. the great Chronicle agreeth; His words are these. In the time of the solemnities of the Masse celebrated vpon Christmas day in S. Peters Church, Leo the pope by the decree of the people of Rome, & at their entreaty crowned Charles proclaimed Emperor of the Romanes, & set such a Diademe vpon his head, as the anciēt Emperors were wont to weare; & then the people, which was present in great number with ioyful acclamation cried out thrise: Carolo Augusto, á Deo coronato, magno et pacifico Imperatori, vita & victoria. So that we see, it was the decree of the Romanes that made Charles Emperour, and that they vsed Leo for the performance of the solemne rites of his Coronatiō & vnction. With Sigebert & the Authour of the great Chronicle, we may joyne Anno. 800. Lambertus Schaffnaburgesis. His words are, Carolus á Romanis Augustus est appellatus. That is: the Romanes proclaimed Charles Augustus, And Chronog. vol. 2. gener. 27. Nauclerus saith, Pontifex populi Romani consensu, Carolum Romanorum Imperatorem declarat, &c. that is: The high Bishop, with the consent of the people of Rome, proclaimeth Charles Emperour of Romanes, & crowneth him with a Diademe. The people with a joyfull shout, crying out thrice, Carolo Augusto, á Deo coronato, magno & pacifico Imperatori, vita & victoria. But to cleare this point: & to make it euident to all the world, that howsoeuer the Pope & Clergy might concurre in this act, with the people & nobles of Italy, as hauing part & interest in matters of state as well as other, yet the Pope by his Papall power did not translate the Empire; three things are to be obserued. The first, that in the time of Gregory the 2d, there was a great rebellion in Italy against the Emperour of Constantinople, and a desire to chuse a new Emperour, & that they of Rauenna & Venice proceeded so farre in it, that they would haue forced the Bishoppe of Rome, and others to concurre with them: whereby it appeareth, that the act of translation was not proper to the Bishop of Rome, but proceeded frō the concurring desires of the Italians, and was their act, rather then his. The second, that Charles Great. chron. in Carolo. was a mighty, potent, & great prince, hauing vnder him all France, Spaine, & a great part of Germany, with many other countries; & by his sword had subiected to him, the Lombards, & was Lord of the greatest part of Italy, before either the people proclaimed him, or the Pope crowned him Emperor. So that howsoeuer the Italians by Leo the B. proclaimed, crowned, & accounted him Emperour; yet it was his right of inheritance, & his sword that had possessed him of the thing, before euer they gaue him the title of the West Empire. The third, that whether the Italians had right to choose an Emperour or not, it mattereth nothing, seeing they rebelled against their Emperor, & thought, that in case of such necessity they might so do; and that therefore the obiection of Bellarmine against our position, is too weake, when he saith the people had no power to choose the Emperour. For howsoeuer anciently the Emperours were chosen by the souliers, or came to it by inheritance, yet the people at this time de facto tooke vpon them to choose, without curious disputing the question of right.

The fifth instance of the Popes intermedling in the disposition of the kingdomes of the world, is that of Gregory the 5, who (as Bellarmine saith) appointed the forme of chusing the Emperour by the seauen Princes of Germany, and ordained that the Emperour should euer after be chosen by them. For the clearing of which point, wee must obserue Great. chron. in Gregory 〈◊〉 . Naucl. vol. 2. Generat. 28. & sequentibus. that the Empire of the West, being translated from Constantinople into France in the person of Charles the great, he dyed, and Ludouicus his sonne succeeded him. Lotharius succeeded Ludouicus, and Ludouicus his sonne succeeded him. Carolus Caluus his vncle succeeded Ludouicus; Carolus Crassus his brother Ludouicus son, succeeded him. This Carolus Crassus for his vnfitnesse, was put from the Empire, and Arnulphus his nephew, son of Carlomaine was chosen in his place; who was the last of the race of Charles the great, that was crowned Emperour, whom Ludouicus his son succeeded, but was neuer crowned. In whom dying without childrē, the race of Charles did wholy cease. After him Otho the Duke of Saxony was greatly desired; but refusing to bee Emperour in respect of his old age, the French by his aduice chose Conradus; and Conradus when he dyed named Henry the sonne of Otho Duke of Saxony, who reigned in East-France: But vpon the death of Ludouicus the third, the Lombards possessed themselues of the Empire in Italy, eight of them successiuely holding it for the space of 50 yeres, till Otho the sonne of Matilda (daughter of Theodoricus king of the Saxons) & Henry the king; who succeeding his father, & being very famous for the things he had done in France & Germany, was desired by Agapetus the Pope, & many nobles of Italy now weary of the tyranny of the Lombards, to come and releeue them; which he did, and entring Italy with 50000. armed men, put Berengarius the Lombard from the Empire, and Albertus from the kingdome of all Italy; & was crowned Emperour in Rome by Iohn the twelfth, who died Emperour, and Otho the second his son succeeded him, and Otho the third his sonne succeeded him. This third Otho (as Vol. 2. Generat. •… 4. Nauclerus saith) hauing no heires male, by the aduice, & with the consent of the Princes of Germany, made a Decree, that after the death of the Emperour, an election of the new Emperour to succeede should for euer bee made in the citty of Franckford; and appointed electors three Arch-bishops, of Mentz for Germany, of Coleyn for Italy, and of Treuers for France: and with these foure other secular Princes, to wit, the Palatine of Rhene, who by office should be the Emperors Pantler; the Duke of Saxony, who should be his Marshall; the Marquesse of Branderburge, who was to be his Chamberlaine; & the King of Boheme, who was to be chief Butler. This ordinance greatly displeased the Romanes, yet notwithstanding Gregory the fifth then Pope, who was a Germane borne, & of the Emperours house, seeing how hardly Otho the Emperour came to the Empire, though it were his inheritance, called a Synode; and with the consent of the Princes of Germany, confirmed the ordinance of the Emperour, & decreed, that these 7 electors, should for euer haue power to chuse the Emperor in the name of all; who being chosen, should bee called Caesar & king of Romanos, & after his coronation by the Pope, be named Augustus & Emperour. Concord. Cathol. l. 3. c. 4. Cardinall Cusanus saith, the Emperor Otho, with the consent of the nobles, Primates, and both the states of the Clergy & people, ordained electors in the time of Gregory the 5. who was a Germane, & decreed, that they should haue power for euer to chuse the Emperor in steed of all. It is not therefore to be granted (saith hee) that the Princes electors haue their power of chusing the Emperor from the Pope, so that without his consent they should not haue it, or that he might take it from them if he would. Who therefore gaue the people of Rome power to chuse the Emperor, but the law of God, & nature? whence the Electors, appointed by the cōmon consent of all the Germanes, and other subiect to the Empire in the time of Henry the second, haue their power originally from the common consent of them all, who by natures right had power to constitute them an Emperour; and not from the Bishop of Rome, who hath no power to giue to any prouince of the world, a King or Emperour, without the consent thereof. But the consent of Gregory the 5. who as Bishop of Rome in his degree and place, had interest to giue voyce in the chusing of the Emperour, concurred with the resolution of the Princes & people.

The sixt instance is of Gregory the 7. deposing Henry the 4. who (indeed) was the first Pope that euer tooke vpon him to depose Emperour or King. Wherefore for the better vnderstanding of the whole course of the proceedings of this Pope, wee must obserue, Otho Frisingens. Chronic. lib. 6. c. 32. 33. that in the time of Henry the 3. about the yeare of our Lord 1040. there was an horrible confusion of Gods Church and people in the citty of Rome, three seuerall pretenders inuading the chaire of Peter, and challenging the name of his successours, and (which more increased the misery) the reuenues of the Church were diuided among these three, and seuerall Patriarchicall places assigned to them; one of them sitting at S. Peters, another at S. Mary the greater, and the third named Benedict, in the palace of Lateran; and all of them liued very lewdly & wickedly (as Otho saith the Romanes reported vnto him being in Rome.) A certaine religious Presbyter named Gratian, considering this miserable state of the Church, & taking pitty on his distressed mother, moued with the zeale of piety went to the three pretenders, and perswaded them for money to leaue the holy seate of Peter; assigning to Benedict, as being of greater esteeme among them, the reuenues of England for his maintenance, and as a recompence of his voluntary relinquishing the claime to the Popedome. The citizens of Rome admiring the happy atchieuement of this Presbyter, chose him to bee Pope, as being the deliuerer of the Church from so great a schisme; and changing his name, called him Gregory the 7. But when Henry the King heard of it, he passed into Italy. Gratian vnderstanding of his comming, met him at Sutrium, and to pacifie his wrath, offered him a precious Diademe. The King at the first honorably receiued him; but afterwards calling a Councell of Bishoppes, induced him to giue ouer the Popedome, as hauing by Symony obtayned it at the first; and with the consent of the Romane church placed Suidegerus Bishop of Babenberge in the Papal chaire, who was named Clemens. This Clemens dyed, & Popio Patriarch of Aquileia succeeded him, and was named Damasus. Damasus dyed, and Bruno Bishop of the Tullians succeeded him, and was named Leo. This man being of a noble race in France, was appointed Pope by the authority of the Emperour: and hauing put on the Papall purple robe, journeyed through France, til he came to Cluniack where one Hildebrand was Priour. This Hildebrand moued with zeale came to Leo, and told him hee did ill to assume the Papall office by vertue of the Emperours nomination being a Lay-man, but that if hee would be aduised by him, he would direct him into a course, whereby he might without offending the Emperour, preserue the liberty of the Church in chusing her chiefe Bishop. This aduice Leo hearkned vnto, and putting off his purple robe, put on the weede of a pilgrime, and so going to Rome with this Hildebrand in his company, by his aduice & counsell, found the meanes to get himselfe chosen Pope by the Clergy and people of Rome. Leo dyed, and Gebehardus afterwards named Victor, succeeded him, and Stephen him: about whose time Henry the third dyed, & Henry the fourth his sonne succeeded him; and after Stephen, Benedict, and Nicholas, Alexander gate the papall See, Naucler. Vol. 2. Gener. 36. against whom great exception was taken, for that contrary to the custome, hee was chosen without the Emperours consent, and with the liking of the yong Emperor and his mother (as some report.) Another was set vp by the Bishops of Lombardy, affirming that no man might be chosen or designed to the Popedome without the Emperours allowance. And besides, Anno Arch-bishop of Coleyn went to Rome to expostulate the matter with Alexander and the Cardinals adhering to him, and to know of him, how he durst contrary to custome, and the law prescribed and imposed anciently vpon the Popes, assume the Popedome without the consent of the Emperour; alleaging many things to shew the vnlawfulnesse of this fact, and beginning at Charles the great, hee named many Emperours who had either chosen or confirmed Popes, and made good their election. But being ready to go forward: and to adde more proofes vnto that which he had said, Hildebrand the Arch-deacon (the whole company of Cardinals beckening vnto him so to doe) stood vp, and answered in this sort. Arch-bishop Anno, the Kings and Emperours of Rome neuer had any authority, right, or commanding power in the choyce of the Pope: and if at any time, any thing were done violently or disorderly, it was afterwards corrected and set right againe by the censure of the Fathers. After the death of Alexander, this Hildebrand, who thus euer opposed himselfe against the Emperours claimes, was by the Romanes chosen Pope without the Emperours consent. Which the Bishops of France vnderstanding, knowing well of how violent, seuere, and vntractable a disposition hee was, vnwilling to haue him possesse so high a place in the Church, told the Emperour, that if hee did not in time preuent the matter, and voyd his election, greater euils and perils would beset him, then he could at first thinke of. Whereupon he sent Embassadours to Rome to know the cause why the Romanes contrary to the ancient custome, had chosen a Pope without his consent. And if they gaue not satisfaction, to put Hildebrand from the Papal dignity which he had vniustly gotten. The Embassadours comming to Rome, were kindly and courteously entertained, and when they had deliuered their message, Hildebrand (like a vile dissembling hypocrite) contrary to his owne practise, and that which he had perswaded other vnto, answered, that hee neuer sought this honor, but that it was put vpon him: and that yet hee would not accept of it, till by a certaine Embassadour, hee was assured, that not onely the Emperour, but the Princes of Germany consented to his election. Which answer when the Emperour receiued, hee was fully satisfied, and with all readinesse, by his royall consent confirmed his election and commanded that he should be ordained. Thus wee see, how to serue his owne turne, he could now acknowledge the Emperours interest, and refuse to be ordained before hee had obtained his confirmation, which yet before in the case of Alexander he disclaimed: though a some say, hee neuer yeelded so much to the Emperour, but euer 〈◊〉 Otho. 〈◊〉 lib. 6. cap. •… 4. & 35. held out against him, disclaiming his intermedling, and that a most horrible schisme ensued thereupon. Howsoeuer, he was no sooner Pope, but he began to molest the Emperour, challenging him for Symony in conferring Ecclesiasticall dignities, and requiring him to come to some Synodall answer; which when he refused to doe, he excommunicated him, depriued him of his Empire, and absolued his subiects frō their Oath of obedience, This was the first Pope that euer presumed to depose any Emperour. Lego & relego (saith Otho Fris. l. 6 Chron. c. 35 Otho Frisingensis) Romanorum Regum & Imperatorum gesta, & nusquam invenio quenquam eo •… um ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum, vel regno privatum, nisi fortè quis pro anathemate habendum ducat, quod Philippus ad breve tempus à Romano Pontifice inter poenitentes collocatus, & Theodosius à beato Ambrosio propter cruentam caedem à liminibus Ecclesiae sequestratus sit: that is, I reade, and I reade ouer againe and againe, the Acts of the Romane Kings and Emperours, and I no where finde any of them before this, excommunicated by the Romane Bishop, or depriued of his kingdome, unlesse haply any man doe thinke that is to be taken for an excōmunication, that Philip was for a short time put among the Penitents by the Bishop of Rome, and Theodosius for his bloudy murther stopped by blessed Ambrose from entring into the Church. And therefore whatsoeuer Gregory pretendeth c Decr. part. 2. caus. 15. q. 6. & l. 8. ep. 21. to the contrary, professing that hee treadeth in the steps of the Saints, and his holy predecessours; yet it is true that In Chron. anno 1088. Sigebert saith, (which hee hopeth hee may say with the leaue of all good men) that this novelty (that hee say not heresie) had not shewed it self in the world in their time, that the Priests of that God which maketh hypocrites to reigne for the sins of his people, should teach his people that they owe no subiectiō to wicked Kings, and that they owe no feaulty vnto them, though they haue taken the oath of feaulty: that they are free frō periury that lift vp their hands against the king to whō they haue sworne, & that they are to be taken for excōmunicate persons that do obey him. What horrible confusiōs followed vpon this censure of Gregory, Otho Frisingensis reporteth in most tragicall manner. His wordes are these. How e Chro. l, 6. c. 36 great euils, how many warres and dangers of warres followed thence? How often was miserable Rome besieged, taken, and sacked? How one Pope was intruded vpon another: as likewise one King set vp against another, it is irksome to me to remember. To conclude, the whirle-winde of this tempest inwrapped in it so many euils, so many schismes, so many perils of the soules and bodies of men, that it alone may suffise in respect of the cruelty of the persecutiō, and the long continuance of the time thereof, to set before our eyes the infelicity of mans miserable conditiō. For Naucler. Vol. 2. Gener. 37. first the Emperour offended with the Pope for molesting him about the Investitures of Bishoppes, which his Predecessours anciently had and enjoyed, and the Clergy discontented with him for his forbidding marriage; hee was in an assembly of the States and Bishops of Germany, holden at Wormes, deposed, & a letter written to him, requiring him no longer to meddle with the Episcopall Office, But such was the resolutiō and stoutnesse of this turbulent & vnquiet spirit, that being encouraged by certain Bishops of Germany, & promised their aide & helpe, he depriued the Bishops that had giuen sentence against him, and deposed Henry the Emperour, absoluing his subiects frō their Oath of obedience. Whereupon many of the Princes of Germany, and first of all the Saxons formerly averse frō him, withdrew their subiectiō, pretending, that they might justly cast off the yoake, and refuse to obey him any longer, seeing hauing beene called to giue satisfaction to two Popes, concerning certaine crimes obiected to him, he had refused to appeare, and was thereupon excommunicated. These rebellions and defections so affrighted the Nobles and Princes of the Empire that still remained well affected to the Emperour, that for the staying of present confusiōs, & preventing of other, they thought good that the Pope should be intreated to come into Germany, and that then the Emperour should submit himselfe vnto him, & aske forgiuenesse; which thing accordingly was effected: for the Pope was perswaded, & consented to come into Germany, & was cōming towards Augusta, as farre as Versella. But when hee came thither, pretēding feare that the Emperor meant not wel towards him, he brake off his journy, & went to Canossū, & there staied. Which the Emperor hearing of, & doubting what might be the cause of his stay, hastned thither, & putting off all Royall robes, on his bare feet came to the gates of the town, hūbly beseeching that he might be let in: but was staied without 3 daies, though it were extreme colde winter weather: which hee endured patiently, continually intreating, till in the end hee was let in, and absolued; but yet conditionally, that being called, he should appeare in an assembly of Princes & Bishoppes, to answere such crimes as were obiected to him; and either to purge himselfe and so retaine his kingdome; or otherwise failing so to doe, to lose it. This his submission afterwards he made knowne to the Italians, who vnderstanding what hee had done, were exceedingly enraged against him, derided the Legates of the Pope, & contemned his curses, as being deposed by all the Bishops of Italy for iust causes, as namely, for simony, murther, adultery, and other most horrible and capitall crimes; and told him, that he had done a most intollerable thing, in submitting himselfe & his kingly Maiestie to an hereticke and most infamous person. Yea they proceeded so farre, that they told him, because he had so done, they were resolued to make his son Emperour in his steede; and to go to Rome and chuse a new Pope, by whom he might be consecrated, and all the proceedings of this false Pope voided. But the Emperour excusing himselfe for that which hee had done, as driuen by necessity so to doe, and promising to revenge these wrongs, when opportunity should bee offered, pacifyed them in such sort, that they began to incline to him againe. Yet were not his euils at an end hereby. For his enemies among the Germanes presently tooke the opportunity of this his relapse, and calling an assembly with the Legates of the Pope, chose a new Emperour, Rodolphe Duke of Sueuia; to whō the Pope sent an imperiall crown, hauing this inscription: Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho. Which when he heard of, hee called a Councell of the Bishoppes of Italy and Germany, and charging Hildebrand the Pope with most horrible crimes of heresie, necromancy, periury, murther, and the like, deposed him; chose Guibertus, Bishoppe of Rauenna in his place, and gathering together a great and mighty army, went against Rodolphe abiding in Saxony; where a most terrible and bloudy battell was fought betweene them: in which battell Rodolphe was wounded; and going aside from his companions, with many other likewise wounded, was carried to Mersberge, where he died; who a litle before his death beholding his right hand cut off in that battell, fetching a deepe sigh, said to the Bishops which by chance were present: Behold, this is the hand with which by solemne vow and oath I obliged my faith and feaulty to Henry my Lord. Behold now I leaue his kingdome and this present life, see you that made mee climbe vp into his throne, what you haue done: would to God you had led me the right way, whom you found so willing to follow your aduice and counsell, and to be directed by you Yet did neither the ill successe of the former attempt, nor the speeches of Rodolphe at his death, blaming those that had set him a worke, and condemning himselfe for that which he had done, discourage the ill affected from proceeding on in their rebellious practises. For they set vp Hermannus, Prince of Lorrayne, in steed of Rodolphe, and proclaimed him Emperour, whom the Emperour Henry slew likewise, as he had done the other; & rested not till hee made Pope Hildebrand leaue Rome, and flie to Salernum; and brought the new Pope named Clement, to be inthronized, and himselfe crowned by him in Rome. The acts of Hildebrand (saith Nauclerus) were such, that the writers bee very doubtfull whether the things that were done by him, were done out of any loue of vertue, or any zeale hee bare to the faith, or not. They that loued him best, disliked his stiffenes, as Annal. Auentinus witnesseth. Li. 6. cap. 32. Otho Frisingensis noteth, that his disposition was such, that for the most part, he euer liked that which others disliked. So, that of Lucane might bee verified of him: Victrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni: that is, The prevailing part and cause best pleased God, but that which fell, and had the ouerthrow, had Catoes wishes. And though he commend his zeale, yet in his prologue of his 7. booke he taxeth him, and others like vnto him, in very bitter sort. His words are these: Videntur tamen culpandi Sacerdotes per omnia, qui regnum suo gladio, quem ipsi ex regum habent gratia, ferire conantur. Nisi fortè Dauid imitari cogitant, qui Philistaeum primò virtute Dei strauit, postmodùm proprio gladio iugulauit: that is, Notwithstanding whatsoeuer may be said, the Priests seeme altogether blameable, and worthy of reproofe & reprehension, which goe about to strike Kings and princes with that their sword which they haue by the grace and fauour of Princes; vnlesse haply they doe thinke it lawfull for them to imitate Dauid, who first ouerthrew and cast to the ground the proude Philistine by the power of God, and afterwards slew him with his ownesword. Of this Hildebrand Anno 1085. Sigebert saith, he found it thus written: Wee will haue you know, you that manage the Ecclesiasticall affaires, and to whom the care of the Church is committed, that the Lord, Pope Hildebrand, who also was called Gregory, being in extremis, & drawing neare his end, called vnto him one of the 12 Cardinalls, whom hee loued dearely, and more then any of the rest; and in his hearing confessed to God, to holy Peter, and to the whole Church, that he had sinned exceedingly, and grieuously offended in the Pastorall charge committed to him, and in governing the people of whom he had vndertaken the care; and that by the perswasion and instigation of the Diuell, he had stirred vp hatred and wrath against mankind: & then commanded the forenamed Confessor to make haste to goe to the Emperour, & to the whole Church of God, to aske forgiuenesse for him, because he saw the end of his life was neare at hand. And besides all this, in great haste put on him an Angelicall vesture or robe, and released & brake in sunder the bands of all those bitter curses whereunto hee had subiected the Emperour. These were the turbulent proceedings of this cursed Hildebrand, indeede a brand taken out of the very fire of hell, to set on fire the course of nature, and to put the whole world into a combustion; whereof (if this report mentioned by Sigebertus be true) it repented him not a little before his death. But howsoeuer, it is most certaine, that his best friends in the end beganne wholy to dislike him, when they saw whither his violent and furious passions carried him, and what wofull effects followed the same. Gerochus (saith Annal. lib. 〈◊〉 pag. 563. Auentinus) then whom no man was found more earnestly to defend Hildebrand by bookes written to iustifie his proceedings, and who published to the world diuers crimes obiected to the Emperour, mentioned by no other writer, at the last, constrained by the force of trueth, taxed the pertinacy, if not the tyranny, of the Pope & his adherents, in this sort. Romani (inquit) sibi diuinum vsurpant honorem, rationem actorum reddere nolunt, nec sibi dici aequo animo ferunt, cur ita agis? Illud Satyricum inculcant, Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas; that is, The Romanes take vnto themselues the honour that is proper vnto God: they will giue no account for any thing they doe; they will be subiect to no controll, neither canne they endure with any patience, that any man should say to any of them, sir, why doe you so? That Satyricall saying they haue often in their mouthes: so I will haue it, so I command it to bee. Let my will stand for a reason, for so it shall. Thus we see how ill a beginning the Popes made of deposing Emperours, and how bad successe they had. Which is not to bee maruailed at, seeing in these attempts and practises they were contrary to Christ and his Apostles. For these (as Auentinus noteth) acknowledged the Emperours, as also all the holy Fathers did, to be in the second place and ranke after God, and before all mortall men, giuen, appointed, and chosen by the immortall God; and honoured them, as hauing the crowne set vpon their heads by God himselfe; they prayed daily for their prosperity, they paid tribute vnto them, and proclaimed them rebels against God, that refused to bee subiect to them. After this bad beginning, some two or three other Popes succeeding, attempted in like sort as Hildebrand had done, to depose such Emperours as they were offended with. Concerning whose attempts and practises, let the Reader consider the censure of Cardinall Cusanus. His words are these: Cusanus de concord. Cathol. l. 3. c. 41 Let it suffice the Pope, that he excelleth the Emperor, as much as the Sun doth the Moone, and the soule the body; and let him not challenge that which pertaineth not to him: neither let him affirme, that the Empire is not but by him, and in dependance on him: and if haply the deposing of some kings & Emperours, the translation of the Empire moue him so presumptuously for to thinke, let him know, that if the respect of religion, and due consideration of humility hindered not, it were easie to answere all those thinges truly & most clearely; and so, that haply these things should no way argue so great a power in the Pope, as Pope, without the consent or willing acceptation of the parties contending, as is imagined. For there wanted not in ancient times men to defend Henry the fourth crowned at Basil by the Legates of Rome, from the excommunication of Gregory or Hildebrand. Yea such there were that were Cardinals at that time, and a certaine Councell holden at Rome, nay which more is, the Generall Councell at Basil, holden at that time, did the same things concerning the chusing of Honorius Pope, for which Henry the Emperour was pronounced excommunicate. And in like sort there are found things excellently and strongly written in defence of Fredericke the second, a most valiant man, and a most constant defender of the Faith, as also in defence of other Emperours. How much the Popes proceedings against Fredericke the second, hindered the course of the sacred warre vndertaken at that time against the Infidels, how many things the Pope charged him with, which hee vtterly disclaimed, & how much all Christian Princes in the end beganne to dislike the pride of the Romane Court, the See Math. Paris. Henric. 3. p. 682. Histories of those times do sufficiently make knowne vnto vs. Wherefore to conclude this point, touching the Popes pretended power of deposing Princes; seeing the first that euer attempted to exercise the same, was that brand of hell Gregory the 7. seeing he had so ill successe in this his proud attempt, and caused such confusions in the Christian world, as the like had seldome or neuer bin before; & seeing the best learned about those times, & since, condēned the opinion of thē that thinke the Pope may depose Princes, as new & strange, if not hereticall: we may safely resolue, that the Pope taking vpon him to giue and take away kingdomes, which is proper to God, is that Antichrist that sitteth in the temple of God, as if he were God.

CHAP. 47.

Of the Ciuill dominion which the Popes haue by the gift of Princes.

HAuing proued that the Popes neither directly, nor indirectly haue power ouer Princes & the Kingdomes of the world, or any thing to do in the managing and disposing of ciuill affaires, by vertue of any grant from Christ, let vs proceed to see what temporall dominion and ciuill power they haue by the grant of Princes. It is the resolued opinion almost of all men (saith De Concord. Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Cusanus) that Constantine the Emperour gaue the whole Empire of the West to Sylvester Bishop of Rome, and to his successours for euer, so that there can bee no Emperour of the West, but such a one as must wholly depend of the Pope, and acknowledge that hee holdeth the Imperiall Crowne of him. Neither were there many found in auncient times, that durst make question of this donation of Constantine, yet doth this great Cardinall & worthy Diuine professe, that hauing sought diligently to find out the original of this supposed grant, & the certainty of it (presupposing that Constantine might make such a grant, which yet will neuer be proued) he greatly wōdereth if euer there were any such thing. For that there is no such thing to be foūd in authenticall bookes, & approued Histories. I haue read ouer (saith he) againe and againe, all the Acts of Popes and Emperours that by any meanes I could meete with, the Histories of Saint Hierome, who was most diligent in collecting all things, the workes of Augustine, Ambrose; and other learned Fathers, and the Acts of Generall Councels which haue beene since the Councell of Nice; and can finde no such thing as this supposed donation, nor any thing that may import, that euer there was any such donatiō, neither can it stand with the course of things reported vnto vs by the auncient Historians and writers: Damasus at the request of Hierome, wrote the liues & actions of his Predecessors: & yet in the life of Syluester reporteth no such thing. He addeth further, that hauing diligently perused the Charter of this grant, hee found in it most euident arguments of forgery and falshood, and therefore saith, hee thinketh these things concerning Constantines donation to be Apocryphall, as some other large writings attributed to Clemens & Anacletus the Popes. For first, the Epistle of Melchiades touching the Primitiue Church, & the bounty of Constantine is proued coūterfeit, in that he speaketh of the Councell of Nice, holden after his death, and of Constantines donation, supposed to haue been granted in the time of Sylvester, who succeeded him. Besides this, in the Charter of donation, Constantine professeth, that he was a Leper, that hee was freed from the same by Sylvesters meanes, by whom hee was baptized, and that hee was first instructed in Christianity by him. Whereas it is a meere fable that is reported of Constantines leprosie, and it is most certaine that hee was a Christian before Syluester was Bishop of Rome. I no where euer read (saith Locorum Theologic: lib. 12. c. 5. Melchior Canus) in any good and approued authors, that Constantine was a Leper; But another of that name surnamed Copronymus, whence haply, through ambiguity of the name, this error might spring, vnlesse this rumor concerning the Leprosie of Constantine may seeme to haue sprung from that we finde reported of him: that he went out of the Citty of Byzantium to certaine hot bathes for his healthes sake. Thomas Aquinas in his 3. part. quaest. 69. in 4. argumento. summe mentioneth this vulgar history of Constantines Leprosie, and (as it seemeth) approueth the same; but Caietane doth not so, writing vpon Thomas; neither wanteth hee good authors to induce him to reiect this fabulous report: for hee hath Platina in the life of Marke, Lib. 2. Ludouicus Viues in his booke de corruptis disciplinis, and Lib. Parerg. 7. c. 19. Alciat, all flatly denying and reiecting this report: and hee hath all ancient writers of that age, passing it ouer in silence: who would neuer haue omitted it, if they had knowne of any such thing, and would vndoubtedly haue knowne it, if there had beene any such thing. Touching his Baptisme, all the ancient Historians In Chronic. Hierome, Lib. 4. de vita Constantin. Eusebius, Lib. 2. cap. 39. Socrates, Lib. 1. hist. Eccles. c. 31. Theodoritus, Lib. 3. cap. 34. Zozomen, Tripart. hist. Cassiodorus: Pomponius Laetus, and other of that ranke affirme, that he was baptized by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, a little before his death, and not by Syluester. The author of the Pontificall, who is full of fables, the fained Charter of Constantines donation, and some late writers, deceiued by these late forgeries, affirme, that he was first conuerted to Christianity by Syluester Bishop of Rome, and by him baptized, which by no meanes can be true: it being most certaine he was a Christian in the time of Melchiades, Syluesters predecessor. It is most certainely true (sayth Concord. Cathol. l3. c. 2. Cusanus) that Constantine the Emperour was a Christian in the time of Melchiades the Pope, as it appeareth by Austine in diuers places, especially in his Epistle to Glorius and Eleusius. These are proofes more then sufficient, that the Edict of donation attributed to Constantine is counterfeit and forged: and therefore Vbi supra. Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus. Melchior Canus writeth thus of it. The Lawyers do sufficiently shew, that that forme of donation, which is attributed to Constantine, and commonly carried about, is faigned and counterfeit, in that they brand it with the disgraceful inscription of chaffe. Eusebius, Ruffinus, Theodoret, Socrates, Zozomen, Eutropius, Victor, and the other approued authors, who most diligently wrote all the acts of Constantine, do not onely passe by this supposed donation, without making any mention of it, but also deliuer, that Constantine by his last will and testament, so deuided the Prouinces, subiect to the Romane Empire, among his three sonnes, that all Italy fell to the lot of one of them: which being so religious a Prince, hee would not haue done, if he had formerly giuen Italy, and all the Westerne part of the Empire to the Pope. Lib. 15. Ammianus Marcellinus reporteth, that Constantine held the Soueraignty of Rome, and appointed Leontius to be his Leiuetenant there, & all Historians do report that sundry Emperours long after the time of Constantines supposed donation, ruled & raigned as soueraigne Lords in Italy: and euen in Rome it selfe, Epist. Agathonis. lecta in 6: actione. 4. Pope Agatho writing to Constantine, that called the sixth Generall Councell, acknowledgeth that Rome is Imperatoris seruilis vrbs, that is, the Emperours cittie in all humble and submissiue subiection: and it is most euident that Io. Diaconus. in vita Gregorij. lib. 1. c. 40. in the time of Gregory the first, the Emperour held the citty of Rome, and gouerned it by a Lord Deputy. But some man perhaps will say, that the acts of Syluester in which this donation is found, are approued by Gelasius, and a Synode of Bishoppes, and that therefore wee may not doubt of it. This allegation is easily answered. For (as Concord. Cathol. li. 3. cap. 2. Cusanus rightly noteth) it is a very weake and slender confirmation of the actes of Pope Syluester, that is found in Gelasius, and the Synode of Bishoppes holden by him. For Gelasius sayth onely, the author of these actes is not knowne, and that yet they are read by some Catholikes in the Church of Rome, and many Churches by ancient vse imitate the same. The writings also (sayth hee) concerning the inuention of the holy crosse of our Lord, and some other writings concerning the inuention of the head of Saint Iohn Baptist, are truely but nouell and late reuelations, and yet some Catholiques read them. But when writings of this kinde shall come into the hands of Catholikes, let that sentence of blessed Paul the Apostle be before them 1. Thess. 5: 21. Proue all things, and hold that which is good. Touching Gratian in whom this Charter of Donation is now found: Hist. part. 1. tit. 8. cap. 2. Antoninus Arch-bishop of Florence noteth, that in the old bookes it was not found. And therefore it is rightly noted and distinguished from other things of more credit by the inscription of Pale •… , that is chaffe, because there is no good corne in it as Platina obserueth in the life of Iohn the seauenth, with whom Cap. cum Enixa Dist. 5. in annot. Contius, the authour of a Preface before the Decrees, agreeth; affirming that those things that are so noted, were at the first put into the margent onely, and so after crept into the text, and that many of them are not found in the most ancient bookes of Decrees. And in his Annotations vpon that Part. 1. decr. Dist. 46. cap. Constantinus. part of the Decrees, where this fayned charter of Constantine is found, insinuateth, that this Chaffe is not in all bookes of Decrees. Touching Isidore, the Centur. 4. c. 7. Magdeburgians testifie, that in old copyes there is nothing found concerning this supposed donation, and the like may be thought of Iuo; so that there is no Author of any credit, that giueth testimony to this donation: and they that doe speake of it, speake so differently and vncertainely, that from thence Chronogr. •… ol. 2. c ner. 11. Nauclere gathereth that the whole is but a forged matter, and meere deuise. For in the Vbi supra. Decrees there is mention of a donation of the city of Rome, of all Italy, and other Prouinces of the West, but in the fained Decret. 2. parte causa. 12. qu. 1. cap. 15. Epistle of Melchiades, and in the 6. Decretal. Bonifac: 8. lib. 1: tit: 6: electione & elect. potest: cap: 17: Decretall of Bonifacius the eigth there is no mention but onely of the citty of Rome: so that though it bee not to be doubted, but that Constantine gaue Princely gifts vnto the Church, and other Emperours and Princes augmented the same in such sort, that the Church long since had ample possessions, great reuenues, and a goodly patrimony in sundry parts of the West: yet I thinke we may most safely affirme with Platina, Otho Frisingensis, Cusanus, Valla, Nauclerus, Canus, and sundry other, that there neuer was any such donation as is imagined, but that both Rome and all Italy, with the Westerne Prouinces remained still subiect to the Empeperour, till the time of Pipine the father of Charles the great, being gouerned either by the Emperours themselues, or by such as they appointed when they liued away and made their abode in other places, as in processe of time they resided in a manner altogether at Constantinople, made great by Constantine, and better liked of by his successours then Rome it selfe. Whereupon wee reade of one Naucler: vol 2. Gen: 19: & 20. Narses the Emperors Lieuetenant, a good man, and a good gouernour, who hauing vanquished the Gothes, ruled the Romanes in great peace and quietnesse for a long time; till mooued with enuie they made complaints of him to the Emperour Iustinus, and Sophia his wife, professing that it were better for them to be vnder the Gothes againe, then to endure the proud and insolent command of this Lieuetenant. Vpon which complaints the Emperour displaced him, and sent one Longinus to succeed him. Which thing so offended Narses, that hee called the Lumbards into Italy, whose comming made the Greeke Emperours in time to lose Rome, and all Italy. Longinus the successour of Narses, after hee was established in his place, (whereas before there were no Garrisons in the townes of Italy, but euery citty was gouerned by her owne Magistrates) put garrisons into diuers townes, and brought in a new forme of gouernment into Rome, and into all Italy, which more afflicted it, then all the calamities that it had beene subiect vnto for the space of 160. yeares before, though such and so grieuous, that Rome was sometime left desolate, to bee inhabited by wilde beasts. This man brought in a new name of dignity, to expresse the honourable place and office, of the chiefe commaunder in Italy vnder the Emperour, calling it the Exarchate, and him that so ruled the Exarch. This Exarch remained at Rauenna, and went not at all to Rome: hee appointed no one President ouer a whole Prouince or countrey, but left euery Citty to bee gouerned by her owne Magistrates, whom hee called Dukes, and made none other difference betweene Rome and other citties, but that whereas the Gouernours of other places were called Dukes, the Gouernour of Rome first placed, was called a President, and they that followed him Dukes, whence wee reade of the Romane Dukedome. Neither had the Romanes after the times of Narses and Basilius, either Consulls or Senate lawfully called together, but all their affaires were managed by some Grecian Duke, whom the Exarch sent vnto them. This forme of gouernment continued till the time of Leo the third, who breaking downe Images in the East parts of the world, and seeking to bring the Pope and Christians of the West to doe the like, procured himselfe so great dislike and ill will among them, (the Pope perswading them to contemne his commaundements in this behalfe as vnlawfull) that they of Rauenna and Venice beganne to rebell against him and his Exarch, and would haue chosen a new Emperour, but that the Pope (in hope that hee would amend) staide them by his perswasions from so doing. Idem. gener. 25. Rhegino. lib. 1. Yet this rebellion proceeded so farre, that the Cities deposed the Magistrates set ouer them by the Exarch, and appointed new of their owne. The city of Rome slew Marius Spatharius, that was her Duke, and his sonne Adrian, and chose another. They of Rauenna were diuided among themselues: whereupon the Exarch was slaine, and in the meane while the Lombards brought into Italy by Narses, and now grown to be strong, possessed themselues of Bononia, and other places. The Emperour hearing of these innouations in Italy, Naucler. gener. 25. 〈◊〉 sent another Exarch, who sought to appease the Lombards with gifts, and to incite certaine Romanes against the Pope to take away his life. So that the Pope was greatly distressed on euery side, fearing both the Emperour and the Lombards. But being encouraged by the people so to doe, hee excommunicated the Exarch, whom the Emperour had sent, and pacified the Lombards, and afterwards wrought a reconciliation betweene the Exarch and himselfe: and perswaded him to goe to Rauenna, and there to make his abode as other his predecessors had done. After this the Lombard besiegeth Rome againe, and putteth the Pope and the inhabitants in great feare, yet did they not send to the Emperour for helpe, by reason of the great dislikes that were betweene them, as also for that there was little hope of any helpe to come from him, being scarce able to defend the Citie of Constantinople from the Saracens, but to Charles Martell, Father of Pipine, who by intreaty perswaded the Lombard to remoue his siege and goe away. After this againe Aistulphus King of the Lombards besieged Rauenna, & tooke it, and put the Romanes into as great a feare, as euer they had beene in before. Whereupon the Pope writeth to the Emperour, signifying in what state Rome and all Italy was, & that if hee did not presently send aide, they must fall into the hands of Aistulphus. Vpon these letters of the Pope, the Emperour sendeth to Aistulphus to perswade him to desist from inuading his countries and territories, but effecteth nothing. And therefore the Pope consulteth with the Romanes what was fitte to bee done. Who resolue to send to the Emperour, and to let him know, that if hee would not presently come in person with the forces of the Empire to relieue Italy, they must be forced to seeke defence and reliefe else-where. According to this resolution, messengers were presently sent to Constantinople, but not returning in time, the Romans were forced to seeke to Pipine for helpe: who came in person, and restored the Bishoppe of Rome to his place from whence he was fled, forced Aistulphus to sweare and giue pledges to restore all things to him that hee had taken away: but he was no sooner gone out of the country, but he did more mischiefe then euer, whereof Pipine vnderstanding, gathered a new army and returned into Italy, with a full resolution to subdue this Tyrant, & to settle the peace of the Church of Rome. The Emperour hearing that the Romans had sought helpe of Pipine, sendeth to him great gifts and presents, and beseecheth him to restore Rauenna and the Exarchate to the Empire, whereunto of right it pertayned, and not to giue them to the Romans or Pope. Whereunto Pipine answered; That he was now the second time come into Italy, not for gaine, but for his soules health, and to represse the insolencies of the Lombards, that they might not hurt the Church, and that therefore hee meant to take Rauenna and the Exarchate, and other parts of Italy out of the Lombards hand, and to giue them to the Pope and Romane Church and so he did. Now the Exarchate was diuided into two regions, the one named Pentapolis, containing fiue citties, to wit, Rauenna, Caesena, Classis, Forum Liuii, and Forum Popilii: the other Aemilia wherein were Bononia, Rhegium, Parma, Placentia, and whatsoeuer land there is from the bounds of those of Placentia and Ticine to Adria, and from Adria to, Ariminium. But the state of things was not so setled by Pipine, but that Desiderius, who succeeded Aistulphus in the kingdome of the Lombards, began a fresh to wrong the Church of Rome againe, & therefore in the time of Adrian the Pope, Charles the Great, was intreated to come into Italy; which thing hee willingly yeelded to performe, and came to relieue them whom his father before had set free, and rested not till hee had subdued the Lombards, and restored to the Church of Rome all that which Pipine had giuen, confirming his gift with more ample priuiledges then before, and therefore to shew their thankfulnesse to him, the Romans did him all the honour that possibly they could deuile, and a Dist. 63. cap. Adrianus. Synode was holden in Rome called by Adrian, consisting of an hundred fifty and three Bishops, religious men and Abbots, and Adrian the Pope and the Bishoppes assembled in Councell, with vnanimous consent, yeelded to Charles right and power to choose the Pope, and to order the Apostolique See, they granted vnto him also the dignity of being a Patrician, that is, a noble man of Rome, and besides all this decreed, that Arch-bishops and bishops in all prouinces, should receiue inuestiture from him: and that no man should be consecrated a Bishop, vnlesse hee were first approued and commended by the King, and inuested by him: subjecting all such as should dare to go against this decree, to excommunication and confiscation of goods, if they should not speedily repent, and shew themselues sory for so doing. This priuiledge the French Kings enjoy in a sort vnto this day, especially in certaine Prouinces of France. After this the second time, Charles the Great was occasioned to come to Rome, by reason of some violences offered to Leo Bishop thereof, at what time the Bishop of Rome considering, that the Emperours of Constantinople did hardly hold the title of Emperours, that they were able to yeeld litle reliefe in time of neede, and that they did in a sort forsake the Westerne part of the Empire, and besides all this, differed in some matters of religion: and on the other side, considering that Charles was a most mighty Prince, and one that deserued well of the Church, as Pipine and Martell had done before him, with the consent of the people of Rome, taking from him the title of a Patrician proclaimeth him Emperour.

Thus we see Pipine gaue certaine countries to the Pope and Church, and Charles confirmed the same gift. But they did not so giue them, but that they retained (as De regno Italiae. lib. 4. Sigonius noteth,) Ius, principatum, & ditionem, that is, the right soueraignty and royalty to themselues, and their successors, so that the Romanes were to do the Emperor seruice, and pay him tributes, they were by an oath of fealty to oblige themselues vnto him, and As Lotharius did. Naucler. vol 2. generat. 28. hee by his princely power might appoint Magistrates to judge and rule the people, yet such was the encroching of the Romane Bishops, that they could not endure long to be in this subiection, but sought wholy to cast off the yoake of the Emperors. Whereupon Fredericke Barbarossa (as Gener. 39. Nauclerus reporteth out of De gestis Frederici. lib. 2. c. 5. Frisingensis) some differences growing betweene him and the Pope, and Citties of Italy, inquired of the Princes and Lawyers, in what sort and how farre forth the Citties of Italy were subject to the Empire: & they with one consent did al adiudge vnto him all royalties, as coynes, tolles, shippings, confirmation of dignities, of Iudges and Consuls, tributes and judgments anciently established, besides such other things as hee might require when the Empire should stand in neede. But the Pope alleaged at the same time, that the Emperour might send to Embassadors to Rome, without his conniuence, and that they of his Eschequer might make no collection of money, in the Castles, Villages or townes, subiect to the Pope, but onely at that time when first he putteth on the Emperiall Crowne in Rome. And Otho Frisingensis addeth, Radeuici Frising. appen. ad Othon em de r •… b. gestis Frederici lib. 2. cap. 30. that these articles were proposed to the Emperour by the Popes Legates, to wit, that no messengers or Embassadours should be sent to the citty without the Popes priuity, seeing all the Magistrates of that towne are the officers of Saint Peter, with all royalties: that no money should be collected out of the Popes Lordships, but only at the time of the Emperours Coronation; that the Bishops of Italy should onely take the oath of fealtie, and do no homage to the Emperour: and lastly that the Emperours Embassadours should not challenge any entertainement in Bishops Pallaces. To these Articles Ibid. the Emperour answered in this sort. I truly desire not the homage of the Bishops of Italy, if they please to renounce those royalties that do belong vnto vs: who, if they willingly heare from the Pope, What hast thou to do with the King? they must be content to heare from the Emperour also, What hast thou to do with mundane possessions? That our Embassadours are not to abe receiued and intertained, I will easily graunt, if any Bishop may be found, whose Pallace stands vpon his owne ground, and not vpon ours. But whereas the Pope pretendeth that the Emperour may send no Embassadors to Rome without his priuity, that all Magistrates there are the officers of Saint Peter, this matter, I confesse, is of moment and consequence, and will require a more graue and mature deliberation. For seeing by the prouidence and ordinance of God, I am the Emperor of Rome, and so called. I shall but only carry a shew of a Soueraigne Lord, and haue the empty title without the thing, if the Soueraignty and command of the Citty of Rome be taken from mee. Thus did the good Emperour seeke to maintaine the right of the Empire, yet out of a good and Christian disposition, was willing to referre all differences between the Pope and him, to the tryall of law, or of arbitrement. But the Pope would not consent to any such thing. Wherein hee shewed more policy then good disposition, as knowing that hee must needes fall in this suite, if the matter came to tryall. For it is most euident, that Supra. Lotharius appointed Magistrates euen in Rome it selfe, to judge the people; that the Nobles of Rome tooke the oath of fealty to the Emperour Ludouicus father to Lotharius. This oath was taken in the time of Fredericke the first, in Verona; The forme of the oath was this: Radeuici append. ad Othonem. lib. 1. c. 19. I do sweare that frō this time forward, I will be faithfull and true to my Lord Fredericke Emperour of Romanes against all men, &c. And that I will neuer go about to take from him his royalties &c. These were the differences betweene Fredericke Barbarossa and the Pope, and the opposition grew so great and strong, that diuerse of the Cardinals conspired against the Emperour, and gaue large summes of money to Adrian the Pope to excommunicate him. And this conspiracy was confirmed with oathes, that none should draw backe or seeke the Emperours fauour without the rest. And that if the Pope should dye, they should choose none, but one of the conspiring Cardinals to succeede him, But as Dauid sayd, Psal. 109. 28. They shall curse, but thou shalt blesse: so GOD that spake by the mouth of Dauid, turned all that these conspiratours did to a contrary effect. For it came to passe that some few dayes after the Pope had denounced r Naucler. vol. 2. gener. 39. excommunication against the Emperour at Anagnia, going forth to refresh himselfe with some fewe accompanying him; hee dranke of the water of a certaine well, and presently a Flye entred into his mouth and stucke so fast in his throat, that by no skill of Physitions it could bee drawne out, till hee had breathed out his last breath. Yet were not the conspirators discouraged by this accident, but after his death, the greater part of Cardinals chose Rowland the Chancelor a professed enemy to the Empire, and one of the conspiratours in contempt of Fredericke and the Germane Nation, (though there were some other that chose Cardinall Octauian and named him Victor.) This Rowland naming himselfe Alexander the third, after he came to the Popedowe, had many dangerous conflicts with the Emperour, and was oftentimes put to the worse by him, in so much that in the end hee was forced to disguise himselfe, and in the habit of a Cooke, to flye to Venice, where hee liued for a certaine space in base condition: till in the end being knowne, hee was honourably entertained, and kindly intreated by the Venetians: which when Fredericke vnderstood of, hee was greatly displeased with them for entertaining his enemy, and sent his Sonne with a great Nauy and strong army, by force and violence to fetch him thence. But such was the ill hap of the yong Prince, that beeing incountred by the Venetians, hee was by them taken prisoner: neither could his deliuerance by any meanes be procured, vnlesse Fredericke would come in Person to Venice, and seeke to be reconciled to the Pope: This hard condition the Emperour yeelded to for his Sonnes sake; went to Venice in person, and was reconciled to the Pope vppon this condition: that hee should restore to the Pope the citty of Rome, and whatsoeuer belonged to the royalty of it, and that hee should do such pennance as hee should inioyne him: which beeing yeelded vnto, he came to the doore of Saint Markes Church, and all the people looking on, the Pope commaunded him to prostrate himselfe on the ground, and to aske forgiuenesse, and then treading on his neck said: It is written: Psal. 91. 13 thou shalt goe vpon the Aspe and Basiliske, and thou shalt treade vpon the Lyon and the Dragon: and when Fredericke said vnto him, Non tibi sed Petro cuius successor es, pareo: that is, I doe not thus submit my self to thee but to Peter: the Pope answered, & mihi & Petro: that is, thou shalt doe it both vnto mee and vnto Peter. This storie so liuely describing the insolencie and pride of the Pope, which hitherto hath gone for current, is now by certaine Romanists called in question, (so little doe they regard their owne Historians, and so freely may they cast aside whatsoeuer standeth in their way.) Howsoeuer, we see how mainely the Popes did striue after they had gotten a kind of ciuill dominiō vnder the Emperours, to cast off their yoake wholly, and not content therewith, sought to be Lords also ouer the Emperours, and to make them acknowledge that they holde their Empire from them. How and vpon what occasiō Leo the third, with the consent of the people of Rome, proclaimed & annointed Charles the Great, King of France by inheritance, and of Italy by conquest, and Emperour of Rome, I haue shewed before. Yet (as Sabel. Ennead. 8. l. 8 Sabellicus noteth) the opinions of men in the world were greatly altered and changed after this new inauguration, for whereas before the Empire was thought to be frō Heauen, and the gift of God: Now many began to Which Ockam dial. l. 〈◊〉 tract. 2. part. 3. proueth to be false and hereticall •… y many reasons. think it to be the gift of the Pope. Whereupon wee reade that Adrian the fourth vpon the report of some villanies offered to the Bishop of Landa in the parts of Germany, as hee returned frō Rome, and not so pursued, sought out and revenged, as was expected, by Fredericke Barbarossa then Emperour, writeth vnto him, and maruailing at his negligence in revenging wrongs offered to men of the Church, putteth him in mind what benefites x Radeuicus Frising in Append. ad Othon. l. 1. c. 9. he had receiued frō him and the Church of Rome, as namely the fulnesse of Imperiall dignitie and honour, & the crowne appertaining thereunto, and professeth that hee would haue beene willing to haue conferred greater benefites then these vpon him, knowing right well how much good he might doe vnto the Church. Ibid. c. 10. This Letter being brought to the Emperour by two Cardinals, Bernard & Rowland, offended the Emperour & Princes exceedingly, especially in that it was said in the Letter, that the fulnesse of dignitie and honour was cōferred vpon the Emperour by the Pope, & that hee had receiued the Imperiall crowne of his hand; and that it would not grieue him if he had receiued greater benefites of his hand. They which heard this Letter read, were induced to make a strict construction of the words, and to thinke the Pope vttered them in the sense which they conceiued, because they knew well that certaine Romanists had not feared to affirme, that the Emperours had hitherto possessed the Empire of Rome, and the Kingdome of Italy by the Popes gift, and that they had not onely vttered such words, but that by writing they had affirmed the same, and by painting liuely represented it, that so it might be transmitted & sent ouer to posterities. For in the Palace of Lateran they had painted the manner of Lotharius the Emperour his receiuing the Crowne of the Pope, and written ouer it these words. Rex venit antè fores, iurans prius urbis honores, post homo fit papae sumit quo dante coronam. That is, the King doth come before the gate, first swearing to the cities state: the Popes man then doth hee become, and of his gift doth take the Crowne. This painting and superscription being reported to the Emperour the yeare before, when hee was neare the citty, by certaine faithfull and trusty subiects of his, greatly displeased him. But the Pope perceiuing his dislike, promised that both the writing and the painting should bee taken away, that it might giue no occasiō of contention & discord. These Romish practises making the Emperour and his Nobles to vnderstand the wordes of the Popes Letter in the worst sense, caused the message of these Cardinals to bee very offensiue, and a generall murmuring against them was heard among the Princes: which growing more lowde, and being heard and discerned by the Legates, one of them adventured in the quarrell of his Master to demaund of whom the Emperour hath his Empire, if hee haue it not of the Lord Pope? Which speach of the Cardinall so inraged the Princes, that one of them, (to wit, Otto the County Palatine of Boiaria) had with his sword runne him through, had not Fredericke the Emperor interposed his authority, & pacified the present rage. The Emperor seeing in what termes things stood, tooke the best course he could for the security of the Legates, and commaunded that they should presently bee had to their lodgings, & that the next morning they should be gon, & returne directly to him, that sent them, and not to wander vp & downe in the Territories of Bishops & Abbots; & as he thus happily dispatched them away in safety, so after they were gonne (providently by letters) he caused it to be made known throughout the whole Empire, what had passed betweene him & the Pope. The Tenor of his letters was this. Whereas the diuine power, from which all power proceedeth both in heauen and earth, hath committed to vs, his annoynted, the rule of the Kingdome and Empire; and ordayned that by Imperiall armes wee should preserue the peace of the Churches, we are forced not without great griefe of heart to complaine vnto you, that from the head of the holy Church (in which Christ imprinted the Character of his peace & loue) the causes of dissention, the seminary of euils, and the poyson of a most pestiferous disease doe seeme to flow: by meanes whereof if God turne not away this euill, there is danger, least the vnity betwixt the Priest-hood & kingdome be broken, and a schisme follow. For of late, as we were in the Court of Bisuntium, consulting about things concerning the honour of the Empire & good of the Churches, there came vnto vs certain Legates from the Pope who professed to bring such a message as tended greatly to the increase of the honour of the Empire. But when we had the first day honorably entertained them (as the manner is) and the second day sat with our Princes to heare their message; They (as it were) puffed vp by reason of the Mammō of iniquity, out of the height of their pride, out of the haughtinesse of their arrogant mindes, and out of the execrable elation of their swelling hearts, presented vnto vs an Embassage contained in letters written by the Pope, the tenor whereof was: That wee should alwayes haue before the eyes of our mind in what sort the Lord Pope had conferred vpon vs, the Ensigne of the Imperiall crowne, and that yet notwithstanding it would no way repent him, if he had done vs greater fauours, and wee had receiued more benefits of him. These thinges not onely much affected, but so moued the Princes, and inraged them in such sort, that if we had not stayed them by our Princely authority, the two wicked Priestes, (the Legates) had neuer returned aliue. Wherefore seeing they had many schedules sealed to be written in at their pleasure, by which (as formerly they were wont to doe) they might scatter the poyson of their iniquity throughout all the Churches of the Germane kingdome; make bare & naked the holy Altars, & carry away with them the vessels of the house of God as a prey; that they might proceede no farther in mischief, we cōmanded them without wandring or going aside to returne the same way they came. For whereas we haue our kingdome by the election of the Princes from God only, who in the passion of his son subiected the world to 2 sword •… and the Apostle Peter informed the world with the same doctrine, saying, Feare God x 1. Pet. 2. 17. & honour the King. We are well assured, that whosoeuer shall say, that we receiue our Imperiall crowne as a benefit from the Pope, he is contrary to the institution of God, the doctrine of blessed Peter, & is a lyar: and therefore our hope is, that you will not suffer the honor of the Empire (which hath continued from the Constitution of the Citty, and the Institution of Christian Religion, inviolable till our times) to be diminished by such vnheard-of nouelties & presumptuous pride. But howsoeuer know yee, that we will rather run into perill of death it self, then suffer such a shamefull confusion to fall out in our times. Radeuic. vbi suprà. cap. 15. After the returne of the Cardinals, & their complaints made, the Pope wrote letters to the Arch-bishops and Bishops of Germany, telling them with what indignity the Emperour dismissed his Legates, and how he forbad any to come to Rome out of his kingdome: and prayed them to aduise him better, and to let him know, that the Church (which is builded vpon a most firme & sure rocke) shall continue for euer, howsoeuer it may bee shaken with windes and tempests. Cap. 16. The Bishoppes of Germany hauing receiued these letters from the Pope, writ backe vnto him, that howsoeuer the Church cannot bee moued, yet they were greatly shaken by reason of these differences betweene him and the Emperour: and tell him that the words of his letter were such as that neither the Emperor and Princes could indure them, nor they knew how to defend them, as being strange and vnheard-of before these times. Notwithstanding they let him know, that after the receipt of his letters, they communed with the Emperour about these affaires, and receiued from him such an answere as beseemed a Catholique Prince, to wit, that there are two things whereby his Empire must be swayed; the Lawes of Emperors, and the vse and custome of his ancestors. These limits he is resolued not to passe, and whatsoeuer will not stand with these, he will vtterly refuse and reject: he is willing to giue all due reuerence vnto his ghostly father, but that he ascribeth the crown of his Empire to the diuine fauour onely, the first voyce in the election to the Arch-bishop of Mentz, and the rest to the other Princes in order: that hee acknowledgeth to haue receiued the vnction of a King from the Arch-bishop of Coleyn, and the supreme vnction, which is that of an Emperour, from the Pope: and that whatsoeuer is besides these, is more then ynough, and proceedeth from that which is euill: that hee had not sent away the Cardinals in contempt, but forbad them to proceede any further with such writings as they had, tending to the dishonour and scandall of the Empire: and that hee had not restrained the going of men into Italy vpon necessary occasions, to be allowed by their Bishops, nor simply inhibited the comming of men from thence, but that his meaning was to meete certaine abuses, whereby the Churches of his Kingdome had beene greeued, impouerished, and oppressed: all discipline of men liuing retyred and in cloysters vtterly ouerthrowne. Lastly, that God hauing exalted his Church, by meanes of the Empire, in the head citty of the world, it should not be by any meanes, that the Church in the head citty of the world should ouerthrow the state of the Empire, that the matter began with painting, that it proceeded from painting to writing, that the writing now begins to be vrged as good authority, but that he wil not suffer it, nor indure it so to be, being resolued first to loose his crowne before hee giue any consent to the abasing of the crowne of the Empire in such sort: and therefore requireth the paintings to be raced out, and the writings to be recalled, that such monuments of enmity between the Kingdome & the Priest-hood may not remaine: & hereupon they beseech the Pope by new letters to mollifie that which was too hard, and to sweeten that which was too sowre in the former. Cap. 17. This so wise, iust, and reasonable an answer of the Germaine Bishops, preuailed so farre with the Pope, that he sent other Legates of a milder spirit & better temper to the Emperour, with new letters wherein he sought to qualifie whatsoeuer was offensiue in the former: Cap. 22. for touching that he wrote of the benefit the Emperour had receiued of him (which so highly displeased the Emperor, supposing that he meant that hee had receiued the Imperiall crowne, as a meere fauor or good turne from him) hee answered that howsoeuer the word Benefit be taken in another sence sometimes, yet hee vsed it in that signification which it hath by Originall institution and first imposition. So that the word Benefit being compounded of two simple words, bene and factum, signifieth a good fact, or a thing well done, and in this sence his setting of the crowne vpon the Emperors head might be called a benefit, not as being a meere fauour or good turne, but for that it was well and honourably done of him to set the Ensigne of Imperiall maiesty and power vpon the head of him, to whom such power pertained, and so were things at that time pacified by the good indeauor of the Cardinals, and by this mild letter of the Pope. But afterwards they brake out againe: Whereupon the Pope wrote in this sort to the Emperor. Appendix vetusti scriptoris ad Radewinum in fine hist. O thonis Frisingensis. Naucler. vol. 2. gener. 39 Adrian the Bishop, seruant of the seruants of God, to Fredericke the Romane Emperor, greeting and Apostolical blessing. The diuine law, as it promiseth long life to them that honour their parents, so doth it pronounce the sentence of death against them that curse father or mother. For wee are taught by the voyce of truth, that whosoeuer exalteth himselfe shall be brought low. Wherefore sonne beloued in the Lord, wee do not a little maruaile, that you seeme not to giue so much reuerence to blessed Peter, and to the holy Church of Rome as you ought to do. For in your letters written to vs, you put your name before ours; Wherein you incurre the note of insolency, that I say not arrogācy; What shall I say of the fealty you promised and sware to blessed Peter? how doe you obserue it, when you require of them who are Gods, and the sonnes of the most High, to wit Bishops, the doing of homage vnto you, and exact fealty of them, inclosing their sacred hands in your hands, and manifestly opposing your selfe against vs, shut not onely the doores of the Churches, but the gates of the Cities of your kingdome also, against our Cardinals sent as Legates vnto you from our owne side? Repent, repent therefore we advise thee, of vs thou receiuedst thy consecration, and therefore take heed, lest affecting things denyed vnto thee, thou lose that which is yeelded to thee. To this letter of the Pope, the worthy Emperour answered in this sort. Ibidem. Fredericke by the grace of God, Emperour of Romans, to Adrian Bishop of the Catholick Church, wishing vnto him a firme adhering and cleauing to all those things which Iesus began to do & speak. The law of Iustice giueth to euery one that which is his own. Neither do wee offend in this behalfe; for we derogate nothing frō our parents, but giue vnto them in this our Imperiall state all due honour, to wit, to those our Noble progenitors, frō whom we receiued the dignity of our kingdome, and our Crowne, and not frō the Pope. Had Sylvester Bishop of Rome any thing pertaining to Royall state and dignity in the time of Constantine? was not liberty restored to the Church, and peace by his meanes? And hath not your Popedome receiued all such royall dignities as it now enjoyeth from Princes? And why then is it so much disliked, that when wee write vnto the Bishop of Rome, by ancient right, and after the old manner, we put our name before his, and according vnto the rule of Iustice, permit him writing vnto vs to doe the like? Turne ouer the Histories and Monuments of Antiquity, and if you haue not yet obserued it, you shall there finde that which we avouch: and why should wee not require homage and the performance of other duties due from subiects to Princes, of them who are Gods by adoption, and yet thinke it no disparagement to hold things pertaining to our Royall state? especially, seeing hee who was authour and beginner both of your dignity and ours, who neuer receiued any thing of any mortall King, but gaue all good things vnto all, paide tribute vnto Caesar for himselfe and Peter, and gaue you an example to doe the like; either therefore let them put frō them the things they hold of vs, or if they thinke it behoouefull to retaine and keepe them still, let them yeeld vnto GOD the things that are GODS, and to Caesar the things that are Caesars. The doores of our Churches, and the gates of our Cities are shut against your Cardinals, because wee finde them not to bee Preachers, but men desirous of a prey, not Confirmers of peace, but polling companions to get money, not such as come to repaire the breaches of the world, but greedily and insatiably to gather golde. But whensoeuer wee shall see them such as the Church requireth them to bee, men bringing peace, enlightning their Country, assisting the cause of those of meane degree in equity and right; they shall want nothing that is necessary for them. To conclude; When you thus contend about things little pertaining to Religion, and striue with secular persons about titles of honour, you seeme to haue forgotten that humilitie which is the keeper of all vertues, and that meeknesse that should bee in you. Let your Father-hood therefore take heede, lest while you moue questions about things vnworthy to be stood vpon, you scandalize them who with attentiue eare listen to the wordes of your mouth, & wait for your speaches as for the latter raine. Wee are forced thus to write vnto you, because wee see the detestable Beast of pride hath crept vp euen to the seate of Peter. Prouide alwayes well for the peace of the Church, and fare you alwayes well. Thus wee see how the popes not contenting themselues with the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, though they had no just title vnto it, proceeded yet further; & partly by the fauour of Christian princes, and partly by fraud and violence, got to be great princes in the world, & stayed not till they made challēge to be ouer the mightiest Emperors, & to dispose of their crowns & dignities. So shewing thēselues to haue the perfect marke and character of him of whom the Apostle speaketh; 2 Thess. 2 4 Who sitteth in the temple of God as God, and is lifted vp aboue all that is called God. Yet could they not so prevaile in these their hellish practises, nor so carry away the truth of GOD, and the liberty of his Church into captiuity, but that there were euer found both Christian Emperours, and learned Diuines to resist them in their vniust claimes.

CHAP. 48.

Of generall Councels, and of the end, vse, and necessity of them.

HAuing examined what may be said for proofe of the Vniuersality of the Bishop of Romes power and iurisdiction, first we finde that the Sonne of GOD gaue him no power in the common-wealth, but a Father-hood onely in the Church. Secondly, that in the Church, hee neither gaue him an illimited power of commaunding, nor infallible iudgement in discerning, but that the greatest thing that either hee canne challenge or wee yeeld vnto him, is to be the prime Bishop in order and honour; the first and not of himselfe alone, or out of the fulnesse of his owne power, but with the joynt concurrence of others equall in commission with him, to manage the great affaires of Almighty God, and to gouerne the Christian Church: so that the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction is in the companies, assemblies, and Synodes of Bishoppes and Pastors, and not in any one man alone. I shewed Chap. 27. before, that in the churches founded and established by the Apostles, contayning whole Citties and places adjoyning, though there were many ministers of the word and sacraments, yet one was so the Pastour of each of these Churches, that the rest were but his assistants, and might doe nothing without him: and that therefore there was an inequality established euen from the beginning, not of order onely, but of degree also, betweene such as are Pastours of Churches, & are named Bishops, and such as are but their assistants named by the common name of Presbyters, yet is the power of him that excelleth the rest in degree in each Church See D. Bilson of the perpetuall gouernment of the Church cap. 14. pag. 307. fatherly not Princely: for things were so ordered in the beginning, that as the Presbyters could do nothing without the Bishoppe, so the Bishop in matters of moment might doe nothing without his Presbyters: and thereupon the Councell of Carthage decreeth, Concil. Carthag. 4. Canone. 23. that the Bishoppe shall not presume to heare and sententiate any mans cause without the presence of his Clergie. And though it bee said that the Bishop alone may heare and determine the causes of such Cleargy men as are below the degree of Presbyters & Deacons; yet that alone excludeth not his Cleargy; but the concurrence of other Bishops, which in the causes of Presbyters & Deacons is necessarily required. For without the presence and concurrence of his Cleargy, the Bishop may proceede to no sentence at all. If any difference grew betweene the Bishop and his Cleargy, or if [consenting] any one found himselfe grieued with their proceedings, there was a prouinciall Synode holdentwise euery yeare, in which the acts of Episcopall Synodes might be re-ëxamined. These prouinciall Synodes were subordinate to Nationall & Patriarchicall Synodes, wherein the Primate of a Nation or Kingdome, or one of the Patriarches sat, as President. And in these Nationall or Patriarchicall Synodes the acts of prouinciall Synodes might bee re-ëxamined and reuersed. Of all which I haue spoken before, in due place and vpon fit occasion, & haue Chap. 30. shewed at large of whom these Synodes doe consist. So that it is euident, that the power of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction resteth not in Bishoppes alone, but in Presbyters also, beeing admitted to Prouinciall and Nationall Synodes, and hauing decisiue voyces in them as well as Bishops, nor in any one Metropolitane, Primate or Patriarch, within their seuerall precincts and diuisions, but in these and their fellow Bishops joyntly, and that much lesse there is any one in whom the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power, and the right to command the whole Church doth rest. So that this fulnesse of power, is found only in the generall assembly of Pastors, called a generall Councell. Wherefore now it remaineth that wee speake of Generall Councels. Wherein, first wee are to consider the vtility and necessity of such Synodall assemblies and meetings. Secondly, of whom they must consist. Thirdly, what assurance they haue of diuine assistance & direction: and, Fourthly, who must call them.

Toucing the first, the causes why generall Councels are called, are three. The first is, the suppressing of new heresies, formerly not condemned. The second, a generall & vniforme reformation of abuses crept into the Church. The third, the taking away of Schismes growing in Patriarchicall Churches, about the election of their Pastors, & the reiecting of intruders, violently and disorderly possessing themselues of those Patriarchicall Thrones. And so wee finde, that the Councell of Nice was called by Constantine, for the suppressing of the damnable heresie of the Arrians: the eight generall Councell, by Basilius, for the ending of the difference that was growne in the Church of Constantinople about Ignatius and Photius, contending for the Episcopall chaire: and that all Generall Councels, intended and sought the reformation of abuses, there being scarce any one wherein Canons were not made, for the reformation of disorders; in so much that the Fathers of the sixth Generall Councell, hauing only condemned the Heresie of the Monothelites, and made no Canons, met afterwards againe many of them, and made those Canons that are now extant, and are the chiefe directiō of the Greeke Church vnto this day. These being the causes for which Councels are called, it is euident that the holding of them is not absolutely and simply necessary, but in a sort onely. For Heresies may bee suppressed by the concurrence of Prouinciall Synodes, holden in the seuerall parts of the world; as they were in the first 300. yeares, when there were no Generall Councells: But one part of the Christian Church seeking the helpe of another, in common dangers, and one part readily concurring with another (as for the extinguishing of a dangerous fire threatning all, or the repressing & repelling of a common enemy) by mutuall intelligence passing from one to another; they abandoned Heresies newly springing vp, and preserued the vnity of the common faith. Neither was this course holden onely in the time of persecution, during the first 300. yeares, but afterwards also, in the time of the Churches peace, wee finde the same course to haue beene followed, in the suppressing of the Pelagians; and therefore Aug. lib. 4. contra duos Epist. Pelagian. cap. 12. Austine affirmeth, that there were but some few heresies of that nature, that a Generall Councell of all the Bishops of the East and West, was necessarily to bee called for the suppressing of them. And indeede wee finde, that, if some fiue or sixe heresies haue beene condemned by the censure of Generall Councells, an 100. haue beene suppressed and extinguished by other meanes. And of those, for the condemning whereof Generall Councells were holden, some were not extinguished a long time after. For that of the Arrians grew stronger after, then euer it was before, and those of Nestorius and Eutyches, continued some hundreds of yeares after the ending of those Councels, in which they receiued the sentence of condemnation. How is it then that In praefat. Conciliorum. Isidore saith, the Church before Constantines time was diuided & rent into diuers Factions and Sects, because there was no Generall Councell? as if there were no other meanes to preserue Vnity, but Generall Councels, and that wheresoeuer they may be had, Peace were presently established. For the clearing hereof we say, that such new opinions, as growing vp in those times, found a concurring dislike in the seuerall Churches, seeking one to another, were then suppressed, when yet there could bee no Generall Councels, as the heresies of the Marcionites, Valentinians and the like. But they, wherein there grew difference among the chiefe Pastours and Bishoppes of the Churches, could not be determined in those times, as the errours of the Millenaries, of those that kept Easter after the Iewish obseruation, and of those that held the necessity of re-baptizing of such as were baptized by heretickes: in which point many worthy pastours & Bishops of the Church did erre, in the first ages of the Church, neither could their errour bee extinguished, as Austine noteth: nor the trueth so cleared, as that all dissenters should incurre the note of heresie, till the decree of a Councell passed about it. Aug. lib. 7. de Baptismo. contra Donatist. cap. 7. Quaestionis huius obscuritas; (saith Austine) Prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati, magnos viros & magna charitate praeditos, Patres & Episcopos, ita inter se compulit, salua pace, disceptare & fluctuare, vt diu Conciliorum in suis quibus que regionibus diuersa statuta nutauerint, donec Plenario totius orbis Concilio, quod saluberrime sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus formaretur that is, The obscurity of this question, in former ages of the Church before the schisme of Donatus, did cause great men, and Fathers, and Bishops, indued with great charity, so to striue among themselues, and to wauer as doubtfull & vncertaine, without breaking the bond of Peace, that for a long time the Decrees of Councels in seuerall Regions, were diuerse and different, without any settled certainty, till that which was most wholesomely conceiued, was fully formed, settled, and established by a plenary Councell of the Bishops of the whole world, and no place left for doubting and vncertainty any longer. Thus wee see that some heresies may easily be suppressed without troubling all the Bishops of the world to meet in a Generall Councell, and that some others cannot easily bee suppressed without Generall Councels: & as heresies may be suppressed by the mutuall concurrence of seueral churches; so by the like correspondence, the seuerity of discipline may be vpholdē vniformely, & schismes prevented. When Cornelius was elected and ordained Bishop of Rome, at the first, 〈◊〉 Cypr. cp. 45. & 55. because there was some oppositiō, Cyprian & others were feareful to write vnto him as to the Bishop of Rome, but afterwardbeing fully informed, touching the lawfulnesse of his electiō and ordinatiō, they reiected his Competitours, and communicated with him onely: & the like we shall find to haue bin practised generally by all Bishops, carefully seeking to be certified out of other Provinces and parts of the Church, by such Bishops as were knowne to be Catholikes, who came lawfully into places of Ministery, & being so come, held the vnity of Faith and Charity, that so they might holde Cōmunion with them, and reject those that entered otherwise. Whereupon Vbi supra. Cyprian telleth Cornelius Bishop of Rome, to whō in Africa he might write as to Catholick Bishops, & from whō he might receiue letters, as from Catholickes. Notwithstanding Generall Councels are the best meanes for preseruing of vnity of doctrine, seuerity of discipline, & preventing of schismes when they may be had: & though they be not absolutely necessary to the being of the Church, yet are they most behoouefull for the best, readiest, & most gracious governing of the same: & how-soeuer there may bee a kind of exercise of the supreme jurisdictiō that is in the Church by the concurrence of particular Synodes, & the correspondence of seueral Pastors, vpon mutuall intelligence of the sence, judgment, & resolutiō of euery of them; yet the highest & most excellent exercise of the supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō, is in Generall Councels. Heere the Papists are wont to argue, that the Protestants hauing no Generall Councels, haue not the exercise of the supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō: & consequently that they are not that Church, out of which no saluatiō is found: but this is a very silly trifling and playing with their owne shadowes; neither is it any thing else buta meere abusing of themselues & others, thus idlely & fondly to jangle. For first the Protestants being but a part of the Christian Church, neuer challenged to themselues the authority that belongeth to the whole, as the Papists doe, who excluding all the Christians of Graecia, Armenia, Russia, & Aethiopia, out of the fellowship & cōmunion of Saints, and (as much as in them lieth) casting them into hell; suppose a Generall meeting of those of their own factiō, to bee a Generall Councell. And secondly, if the Protestants did think themselues to be the whole Church; yet their argument were of no force, seeing the whole Church may be without the benefite of Generall Councels, much longer then the Protestants haue beene, since the divisiō between them & the Papists: for the Christians of the primitiue church had no general councell for the space of 300 yeares after Christ. But to returne to the point frō which we are a little digressed (occasioned so to doe by this frivolous objectiō of the Papists) touching the good and profitable vse of Generall councels, there is no difference between vs & our Adversaries, but it is agreed on both sides, that though they be not absolutely necessary, yet they are very behoofefull, & much to be desired in diverse cases: neither euer was there any man of judgement that thought otherwise. For, that which Ep. ad Procopium 102. Nazianzen hath, that hee neuer saw good end of any councell, is not to bee vnderstood as spoken generally and absolutely, but respectiuely to the turbulent times wherein he liued, and the Arrian faction so prevailed, that many Synodes were holden for the ouerthrow of the Nicene faith, without all respect to the good of the Church.

CHAP. 49.

Of the persons that may be present in Generall Councels: and who they are of whom generall Councels do consist.

HAuing spoken of the necessity, profit and vse of Generall Councels, it remaineth that wee proceede to see, who they are, that may bee present in such Councels, and of whom they do consist. The persons that may be present, are of diuerse sorts. For, some are there with authority to teach, define, prescribe and to direct: others are there to heare, set forward and consent vnto, that which is there to be done. In the former sort, none but only Ministers of the word, and sacraments are present in Councels, and they onely haue deciding and defining voyces; but in the latter sort, * Lay-men also may be present: whereupon we shall find, that Bishops and Presbyters subscribe in this sort: Ego N. definiens, subscrips •… , that is, I, as hauing power to define and decree, haue subscribed. But the Emperour or any other In the Councell of Eliberis: in the first Councell of Carthage about rebaptization, and in the third Councell of Rome under Faelix the third many of the people were present. Lay-person, Ego N. consentiens, subscripsi: that is, I, as one giuing consent to that which is agreed on by the spirituall Pastors, haue subscribed. That the Emperor and other Lay-men of place and sort may be present in Generall Councels, no man maketh doubt. For though Pope Dist. 96. cap. Vbinam. Nicholas seeme to deny, that the Emperours may be presēt in other Councels, where matters of faith are not handled; yet he cōfesseth, they may be presēt in general Conncels where the faith, which is cōmon to all, & pertaineth not to Clergy-men alone, but to Lay-men and all Christians generally, is treated of, it being a rule in nature & reason, Occam. Dialog. 2. part. lib. 6. part. 1. c. 85. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debere: that is, that that which concerneth all, may be handled and medled with by all, so farre forth as conueniently it may, and as there is no manifest reason, in respect of the disturbance and hinderance of the deliberation, to repell them from such intermedling: for, in such cases there may bee a repelling of men hauing interest in such businesses and affaires: and therefore In Epist. ad Strateg. Bithiniae ante Concil. Chalcedon. Pulcheria the Empresse, Commanded the Captaine of Bythinia, with violence to driue out of the Councell of Chalcedon, such Monkes, Clerkes, and Lay-men, as being of no vse, did but pester the Councell, and to leaue none there but such as the Bishops brought with them.

But our Bellar. l. 1. de concilijs c. 15. aduersaries say, the Protestants affirme that Lay-men ought not only to be present in generall Councels, but also to haue decisiue yoyces, as well as they of the Cleargy, and thereupon charge vs with great absurdity. Wherefore, for the answering of this obiection, wee must obserue, that there is a threefold decision of things doubtfull and questionable. The one such as euery one vpon the knowledge of it must yeeld vnto vpon perill of damnation, vpon the bare word of him that decideth. The second, to which euery one must yeeld vpon like perill, not vpon the bare word of him that decideth, but vpon the euidence of proofe he bringeth. The third, such as euery one must yeeld vnto, not vpon perill of damnation, but of excommunication, and the like censure Ecclesiasticall. In the first sort the Protestants say, that onely Christ the sonne of God hath a decisiue voyce: In the second sort, that any Lay-men as well as Clergy-men: for whosoeuer it is that bringeth conuincing proofes, decideth a doubt in such sort, as that no man ought to resist against it. Whereupon In Cap. Significasti de Electione. Panormitan sayth, that the iudgment of one priuate man is to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope, if hee haue better authorities of the Old and New Testament, to confirme his iudgment. And Part. 1. de examin. Doctrinarum. Gerson saith, that any learned man may and ought to resist against a whole Councell, if hee discerne it to erre of malice or ignorance; and whatsoeuer Bishops determine, their determinations binde not the conscience further then they approue that they propose, some other way then by their authoritie onely. Soe that in this sence, the Protestants truely say, that Bishoppes must not proceede Praetor-like, but that all that they doe, must bee but in the nature of an inquiry, and their Decrees no farther of force, then reason doth warrant them. For, howsoeuer the Son of God hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, which shall bee fulfilled in respect of his elect and chosen who cannot erre damnably and finally, yet hath he not tyed himselfe to any one sort or company of men, neither is it certainely knowne, but that all they that meete in a Councell, may erre notwithstanding Christes promise. To which purpose it is, that Brentius, and other say, We cannot be certaine of the determination of Councells, because euery company of men professing CHRIST, is not the true Church, seeing all that so professe, are not Elect; neither doe they deny all authority and iurisdiction to such as are not knowne to be Elect, nor giue it all to such as no man canne knowe who they be (as Li •… . de concilijs cap. 19. Bellarmine vntruly saith they doe,) for in the third sort they willingly acknowledge, that Bishops haue deciding voyces, & power so to iudge of things, as to subiect all those that shall thinke and teach otherwise then they doe, to excommunication and censures of like nature. And that therefore they are properly Iudges; that their course of proceeding is not a bare Inquiry and search, but a binding determination, and that they haue a Pretorlike power, to binde men to stand to that they propose & decree: and in this sort, we all teach, that Lay-men haue no voyce decisiue, but Bishops & Pastors onely, which may be confirmed by many reasons. First, because, when the question is, in what pastures it is fitte the sheepe of CHRIST should feede, & in what pastures they may feede without danger, the duty of consulting is principally, and the power of prescribing, wholy, in the Pastours, though the sheepe of CHRIST being reasonable, haue and must haue a kinde of discerning, whether they bee directed into wholesome & pleasant pastures or not. Secondly, none but they, whom Paul saith, Ephes. 4. 11. CHRIST going vp into heauen; gaue for the gathering together of the Saintes for the worke of the Ministery, haue authority to teach, and to prescribe vnto others, what they shall professe & beleeue: of whom the LORD said by Ieremy the Prophet: Ierem. 3. 15. I will giue you Pastors that shall feede you with knowledge and doctrine. Thirdly, because in all Councels, Bishops & Pastors onely, are found to haue subscribed to the decrees made in them, as defining & decreeing; howsoeuer other men testified their consent by subscription, and Princes and Emperours, by their royall authority, confirmed the same, and subiected the contemners and violaters thereof to imprisonment, banishment, confiscation of goods, and the like ciuill punishments, as the Bishops did to excommunication, and censures Spirituall.

So that it is agreed on, that Bishoppes and Ministers onely, haue decisiue voyces in Councels, in sort before expressed, but, the question is onely whether all Ministers of the Word and Sacraments haue such decisiue voyces, or none but Bishops. The Papists thinke, that this is the peculiar right of Bishoppes; but they are clearely refuted by the Vniuersall practise of the whole Church, from the beginning. For, in all Prouinciall and Nationall Synodes, Presbyters did euer giue voyce and subscribe in the very same sort that Bishoppes did, whether they were assembled, to make Canons of discipline, to heare causes, or to define doubtfull points of doctrine, as I haue Chap. 30. before shewed at large: and that they did not anciently sitte, and giue decisiue voyces in Generall Councels, the reason was; not, because they haue no interest in such deliberations and resolutions, but, because seeing all cannot meete in Councels, that haue interest in such businesses, but some must be deputed for, and authorized by the rest, therefore it was thought fitte that Bishoppes, who are the chiefest among such as haue interest in deliberation of this nature, should in giuing decisiue voyces, supply the places of the rest, especially seeing the manner was euer in all the first Councells, that the chiefe Patriarches, being acquainted with the matter, that should be debated, sent to all the Metropolitanes subiect to them, who calling Prouinciall Synodes, consisting of their Bishoppes and Presbyters, discussed such doubtes, and then by common consent, choosing out certaine principall Bishoppes, to goe to the Generall Councell in their name, sent by thē their resolutions. So, that in effect, Presbyters did subscribe as well as Bishoppes: seeing they that went and subscribed, were not to vary from the instructions they carried with them. That this was the course, it is euident by that of Euagrius, lib. 1. cap. 3. Iohn Bishoppe of Antioch in the third Generall Councell, excusing his long tarrying, by reason that his Metropolitanes could not sooner assemble their Cleargy to consult: and by the Actes of the sixth Generall Councell Epist. Agathon. & Rom. Synod. in actione 4. Synodi sextae. where we find the suggestion of Agatho Bishop of Rome, sent to the Councell, subscribed by himselfe and the whole Synode of the West, subiect to the See Apostolick: in which Synode sundry Bishops doe subscribe as Legates sent from Nationall Synodes. But if wee shall come to latter Councels, holden in the West, and esteemed (by the Papists) to bee Generall, wee shall finde that Presbyters did giue voyces decisiue in them, as well as Bishoppes. For Platina in Innocent. 3 in the great Councell of Lateran (as they call it) vnder Innocentius the third, there were but foure hundred eighty two Bishops, but of Abbots and Priours Conventuall eight hundred: who yet haue much lesse to doe in the government of the Church, then Presbyters hauing care of soules. And Lib. 1. de concil. c. 1 •… . Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that by priviledge and custome, Presbyters, as namely Cardinals, Abbots; and the Generals of the Orders of Fryars, may giue decisiue voyces in Generall Councels; which they could not doe, if by Gods Law it pertayned to Bishoppes onely. For there is no prescribing against the Law of GOD; and therefore I cannot see why the Romanists should so bitterly Bellarm. ibid. censure the councell of Basil, because Presbyters were admitted to giue voyces in it. Hauing cleared who they are that are to bee admitted to bee present, and to giue voyces in Generall councels, let vs proceede to see what number of Bishoppes is required to make a Generall councell, and what order must be kept in the holding of it. Touching the first, the Diuines require three conditions to make a Generall councell, whereof the first is, that the summons bee Generall, and such as may bee knowne to all the principall parts and provinces of the Christian World. The second, that no Bishop whence-soeuer hee come, bee excluded, if hee bee knowne to bee a Bishoppe, and not excommunicate. The third, that the principall Patriarches bee present with the concurrence of the particular Synodes vnder them, either in person, or by their substitutes and Vicars, or at least by their provinciall Letters, as the Patriarch of Rome was present in the second Generall councell, (though hee were not there in person nor by substitutes.) And heereupon the Actione 6. second councell of Nice taketh exception to a certaine Synode holden in Constantinople as not Generall, because neither all that were present did consent, neither was there a concurrence in it of the Bishoppe of Rome and his Bishoppes; either by his Vicars, or provinciall letters; nor of the Patriarches of the East, to wit of Alexandria, Antioch, and Ierusalem, and the Bishoppes subiect to them; and therefore pronounceth, that the wordes of those foolish men, assuming to them the name of a Generall councell, were not a candle sette on a candlesticke, to giue light to all in the house, but a meere smoake full of darkenesse, blinding the eyes of men, and were vttered as it were vnder the bedde, and not vpon the mountaine of right beleefe, and that their sound did not goe forth into all the earth, nor their wordes to the vttermost endes of the World, as the sound, voyce, and wordes of the former sixe Generall councels did. But that wee may the better discerne how farre forth the presence of the chiefe Patriarches is necessary in Generall councels, and that wee bee not deceiued in this point, wee must obserue, that when wee speake of patriarches, either wee vnderstand them, and their Synodes, or themselues singly and apart: If wee speake of them in the former sense, no Synode can bee accounted fully and perfectly Generall, to which the presence of any one of the chiefe patriarches is wanting: and therefore the first councell of Ephesus was an imperfect Generall councell, when before the comming of Iohn of Antioch, and his Bishoppes, it proceeded to the condemnation of Nestorius. And wee see how great turmoyle and confusion that hath caused, which could neuer bee quieted and taken away, till Cyrill president of that councell, and Iohn were reconciled, and the Actes of the councell confirmed by the joint consent of them both: and hence Concor. cath. l. 2. c. 3. Cusanus saith it is, that the eighth Generall councell, when the Vicar of the Apostolicall Throne of Alexandria came, rejoyced greatly, and saide, wee glorifie the GOD of all, who hath supplyed vnto this vniuersall Synode what was wanting, and hath now made it most full and perfect. But if wee speake of them in the second sense, that is, singly and by themselues alone, in case of heresie or wilfull refusall, the councell may proceede without them, and yet want nothing that pertaineth to the perfection of a generall Councell, as did the Councell of Ephesus, and the Councell of Chalcedon, proceeding to the condemnation of Nestorius and Dioscorus, vpon such euidence as they had against them, though they refused to present themselues in those Synodes: so that the concurrence of the Bishops subject to them be not wanting, as in the case of Nestorius and Dioscorus it was not. For the Bishops subject to Nestorius subscribed to his condemnation, and the Bishops of Alexandria gaue their consent to the condemnation of Dioscorus their Patriarch, and approued the proceedings of the synode against him, though they Concil. Chalced. actione 5. refused to subscribe to the actes and decrees of it, till they had a new Patriarch chosen in his place. Which refusall though it were ill taken at the first, yet were the fathers in the end perswaded, by the mediation of the Iudges, to forbeare their subscription, till they might haue time to choose a new Patriarch; so that it is not the personal presence, or cōcurrēce precisely of those chiefe Bishops or Patriarches, to whom all other Bishops are subject, that is required to the fulnesse and perfection of a General Councell, but the comming of some from the seuerall Synodes subject to the Patriarches, or from the Patriarchicall synode, where some out of all these doe meete, or at the least the sending of Synodall letters, that so the consent of all may be had: The Prouinces that are neare the place where the Synode is holden, sending the greater number, and they that are most remote, sending some few, with instructions from the rest, or at the least their Synodall letters, expressing their opinion, judgment, & resolution. Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. c. 17. So in the Councell of Nice, there were many Bs out of the East, but out of the West only two Presbyters out of Italy, one Bishop out of Spaine, one Bishop out of France, & one out of Africa. But Theodoret. hist. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 9. in the second and third Councels, there were many out of the East, and none out of the West. But the Bishops of Rome, Bellarm. vbi supra. Damasus and Caelestinus, as Patriarches of the West, confirmed those Councels, and gaue consent vnto them in their owne names, and in the names of all the Bishoppes of the West, whome they had gathered together in Synodes. In the Councell of Chalcedon, there were none present out of the West, but the Legates of Leo, but he sent by them the consent of the Bishops of Spaine, France, Italy, and other parts of the West: who hauing holden Synodes in their seuerall Prouinces, wrote vnto him, that they approued his judgment, touching the point in controuersie, which was to be debated in the generall Councell; and that they would most willingly concurre with him in the forme of instruction, which he meant to send to the Councell.

Touching the order that must be kept in generall Councels. Cusan. de Concord. Cathol. lib. 2. c. 3. First the Booke of God must be layd in the middest of them that are present. Secondly, the meeting must be openly and not in secret. Thirdly, it must bee free, and euery man must bee permitted boldly to speake what hee thinketh. Whereupon Pope Nicholas, when some obiected to him the number of Bishoppes that mette in the Councell of Photius, answered, that the great concurse of Bishops in the Councels of Nice and Chalcedon, was not so much respected as their free and religious vttering of their iudgments and resolutions; and Agatho writing to Constantine the Emperour touching the Bishops that were to meete in the sixt generall Councell, hath these words: Grant free power of speaking, to euery one that desireth to speake for the faith which he beleeues and holdes, that all men may most clearely see and know, that no man, desirous and willing to speake for the trueth, was fobidden, hindred, or reiected, by any terrors, force, threatning, or any other thing that might auert and turne him away from so doing. And as there must bee a liberty and freedome of speech, in Generall Councels, soe there must be a desire of finding out the trueth, and an intending and seeking of the common good, that priuate respects, purposes and designes be not set forward vnder pretence of religion; and therefore Leo the first, writing to the Emperour, of the error of the second Ephesine Counsell, hath these words. While priuate intendments, and designes were set z Leo. epist. 25. forward, vnder pretence of religion, that was effected by the impiety of a few, that wounded the whole vniuersall Church; wee finde by certaine report, that a great number of Bishops, came together vnto the Synode: who being come together in such great multitudes, might very profitably haue beene employed in deliberating and discerning what was fit to be resolued, if hee who challenged vnto himselfe the chiefe place, would haue obserued such Priestly moderation, as that (according to the manner and custome of such meetings, all men hauing freely vttered their opinions) that might peaceably and rightly haue beene decreed, that might both agree with faith, and bring them into the right way that were in error. But here wee finde, that when the Decree was to bee passed, all they who were come together, were not permitted to bee present: for wee haue beene informed, that some were rejected and others brought in, who, at the pleasure of the foresayd Bishoppe, were brought to yeeld captiue hands to those impious subscriptions: for that they knew that it would bee preiudiciall to their state, vnlesse they did such things as were inioyned them. Which kinde of proceedings, our substitutes sent from the Apostolicall See, discerned to be so impious, and contrary to the Catholique faith, that by no violent meanes they could bee inforced to consent thereunto, but constantly protested, and professed, (as beseemed them) that that which was there agreed on and decreed, should neuer bee admitted or receiued by the Apostolicall See. And a little after hee hath these words. All the Bishops of those parts of the Church, that are subiect vnto vs, as suppliants in most humble manner, with sighes and teares, beseech your most gratious Maiesty, that, seeing both those Substitutes which wee sent, did most constantly resist against such impious and bad proceedings, and Flauianus the Bishop offered a bill of appeale vnto them, you would bee pleased to command a generall Councell to be holden in Italy. Vide haec omnia apud Cusanum loco cita •… o. Thus wee see what things are essentially required to the being of a Councell, and what order is to be obserued in it. The next thing that followeth in order to bee intreated of, is the Presidentship of such and soe sacred an assembly.

CHAP. 50.

Of the President of Generall Councels.

TOuching the Presidentship of Generall Councels, it pertained in a sort, to all the Patriarches, and therefore Photius in his discourse of the seauen Synodes, in diuers of them, nameth all the Patriarches, and their Vice-gerents, Presidents: as hauing an honourable preheminence, aboue and before other Bishops in such assemblies; yet wee deny not, but that as these were ouer all other Bishops, so, euen amongst these also there was an order; so that one of them had a preheminence aboue and before another. For the Bishop of Alexandria, was before the Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome before him, anciently, euen before the time of the Nicene Councell; and afterwards the Bishop of Constantinople, made a Patriarch, was set before the other two, next vnto the Bishop of Rome. And as these were thus one before another in order and honour, so they had preheminence of honour in Synodall assemblies, accordingly, in sitting, speaking, and subscribing, though this were not alwayes precisely obserued. For Euseb de vita Constantini li. 3. cap. 10. & 11. in the Councell of Nice, there being two rankes of seates; the one in the one side of the hall, & the other in the other, where the Councell mette, the Emperour sitting in the middest, in the vpper part of the hall, Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, sate in the highest seate in that rancke that was on the right hand, and made the Oration to the Emperour; but in subscribing, many were before him. And Hosius the Bishop of Corduba in Spaine, a man of great fame was chiefe president, composed the forme of faith there agreed on, and subscribed it first, and then in the second place the Presbyters, that were the Vicegerents of the Bishop of Rome, who in respect of his old age could not be present, subscribed to the same forme of faith, and after them Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria. That Hosius was President of the Councell of Nice: and of many other Councels besides, we haue the testimony of Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes. Athanasius. The reason why he being a Bishop of so meane a place, should bee so honoured and set before all other, was the good opinion that all men held of him being a man famous and renowned throughout the world, Theodoret. hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 7. which moued Constantine after he heard of the differences in the Church of Alexandria, betweene Alexander and Arrius, to send him thither before euer he thought of calling this Councell, hoping that by his wisedome and authority he might quiet all. But our Adversaries, lest any prejudice might grow to the Church of Rome by this ill president of the councell of Nice, in admitting so meane a Bishop to be her president, & neglecting the Bishop of Rome, adventure to say, that Hosius was not president in his owne right, but as the Bishop of Romes Vice-gerent, and supplying his place, though they bee no way able to proue the same, and the cleare euidence of the thing it selfe reproue them. For the Euseb. l. 3. de vit. Constant. c. 7. Histories speake of Presbyters the Bishop of Rome sent to supply his place, but mention not Hosius as imployed in that sort: which they would not haue omitted, if hee had beene imployed so also; and besides in the subscriptions, both as they are found in the ordinary Edition of the councell of Nice, and that which is out of the Greek book found in the Vatican, put forth by Pisanus the Iesuite, Hosius subscribeth first without any signification of his supplying the place of the Bishop of Rome, as Legates are euer wont to doe, and as Vitus and Vincentius his Legates do in this Councell: for the forme of their subscription is this, We haue subscribed for, and in the name of the most reverend man, &c. So that that which Lib. 1. de concil. c. 19 Bellarmine alledgeth out of a certain preface before the councell of Sardica, the Author whereof is not knowne, is little to bee esteemed, as no way able to weaken the authorities and reasons which wee bring. Touching the second Generall Councell, the Councell of Actione 6. p. 136. apud Bin. Chalcedon expressely affir meth, that Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was president of it, and, if wee looke to the subscriptions, wee shall finde that hee subscribed first, and before all other. So that it is evident, that Damasus then Bishop of Rome, was not president of that assembly. And Vbi supra. Bellarmine confesseth as much: but he faith, if hee had beene present, hee had doubtlesse beene president: which haply may bee true, yet his reason to proue it, is not good, which hee taketh from the Epistle of the councell to Damasus. For in that Epistle the Fathers and Bishops acknowledge themselues members of that body, whereof h Apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Damasus and his company are a part: but doe not call him their head, as he vntruely reporteth. Neither doeth the Epistle of Damasus to the Fathers of the councell, yeeld any better proofe. For though hee call them sonnes, yet it will hardly follow, that they would haue taken him for a president of their meeting, especially seeing it is probably supposed, that they therefore stayde of purpose at Constantinople, that more freely, and with greater authority they might compasse such things as they intended, then if they should haue gone to Rome, where Damasus with his Westerne Bishops might haue crossed, or at least in some sort hindered their intendments and designes. In the third Generall councell, which was the first at Ephesus, Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria was President, as it appeareth euidently by the acts of the councell, and the Histories of those times: and had also the authority of Caelestinus Bishop of Rome ioyned vnto him, as may bee seene by the Act. conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 16. Epistle of Calestinus written vnto him, which is found among the Actes of the Ephesine Councell. Whereunto agreeth that of Valentinian and Martian, in their Conc. Chalced. actione 3. Epistle to Palladius, expressely saying, that both Caelestinus Bishop of Rome, and Cyrill Bishoppe of Alexandria, were presidents of the Councell of Ephesus: and also that of the whole Councell of Actione 4. Chalcedon, professing expressely, that both Caelestinus and Cyrill were presidents of that assembly: which thing the very Actes of the councell it selfe, sufficiently proue: in which he is described to haue moderated all, as chiefe and principall among the Bishops present, yet not by his owne authority alone, but supplying also the place of Caelestinus Bishop of Rome. And in like sort Lib. 1. c. 4. Euagrius doth not say, that he supplyed the place of Caelestinus, as if he had not beene president in his owne right: but that hee also supplyed the place of Caelestinus: for so it is in the Greeke: & De 7. Synod. Photius saith, Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, (who also supplyed the place of Caelestinus B. of Rome) & Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem, were Presidents of the first councell of Ephesus. Thus it is euident, that Cyrill sate as President in the councell of Ephesus, though not without the concurrence of the Bishoppe of Rome, who joyned his authority with him, and sent his owne resolution, and the resolutions of his Bishops vnto him, and the Councell, though he Act. Concil. Ephes. tom. 2. cap. 17. sent none out of the West to that meeting, till long after the Councell was begunne, and many things therein done. In the fourth Generall Councell, holden at Chalcedon, the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome, had the first and chiefest place: but in the fift, Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople sate as President, and had the first place. And Binnius in Annotat. in Concil. 5. though Vigilius then Bishop of Rome, being at that time at Constantinople, could neither bee induced to be present, nor to agree vnto it, while it was holden, nor to confirme and allow it when it ended, yet it was iudged a lawfull Generall Councell, and hee and so many moe as resisted against it, for their wilfull dissenting, were sent into banishment. This Councell was called by Iustinian the Emperor, to examine and condemne an Epistle of Ibas; certain workes of Theodoret, and the person of Theodorus Bishoppe of Mopsuestia, who all were thought fauourers of Nestorius, and yet receiued to grace in the Councell of Chalcedon, in hope that they would thereupon embrace and receiue that Councell, which were auerse from it; as thinking (though vntruly) that it fauoured the Nestorians; as also to condemne the errors of Origen & his followers. That this Councell, notwithstanding the contradiction of Vigilius, was admitted & receiued as a true and lawfull Generall Councell, it appeareth by Gregory Bishop of Rome, who hauing allowed of the first foure Generall Councels, addeth these words; Greg. lib. 1. Epist. 24. ad Ioannem Cō stantinopol. I doe also in like sort reuerence and honour the fift Councell, in which the Epistle of Ibas, full of error, is reiected, in which Theodorus, separating and diuiding the person of the Mediator of God and Men, & imagining two subsistences in Christ, is conuinced to haue fallen into perfidious impiety: and in which also the writings of Theodoret (wherein the faith of blessed Cyril is reprehended,) are found & pronounced to haue bin published by a boldfoolishnesse: but I truely reiect all those persons, which the forenamed reuerend & sacred Councels doe reiect, and embrace & honour those which they reuerence and honour, because being established and agreed vnto, and things setled in them by generall consent, hee destroyeth and ouerthroweth himselfe & not them, whosoeuer presumeth either to lose those whom they bind, or to binde those whom they lose. Whosoeuer therefore shall be otherwise minded, let him bee anathema. So that the Presidence and presence of the Bishoppe of Rome, is not so necessary in Generall Councels, but that in case of his wilfull refusall a Councell may proceed & bee holden for lawfull, without his consenting to it. It is true indeede, Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. that the Canon of the Church prescribeth, that no Generall Councell shall be holden without the Bishoppe of Rome, and the Bishops subiect to him; but the meaning of the Canon is not, that s Cusanus Concord, Cathol. lib. 2. ca: 2. lib. 3. cap. 15. all proceedings are voyde and vnlawfull, wherein his presence is not had, but wherein it is not sought & expected: for, if he wilfully refuse to ioyne with the rest, or his negligence be intollerable, the state of the Church requiring, that order be presently taken, they may proceede without him, as appeareth by the Eight Generall Councell, wherein some things were resolued on, before the comming of the Vicars of the Bishop of Rome: and by this Fift, wherein neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any of his Bishops would be present, nor giue any consent vnto it, and yet it is reputed a lawfull Generall Councell. And, as a Councell may bee holden in such a case, without the presence or concurrence of the Romane Bishop, and those that are subiect to him, so being present, if he refuse to concurre in iudgement with the rest, they may procede without him, and their sentence may be of force, though he consent not to it; as we see in the Councell of Chalcedon. And though Generall Councels, wherein the Bishop of Rome, with his Bishoppes, refuse to be present, or beeing present, to giue consent to that which is decreed, bee not so full and perfect, as they are that haue his concurrence together with the Bishoppes subiect to him, and therefore the like effect doth not presently followe; yet wee shall finde, that all such determinations, consented and agreed vnto vniformely, by all the other Patriarches, doe in the end generally take place. So that euen the Romanes themselues are forced to yeelde vnto them; as wee see it came to passe, that the Decrees of the Fift Generall Councell, wherein the Romanes refused to bee present, and to which they would yeelde no consent, were soone after generally receiued; the Romanes themselues yeelding vnto them; and Vide Acta •… orum Conciliorum. likewise the actes of the Fourth general Coūcel, wherein the Decree of equalling the Bishop of Constantinople, to the Bishop of Rome, and preferring him before the other Patriarches, passing without the consent of the Bishoppe of Romes Legates, and resisted by the Bishoppes of the West, yet preuailed in the end, and forced the Ro •… e Bishoppe to yeild vnto it. For after the time of Iustinian the Emperour, none of the Bishoppes of Rome was euer found to contradict it any more. Soe that to conclude and resolue this point, euen as no Chapter-act is good, wherein the meanest (hauing voyce in Chapter) is refused, neglected, or contemned: and much lesse, wherein hee that is chiefest and President is contemned: and as the Actes of Prouinciall Synodes are voyde, wherein the meanest Suffragan is not called & expected: so there is no question, but that all the acts of general Councels, are void, wherein the Bishop of Rome, so long as hee continueth Catholique, & keepeth his owne standing, is not specially aboue all other expected and desired. But, as things may passe in these assemblies, without their consent, whose presence is so necessarily to bee sought (as wee see in prouinciall Synodes the maior part swayeth all, and the Metropolitane hath no negatiue,) see in a generall Councell, things may passe by the consent of the greater part, not only without the consent, but euen against the liking of the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishoppes. In the Sixt and seauenth Generall Councels, the Bishoppe of Romes Legates, and Vice-gerents (in a sort) had the Presidentship: yet so, as that Tharassius Bishoppe of Constantinople: rather performed the duty of a Moderator & President in the seauenth, then they, as it will easily appeare to any one that will but take a view of the Actes of that Synode.

So that wee find that neither the Bishop of Rome had the Presidentship in all Councels, nor that there was any certaine and vniforme course holden in giuing preheminences to the chiefe Bishops, in the first seuen Generall Councells. For See the actes of these councels. in the Councell of Nice, Hosius doth first suscribe: after him, the presbyters, that supplied the place of the Bishop of Rome: then Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of Ierusalem after all the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, and Lybia; and the Bishop of Antioch after all these, and the Bishops of Palaestina, and Phoenicia also, and yet he sate in the highest place on the right side. In the second, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any Westerne Bishops were presēt: the first that subscribed was Nectarius, the next Timothy of Alexandria and after him Dorotheus, then Cyril of Ierusalem, and Meletius of Antioch after him, and after all the Bishops of Palaestina and Phoenicia. In the third, Cyril subscribed first, and after him Iuuenall Bishop of Ierusalem, for Iohn of Antioche came not before the condemnation of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople (to which they subscribed) was past. In the fourth, to the condemnation of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria: First the Legates of Leo Bishop of Rome subscribed: then Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople: after him the Bishop of Antioch, and Iuuenall Bishop of Ierusalem, almost after all the Bishops in the Synode, though in the order of sitting he was placed in the fifth place: but where they subscribe to the decree touching matter of faith, he subscribeth in the fourth place, after Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch. To the act for aduancing the see of Constantinople, and setting it before the rest of the Patriarchicall thrones next to Rome, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome subscribe not, but Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople in the first place; after him, Maximus of Antioch; and in the third place, Iuuenall of Ierusalem. In the fifth, they sate and subscribed in this sort. First, Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople, then Apollinarius of Alexandria, after him Domninus of Antioch, and last of all the Legates of Eustochius of Ierusalem: for the Bishop of Rome was not there in person, nor by his Legates. In the sixth, the Emperour sate in the highest place, in the middest: His great men, and the Consuls sate by him: on the left side the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, the Vicars of the Bishop of Ierusalem, & the Bishops that were present out of the Romane Synode: On the right side, sate first, the Bishop of Constantinople, next him the Bishop of Antioche, then hee that supplied the place of the Bishoppe of Alexandria, and so in order the Bishoppes subiect to them: yet in subscribing, the Bishop of Rome was first, Constantinople second, Alexandria third, Antioch fourth, and Ierusalem last. In the seauenth, the Legates of Adrian Bishop of Rome had the first place, and subscribed first: after them the Bishop of Constantinople Tharassius; and then they that supplyed the roomes of the other three Patriarchicall Thrones. But Tharassius rather performed the duty of a President & Moderator, then the Legates of Rome, as I shewed before. These are all the Generall Councels that the Greeke and Latine Churches jointly acknowledge; & by this view which we haue taken of them, wee may see how diuersly things haue beene carried, both concerning the Presidentship in Generall Councels, and the preheminences of the chiefest Bishops in the same.

Yet, as the Graecians were content in the Sess. ult. Councell of Florence, that the Bishoppe of Rome should haue all such preheminences againe, as hee had before the division of the Churches, if other matters might bee agreed on: So if the Bishoppe of Rome would disclaime his claime of vniuersall jurisdiction, of infallible judgement, and power to dispose at his pleasure the Kingdomes of the World, and would content himself with that all Antiquity gaue him, which is to bee in order and honour the first among Bishoppes, wee would easily grant him to bee in such sort President of Generall Councels, as to sit and speake first in such meetings: but to bee an absolute commaunder, wee cannot yeeld vnto him. Cardinall Summa de Eccles. l. 3. c. 23 Turrecremata rightly noteth, that the Presidentship of Councels whereof men doe speake, is of two sorts, the one of honour, the other of power. Presidentship of honouris, to haue preheminence in place, to propose things to bee debated, to direct the actions, and to giue definitiue sentence according to the voyces and judgement of the Councell. Presidentshippe of power is, to haue the right, not onely of directing, but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Councell, and to conclude of matters after his owne judgement, though the greater part of the Councell like it not, yea though no part like it. A Presidentshippe of the former sort, Antiquity yeelded to the Bishop of Rome, when hee was not wanting to himselfe. And if there were no other differences betweene vs and him, wee also would yeeld it him; But the latter kinde of presidentshippe wee cannot yeeld, vnlesse wee ouerthrow the whole course of Councels, and goe against the streame of all Antiquity. This seemeth (saith Desacris Eccles. minist. & benef. l. 3. c. 2 Duarenus) to bee consonant vnto the Law of GOD, that the Church which the Synode doth represent, should haue the fulnesse of all power, and that the Pope should acknowledge himselfe subject vnto it. For Christ did not giue the power of binding and loosing to Peter alone, whose successor the pope is said to bee, but to the whole church. Although I doe not deny, but that hee was set before the rest of the Apostles; yet so often as any one was to bee ordained, either Bishoppe, or Deacon, or any thing to bee decreed, that concerned the church; Peter neuer tooke it to himselfe, but referred it to the whole church. But heerein did his preheminence stand and consist, that as prince of the Apostles it pertained to him to call the rest together, and to propose vnto them the things that were to bee handled; as with vs at this day the president of the court of parliament calleth together the whole Senate, and when occasion requireth, beginneth first to speake, and doth many other things, which easily shew the greatnesse of the person which he sustaineth: and yet notwithstanding hee is not greater or superiour to the whole court; neither hath hee power ouer all the Senatours; neither may hee decree any thing contrary to their judgements. But the judgement of all controversies pertaineth to the court it selfe, whose Head the president is said to be; nay, which is more, the court commaundeth, judgeth, and punisheth the president as well as any other, if there be cause so to doe. And these things truely were likewise in the Ecclesiasticall state heretofore, but I know not by what meanes it is now brought about, that supreme power ouer all Christians is giuen to one, and that hee is set free from all Lawes and canons, after the example of the Emperours.

This is the judgement of the learned and worthy Duarenus; yet the Iesuites, and Iesuited papists at this day, will needs haue the pope to be president of General councels, in such sort, that hee may conclude of matters after his owne judgement and liking, though the greater part of the councell like it not, yea, though no part like it. But this their conceit is easily refuted: first by reason, & then by the practise of the church from the beginning. For first, either Bishops are assembled in Generall Councels, onely as the Popes Counsellers to giue him aduise; or they are in joynt Commission with him, and sitte as his fellow Iudges of all matters of faith and discipline. If onely as Counsellers to aduise him, Councels should not consist only or principally of Bishops. For, as they say commonly, that many a doting old woman may be more deuout, and many a poore begging Frier more learned thē the Pope himself: so there is no questiō, but that many other may be as learned and iudicious as Bishops; Augustin. Ep. 19. ad Hieron. Though (saith Austine) according to the titles of honour, which the custome of the Church giueth men, Austine a Bishop be greater then Hierome a Presbyter, yet Hierome in worth and merite is greater then Austine. In the late Councell of Trent, there is no question, but that Andradius, Vega, and other Doctors that were there, were euery way comparable with the greatest Bishop or Cardinall; yet Bishoppes onely as of ordinary right, and some few other, by speciall priuiledge, gaue decisiue voyces in that Councell: other, how learned soeuer, being admitted onely to discusse and debate matters, and thereby to prepare and ripen them, that the Bishops might more easily iudge of them: and therefore the current of most Papists is against that conceit of making Bishops to bee but the Popes Counsellers onely, as appeareth by De Gener. Concil. authoritate. lib. 1. pag. 46. & 47. Andradius, Loc. Theolog. lib. 5. cap. 5. Canus, De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 18. Bellarmine, and many moe. That Bishops (saith Loco citato. Melchior Canus) are not Counsellers onely to advise, but Iudges to determine all matters doubtfull touching Faith and manners; may easily be proued by the proceedings of all ancient Councels. For the Fathers of the Nicene Councell, desire Syluester to confirme what they haue decreed; and Leo professeth, that he approueth all those things which the Councell of Chalcedon decreed touching the Faith: and the Councell it selfe speaking to Leo saith, Honour our iudgement with the concurrence of thy Decrees. And the sixt Actio. 18. Generall Councell saith: Wee anathematize Theodorus, Sergius, Syrus, &c. And a little after: All these things beeing determined by this holy Councell, and confirmed by our constant subscription, wee decree, that no man make any farther adoe about matters of faith, &c. Are these the words of him that onely giueth aduice and counsell? or of him that iudgeth and determineth what shall be beleeued and done? and in all the rest, the Fathers speake not as Counsellers that are to aduise, but as Iudges that haue power to determine: For the third chapter of the Nicene Synode hath thus: The great Synode hath altogether forbidden, &c. Thus farre Melchior Canus, learnedly and strongly prouing, that Bishops are not present in Generall Councels, as the Popes Counsellers to aduise him; but as Iudges together with him to define and determine: which if it be granted, we may easily in the second place proue, that the Pope may not determine things of himselfe contrary to the iudgement of all the rest. For, though the chiefe President of a Company, may haue a negatiue voyce, against the affirmatiue of all the rest, yet neuer was there any company of Iudges, hauing power to iudge and determine, wherein one might not onely dashe what the rest agreed on, but determine also what hee pleased, though none concurred with him. When in any commission, some certaine number of men may determine and resolue, and none hath power to contradict, they are absolutely Iudges, & the power of iudging resteth wholy in them; when in their resolutions they may bee so gain-said by others, that yet others canne doe nothing without them, they are Iudges in part, & the power of iudging resteth in part in them; But when another may dash what they consent on, and doe what hee pleaseth, whatsoeuer they say to the contrary, they may bee in the nature of Counsellers to aduise, but not of Iudges to determine. For wheresoeuer there are many Iudges, either the power of determining, both affirmatiuely and negatiuely resteth in the Maior part; or else any one hath an absolute negatiue, and onely the concurrence of all an affirmatiue, as in Iuries here in England; or thirdly, either one man, or some certaine men haue their negatiue, and the affirmatiue is onely in the Maior part. And therefore it is most fond and friuolous, that Canus hath in answere to this our argument; for whereas we say, if Bishops be Iudges, the Pope may not resolue against the Maior part of them, hee hath these words; Canus loco 〈◊〉 . pag. 164. I deny that it is necessary to follow the iudgement of the Maior part, when we treat of matters of Faith, neither doe wee here measure the sentence by the number of voyces, as in humane elections or iudgements; Knowing that oftentimes it comes to passe, that the greater part doth ouercome the better; that those things are not alwayes best, which please most; and that in things which pertaine to doctrine, the iudgement of the wise is to bee preferred, and the wise are exceeding few, whereas there is an infinite number of fooles. Foure hundred Prophets did lie vnto Achàb, but the trueth came out of the mouth of one Michaeas alone, and hee very contemptible, and therefore the Iudgements of Diuine thinges are not to bee moderated by humane reasons: The Lord saueth and deliuereth, sometimes, sooner with a few then many. This saying of Canus is contrary to all course of Iudgement in the world, and contradicted by his owne fellow and friend Cardinall Lib. 1. de Concilijs. cap. 18. Bellarmine, who saith, that in Councells, things are to be carried by number of voyces, and not by disputation; that in the Councell mentioned in the Actes, the question was defined by the voyces of the Apostles: and that in the Councell of Actione. 4. Chalcedon the tenne Bishoppes of Egypt were condemned as Heretickes, because they yeelded not to the Maior part of that Councell. Thus doth hee crosse his fellow Canus. But let not Canus bee offended with him for so doing; for he will presently crosse himselfe also: for I hope he thinketh the Bishoppes of Egypt were rightly iudged Heretickes for refusing to subscribe to the Iudgement of the Maior part of Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon (seeing hee bringeth this censure to proue that the determinations of Councells doe bind the conscience) and then it will follow, that the greater part of Bishoppes in a Generall Councell cannot erre; which yet hee presently denieth, Eodem Capite. and saith the greater part of this Councell did erre, and resolued that which was reuersed by the Pope. If hee say that those tenne Bishoppes of Egypt, refused to subscribe to that which was agreed on by the Maior part with the Legates of Rome, and that therefore they might iustly bee iudged Heretickes, as contradicting the Iudgement of them that cannot erre, it standeth no better with his resolution Lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 11. else-where, that the Maior part of Bishops in a Generall Councell, with the Legates, may erre. But passing by these Contradictions and absurdities of the Cardinall, let vs see if he can cleare this doubt any better, which hath so much troubled Canus. For the avoyding of this one poore argument, hee is forced to diuide the Pope, as otherwise finding no meanes to escape the force thereof. Lib. 1. de Concilijs. cap. 18. The Pope therefore (he saith) may be considered two wayes; either as hee is President of a Councell, and so hee is tyed to follow the Maior part; or as hee is chiefe Prince in the Church, and so hee may goe against the Maior part, and resolue what he pleaseth of himselfe: and yet this diuided consideration no way deuideth or breaketh the force of our argument, but leaueth it intire and whole as it found it. For wee seeke not the difference betweene a President and a chiefe and absolute Prince, but whether the Bishoppes sitting in Councell with the Pope, be his fellow Iudges, or not: which they cannot bee, if he may not onely dash what they would doe, but also doe what he pleaseth without them. And besides this, if the Pope doe sit in Generall Councels as President, and so as bound to pronounce according to the Maior part of voyces in all Decrees, then hee sitteth not there as absolute Prince, hauing power not onely to dash what others would doe, but also to doe what he pleaseth of himselfe without them, and contrary to their iudgements; and so cannot define and determine contrary to the iudgement and resolution of the Maior part. The onely answere that may bee imagined to this obiection, is, that as inferiour Iudges may determine a thing, which yet by a superiour authority may bee reuersed, and the contrary decreed, so the Bishops in a Generall Councell, as Iudges, may decree and determine, and yet the power of re-examining and reuersing all, if neede be, may rest in the Pope as superiour Iudge vnto them, which yet no way cleareth the doubt. For howsoeuer it be true in Iudges and Iudgements, distinct, separate, and subordinate one to another, that one may dash that the other doth, and doe the contrary without the consent of the other, yet of Iudges ioyned in one Commission, and of the same iudgment it cannot be so conceiued. Now the Iudgement of the Generall Councell includeth in it the Iudgement of the Pope; the Pope and Councell make one Iudge, and are not separate, distinct, and subordinate Iudges, and therefore no such thing can bee said of them. If it be said that he who is joyned in commission with others, in some inferiour Court, and hath a Negatiue voyce in it onely, and no absolute affirmatiue, may in a superiour Court haue both, and that therefore the Pope, who hath no absolute voyce affirmatiue and negatiue in a Generall Councell, may haue such a voyce in some higher Court, it will be found to be too shamelesse a saying. For there neither is, nor can be any higher Court then that of a Generall Councell consisting of the Bishop of Rome, and all the other Bishops of the World. So that all answers failing, wee may safely conclude, that if Bishops bee Iudges Ecclesiasticall, truely and properly, (as wee haue proued them to bee by vnanswerable reasons, and our Adversaries confesse) the Pope hath no absolute voyce affirmatiue and negatiue in Generall Councels; that is, to dash what the Maior part would doe, and to doe that they by no meanes like of. This Lib. 1. de Gener. concil. authoritate. Andradius saw, and therefore hee disclaimeth the position of Bellarmine, De Pont. l. 4. c. 3. that all the assurance the Councell hath of finding out the truth, is Originally in the Pope, and from him cōmunicated to the Councell: and holdeth that the Councell hath as good assurance of finding out the trueth, and better then the Pope himselfe: And therefore hee saith, that though he thinketh it impossible the Pope should dissent frō the councell, so as to define contrary to it, yet; if it should so fall out (as hee thinketh it not impossible) that the Bishop of Rome, should altogether dislike in his opinion that which the Councell resolueth on, and which hee should consent vnto, and (though he define not the contrary) yet despise the Decrees of the Councell, and in his priuate opinion gainsay them; he thinketh in such a case, men were to conceiue none otherwise of him then if hee should depart from the faith and profession of the ancient Councels, which the consent of all ages hath confirmed, and Lib. 1. Epist. c. 4. & 24. Gregory professeth to honour and esteeme as the foure Gospels, seeing the power and authority is as great in all Councels, as in those which the same Gregory saith, that whosoeuer holdeth not their certaine resolutions, though he seeme to be a stone elect and precious, yet he lyeth besides the foundation. And, because the authority of Cardinall Turrecremata is great with all those that defend the dignity of the Pope against the Bishops that were assembled in the Councell of Basil, & such as are of their judgement, therefore he produceth his opinion in these words: If such a case should fall out (saith Cardinall De Pont. Max. Generaliumque conc. authoritate ad Basilien •… . oratorem. Respon. num. 67. & 68. Turrecremata) that all the Fathers assembled in a Generall Councell with vnanimous consent should make a decree concerning the faith, which the person of the Pope alone should contradict, I would say according to my judgement, that men were bound to stand to the judgement of the Synode, and not to listen to the gainsaying of the person of the Pope: for the judgment of so many and so great Fathers in a Generall Councell, seemeth worthily to bee preferred before the judgement of one man. In which case that Glosse vpon the Decrees is most excellent, that when the faith is treated of, the Pope is bound to require the Counsell of Bishops, which is to bee vnderstood to bee necessary to bee done, as often as the case is very doubtfull, and a Synode may be called, and then the Synode is greater then the Pope; not truely in the power of jurisdiction, but in the authority of discerning, judgment, and the amplitude of knowledge. This is the opinion of this great champion, who so mainely in defence of the Popes vniversall jurisdictiō, impugned the Fathers that were assembled in the Councell of Basil. Whereby it is evident, that the pope may not go against the consent of a Generall Councell, & that he may not dissent from it, being greater in the authority of discerning and judgement then hee is; and consequently that hee hath no negatiue voyce in Councels. Which may further bee proued; for that if he had a negatiue voyce, as the Councell hath, then were there two absolute negatiues: but where there are two absolute negatiues, it is vncertaine whether any thing shall be resolued on or not, (whereas yet the state of the Church requireth resolution and certain concluding of matters, that men may know what they are to beleeue.) Therefore the Pope hath none, but, the onely negatiue is that of the Councell, a part whereof the Pope is, giuing a voyce as others doe. And this the manner of other Synodes confirmeth. For in Provinciall, Nationall, and Patriarchicall Councels, the Metropolitanes, Primates, and Patriarches haue no absolute negatiue, but giue only a single voyce: and the absolute negatiue, as also the affirmatiue, is onely in the Maior part; and as Cardinall Turrecremata, learnedly and rightly maketh the authority of the Generall Councell, in discerning and defining what is to be belieued, greater then the authority of the Pope: and that the Councel is ratherto be listened vnto, then the Pope, dissenting from the Councell; so there is no doubt, but that (the authority of Councels being as great in making necessary lawes for the good of the Church, as in resoluing doubtes and clearing controuersies) the Councell is greater then the Pope in the power of making lawes, and consequently in the power of jurisdiction, which he denieth, and they of Basil affirme.

The greatest allegation on the contrary side is the confirmation that ancient Councels sought of the Bishop of Rome: for that may seeme to import, that their decrees are of no force, vnlesse they be strengthened by his authority: whereunto Vbi supra. Andradius answereth out of De iusta Haeret. punitione lib. 1. c. 6. Alfonsus á Castro and others, that Generall Councels carefully sought to be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, not as if in themselues without his confirmation they were weake and might erre, nor for that they thought him to haue as much or more assurance of not erring then they; but that it might appeare, that he that hath the first place in the Church of God, and the rest, did consent and conspire together in the deliuery, and the defence of the trueth. But because happily this answer may seeme too weake, therefore for the clearing of this doubt, we must obserue, that all the ancient Councels, were holden in the East, & that in some of them, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any of his Westerne Bishos were present, and in others very few: For, there were onely three out of the West, in the name of all the rest, in the great Councell of Chalcedon, wherein 630 Bishops met. Now seeing the authority of generall Councels is from the consent of all other Bishoppes of the Christian Church, as well as those that meete in them, it was necessary that the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West, and the Bishops subject to him, though they were no more infallible in iudgement then the other, yet should by consenting with the rest, confirme that was done; seeing they were not present to giue consent when it was done. If it besaid, that in diuerse of them, there were some for the Bishop of Rome, and some in the name of the Synodes subject to him, who hauing instructions from them, gaue consent in their names, and that therefore there needed no further confirmation, it will be easily answered. First, that it was possible for those Legates, being but few, to forsake their instructions, and to do contrary to them, as Vt patet in Epist. Nicolai. ad Patriarchas. Rodoaldus and Zachary the Legates of Pope Nicholas did in the Councell vnder Michaell the Emperour, wherein Photius was set vp, and Ignatius put downe. Secondly, that Bellarm. de Concilijs. lib. 2. cap. 11. it was necessary, that the Fathers should wholly follow those instructions that they brought, and absolutely agree vnto them: and therefore when things were concluded, it was fit there should bee a signifying of that which was done, and a desire of the confirmation of the same. Thirdly, some things might be concluded, to which the instructions reached not, and in respect of them, a confirmation was necessary: as the Councell of Actione 3. Chalcedon decreed certaine things wihout the compasse of Leos instructions, and therefore sought his confirmation. Besides all this, we must note that the confirmation which the ancient Councels sought, was not from the person of the Bishop of Rome alone, but from him and his Synodes, as I haue proued before: And De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 17. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth; saying, that in the second and third Synodes, there were no Bishops of the West present, but that the Bishop of Rome in his owne name, and in the name of the Bishops, and Synodes subiect to him, did confirme them. So that this confirming of Councels by the Pope, proueth no more that hee is infallible in iudgment, or that all the assurance of finding out the trueth is originally in him, and from him communicated to generall Councels: then that all the Bishops and Synodes subject to him, are free from possibility of erring: and that Nationall or Prouinciall Synodes in the West, are more infallible in their iudgments, then those that are Generall in the East. The next allegation to proue that the Councell is nothing without the Pope, is, that a promise was made to Peter, that Luke. 22. •… 2. his faith should not faile, but that no promise was made to the Councell: that promise of Christ, Matth. 18. 20. that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the middest of them, beeing no way proper to Councels and Bishops, Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concilijs cap. 16. hauing no authority when they are assembled, which they haue not when they are single and deuided. This allegation is contradictory to the resolution, and contrary to the practise of all times. For first, that promise of Christ, that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will bee in the middest of them, was euer thought to assure his presence in a lawfull Generall Councell, in very speciall sort, and otherwise then any where else; and that vpon very good ground of reason. For if God be present with priuate men, meeting together in his feare about the things that concerne them, and with a few particular Pastors of Churches, for the direction of them in things that concerne them, there is no question but in Generall meetings, wherein all the variety of the gifts of God, bestowed on men, is gathered together, and things concerning the state of the whole Christian Church treated of, hee is present in most peculiar sort & manner. Secondly, though Christ the sonne of God, gaue no authority to the whole vniuersality of Christian men, and therein the Church and Common-wealth may seeme to differ, yet he gaue Commission to the Generality of pastors, more then to each one apart, and being assembled, they haue that power which seuerally they haue not, as to ordaine, iudge, suspend, and depose pastors and Bishops. And howsoeuer, in each Prouince the rest are to know him that is the first among them, and to do nothing pertayning to the whole Prouince, without consulting him first, yet may he doe nothing without them. And as this is the Canon and Law of the Church in particular Prouinces, so in Churches of larger extent, comprehending whole countries, subiect to one Patriarch, and much more in the whole Church, wherein there is no one hauing so much power in respect of the rest, as the Metropolitane hath, in respect of the Bishoppes of the Prouince; and the Patriarch, in respect of the Metropolitanes: For the Bishoppes are to bee ordained by the Metropolitane, and the Metropolitanes are to be ordained, or at least confirmed by the Patriarch; whereas among the Patriarches, there is no one, to whom it pertayneth to ordaine the rest, or to confirme them in any speciall sort, or otherwise then they are to confirme him.

Thus then it beeing proued by conuincing reasons, and the confession, not onely of such Papists as make the Pope among Bishoppes to be but as the Duke of Venice among the great Senators of that State (greater then each one, but inferiour to the whole company of them) but of such also as attribute much more vnto him; that he hath no such Presidentship in Generall Councels, as that hee may determine what he will against the liking of all, or the greater part of Bishoppes, but that he is bound to follow the greater part; and that Generall Councels are of force, not from the absolute authority of the Pope, onely aduising with other Bishoppes but from their consents as wel as his: Let vs proceede to see if the practise of former times proue not the same. I finde (saith Concord. Cathol. lib. 2. c. 8. Cusanus) that in all the first Eight Generall Councels, the Popes, or the Legates of the Popes, (for themselues were neuer present in person) did euer subscribe in the very same sort that the other Bishoppes did, without note of any singularity. For euery Bishoppe was wont to subscribe in this forme, An •… ens, vel consentiens, vel statuens, vel definiens, subscripsi: and this was the forme the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome obserued. But (saith Cusanus) that no man may doubt, but that all things were determined by the joynt consent of such as met in Generall Councels, and not by the sole authority of the Bishoppe of Rome alone, wee finde in the Actes of the Councell of Chalcedon, that Dioscorus being the third time warned to appeare, and refusing so to doe, Paschasinus the Legate of Leo the Pope, said vnto the Synode, Wee desire to learne of your Holinesse, what punishment he is worthy of. To whom the Synode answering, let that bee done, that is agreeable to the Canons: Paschasinus said, Doth your righteousnesse or reuerend worthinesse command vs to vse Canonicall vengeance against him? Doe you consent? or doe you resolue otherwise? The holy Synode said, wee consent, none dissenteth. This is the agreeing and consenting will of the whole Synode. Iulian the Bishoppe of Hypepa said to the Legates of Leo, Wee desire your Holinesse, in that you are more eminent then the rest, hauing the place of the most holy Pope Leo, to pronounce the sentence of iust vengeance against this contumacious person, the Canons requiring the same. For, wee all, and the whole Synode agree to the sentence of your Holynesse. Paschasinus said, Let what pleaseth your blessednes be pronounced with vnanimous consent. Maximus of Antioch said, what your holinesse thinketh fit to bee done, we consent vnto. After this the Apostolicall Legates pronounced the sentence, whereby Leo the Pope had deposed and condemned Dioscorus, and thenadded. Let not this holy Synode be slacke to determine what is agreeable to the canons touching Dioscorus. Whereupon Anatolius of Constantinople, and euery Bishop in the councell gaue sentence against him, saying, I iudge him to be reiected from all Sacerdot 〈◊〉 and Episcopall Ministery. Heere (saith Cusanus) the Reader may see, that the Apostolicall Legates (because they haue the first place in the councell) pronounce the sentence, & yet no otherwise, but if the councell cōmaund them so to doe; that all in order pronounce sentence likewise; and that the force of the sentence dependeth on the vnity and consent of will in them that are present. Neither is this course obserued onely in Generall councels; but that, in those also that were Patriarchicall the other Bishoppes subscribed in the very same forme that the Bishoppe of Rome did, it is evident. For, in the councell vnder Pope Martine, before the sixt Generall councell, Martine subscribed in this sort: I Martine, Bishop of the city of Rome, decreeing and determining, haue subscribed to this definition of confi •… ation of the true faith and condemnation of Sergius of Constantinople, Pyrrhus and Paulus: And in the very same sort subscribed Maximus of Aquileia, defining and confirming the true Faith, and condemning the Heretickes: And so did a hundred and three Bishoppes more. And in the councell vnder Symmachus we reade that the Synode saide: whatsoeuer Clearke, Monke, or Layman, either of the superiour or inferiour order, shall presume to goe against these decrees, let him by the sentence of the canon be reiected as a Schismaticke. And the Bishops subscribed thus. I Symmachus, of the holy catholicke church of the city of Rome, haue subscribed to this constitution made by vs, by the inspiration of the Lord. I Lawrence, Bishop of the church of Millaine, haue subscribed to this constitution made by vs, &c. And so the rest in order. In the Councell of Africa, Gennadius said, Wee must by our seuerall subscriptions giue force and strength to the things we haue spoken: And all the Bishops said, Fiat, fiat, that is, Let vs so doe. So the Vicars of olde Rome said in the eight Generall councell: Seeing by the happy providence of God all things are come to a good end, wee must by subscription giue strength to that which is done. And the like we finde in the end and conclusion of all councels: Hactenus ex Cusano. Loco citato. whereby it appeareth, that the strength, vigour, and force of all canons made in councels, is from the vniforme consent of them that haue voyces in councels, and not from the Pope, or head of such assemblies. In the Actione 5 councell of Chalcedon we find, that a forme of a decree touching the faith was agreed on by al, besides the Romanes, and certaine of the East, who would haue some things added out of the Epistles of Leo. The Bishops vrged, that all had liked and approued that forme the day before, and that it did confirme the Epistle of Leo, which they all had receiued, and desired the Iudges, that all might be cast out of the Synode that would not subscribe. The Vicars of Rome on the contrary side told them, that if they would not consent to the Epistle of Leo, they would returne, that a Synode might bee holden in the West: and the Iudges commaunded them to come to some conference, a certaine selected number of them: or else to declare their Faith by their seuerall Metropolitanes, that so there might remaine no further doubt or discord: and told them, that if they would follow none of these courses, nor agree to make a certaine Decree touching the true Faith, a Synode should be holden in the West. So that we see, that without the concurrence of the other Bishops, nothing could be done by the Romanes, and those of the East: that there was no other remedy, in case they would not haue agreed in determining the doubts then a foot, but to call another Synode, wherein a greater number of the Westerne Bishops might be present. So that the Pope was not at that time reputed an abso lute commaunder in Generall councels.

CHAP. 51.

Of the assurance of finding out the Truth, which the Bishops assembled in Generall Councels haue.

HAuing shewed who haue decisiue voyces in Generall Councels, what presence of Bishops is necessary to the being of them, what order is to be obserued in their procedings, who is President in them, and what his authority is, it remaineth that we proceed to see what assurance they haue of finding out the Trueth, and who is to call them. Touching the first of these two, some haue beene of opinion, that the Bishops and Fathers in Councels are so guided by the spirit of Trueth, that their Decrees and determinations may be ioyned to the Canonicall Scripture, and reckoned parts of it. This position Melchior Locor. Theologic. li. 5. ca. 5. Canus sayth, a man excellently learned, and that had so profited in Diuinity, that hee might be thought matchable with great and eminent Diuines, feared not to hold in his hearing: and addeth, that Dist. 19. ca. In Canonicis. Gratian seemeth to haue beene of the same opinion, where hee affirmeth, that the Decretall Epistles of Popes are Canonicall Scripture, and alleageth Austine for proofe thereof. But the fame Canus refuteth that opinion as absurd, and sheweth that Gratian mistooke Saint Austine. For whereas Saint Austine hath these words, Aug. de Doctrin Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. In Canonicis scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequatur: inter quas sane illae sunt, qu •… Apostolicas sedes habere, & epistolas accipere meruerunt. That is: In reckoning the bookes of Canonicall Scripture, lette the diligent searcher of the Scriptures follow the authoritie of the greater number of Catholike Churches. Among which they truly which were so happy, as to haue Apostolique seates, and to receiue Epistles from Apostles, are specially and principally to be regarded. Gratian citeth the place thus; In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plurimum scripturarum solertissimus indagator authoritatem sequatur: inter quas fanè illae sunt quas Apostolica sedes habere & ab eâ alij meruerunt accipere epistolas. So that whereas Saint Augustine saith, that in reckoning the Canonicall bookes of Scripture, a man must follow the authority of the greater number of Catholique Churches, and among them especially such as either had Apostolicall seates, as Hierusalem and the like; or receiued Epistles from some of the Apostles, as did the Churches of Corinth and Galatia; Gratian maketh him say, that the Epistles which the Apostolicall See receiued, or other receiued of it, are to be reckoned among Canonicall Scriptures. This ouersight of Gratian, De fide & ordine credendi. Theorem. 15. Picus Mirandula long since obserued, and after him Aduersus haeres. lib. 1. cap. 2. Alfonsus a Castro: whereby wee may see how easie it was for men in former times to runne into most grosse errors; before the reuiuing of learning in these latter times, while the blinde did lead the blinde. For Gratian was the man out of whom Turrecremata. lib. 4. summae de ecclesia parte 2. cap. 9. & Caietan. in lib. de primatu Rom. Ecclesiae cap. 14. were mis-led in this point. by Gratian as Alphonsus noteth. the greatest Diuines of former times tooke all their authorities of Fathers and Councles, as appeareth by their marginall quotations. And how ignorantly and negligently he mistooke them, & mis-alleaged thē, this one example is proof sufficient.

But whatsoeuer we think of Gratian we shall find that not only our Diuines, but the best learned among our aduersaries also, put a greatdifference between the sacred scriptures of the holy Canon, and the Decrees of Councels. For, first they say, the Scripture is the word of God reuealed immediately, and written in a sort from his owne mouth; according to that of S. Peter; 2. Pet. 1. 21. the holy men of God, spake as they were moued by the holie Ghost: And that of S. Paul: 2. Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is by diuine inspiration: which is not so to be vnderstood, as if alwaies the holy Writers had had new reuelations, and had alwayes written that, which before they were ignorant of: for it is certaine that the Euangelists Mathew and Iohn, wrote those things which they saw, and Marke and Luke those things they heard from others, as Luke himselfe confesseth in the beginning of his Gospel. But the holy writers are therefore said to haue had immediate reuelation, and to haue written the words of God himselfe: because either some new things and not knowne before, were reuealed to them by God: or because God immediately inspired and moued the Writers to write those things which they had seene and heard and directed them that they should not any way erre in writing: whereas Councels neither haue, nor write immediate reuelations or words of God, but only declare which is that word of God vttered formerly to the Prophets and Apostles, how it is to bee vnderstood, and what conclusions may bee deduced from it by discourse of reason. Secondly, the holy Writers performed that which they did, without any further labour or trauell, then that, in writing and calling to minde what they had seene and heard: but in Councels, the Bishoppes and Fathers, with great paine and trauell, seeke out the trueth by discourse, conference, reading and deepe meditation: and therefore the holy Writers are wont to attribute all to God onely, and the Prophets were wont often to repeate, The Lord sayth. Thirdly, in the Scriptures, not onethe whole sentences, but euery word pertaineth to Faith: for no word is therein vaine or ill placed. But in Councels there are many disputations going before resolution, many reasons brought for confirmation of things resolued on, many things added for explication and illustration, many things vttered obiter, and in passage, that men are not bound to admitte as true and right: nay many things are defined in Councels that men are not bound to stand vnto. For it is the manner of Councels, sometimes to define a thing as certainely and vndoubtedly true, pronouncing them Heretiques that thinke otherwise, and subiecting them to curse & Anathema: and sometimes as probable onely, and not certaine, as the Clementina vnicâ De summâ Trinitate & fide Catholicâ. Councell of Vienna decreed, that it is more probable, that both grace, and vertues accompanying grace, are infused into Infants when they are baptized, then that they are not: and yet is this no matter faith in the Church of Rome. Fourthly, in the scripture all things, (as well concerning particular persons, as in generality) are vndoubtedly true. For, it is as certaine that Peter and Paul had the spirit of God, as that no man can be saued without the illumination and sanctification of the spirit: but in the determinations and decrees of Bishoppes assembled in a generall councell it is not so: for they may erre in iudging of the persons of men, and therefore there is no absolute certainty in the canonization of Saints, as both Quodlibet. 9. art. vlt. Thomas and Locorum. Theol. li. 5. c. 5. Citat etiam Antoninum. part. 3. tit. 12. cap. 8. Idem & Caietan. Opusc. de indulgent ad Iulium. ca. 8. Canus do confesse. Fiftly, in Scriptures there are no precepts touching manners, either concerning the whole church or any part of it, that are not right equall, and just. But councels may erre, if not in prescribing things euill, in stead of good, yet in prescribing things not fitting nor expedient, if not to the whole church, yet to some particular part of it, as not knowing the cōdition of things therein. Yea Vide Canum Loco citato. some there are that think it not hereticall to beleeue, that generall councels may prescribe some lawes to the whole church, that are not right, profitable, and iust: as to honour such a one for a Saint, who indeed is no Saint: to admit such orders of Religious men as are not profitable: to receiue the communion onely in one kinde, and the like. And there are Andrad. de authoritate 〈◊〉 Concilior. lib. 1. sol. 66. many that confidently pronounce, that generall councells may decree such things as may breed inconuenience, and may sauour of too great seuerity and austerity, which the guides of the church in the execution of the same must bee forced to qualifie and temper. So that the onely question is, whether a generall councell may certainely, define any thing to bee true in matter of faith, that is false: or command the doing of any act as good and an act of vertue, that indeed and in trueth is an act of sinne. Touching this point, there are that say, that all interpretations of holy Scriptures agreed on in generall councels, and all resolutions of doubtes concerning things therein contained, proceed from the same Spirit from which the holy Scriptures were inspired: and that therefore generall councels cannot erre either in the interpretation of Scriptures, or resoluing of things doubtfull concerning the faith. But these men should know, that Occam. Dialog. li. 3. primi tract. 3. part. cap. 8. though the interpretations and resolutions of Bishops in generall councels, proceed from the same Sperit, from which the Scriptures were inspired, yet not in the same sort, nor with like assurance of beeing free from mixture of errour. For the Fathers assembled in generall councels, doe not rely vppon immediate reuelation, in all their particular resolutions and determinations, as the Writers of the Bookes of holy Scripture did, but on their owne meditation, search and study, the generall assistance of Diuine grace concurring with them. That the Fathers assembled in Generall councels, rely not vpon any speciall and immediate revelations, may easily be proued by sundry good and effectuall reasons. For first, whensoeuer we hope to come to know any thing by speciall and immediate revelation from God, wee vse not to betake our selues to study and meditation, but to prayer onely, and other good workes, or at least principally to these: Whence it is that Daniel when he hoped to obtaine of GOD the interpretation of Nebuchadnezars dreame by speciall and immediate revelation, did not exhort his companions and consorts by study to search out the secret he desired to know, but by prayer and supplication to seeke it of GOD. And after hee had found out the secret hee sought for, hee saide, Dan. 2. 23. O God of my Fathers, I confesse vnto thee, and praise thee, because thou hast giuen mee wisedome and strength, and hast shewed vnto me those things which we desired of thee, and hast opened vnto vs the word of the King: Whence also it is, that Christ promising-his Apostles, that hee would reveale vnto them what they should speake, when they should bee brought before Kings and Rulers, willeth them, To Math. 10. 19 & 20. take no care how, or what to speake, for that it should bee revealed vnto them in that houre what they should speake; It is not you that speake (saith our Sauiour) but the spirit of my Father that speaketh in you. When as therefore wee hope to learne any thing of GOD by immediate revelation, wee must not apply our selues to study, and meditation, but to prayer. But when men meete in Generall councels, to determine any doubt or question, they principally giue themselues to meditation, study and search; therefore they hope not to bee taught of GOD by immediate revelation. Secondly, when wee desire to haue things made knowne vnto vs by immediate revelation from GOD, wee goe not to them that are most learned, but to them that are most devout and religious, whether they bee learned or vnlearned, whether of the cleargy or the Laity, whether men or women, because for the most part GOD revealeth his secrets, not to them that are wiser & more learned, but to them that are better, & more religious and devout; according to that of our Sauiour, r I giue thee thankes Math. 11. 25 O Father, LORD of Heauen and Earth, because thou hast hidde these things from the wise, and men of vnderstanding, and hast opened them vnto Babes. And therefore the 2 Kings 22. good King Iosias, when hee desired by revelation to know the will of GOD touching the wordes of the volume that was found in the Temple, hee sent Helkiah the High Priest to Huldah the Prophetesse, and sought not concerning the wordes of the Law among the Priests, whose lippes are to preserue knowledge, and at whose mouth men ought to seeke the Law: because though the Law bee to bee sought at the mouth of the Priest, in all those things which may bee learned by study, meditation, & search, yet in those things that are to bee learned by revelation, recourse must bee had to them that haue the spirit of prophecie, if any such bee; or else to them that are most holy, and whose prayers are most acceptable vnto God. Neither are men for satisfaction in these things, rather to goe to the Priestes, then to any Layman, that is vtterly vnlearned; But in councels men goe to them that are more learned, and of better place in the church, though they bee not the best and holyest men: Therefore questions touching matters of faith, are not determined in councels by immediate revelation. If it be said, that the Apostles and Elders, in that first councell which is mentioned in the Acts 15 Actes, relyed on the knowledge they had of the Scriptures and Trueth of GOD, and did not wayte for a new immediate revelation; and that therefore this kinde of reasoning will bring them within compasse of the same danger of erring, that wee subiect their Successors vnto, because they relye not vpon immediate revelation, but search and study: It will bee easily aunswered, that though the Apostles and others assembled in that councell, depended not vpon immediate revelation, but the knowledge they had of the Scriptures and Trueth of GOD, and thence inferred what was to be thought of the matter then in question, yet were they not in danger of erring, as their successours are, because they relyed not on such imperfect knowledge, as study & meditatiō begets, but such as divine revelatiō causeth: to wit, perfect & absolute; whēce they knew how to deriue the resolution of any doubt or question, beeing specially assisted by the Spirit of Trueth. Neither lette any man thinke that the Apostles assembled in this Councell were any way doubtfull what to resolue, when they heard the matter proposed, because there is mention made of great disputation in that meeting: For, (as it may bee thought) that questioning and disputing was among the Elders and Brethren, and not among the Apostles; the meanest of them being able to resolue a farre greater matter without any the least doubt or stay. So that it is absurd that Loc. Theolog. lib 5. cap. 5. Melchior Canus from hence inferreth, that the Decrees of this Councell, wherein there was so great a dispute, are not Canonicall Scripture, any other wayes then the wordes of Pilate are, because they are recorded by the Euangelists in the holy Scripture. But to returne to the matter, whence this obiection made vs digresse, it is no way necessary to thinke, that the Fathers are any otherwise directed by the Spirit of Trueth in Generall Councels, then in Patriarchicall, Nationall, or Prouinciall; Seeing Generall Councells consist of such as come with instructions from Prouinciall, Nationall, and Patriarchicall Synodes, & must follow the same in making Decrees, as hath beene shewed before: and consequently, that they are not led to the finding out of the trueth in any speciall sort or manner, beyond that generall influence that is required to the performance of euery good worke. So that as God assisting Christian men in the Church, onely in a generall sort to the performance of the workes of vertue, there are euer some wel-doers, and yet no particular man doth alwayes well; and there is no degree or kinde of Morall vertue commanded in the Law, but is attained by some one or other, at one time or other, one excelling in one thing, and another in another, yet no particular man, or company of men, hath all degrees and perfections of vertue, as Hieronym lib: 1: contra Pelagianos. Hierome fitly noteth against the Pelagians: so in like sort, God assisting Christian men in the Church, in seeking out the truth, only in generall sort, as in the performance of the actions of vertue, & not by immediate reuelation and inspiration, as in the Apostles times; there are euer some that hold and professe all necessary truth, though no one man, or company of men doe find the truth euer, and in all thinges, nor any assurance can be had of any particular men, that they should alwayes hold all necessary truthes.

And therefore we may safely conclude, that no man can certainely pronounce, that whatsoeuer the greater part of Bishops assembled in a Generall Councell agree on, is vndoubtedly true. Neither are wee alone in this conclusion, but sundry excellently Learned among our Aduersaries in former times, euen in the middest of the Papacie, concurred in the same. For Doctrinal fidei. li: 2. c. 19. Waldensis expresly affirmeth, that, Generall Councells haue erred, and may erre; and confidently deliuereth, that it is no particular Church, that hath assurance of holding the trueth, and not erring from the Faith, neither that of Africa, which Donatus so much admired, nor the particular Church of Rome, but the Vniuersall Church: nor that Vniuersall Church which is gathered together in a Generall Councell, which wee haue found to haue erred sometimes, (as that at Ariminum vnder Taurus the Gouernour, and that at Constantinople vnder Iustinian the yonger, in the time of Sergius the Pope, according to Beda & certaine other) but that Catholicke Church of Christ which hath beene dispersed throughout the whole world by the Ministery of the Apostles, and others their successours, euer since the Baptisme of Christ, and continued vnto these times, which vndoubtedly keepeth the true faith, and the faithfull testimony of Christ, teaching Babes Heauenly wisdome, and retaining the truth constantly in the middest of all extremities of errours. And againe in another place, speaking of Councells, hee saith; Ibid. cap. 27. that which the multitude of Catholicke Doctors, with vnanimous consent, resolueth and deliuereth to be true, Catholicke, and Orthodoxe, is not lightly to be esteemed; though haply all that are there present are not led by the spirit: for this very vnanimous consenting is a great and excellent thing, and much to be respected: though sometimes by the faults of men carried with sinister respectes, it tend to scandall and ruine: and thereupon, hauing shewed the different degrees of authority found in the Church, (which I haue Booke. 4. ca. 5. else-where set downe at large) he pronounceth Cap. 19.; that onely the consent of the Fathers successiuely from the beginning (as absolutely free from danger of erring, and next in degree of authority to the Canonicall Scripture) is to be listned and hearkned vnto: And that no man should thinke it strange that the Fathers successiuely in all ages, should be 〈◊◊〉 certaine and infallible Iudges in matters of faith, then a Generall Councell of 〈◊〉 •… ting at one time and in one place, seeing so many wise, just and holy Fathers can neither bee contained within the straites of one place, nor are in the world at one time, but were giuen successiuely by Almighty God, to giue testimony vnto the faith in their seuerall times, in a constant and a perpetuall course: all which Fathers wee may gather together, and haue present all at once, so often as wee desire to consult them and to be resolued by them in matters of difficultie and doubt, though they could neuer be all assembled into one place, or meete together, while they liued in the flesh. Neither is this the priuate conceipt of Waldensis onely, but De fide & ord. credendi Theorem. 4. Picus Mirandula affirmeth, that howsoeuer many Di •… es are of opinion, that generall Councells, wherein the Pope is present, cannot define any thing amisse concerning faith and good liuing, yet there are other that dissent from them, affirming that Councells haue erred, and may erre, as that at Ariminium, and the Second at Ephesus. Whereas the former sort answere, that these Councels might erre, because the Pope was not present in them, they reply, that the second Councell of Ephesus was lawfully called, the Popes Legates being present, and yet tended to the ouerthrow of the true faith, so that Leo was forced to procure the Councell of Chalcedon for the reuersing of the Acts of it. And this their opinion of the possibility of the erring of general Councels, they proue and confirme by the possibility of their dissenting one from another; and the possibility of their dissenting one from another, by the directions which the See Clemangis his disputation, with a certain Schoole-man of Paris, wherein he proueth by excellent reasons that Generall Councells may erre. This disputation is found in the book in •… uled Speculum Ecclesiae Pontificiae, lately printed at London. Diuines do giue, to shew to which we are to stand, when they are found contradictory one to another. Besides these, there are other who Syluester: vt est apud Canum. lib. 5. c. 5. say, that Generall Councells may erre for some short time, but that they cannot long persist in error: and a third sort, Vt idem Canus refert. who thinke that Generall Councels may erre when they proceede disorderedly, or vse not that diligence they should.

Neither is this opinion of the possibility of the erring of general Councels, the priuate conceit of late Writers, but the Ancient accord with them in the same. For Lib. 2. de Baprismo. cap. 3. Austine pronounceth that the writings of the Bishoppes that haue beene published since the Canon of the Scripture was perfited, may be censured and reproued by such as see more; by the grauer authority of other Bishops, by the prudence of the learned, and by Councels, if in any thing they bee found to haue erred from the Trueth; that Councels holden in seuerall Regions and Prouinces, must without all resistance giue way to those that are generall; and that among generall Councels, the former must be content to be amended by the latter, when by experiment that which was shut vp is opened, and that which lay hid is found out, and known. Neither doth De Concil. li. 2. cap. 7. Bellarmines euasion, that Austine speaketh of matters of fact, wherein Councels may erre, or of conuersation and manners, which may vary, serue the turne: seeing the drift of Austine is to shew, that no writings of men are free from errors, but onely the Canonicall Scriptures: and that therefore they must be content to be examined iudged, and controuled euen in matters of Faith. And Apud Gratian. dist. 50. Ca. Domino Sancto. Isidore speaking of differences in doctrine and matters of Faith, and not of Fact only, as Bellarmine in the same place confesseth, acknowledgeth that Councels may dissent one from another, and consequently erre: and giueth direction which is to be followed; in case such difference doe fall out. I haue thought good (saith he) to adde in the end of this Epistle, that so often as in the Actes of Councells, there is found disagreement of iudgement, the sentence and iudgement of that Councel is rather to be holden, which in Antiquity or greatnes of authority excelleth the other. 〈◊〉 Socates. lib. 2. cap. 29.

But what neede we insist vppon Authorities to proue that Councels may erre? In the time of Constantius the Emperor, we know there was a generall Councell holden, consisting of exceeding many Bishops, gathered together out of all parts of the world, one part of thē meeting at Ariminium in the West, & the other at Seleucia in the East. In both these diuided assemblies, there were exceeding many right belieuing Bishops, & between these, there was a continuall intercourse: & yet things were so carried, that both parts consented to the betraying of the sincerity of the Christian profession, and the wronging of worthy Athanasius: some purposely out of an hereticall disposition: some, out of a mistaking of things, being abused by cunning companions; some for that they could no longer indure to stay in a strange countrey, consenting to that which they should not haue consented vnto. If it be said that Liberius Bishoppe of Rome, did not consent to this Councell, it will easily be answered, that though at the very first he did not consent to the Hereticall practises of the Arrians; yet in the end he did, after he had beene in banishment for a time. As likewise Vigilius refused to subscribe to the Fifth Generall Councell, till he was banished for his refusal. The only thing that can be said, is, that they proceeded not orderly in this Councell, but violently, and fraudulently. But this absolutely ouerthroweth the infallibility of Councels, and their Decrees. For if Councels may erre when they proceede disorderly, and vse not that diligence for the finding out of the Truth, which they should, what certainty can there be in their Decrees? Seeing it may be doubted, whether they proceeded orderly, and consequently, whether they erred or not. Leo ep. 25. Leo confesseth, that in the Second Councell of Ephesus, there were a great number of worthy Bishops, who might haue been sufficient to haue found out and cleared the Truth, if he that obtained the chiefe place had vsed accustomed moderation, and suffered euery one to speake his minde freely, and not forced all to serue his vile designes. If it bee saide, that howsoeuer this was a Generall Councel, and lawfully called, yet the resolution was not the resolution of a Generall Councell, because it was not consented vnto, but mainely resisted by the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, we shall finde that in the Vt patet ex Epistola Nicolai ad Patriarchas & caeteros Episc. Orientis, & ex Zonarâ in vita Mic •… . Imp. councels vnder Michael the Emperour, the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome consented also to an ill and vnlawfull conclusion there made. If it be further alleadged, that howsoeuer the Legats of the Bishop of Rome may erre as well as other Bishops in the councell, when they presume to define without instructions, or to goe against their instructions, yet the Pope himselfe cannot giue consent to any thing that is not true and right; it will bee proued that Popes also may be so mis-led by sinister affections, as not onely to consent to that they should not, but also to miscarry all in Councell as well as others. For In chron: an. 90 Sigebert reporteth, that Stephen Bishoppe of Rome, and after him Sergius, called Councels, and proceeded in them in furious manner against Formosus their Predecessour, not only pulling his dead body out of the graue, and despightfully re-ordaining such as hee ordained, but judicially pronouncing and defining, that his ordinations were voide, which was an errour in Faith, seeing hee was knowne once to haue beene a true and lawfull Bishop, though in respect of perjury or violent intrusion, he had beene judged neuer to haue beene lawfull Bishop of Rome.

But heere I cannot passe by the contradiction of Cardinall Bellarmine, strangely forgetting himselfe, and saying hee knoweth not what. For first hee saith, Ce conc. in Lib: 2. c. 2. it is certain, and a matter of Faith, that a Generall councell confirmed by the Pope, cannot erre. Secondly, he saith, De Pont. l. 4. c. 3. the infallibility of Councels is wholly in the Pope, and not partly in the Pope, partly in the Bishops. And thirdly he saith, De conc. l. 2. c. 5. he dareth not to affirme it to be a matter of Faith, that the Pope is free from danger of erring, though hee haue a particular Councell concurring with him. So strangely doth the good man crosse himselfe, and ouer-throw that in one place which hee built in another. For how can it bee certaine and a matter of Faith, that the Generall Councell approued by the Pope, cannot erre, if it haue no certainty of not erring but from the Pope, and it bee not certaine that the Pope cannot erre. That Councels, though lawfull, to which nothing wanted but the Popes consent, haue erred, hee saith, it is most certaine and vndoubted. So that Generall Councels are not in them-selues free from errour, but their infallibility resteth in the Pope. Now that it is not certaine, that the Pope is free from danger of erring, hee proueth, first, because they are still tollerated by the Church, & not condemned as Heretikes, that thinke the pope subiect to errour, euen in judiciall sentence and decree. Secondly, out of Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 2. 3. & 4. Eusebius, who saith, that Cornelius the pope with a National councel of all the Bishops of Italy decreed, that Heretikes ought not to be rebaptized, and Stephen afterwards approued the same sentence, and commaunded that Heretikes should not bee rebaptized; and yet Ep 74. ad p •… mp. Cyprian thought the contrary, and earnestly maintained it, charging Stephen with errour and obstinacy, which he would not haue done, if he had thought the pope free from danger of erring. Neither would the Church haue honoured him as a Catholicke Bishop and blessed Martyr, that thus confidently contradicted the Pope, and resisted his decrees and mandates, if it were certaine, and a matter of Faith, and all men vnder paine of Heresie bound to beleeue, that the Pope cannot erre. Wherefore to conclude this point, how can wee be sure with the certainty of Faith, that Generall Councels cannot erre, if their infallibility depēd on the Popes, who may be most prodigiously impious, and worse then infidells; not onely erring in some particular points concerning the Faith, but ouerthrowing all, as he did, that Picus Theorem. 4. Mirandula speaketh of, who peremptorily denied that there is any God; and confirmed the same his execrable impiety by the manner of his entering into the Popedome, and liuing in it: And that other Ibidem. he speaketh of, who denied the immortality of the soule, though after his death, appearing to one of them to whom in his life time he had vttered that his impious conceit, he told him he now found, to his endlesse woe and misery, that soule he thought mortall to be immortall, & neuer to dye.

Yet Ockam. Dialog. lib. 3. primi tract. 3. part. cap. 〈◊〉 . when there is a lawfull Generall Councell according to the former description, to wit, wherein all the Patriarches are present, either in person, or by their deputies, and the Synode of Bishoppes vnder them signifie their opinion, either by such as they send, or by their Prouinciall letters, if there appeare nothing to vs in it, that may argue an vnlawfull proceeding, nor there be no gaine-saying of men of worth, place, and esteeme, wee are so strongly to presume that it is true and right, that with vnanimous consent is agreed on in such a Councell, that wee must not so much as professe publikely that wee thinke otherwise, vnlesse wee doe most certainely know the contrary, yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remaine in some doubt, carefully seeking by the Scripture and Monuments of antiquity to finde out the Trueth. Neither is it necessary for vs expressely to beleeue whatsoeuer the Councell hath concluded, though it be true; vnlesse by some other meanes it appeare vnto vs to be true, and wee be convinced of it, in some other sort then by the bare determination of the Councell onely. But it sufficeth that we beleeue it, implicitè, and, in praeparatione animi, that out of the due respect wee beare to the Councels Decree, we dare not resolue otherwise, and bee ready expresly to beleeue it, if it shall be made to appeare vnto vs. But, concerning the Generall Councels of this sort, that hitherto haue beene holden, wee confesse that in respect of the matter about which they were called, so neerely, and essentially concerning the life and soule of the Christian Faith, and in respect of the manner and forme of their proceeding, and the euidence of proofe brought in them, they are, and euer were expresly to bee beleeued by all such as perfectly vnderstand the meaning of their determination. And that therefore it is not to bee maruailed at, if Greg. lib. 〈◊〉 . Epist. 24. Gregory professe, that hee honoureth the first foure Councels as the foure Gospels; and that whosoeuer admitteth them not, though hee seeme to bee a Stone elect & precious, yet hee lyeth beside the foundation and out of the building. Of this sort there are onely sixe; the first, defining the Sonne of GOD to be co-essentiall, co-eternall, & co-equall with the Father. The second, defining that the holy Ghost is truely God, co-essentiall, co-eternall, and co-equall with the Father and the Sonne. The third, the vnity of Christs person. The fourth, the distinction and diuersity of his natures, in, and after the personall vnion. The fifth, condemning some remaines of Nestorianisme; more fully explaining thinges stumbled at in the Councell of Chalcedon, and accursing the Heresie of Origen and his followers, touching the temporall punishments of Diuells and wicked Cast-awayes: and the Sixth, defining and clearing the distinction of operations, actions, powers, and wils in Christ, according to the diuersity of his natures. These were all the lawfull Generall Councells (lawfull I say both in their beginning, and proceeding, and continuance) that euer were holden in the Christian Church, touching matters of Faith. For the Seauenth, which is the second of Nice, was not called about any question of Faith, but of manners: In which our Aduersaries confesse there may be something inconueniently prescribed, and so as to bee the occasion of great & grieuous euils: and surely that is our conceit of the Seauenth Generall Councell, the second of Nice: for howsoeuer it condemne the religious adoration and worshipping of Pictures and seeme to allow no other vse of them, but that which is Historicall: yet in permitting men by outward signes of reuerence & respect towards the Pictures of Saints, to expresse their loue towards them, and the desire they haue of enioying their happie society, and in condemning so bitterly such as vpon dislike of abuses, wished there might be no Pictures in the Church at all: it may seem to haue giuen some occasion, and to haue opened the way vnto that grosse Idolatrie which afterwards entered into the Church. The Eigth Generall Councell was not called about any question of Faith or Manners, but to determine the question of right betweene Photius & Ignatius, contending about the Bishopricke of Constantinople. So that there are but seauen Generall Councels, that the whole Church acknowledgeth, called to determine matters of Faith and Manners. For the rest that were holden afterwardes, which our Aduersaries would haue to bee accounted Generall, they are not onely reiected by vs, but by the Grecians also, as not Generall, but Patriarchicall onely: because either they consisted onely of the Westerne Bishoppes, without any concurrence of those of the East; or, if any were present (as in the Councell of Florence there were) they consented to those thinges which they agreed vnto, rather out of other respects, then any matter of their owne satisfaction. And therefore howsoeuer we dare not pronounce that lawfull Generall Councels are free from danger of erring (as some among our Aduersaries doe) yet doe wee more honour & esteeme, & more fully admit all the Generall Councels that euer hitherto haue beene holden, then they doe; who feare not to charge some of the chiefest of them with errour, as both the Cap. 5. Second, and the Actione. 15. Canon. 28. Fourth, for equalling the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome; which I thinke they suppose to haue beene an errour in Faith.

CHAP. 52.

Of the calling of Councells; and to whom that right pertaineth.

FROM the assurance of Trueth which lawfull Generall Councells haue, let vs proceede to see by whom they are to bee called. The state of the Christian Church, the good thinges it enioyeth, and the felicity it promiseth, being spirituall, is such, that it may stand, though not onely forsaken, but grieuously oppressed by the great men of the world: and doth not absolutely depend on the care of such as manage the great affaires of the World, and direct the outward course of thinges here below: and therefore it is by all resolued on, that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that beare the Sword, and that there is in the Church a power of conuocating these her Spirituall Pastours, to consult of thinges concerning her wel-fare, though none of the Princes of the World doe fauour her, nor reach forth vnto her their helping handes: neither need wee to seeke farre, to find in whom this power resteth: for there is no question, but that this power is in them that are first, and before other, in each company of spirituall Pastors and Ministers; seeing none other canne be imagined, from whom each action of consequence, & each common deliberation, should take beginning, but they, who are in order, honour, and place before other, and to whom, the rest that gouerne the Church in common, haue an eye, as to them, that are first in place among them. Hereupon, we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synodes, pertaineth to the Bishop; of Prouinciall to the Metropolitane; of Nationall, to the Primate; and of Patriarchicall, to the Patriarch; in that they are in order, honour, and place before the rest; though some of these (as De Concilijs li, 2. cap. 12. Bellarmine truely noteth) haue no commanding authority ouer the rest. Touching Diocesan Synodes, I shewed Chap. 29. before, that the Bishop is bound once euery yeare at least to call vnto him the Presbyters of his Church, and to hold a Synode with thē: and the Canon. 19. & 20. Councell of Antioch ordaineth, that the Metropolitane shall call together the Bishops of the Prouince by his letters, to make a Synode. And the Canon. 6. Councell of Tarracon in Spaine decreeth, that if any Bishoppe warned by the Metropolitane, neglect to come to the Synode (except hee be hindered by some corporall necessity) he shall be depriued of the communion of all the Bishops vntill the next Councell. The Canone 1 Epaunine Councell in like sort ordereth, that when the Metropolitane shall thinke good to call his Brethren the Bishops of the same Province to a Synode, none shall excuse his absence without an evident cause. Touching Nationall Councels, and such as consist of the Bishops of many Provinces, such as were the Councels of Africa, the calling of them pertained vnto the Primate, as it appeareth by the second councell of Canone 1 Carthage, in that the Bishop of Carthage being the Primate of Africa by vertue of particular canons concerning that matter, by his Letters called together the rest of the Metropolitanes and their Bishops. And concerning Patriarchicall councels, the Canone 17 eighth Generall councell taketh order, that the Patriarch shall haue power to convocate the Metropolitanes that are vnder him, and that they shall not refuse to come when he calleth them, vnlesse they be hindered by vrgent causes. And to this purpose it was, that the Bishops within the Patriarchship of Rome were once in the yeare to visite the Apostolicall thresholds; which to do, they take an oath still euen to this day (as De concord cath. l. 2. c. 18. cit. dist. 93. c. 4 Cusanus noteth) so that it is evident, that there is a power in Bishoppes, Metropolitanes, Primates, and Patriarchs, to call Episcopall, Provinciall, Nationall, and Patriarchicall Synodes; and that neither so depending of, nor subiect to the power of Princes, but that when they are enemies to the Faith, they may exercise the same without their consent and privity, and subiect them that refuse to obey their summons; to such punishments as the canons of the Church doe prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilfull negligence. But that wee may see to whom the calling of Generall Councels doth pertaine in the times of persecution, and when there are no Christian Princes, we must obserue, that among the Patriarches, though one bee in order before another, (As the Patriarch of Alexandria is before the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Rome before the Patriarch of Alexandria) yet is not one of them superiour to another in degree, as Bishops are to Presbyters; nor so in order, honour, and place, as Metropolitanes are to Bishops, or Patriarches to Metropolitanes, whom they are to ordaine, or at the least to confirme: And therefore no one of them singly and by himselfe alone, hath power to call vnto him any Patriarch, or any Bishop subiect to such Patriarch; But as in case when there groweth a difference betweene the patriarches of one See and another, or betweene any of the patriarches and the Metropolitanes and Bishops subiect to them; the superiour patriarch not of himselfe alone, but with his Metropolitanes, and such particular Bishops as are interessed, may judge and determine the differences between them, if without danger of a further rent it may be done (as in the case of Chrysostome and Theophilus it could not;) So if there be any matter of Faith, or any thing concerning the whole state of the Christian church, wherein a common deliberation of all the pastors of the church is necessary, he that is in order the first among the patriarches, with the Synodes of Bishops subiect to him; may call the rest together, as being the principall part of the church, whence all actions of this nature doe take beginning: And this is that which Iulius Bishop of Rome hath, when Apud Athanas. Apol. 2. writing to the Bishops of the East, he telleth them, that the manner and custome is, that they should write to him and the Westerne Bishops first; that from thence might be decreed the thing that is just: and againe, that they ought to haue written to them all, that so that which is just might bee decreed by all. And hence it is that Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9. Damasus, Ambrose, Brito, Valerianus, and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, out of their brotherly loue sent for the Bishops of the East, as their owne members, praying and desiring them to come vnto them, that they might not raigne alone. So that the power of calling Generall Councels, when the church hath no princes to assist her, is not in the Pope, but in the Westerne Synode: and yet hath not this Synode any power ouer all the other Churches, as a supreme Commaunder, but is onely (as a principall part among the rest) to beginne, procure, & set forward, as much as in her lyeth, such things as pertain to the cōmon good: neither may it by vertue of any canon, custome, or practise of the church, excōmunicate the rest for refusing to hearken when it calleth: as it appeareth by the former example: in that they of the East came not when they were called, and intreated to come to Rome by Damasus, Ambrose and the rest; but stayed at Constantinople, did some things which they disliked, and yet were forced to giue way vnto them, and as being greater in authority then they, bare the name of the generall Councell: though they were assembled at Rome, at the same time in a very great number. But if the greater part concurre with them, they may excommunicate those few, that shall wilfully and causelesly refuse to obey them. If it be said, that hence it will follow, that there is no certaine meanes of hauing a generall Councell at all times, as there is of Prouinciall or Patriarchicall, (which may seeme absurde) it will be answered, that Bellar, ait Aliqua Concilia Simpliciteresse necessaria, generalia non simpliciter sed suo quodam modo. lib. 1. de Conciliorum authorit. cap. 11. & 10. there is not the like necessitie of hauing Generall Councels, as there is of hauing those more particular Synodes: and that therefore it is not absurd to grant, that the Church hath not at all times certaine and infallible meanes to haue a Generall Councell, as it hath to haue the other. Nay, that it hath not, it most plainely appeareth, in that Sozomen. lib. 8. cap. 18. in the case of Chrysostome greatly distressed & greiuously wronged, Innocentius professed vnto him, he knew no meanes to helpe him, but a Generall Councell; which to obtaine, he became an humble futer to the Emperour, but was so farre from preuailing, that the messengers hee sent were returned backe againe vnto him with disgrace.

Thus wee see to whom the calling of Councels pertaineth, when there is no Christian Magistrate to assist the Church, but when there is a Christian Magistrate, it pertaineth to him to see, that these assemblies be duly holden accordingly as the necessity of the Church requireth, and the Canons prescribe. And therefor wee shall finde, that though Christian Emperours, Kings and Princes within their seuerall dominions, oftentimes permitted Bishops, Metropolitanes and Patriarches, to hold Episcopall, Prouinciall, Nationall, or Patriarchicall Councels, without particular intermedling therein, when they saw neither negligence in those of the Cleargy, in omitting to hold such Councels when it was fit, nor intrusion into their office; yet, soe often as they saw cause, they tooke into their owne hands the power of calling these more particular Synodes: And touching generall, there was neuer any that was not called by the Emperour.

That Emperours, Kings and Princes in their seuerall dominions respectiuely called particular Councels, is proued by innumerable examples. For Constantine the great, called the first Councell of Arle as it appeareth by his Tom. 1. Conciliorum. pag. 267. apud Binnium. Epistle to Crestus: and Binnius confesseth it. The Councell of Aquileia was called by the Emperours, as it appeareth by the Epistle of the Councell to Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius the Emperours, in the first Pag. 523. Tome of the Councells. The Tom. 1. Concil. pag. 535. Binnius ex S •… uero. lib. 2. & Prospero in Chronico Maximum Imp. indixisse oftendit Councell of Burdegalis was called by the Emperour against Priscillian. The Councell of Agatha by the permission of the King, as as appeareth in the Pag. 304. second Tome of the Councels. The Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 309. first of Orleans was called by Clodoueus. The Tom. 2. pag. 314. Epaunine Councell by Sigismund the sonne of Gundebald. The second of Tomo. 2. pag. 477. Orleans, by the command of Childebert the French King. The Councell of Tomo. 2. pag. 508. Aruerne, by the permission of the King Theodobertus. The Fifth of Tomo. 2. pag. 514. Orleans, by Childebert. The first of Tomo. 2. pag. 640. Bracar, by Ariamirus, or (as some will haue it) Theodomirus. The second of Tomo. 2. pag. 656. Turon, with the conniuence of the King. The second of Tomo. 2. pag. 663. Bracar by Ariamirus. The Tomo. 2. 697. first Cabilon Councell, by the mandate of Gunthram; as likewise that of Tomo. 2. 698. Matiscon, and Tomo. 2. 705. Valentia. The third of Tomo. 2. 706. Toledo by Richaredus. The Councels of Tomo. 2. 722. Narbone, and Tomo. 2. 956. Caesar-Augusta; by Richaredus, King of Sueueland. Many other examples might be produced, but these suffice, to shew what the ancient practise was, and what Christian Princes in former times tooke vpon them in this behalfe. And that they did lawfully, so to intermeddle, it appeareth, in that Lib. 7. Epist. 114. citat. à Cusan. lib. 3. Concord. Cathol. cap. 10. S. Gregory writing to Theodoricus, exhorteth him by the crowne of life, to call Councels, and reforme abuses.

Wherefore let vs proceede to see who called the Generall Councells, that haue bin holden in the Christian Church. Hauing perused (sayth Concor. Cath. lib. 3. cap. 13. Cusanus) the Actes of all the General Councels, to the Eighth inclusiuely: which Eighth was holden in the time of Basilius the Emperour, I find, that they were all called by the Emperours. Whereupon (sayth hee) Elias the most holy Presbyter, that supplyed the place of the Bishop of Hierusalem sayd openly in the Eighth Generall Councell, in the hearing of all, that Emperours did euer call Councels, and that Basilius was not inferiour to those that went before him, in the care of prouiding for the Church by Synodall meetings. And Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper, in his Glosse vpon the same place, saith, that the Emperors were wont to call Councells out of the whole world. Which thing is so cleare, that Apolog. 2. contra Ruffinū. Hierome writing against Ruffinus, and taking exception againsta certaine Councell, biddeth him say, what Emperour it was that commaunded that Councell to be called? and therefore De Concilijs. lib. 1. cap. 13. Bellarmine confesseth it, and giueth foure reasons, why it was so: whereof the first is, for that there was an Imperiall Law, that there should not bee any great Assemblies without the Emperours priuity, consent, and authority, for feare of sedition. The second, for that all those Cities in which such Councels might bee holden, being the Emperours, they might not bee holden without his consent. The third, for that the Councells were holden at the Emperours charges, both in respect of carriages, and the diet, and intertainment ofthe Bishops, during the time of their being in Councell, as Euseb. de vita Constantini. lib. 3. cap. 6. Eusebius in the life of Constantine doth testifie; and Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 7. Theodoret in his Historie. The fourth, for that it was fitte the Popes in those times, acknowledging the Emperours to bee their Soueraigne Lords, should (as we reade they did) as suppliants beseech them to commaund Councells to be called. And surely, if wee had neither his confession, nor reasons, we neede not doubt hereof, hauing the testimony of all stories to confirme the same. For Lib. 10. cap. 1. Ruffinus saith, Constantine called the Councell of Bishops at Nice: and with him Lib. 1. cap. 7. Theodoret agreeth, saying expressely, that Constantine called the noble Synode of Nice: and Lib. 3. cap. 6. Eusebius in his booke of the life of Constantine, affirming, that by his letters most honorably written, he drew together the Bishoppes out of all parts, marshalling them as a mighty army ofGod, to encounter the enemies of the true faith. The occasion of calling this Councell, was the Heresie of Arrius, denying the Sonne ofGod to bee consubstantiall with the Father. The next Generall Councell after this, was the first at Constantinople, called for the suppressing of the Heresie of Macedonius and Eunomius, who denied the holy Ghost to be God co-essentiall and co-eternall with the Father, and this Councell was called by Theodosius the elder, as Lib. 5. cap. 9. Theodoret testifieth. Euagrius. lib. 1. cap. 3. The third was holden at Ephesus, and called by Theodosius the Younger, at the suite of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, fearing the proceedings of Cyrill Bishoppe of Alexandria, and Caelestinus Bishop of Rome against him. The Fourth Councell was holden at Cahlcedon, and called by Martian the Emperour. The occasion was this: Idem. lib. 1. cap. 9. & 1 •… . In the time of Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople, the Heresie of Eutyches beganne, about which a Prouinciall Councell was called at Constantinople; whereunto vnfortunate Eutyches being called, was found to haue vttered horrible blasphemies: for hee affirmed, that howsoeuer before the personall vnion, there were two distinct natures in Christ, yet after the vnion, there was but one; and besides affirmed, that his body was not of the same substance with ours: Whereupon hee was put from the Ministery of the Church and degree of Priest-hood. But not enduring thus to bee depriued of his place and honour, he complaineth to Theodosius the Emperour, pretending that Flauianus had fained and deuised matters against him, and rested not, till hee procured a Synode at Constantinople of the neighbour Bishoppes to re-examine the matters, who confirming that which was formerly done, another by hīs procurement was called at Ephesus by Theodosius, and Dioscorus Bishoppe of Alexandria made President of it. In which Councell all thinges were carried in a very disordered & violent sorte: for Dioscorus permitted not the Bishoppes to speake freely, neither would hee suffer the letters of the Bishoppe of Rome (who was absent) to bee read; such Bishoppes as he disliked, he violently cast out of the Councell, & retayned none but such as were fitte to serue his turne. Hee deposed Flauianus Bishoppe of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorileum, Domnus Bishop of Antioch, and Theodoret, with sundry other. The Legates of the Bishop of Rome offended with these violent proceedings, protested against them as vnlawfull; and Flauianus (who was not only depriued, but so beaten, that not long after hee died) appealed to the Bishoppe of Rome, & other Bishops of the West for helpe and remedy: vpon the hearing of which complaints, Vt patet in Epist. Leonis 42. & 43. Leo then Bishop of Rome, with many other Bishops of the West, went to the Emperour, and in most humble and earnest manner vpon their knees besought him to call a Councell in Italy, which he would not yeeld vnto, but called one at Chalcedon, commaunding him and all other Bishops to come vnto it. The fift Councell was holden at Constantinople, and called by Iustinian the Elder, as Lib. 4. c. 13 Euagrius testifieth. I haue shewed Cap. 49. before what the occasion of calling this councell was, and that though Vigilius Bishop of Rome, and the Westerne Bishops refused to bee present in it, together with the rest, or to confirme it when it ended, yet it was holden a lawfull councell. The sixt Generall councell was holden at Constantinople, and was called by Constantine the fourth, as appeareth by his letters to the Bishopps of Rome, Constantinople and the rest prefixed before it: The occasion whereof was the Heresie of the Monothelites, who denied the diuersity of wills, actions, and operations in Christ, & consequently of natures. The seuenth was holden at Nice, about the vse of Pictures in the church, and called by Constantine the Emperour, as appeareth by his Epistle to Adrian Bishop of Rome, prefixed before it. The eight was holdenat Constantinople, about the difference betweene Ignatius and Photius, and called by Basilius the Emperour, as appeareth by the Appendix to the Acts of that councell; collected out of diuerse Authors by Surius, and extant in the second part of the third Tome of Councels, set out by Binnius. So that wee see all the Eight Generall Councels were called by the Emperours, and not by the Popes, which thing is so cleare and euident, that our Adversaries dare not deny it, but seeke to avoyde the evidence ofthe truth (against which they dare not directly oppose themselues) by all the shifts they can devise; for first they say, Bell. de conc. l. 1. c. 12. that though it be not so proper to the Pope to call Councels, but that others may doe it, ifhee assent vnto it or approue it, yet that without his Mandate, Assent or Approbation of such indiction and calling, no councell is lawfull. Secondly, they say, Ibid. that the Emperours called councels by the authority of the Pope: and thirdly, Andrad. de author. Gener. conc. l 3. p. 59. that happily they presumed aboue that was fit forthem to doe. Wherefore let vs see how they proue that they say.

That the right of calling Councels belongeth to the Pope, and not to the Emperor, and consequently, that the Emperour may call none without his assent, Vbi supra. Bellarmine endeauoureth to proue in this sort. They that meete in councels, must bee gathered together in the name of Christ: to be gathered in the name of Christ, is, to be gathered by him that hath authority from Christ; and none hath authority from Christ to call together the Pastors of the church, but the Pope onely: therefore none but the Pope may call councels. To this argument wee answere, that indeed they must meet in the name of Christ, who assemble in councels: but that to meete in Christs name, importeth not in the promise made by Christ, a gathering together of them that meete by his authority. And that the Cardinall can neuer proue, that the Pope, and hee onely, is authorized to call together the Pastours of the churches. That to bee gathered together in Christs Name, importeth not to bee called together by publike authority, as Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth, it is evident by his owne confession, in that hee acknowledgeth, that the gathering together in Christs Name, to which d De conc. l. 2 c. 2. hee hath promised to joyne his owne presence, may bee verified of many or few, Bishops or Laymen, priuate or publike persons, about priuate or publike affaires: whereas priuate men meeting about priuate businesses, are not gathered together by any one hauing authority to commaund them, but by voluntary agreement among themselues: and therefore De conc. author. l. 1. p. 13 & 14 Andradius telleth vs, that both by the circumstance of Christs speech, and the commentaries of the holy Fathers it is euident, that his wordes agree to euery meeting of such men, as beeing joyned together in Faith and charity, aske any thing of GOD: and particularly produceth Hom. 6 •… . in Matthaeum. Chrysostome expounding Christs wordes as Calvine doth, whom Bellarmine taxeth; to wit, that they are saide to bee gathered together in Christs Name, whom neither respect of private gaine induceth. nor the ambitious desire of honour inviteth, nor the prickes ofhatred and envy incite & driue forward, whom the inflamed loue of peace, & the feruent affections of Christian charity impell, and not the spirit of contention: & in one word, they who meete to seeke out (by force of diuine grace, with common and heartiest longing desires sought and obtained) what especially pleaseth Christ, and what is true. For they that come together to set forward, and aduance their owne priuate designes and to serue their owne contentious dispositions, and to deceiue miserable men with the glorious name of a Councell, are by no meanes to be thought to come together in Christs name, nor to hold Ecclesiasticall assemblies, but such as are most pestilent and hurtfull: of which sort they were, which were holden heretofore in the time of Constantine and Constantius, at Tyrus, Ierusalem, Antioch, Sirmium, and Seleucia, and infinite other conuenticles of Heretiques, to which that most aptly agreeth, which Epist. 25. Leo the Pope pronounceth of the second Councell of Ephesus, to wit, that while priuate causes were promoted and set forward vnder pretence of religion, that was brought to passe by the impiety of a few, that wounded the whole Church. But (sayth Bellarmine) this note of meeting in the feare of God, with desire of finding out the truth and doing good, discerneth not lawfull Councels from other, seeing all that meete in Councels, pretend that they come together out of a desire of the common good, and not for priuate respects: and that therefore this is not to meete in Christs name: which is strangely sayd of him; as if lawfull Councels rightly proceeding in their deliberations, might not bee discerned from other by any thing that other may pretend: or as if this his silly argument might sway against the circūstances of Christs words, and the Commentaries of the holy Fathers. Wherefore passing from this first exception against his Argument, wee secondly answere vnto it, that Christ did not giue the power of calling Generall Councels to the Pope alone, as hee alleageth: and in what sort Christ committed his Church to Peter, to be gouerned by him: as likewise in what sence it is that Serm. 3 in die Assumptionis. Leo sayth, Though there be many Pastours, yet Peter ruleth them all, we haue largely Cap. 24. declared already. So that from hence nothing can bee concluded to proue, that Christ gaue the power and right of calling Generall Councels to the Pope alone; And thirdly we say, that though it be true, that Christ did not leaue his Church to be gouerned by Tiberius Caesar an Infidell, so continuing, or to his successors like vnto him in Infidelity; yet hee that promised to giue Esay 49. 23. Kings to be nursing Fathers, and Queenes to be nursing mothers vnto his Church, left it to bee gouerned by those nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers, which he meant in succeeding times to raise vp for the good, comfort, and peace of his faithfull people, after that their faith, patience; and long suffering (more precious then gold) should bee sufficiently tryed in the fire of tribulation. Wherefore let vs passe to the Cardinalls second argument, which is noe better then the first. For neither hath the Pope power either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall, to inforce all Bishops to bee present at such assemblies as hee shall appoint, neither did the Emperours informer time want meanes to inforce all to come when they called for them. And touching the present state of things, wee are not so foolish, as to thinke the right of calling generall Councels to rest in the Emperour, hauing so little command as now hee hath, but wee place it in the concurrence of Christian Princes, without which no lawfull Generall Councell can euer bee had. His third reason, taken from the proportion of Metropolitanes and Patriarches, calling Prouinciall and Patriarchicall Synodes, holdeth not, as I haue shewed before. Neither that which seemeth of all other to bee strongest, taken from the ancient Canon of the Church, that without the liking iudgment, and will of the Bishop of Rome, no Councell may be holden, mentioned by Lib. 2. cap. 13. Socrates and Lib. 3. cap. 9. Zozomen. For first the Canon is not to be vnderstood of the person of the Bishop of Rome, but of him and his Westerne Bishops. Secondly, it is not so to be vnderstood, as if simply without him and his Bishops, no Generall Councell could bee holden, but, that without consulting him, and first seeking to him and his, no such Councell may bee holden; as I haue largely Chap. 49. shewed before. For otherwise wee know that Vigilius Bishoppe of Rome, refused to haue any part in the deliberations of the Fifth Generall Councell, or to confirme the Actes of it when it ended. Yet was is euer holden to be a lawfull Generall Couucell, hee and his being sufficiently sought vnto, and their presence desired. As likewiso Leo consented to the calling of the Councell of Chalcedon, only for the determination of that question of faith, that was then debated, & Leo Epist. 53. 54. 55. gaue no consent to the Decree therein passed touching the see of Constantinople, yet did this Councell preuaile, and the succeeding Bishops of Rome were forced to giue way to that Canon their predecessors so much disliked. And therefore, whereas the Bishop of Romes Legates, in the Councell of Chalcedon do except against Dioscorus for presuming to hold n Actione. 〈◊〉 . a Synode without the authority of the Apostolicke See, wich they say neuer was lawful, nor neuer was don: their meaning is not that in no case a Councell may be holden without the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishops of the West, but that there neuer was any such Synod holden without requiring & admitting the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishops of the West. And that therefore Dioscorus was iustly to be condemned, who not onely tooke vpon him by the fauour of one neere about the Emperour to bee President of the Second Councell of Ephesus, whereof they speake, and sit before the Bishoppe of Romes Legates, being but Bishop of the Second See, but also Actione. 3. pag. 73. apud Binnium. reiected the Synodall letters of Leo, and the Bishops of the West, not suffering them to be read; and, as if all the power had beene in him alone, depriued the Bishoppes of Constantinople and Antioch, notwithstanding the Protestation of the Romane Legates against such proceedings, and their appeale from the same; and still carried on with his furious passions, rested not till hee had pronounced sentence of excommunication against blessed Leo, and all the Bishoppes of the West. The next testimony which Bellarmine bringeth, no way proueth that, for proofe whereof it is brought: for it is not sayd in the Concil. 2. Actione 6. place cited by him, that the Councell holden at Constantinople, against the painting of those things that are reported in the story of the Bible, and for the defacing of such pictures made for Historicall vse, was therefore voyd, because it was called without the consent of the Romane Bishoppe (as hee vntruely reporteth:) but that it was no Generall Councell, seeing many that were present consented not, but disliked the proceedings of it and besides, it neither had the Bishoppe of Rome to concurre, nor his Bishoppes, neither by their Vicegerents, nor by Prouinciall letters; neither yet the Patriarches of the East; to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem, nor their Bishoppes. It is true indeede, that the Concil. Rom. 4. sub Symmacho. Bishoppes assembled at Rome by the command of Theodoricus, to examine the matters obiected to Symmachus the Pope told him, the Councell should haue beene called by the Pope, and not by him; but they spake of particular Councels, which oftentimes, by the permission of Princes were wont to be called by Metropolitans Primates, or Patriarches, and not of generall whereof our question is: and yet I haue shewed before, by many testimonies, that Princes when they saw cause, did call Councels of this sort also. So that the speech of these Bishops (affected to their Patriarche, and vnwilling to come to any scanning of his actions) is not much to be esteemed. The next testimony out of the Epistles of Epist. 93. cap. 17. Leo testifieth the Cardinall careth not what he saith, so he say something: for it is true indeed, that Leo saith: Hee directed his Letters to his Brethren and fellow-bishops, and summoned them to a Generall Councell, but meaneth not a Councel absolutely General, consisting of all the Bishops of the world, of which our question is, but of all the Bishops of those parts to which hee writeth, being subiect to him as Patriarch of the West, as appeareth by the circumstances of the Epistle cited. But Epist. 1. ad Orientales. Pelagius the Second in his Epistle to those that Iohn of Constantinople called to his Synode as Generall, saith, The authority of calling general Coū cels, was by singular priuiledge of blessed Peter, giuen to the Apostolicke See; that no Synode was euer reputed lawfull, that was not strengthened by the authority of the See Apostolicke: and againe, that Councels may not be holden without the iudgement and liking of the Bishop of Rome: therefore all is true that the Cardinall hath hitherto alleadged. Hereunto (though Pelagius may seeme somewhat partiall in his owne cause) wee answere, first with De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 12. Bellarmine himselfe, that the calling of Generall Councels is not so proper to the Bishop of Rome, but that another may do it, if he cōsent, or if he ratifie the indiction. Secondly, that though he refuse to ratifie it, if his resence & concurrence be sufficiently sought and desired, it may be lawfull, and of orce, as it appeareth by the Fift Generall Councel, which Vigilius refused to haue any part in. The last testimony that Bell. produceth to proue, that the power of calling Councels doth not properly belong to the Emperours, is a saying of Valentinius reported by Zozom. l. 6. c. 7. Zozomen: but it maketh clearely against himselfe The circumstances of Zozomens report are these. The Bishops of Hellespont, Bithynia, and some other, professing to beleeue that CHRIST the Son of GOD is con-substantial with his Father, sent a Legate to Valentinian the Emperour, and desired him to giue them leaue to meete about matters concerning the Faith. To whom the Emperour answered, that it was not lawfull for him, being one of the Laity, to intermeddle in these Businesses, but willed, that the Priests and Bishoppes, to whom the care of these things pertayneth, should meete in one place where-soeuer it should please them: for heere wee see, that the Bishops durst not presume to assemble themselues without the Emperors leaue: which mainely crosseth the conceit of the cardinall: neither doth the Emperour say, the calling of councels pertaineth nothing to him, but the intermeddling with the matters that are brought in question in them; and therefore biddeth them meete by themselues, not intending to bee present among them; not meaning that it was not lawfull for him to be present, (for then he should condemne Constantine, and other that were present, either in person, or by Deputies) nor that it was simply vnlawfull for him to intermeddle, (for they intermeddled as I will shew in that which followeth) but that hee might not so intermeddle as Bishops & Priests, to whō properly it pertaineth to determine these things; yet, if Princes perceiue, that they who meet in councels, be swayed by sinister & vile affectiōs, not seeking the clearing of the truth, but the suppressing of it, they may, & in duty are bound to hinder their proceedings by all lawful meanes, that come within the compasse of their Princely power.

Wherefore seeing our Adversaries cannot proue, that the right that Princes haue to call councels dependeth on the consent of the Pope, & that without his consent or ratification, their indiction of councels is vnlawful, let vs see how they can proue, that the Emperours called Generall Councels by the Popes authority, and as commaunded or required by him so to doe, and not otherwise. Wee know that Theod. hist. Eccl. l. 2. Liberius intreated Constantius to call a councell: and that Leo ep. 24 & 43. Leo with other Bishops of the West, on their knees besought the Emperour Martian to call a councell in Italy, and could not obtaine it; but were commaunded to come to the councell the Emperour appointed at Chalcedon, and were straitly charged and required to come or send vnto it at the time appointed, not finding so much fauour as to haue it deferred for a little time. And therefore it is greatly to bee feared that Bellarmines allegations will be too weake to proue, that the Emperours called councels by the Popes authority, and as commaunded by him. For first, touching the councell of Nice, Lib. 1. c. 2. Ruffinus sheweth, that Arrius hauing broached his diuelish Heresie, and being often admonished by his Bishop, Alexander Bishoppe of Alexandria, no way reforming himselfe, Alexander wrote to other Bishoppes, signifying what was fallen out in his Church, so that in the end, the matter came to the Emperours eares: who there-upon (by the counsel of the Bishoppes advising him so to doe) called the councell of Nice; and De authorit. Gener. Concil. l. 1. p. 59 Andradius saith, he was induced so to doe by the perswasion of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, but that the Bishop of Rome commaunded him so to doe, it no way appeareth. Indeede the author of the In vita Sylv. Pontificall saith, Constantine called it with the consent of Sylvester. And the Fathers in the sixth Actione 18. p. 88. apud Bin. General councell (out of him or some such Author) say, that Constantine and Sylvester called it. But the author of the Pontificall is of no credite in this behalfe, reporting in the same place the curing of Constantines Leprosie, which is acknowledged by all learned men to bee a meere fable: and besides, Lib. 1. c. 16. Zozomen is of opinion, that the councell of Nice was not holden in the time of Sylvester, but of Iulius that succeeded him wherefore let vs proceede to the next proofe. Damasus the Bishop of Rome (saith Bellarmine) called the first councell of Constantinople, and Theodosius the elder did but send his Letters to the Bishoppes to that purpose. Therefore the calling of Generall Councels pertaineth to the Pope. How little the Iesuites care what they write, it appeareth by the dealing of the cardinal in this matter. For wheras both Lib. 5. c 8. Socrates, Lib 7. c. 7 Zozomen, & Lib. 5. c. 7. Theodoret do testifie, that the Emperour called the Bishoppes to Constantinople, without making any mention of the letters of the Bishop of Rome, & that they came vpon his summons; he saith, it was not the Emperour that called them to Constantinople, but the Pope; & that the Emperour did nothing but transport and conueigh his letters vnto them; wholy mistaking the story. For the letters he speaketh of, were not to call thē to Constantinople, whither they came vpon the Emperours summons, but to Rome, where the Bishops of the West were assembled in Councell, whither they refused to come. Neither doth hee shew any more faithfulnesse and sincerity in that hee hath touching the Councell of Ephesus. For whereas the Constat ex Euagrio lib. 1. cap. 4. Epistol. Caelestini ad Cyril. Photio in lib. de 7. Synodis. stories report, that things were managed in that Councell by the industrie of Cyrill, with the concurrence of the authority of Caelestinus, and that Cyrill, was there present and President, not onely in his owne name, but also as supplying the place of Caelestinus, hee inferreth from hence, that it was the Pope that called the Councell. That the Councell of Chalcedon was called by the Emperour, it is most euident; The Pope (as I haue shewed) beeing not able to preuaile so much, as to get it deferred for a time: yet will Bellarmine proue, that Leo called that Councell, though not without the helpe of the Emperour. First, out of the Epistle of the Emperour to Leo, prefixed before the Councell: And secondly, out of the Inter Epist. ad Concilium Chalced. pertinentes. Epistle of the Bishoppes of the lesser Maesia, written to the Emperour. But these proofes are too weake: For the Emperour hauing resolued to haue a Councell, telleth Leo in his Epistle, that it remaineth that hee come vnto it: or if it seeme troublesome vnto him, that hee signifie so much to him by his letters, that hee may write to Illyricum, Thracia, and the East, that all the holy Bishoppes may come together into the place hee shall appoint; and may declare, publish, and set forth by their Decree such things as may bee behoouefull to the religion of Christians and the Catholick Faith, accordingly as his Holinesse also shall define, according to the Ecclesiasticall Canons; but saith nothing whence it may bee inferred that Leo called the Councell. For I thinke it will not follow, that because the Bishoppe of Rome was to come to the Councell, or otherwise to send Synodall and Prouinciall Letters from himselfe and his Bishoppes, that so with one vniforme consent thinges might bee agreed on, therefore the Pope called the Councell. The Epistle of the Bishoppes of the lesser Maesia is lesse to the purpose, then the former of the Emperour: for they say. The Councell of Chalcedon was holden by the commaund of Leo Bishoppe of Rome, the chiefe of all Bishoppes, and the most honourable Bishoppe and Patriarch Anatolius; joyning the Bishoppe of Rome and the Bishoppe of Constantinople together, in commanding this Councell to bee holden. So that if the Cardinall will proue from hence, that the Pope called the Councell, hee may proue likewise, that the Patriarch of Constantinople called it. But the trueth is, they might commaund the Bishoppes vnder them to assemble, after they receiued the Emperours letters, but the Councell was called by neither of them. And therefore whereas Epist. ad Episc. Dardaniae. Gelasius saith, the See Apostolicke onely decreed, that the Councell of Chalcedon should bee holden, his meaning is not, to exclude the Emperor and his Authority, but the other Patriarchicall Sees, and and to lette the world knowe, that the See of Rome alone, by the authority it had with the Emperour, prevailed so farre, as to obtaine his royall Edict, for the gathering together of the Bishoppes in this Councell; or else hee speaketh vntruely. For wee knowe the Emperour tooke vpon him in such peremptory sort to call this Councell, that hee would not bee intreated by the Romane Bishoppe, and other Bishoppes of the West, neither for the time, nor place, but out of his absolute authority appointed both, as it seemed good vnto himselfe. Three other proofes the Iesuite hath yet behinde. The first is out of Socrates, out of whom hee saith it may bee proued, that Iulius the Pope called the Councell of Sardica: but how, I cannot tell. For Lib. 2. cap. 16. Socrates saith expressely, that the Councell of Sardica was called by the two Emperours, Constance and Constantius: whereof the one raigned in the East, the other in the West; the one by his Letters desiring it, the other most willingly performing that hee desired. But of Iulius calling it, hee maketh no mention. If the Iesuite thinke it may bee proued, that Iulius called it; because among them that sought to excuse themselues from comming vppon fained pretences, some complained of the shortnesse of the time appointed for this meeting, and cast the blame thereof vpon Iulius, he is greatly deceiued; seeing Iulius might be blamed, for procuring the Emperor Constance, by his Letters directed to Constantius his brother, to set so short a time as he did; though hee did not call the Councell himselfe. And that it was not the Authority of the Pope that brought the Bishops together in this Councell, it is most euident, in that, Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7. when he wrote to them to restore Athanasius to his place, they reiected his Letters with contempt, maruailing, that he medled more with their matters then they did with his. Neither is it likely, that Constantius would be commanded by Iulius to call this Councell. Seeing when the Councell had commanded Athanasius to be restored to his place, yet hee Socrates lib. 〈◊〉 . cap. 18. refused to giue way, till his brother threatned to make warre vpon him for it. But it this proofe faile, Bellarmine hath a better. For hee sayth, Sixtus the third, in an Epistle to those of the East, writeth, That Valentinian the Emperor called a Synode by his authority, whence it followeth, that the calling of Generall Councels pertaineth in such sort to the Popes, that the Emperours may not call them, but by warrant and authority from them. If the Reader will bee pleased to cōsider of this proofe, he shall easily discerne how litle credit is to be giuen to Iesuited Papists in their allegations. For first, Sixtus doth not say, the Emperour Valentinian called a Synode by his authority, but that hee commaunded a Synode should be called by his authority; that is, commaunded him to call it. And the author of the In vita Sixti. 3. Pontificall, speaking of the calling of the same Synode, sayth, the Emperour commanded that the Councell and holy Synode should bee congregated. Secondly, it was but a Diocesan Synode, consisting of the Presbyters and Cleargy of Rome called together, about certaine crimes obiected to Sixtus, whereof hee purged himselfe before them. Now I thinke it will not follow, that, if the Bishoppe of Rome might call together the Cleargie of his owne Diocesse, the calling of Generall Councels pertained to him onely: or that, if the Emperour thought fit, rather to command the Romaine Bishoppe to call together his Cleagie, then to doe it immediately by his owne authority; therefore hee would haue done the like in summoning Generall Councells, consisting of all the Bishops of the World. Wherefore let vs passe to the last of his proofes, taken out of the Epistle of Adrian the second, to Basileius the Emperour, prefixed before the eighth Generall Councell, which vndoubtedly vpō proofe, wil be foūd to be no better then the rest. For first; it is groū ded on the saying of a Pope, that liued many hundred yeares after Christ, and long after the diuision of the Empire, and the withdrawing of the Church of Rome from the obedience of the Emperours of the East, and so not much to be regarded in a question concerning the right of the Emperour. Secondly hee speaketh not in his owne name, but in the name of all the West Church. And thirdly, that he saith, Adrian wrote this Epistle after he had receiued the Emperours letters, calling him to the Councell, and therefore 〈◊〉 may be thought, that when hee saith, wee will &c. he expresseth his consenting to the Emperours mandate, and not any commanding of him. Wee will that by your industry, a great assembly be gathered; proueth not that the Pope tooke vpon him peremptorily to command the Emperour. For seeing in the whole Epistle hee vseth words of exhorting praying & intreating; these words may seeme to import no more, but, Our desire is, that there should be such an assembly by your industrie, in which our Legates sitting as Presidents, matters may be examined, and all things righted. Or, we, though no way subiect to your Empire, yet at your request, are content that such a Councell be called, and that our Legates do sit in it, with the Bishops subiect to your Imperiall command. For that Basileius called the Councell, appeareth by his words to the Bishops in the beginning of it.

But if none of these exceptions against the Emperours ancient practice of calling Councels will hold, our Aduersaries, rather thē they will suffer the Pope to be a looser, will not sticke to charge the Emperours with vsurpation, and taking more on them then pertained to them. Whosoeuer (saith Lib: 1. de authorit. general. Concil. pag. 59. Andradius) shall thinke, that the power and authority of Emperours, is to bee esteemed and iudged of, by the things done by them in the Church, rather then by Christs institution, the Decrees of the Elders, and the force and nature of the Papall dignity it selfe, hee shall make vnbridled pride, and head-long fury to be chiefe commaunder, and to sway most in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Thus doth Andradius censure the auncient Christian Emperours, and exemplifieth not onely in Constantius the Arrian, but Iustinian also (as himselfe confesseth) a good Emperor. For refutatiō of which most vnjust exception, wee say, that howsoeuer it bee not to bee doubted, but that ill affected, or ill directed Emperours did some-times that which was not fit; yet, that in calling Councels by their Princely authority, and commaunding all Bishoppes to come or send vnto them, they exceeded not the bounds and limites of their commission, it is evident, in that neuer any Bishop durst blame them for it; But all sought vnto them, euen the Bishops of Rome themselues, praying them so to doe, as I shewed before by the examples of Liberius, Innocentius, and Leo: which thing also De conc. l. 〈◊〉 c. 13. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth: Wherefore seeing it is evident by the allowed practise of former times; that the calling of Generall Councels belonged to the Emperours, after they became Christians, let vs see what they tooke on them in these Councels, after they had called them; and consequently, what right, power, and authority Christian Princes haue to manage the affaires, and commaund the holy Bishops and Ministers of the church.

CHAP. 53.

Of the power and authority exercised by the auncient Emperours in Generall Councels: and of the supremacie of Christian Princes in causes and ouer persons Ecclesiasticall.

THe first thing that Christian Emperours in auncient times assumed to themselues in Generall Councels, was, to be present in them when they pleased: as we reade of Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 3. c. 10. Constantine the Great, that hee not onely called the Councell of Nice, but was present in it; of Conc. Chalced. act. 1. p. 4. apud Bin. Martian, that hee was present in the Councell of Chalcedon, with Pulcheria the Empresse; of Conc. 6. act. 1 to. 3. apud Bin. p. 8. Constantine the fourth, that hee was present in the sixth Generall Councell; and Vt patet in act. conc. 8. Basileius in the eighth: and when they pleased to bee absent, to send some in their stead; as Act. Ephel. conc. tom. 1. c. 32. Theodosius the yonger sent e Candidianus to be present for him in the councell of Ephesus, and Martianus, Vide act Synod. Chalced. though present in the first Session, yet being for the most part of the time absent, appointed certaine secular Iudges to sit in the Councell of Chalcedon.

The second thing that they assumed to them, was, to sit in the highest place: and so wee reade, that Euseb. de vitâ Constant. l. 3. c. 10. in the councell of Nice, all the Bishoppes being placed in order, the Emperour (some few going before him) entred into the Councell; at whose comming all the Bishops rose vp, and did reverence vnto him, and hee passed through the midst of them, as an heauenly Angell of God, hauing on a purple robe, and shining vesture be-decked with gold, pearles, and pretious stones; and stayed not till hee came to the highest place, where a little seate of Gold was prepared: wherein yet hee sate not downe, but stood vpright till the Bishoppes had bowed and beckened vnto him to sit downe. In like sort we reade of Vbi suprà. Martian, that hee sate in the highest place in the Councell of Chalcedon, with the Senatours and Iudges by his side: And of Vbi suprà. Constantine the fourth, that he sate in the highest place in the sixth Generall Councell. And when they were not present in person, the Senatours and secular Iudges deputed by them, sate in the middest in the highest roome: as wee shall finde they did in the councels of Chalcedon, at such times as the Emperour was away.

The third thing which the Emperours tooke on them either in their owne persons, or by such as they deputed besides the defence of the Bishoppes from outward violence, was a kinde of direction of things that were to bee done in the councell. This direction consisted in seauen things: First, in providing that nothing should bee done passionately, violently, and by clamour of multitudes, but that the ground of each thing should be sought out. Secondly, in providing that nothing should bee extorted by feare and terror, from them that meete to decree for truth & justice, without all priuate and sinister respects. Thirdly, in seeing that nothing should be omitted, that the holy Canons require to bee done for the finding out of that which is true and right; that so both errour and wrong might bee avoyded. Fourthly, in not suffering them to passe from one thing to another, before that they had in hand were fully ended; nor to digresse to things impertinent, which might breed confusion, and hinder the effecting of that which was intended And in putting an end to each action, when they saw as much done as was fitte, or otherwise deferring the farther deliberation to some other time. Fifthly, when they found an indisposition in them, to agree to such and so cleare determination of matters in question, as might satisfie all, to dissolue the Councell, and to call another. Sixthly, in judging & pronouncing according to that they saw alleadged with the approbation and assent of the Councell. Lastly, in subscribing and confirming by their royall assent, the thinges resolued and agreed on. All these thinges (as Concord. Cathol. lib. 3. cap. 28. Cusanus rightly noteth) the Emperours tooke on them in Generall Councels; and the performance of euery of these we may finde in the Councell of Chalcedon, but specially the First and the Fifth. For Concil. Chalced. Actione. 4. whereas the tenne Bishops of Egypt, that were there in the name of the rest, refused to subscribe to the Actes of the Councell, till they should haue a new Patriarch chosen and ordained (not out of any dislike of that was done, or as being of another iudgment, but because the custome of their country permitted them not to subscribe, vnlesse their Patriarch went before them in so doing) there was a generall clamour against them, of all the Bishops, crying out alowde, that they were to be excommunicated & Anathematized. And though they fell prostrate on their faces before the whole Councell, professing their refusall to proceede from no priuate conceit, & desiring to be pittied, and not vrged to any formall subscription, for that if they should doe any such thing, they were sure neuer to bee endured by the Bishoppes of their Country; yet could they finde no fauour or relenting, till the secular Iudges, out of their discretion, finding the true ground of this their stay to subscribe, to bee such as they alleadged, deliuered their opinion, that it was a thing reasonable, and in pitty to be granted vnto them, that they should be foreborne and stay in the Citty, till their Archbishop were chosen: Which when Paschasinus the Legate of Rome heard, hee said, if your glorious excellency command that it bee so, let them put in sureties not to depart the Citty, till their Archbishop bee chosen; and the rest of the Bishoppes agreed to him. So that the matter which was ready to bee swayed by the whole Councell, with clamour and out-cry in a very violent sort, was stayed by the wisedome of the secular Iudges, the poore distressed suppliants pittied, and the hard proceeding of the Bishops against them hindred. And in the same Actio. ead. Councell we read, that the Bishops hauing agreed on a forme of Confession of Faith, were desired by the Emperours Deputies the secular Iudges, for the satisfaction of all men, to adde certaine wordes out of the Epistle of Leo, to that forme of Confession: which when they all (some few of the East, and the Legates of Rome excepted) with great clamour refused to doe; the Iudges tolde them, the Emperour should knowe of their clamorous courses: And that if they would not agree together to make some good end, a Councell should be called in the West; and they forced to walke thither.

Neither did Christian Emperours onely thus intermeddle in Generall Councells, as chiefe Lords of the whole world, but particular Kings and Princes likewise within their seuerall dominions and Kingdomes did as much. For wee reade that Naucler. vol. 2. generat. 25. Charlemaigne, with the aduice & counsell of the seruants of GOD, and his Nobles, gathered together into a Synode all the Bishoppes in his kingdome, with their Presbyters, that they might aduise him how the law of God and religion (well established in the times of former Princes, but now much fallen and decayed) might be restored, and Christian people attaine saluation, and not bee misled by false Priests: and by the aduise of his Bishoppes and Nobles, according to this his good intent and purpose, hee ordained Bishoppes in his citties, and set ouer them Bonifacius as their Arch-bishop: hee decreed that a Synode should be holden once euery yeare, that in his presence the Decrees of the Canons and Lawes of the church might be restored, and what should be found amisse in Christian religion, amended: he degraded false Priests & Deacons, & clearkes that were whoremongers and adulterers; he prescribed pennance to certaine offenders, and subiected them to imprisonment & other corporall punishments and corrections. This Acte of Charlemaine is alleaged by Cusanus Concord. Cathol. li: 3. cap. 8. Cusanus, and greatly approued: yea the same Ibid. cap. 40: Cusanus complaining of the abuses of the Court of Rome (in that thinges are carried thither, that should bee determined in the Prouinces where they beginne, in that the Pope intermedleth in giuing Benefices before they be voide, to the preiudice of the originall Patrons, by reason whereof young men run to Rome and spend their best time there, carrying gold with them and bringing backe nothing but paper, and many like confusions, which the Canons forbid and neede reformation) addeth, that the common saying, that the secular power may not restraine or alter these courses brought in by Papall authority, should not moue any man: for that, though the power of temporall Princes ought not to change any thing established canonically for the honour of GOD and good of such as attend his seruice, yet it may and ought to prouide for the common good, and see, that the auncient canons be obserued. Neither ought any one to say, that the auncient christian Emperours did erre, that made so many sacred constitutions, or that they ought not so to haue done. For (saith he) I read, that Popes haue desired them for the common good, to make lawes for the punishment of offences committed by those of the cleargie. And if any one shall say, that the force of all these constitutions depended vpon Papall or Synodall approbation, I will not insist vpon it, though I haue read and collected foure score and sixe chiefe heads of Ecclesiasticall rules and lawes made by old Emperours, and many other made by Charles the Great and his successours: in which order is taken, not onely concerning others, but euen concerning the Bishoppe of Rome himselfe, and other Patriarches, what they shall take of the Bishoppes they ordaine, and many like things: and yet did I neuer finde, that the Pope was desired to approue them, or that they haue no binding force, but by vertue of his approbation. But I know right well, that some Popes haue professed their due regarde of those Imperiall and Princely constitutions. But though it were graunted, that those constitutions had no further force then they receiued from the canons, wherein the same thinges were formerly ordered, or from Synodall approbation, yet might the Emperor now reforme things amisse by vertue of old canons, and Princes constitutions grounded on them. Yea, if hee should with good aduice (considering the decay of piety and diuine worshippe, the ouerflowing of all wickednes, and the causes and occasions thereof) recall the old canons, and the auncient and most holy obseruation of the Elders, and reiect whatsoever priuiledges, exemptions, or new deuices contrary therevnto, (by vertue whereof, suites, complaintes and controuersies, the gifts and donations of benefices, & the like thinges are vnjustly brought to Rome, to the great prejudice of the whole Christian Church) I thinke no man could justly blame him for so doing. Yea he saith, the Emperour Sigismund had an intention so to doe, and exhorteth him, by no fained allegations of men fauouring present disorders, to bee discouraged: for that there is no way to preserue the peace of the Church (whatsoeuer some pretend to the contrary) vnlesse such lewde and wicked courses, proceeding from ambition, pride, and couetousnesse, be stopped, and the old canons reuiued.

From that which hath beene obserued touching the proceeding of Christian Kings and Emperours in former times, in calling Councels, in being present at them, and in making lawes for persons and causes Ecclesiasticall, it is easie to gather, what the power of Princes is in this kinde, and that they are indeede supreame Gouernours ouer all persons, and in all causes, as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill: which is that wee attribute to our Kings & Queenes, and the Papistes so much stumble at, as if some new and strange opinion were broached by vs. Wherefore, for the satisfaction of all such, as are not maliciously obstinate, refusing to heare what may be said, I will endeauour in this place vpon so fitte an occasion to cleare whatsoeuer may bee questionable in this point; & will first intreat of the power and right that Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall, & then of that they haue ouer persons Ecclesiastical: & jn treating of causes Ecclesiasticall, I will first distinguish the diversities of them, & the power of medling with them. Causes Ecclesiasticall therefore are of two sorts: for some are originally and naturally such; and some, onely, in that (by fauor of Princes out of due consideration) they are referred to the Cognisance of Ecclesiasticall persons, as fittest Iudges, as the probations of the Testaments of them that are dead, the disposition of the goods of them that dye intestat, and if there be any other like. Causes Ecclesiasticall of the first sort, are either meerely and onely Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall, or mixt. Meerely Ecclesiasticall, are of three sorts. First, matters of Faith and Doctrine. Secondly, matters of Sacraments, and the due administration of them, Thirdly, the orders, degrees, & ordination of such as attend the Ministery of the word & Sacraments. Mixtly Ecclesiasticall, are of two sorts: either such, as in one respect belong to one kinde of cognisance, and in another to another, as marriages, which are subiect to ciuill disposition, in that they are politicall contracts: and to spirituall, in that they are ordered by the diuine law: or such as are equally censurable by Ciuill & Ecclesiasticall authority, as murthers, adulteries, blasphemies, & the like. All which in the time when there is no Christian Magistrate, or when there is ouer-great negligence in the ciuill Magistrate are to bee punished by the spirituall guides of the Church. Whereupon wee shall finde that the auncient Councels prescribed penance to offenders in all these kindes. But when there is a Christian Magistrate doing his duty, they are to bee referred, specially either to the one or the other of these; and accordingly to bee censured by the one or the other: as wee see the punishment of adultery, vsury, and things of that nature is referred to Ecclesiasticall persons, & the punishment of murther, theft, & the like to the ciuill Magistrate. This distinction of causes Ecclesiasticall premised, it is easie to see what authority Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall. For first, touching those causes that are Ecclesiastical, onely in that they are put ouer to the cognisance of spiritual persons, there is no question but that the Prince hath a supreame power, and that no man may meddle with them any otherwise then as he is pleased to allow. And likewise touching those things which in one respect pertaine to ciuill jurisdictiō, & in another to spiritual, or which are equally censurable, by both, there is no question but that the Prince hath supreame power, in that they pertaine to ciuill jurisdiction. So that the onely question is, touching things naturally and meerely spiritual: The power in these is of two sorts: of Order, & of Iurisdiction. The power of Order, is the authority to preach the Word, minister the Sacraments, & to ordaine Ministers to doe all these things: & this power the Princes of the World haue not at all, much lesse the supreame authority to doe these things, but it is proper to the Ministers of the church. And if Princes meddle in this kinde, they are like to 2 Chro. 26. 16 Vzziah that offered to burne incense, for which he was stricken with Leprosie. The power of Iurisdiction standeth first in prescribing & making Lawes. Secondly, in hearing, examining, and judging of opinions touching matters of Faith. And thirdly, in judging of things pertaining to Ecclesiastical order & ministery, and the due performance of Gods diuine worship & seruice. Touching the first, the making of a Law is the prescribing of a thing vnder some paine or punishment, which hee that so prescribeth hath power to inflict. Whence it is consequent, that the Prince (hauing no power to excommunicate, put from the Sacraments, and deliuer to Satan) can of himselfe make no canons, such as Councels of Bishoppes doe; who commaund or forbid things vnder paine of excōmunication, and like spiritual censures; but (hauing power of life and death, of imprisonment, banishment, confiscation of goods, and the like) he may with the advice and direction of his Cleargy, commaund things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice vnder these paines, both for profession of Faith, ministration of Sacraments, and conversation fitting to Christians in general, or men of Ecclesiastical order in particular: & by his Princely power establish things formerly defined and decreed against whatsoeuer errour, and contrary ill-custome, and obseruation. And herein hee is so far forth supreame, that no Prince, Prelate, or Potentate, hath a commaunding authority ouer him: yet doe we not whatsoeuer our clamorous Aduersaries vntruly report, to make us odious,) make our Princes with their Ciuill States, supreame in the power of commanding in matters concerning God, and his Faith and religion, without seeking the direction of their Cleargy, (for the Anno. 〈◊〉 . Elizab. Statute that restored the title of Supremacie to the late Queene Elizabeth, of famous and blessed memory, prouideth, that none shall haue authority newly to judge any thing to be Heresie, not formerly so iudged, but the high Court of Parliament with the assent of the Cleargy in their Conuocation,) nor with them, soe, as to command what they thinke fitte, without aduising with others, partakers of like precious Faith with them, when a more generall meeting for farther deliberation may bee had, or the thing requireth it. Though when no such generall concurrence may bee had, they may by themselues prouide for those parts of the Church that are vnder them. From the power and authority wee giue our Princes in making lawes, and prescribing how men shall professe and practise touching matters of Faith and Religion, let vs proceed to treat of the other part of power ascribed vnto them, which is in judging of errors in Faith & disorders, or faults in things pertaining to Ecclesiasticall order and ministery according to former determinations and decrees. And first, touching errors in faith, or aberrations in the performance of Gods worship and seruice, there is no question, but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church (to whom it pertaineth to teach the trueth) are the ordinary and fittest Iudges: and that ordinarily and regularly, Princes are to leaue the iudgement thereof vnto them. But because they may faile, either through negligence, ignorance or mallice, Princes hauing charge ouer Gods people, and beeing to see that they serue and worship him aright, are to iudge and condemne them that fall into grosse errours, contrary to the common sence of Christians; or into any other heresies formerly condemned. And though there be no generall fayling, yet if they see violent and partiall courses taken, they may interpose themselues to stay them, and cause a due proceeding, or remoue the matter from one company and sort of Iudges to another. And hereunto the best learned in former times agreed, clearely confessing, that when some thing is necessary to be done, and the ordinary guides of the Church do faile, or are not able to yeeld that helpe that is needfull, wee may lawfully flye to other for reliefe and helpe; Waldens. doctrin. fidei. lib. 2. c. •… 0. when these two things do meete in the state of the Church, (sayth Waldensis) to witte, extreame necessity, admitting no delay, and the want of ability to yeeld reliefe in the ordinary Pastor or Guide, wee must seeke an extraordinary Father and Patron, rather then suffer the frame, fabricke and building of the Lord Christ to bee dissolued. If any man happily say that Epistolar. lib. 5. ep. 32. Ambrose, a most worthy Bishop, refused to come to the Court to be judged in a matter of faith by Valentinian the Emperour, and asked; when euer hee heard that Emperours iudged Bishops in matters of faith? seeing if that were granted, it would follow, that Lay-men should dispute and debate matters, and Bishoppes heare; yea that Bishoppes should learne of Laymen, (whereas contrarywise, if wee looke ouer the Scriptures, and consider the course of times past, wee shall finde that Bishoppes haue iudged of Emperours in matters of faith, and not Emperours of Bishoppes) and that therefore it cannot bee without vsurpation of that which no way pertaineth to them, that Princes should at all medle with the iudging of matters of faith. This obiection what shew soeuer it may seeme to carry, is easily answered, for first, the thing that Valentinian took on him, was not to iudge according to former definitions, but he would haue iudged of a thing already resolued on in a generall Councell, called by Constantine the Emperor, as if it had bin free and not yet indged of at all: whereas we do not attribute to our Princes with their Ciuill Estates, power newly to adiudge any thing to be heresie without the concurrēce of the State of their Clergy, but only to Iudge in those matters of faith, that are resolued on, according to former resolutiōs. And besides this, Valentinian was known to be partiall; he was but a nouice, and the other iudges he ment to associate tohimselfe suspected; & therefore Ambrose had reason to do as he did. Wherefore let vs proceed to the other part of the power of jurisdictiō, that cōsisteth in iudging of things pertaining to Ecclesiastical Order & Ministery. Concerning which point, first it is resolued, that none may ordaine any to serue in the worke of the Ministery, but the spirituall Pastours and Guides of the church. Secondly, that none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted from his degree and order, but they alone. Neither doe our Kings or Queenes challenge any such thing to themselues: but their power standeth, first, in calling together the Bishoppes and Pastours of the Church, for the hearing & determining of such things, and in taking all due care, that all thinges bee done orderly in such proceedings, without partiality, violence, or precipitation, according to the Canons and Imperiall lawes made to confirme the same. Secondly, when they see cause, in taking things from those whom they iustly suspect, or others except against, and appointing others in their places. Thirdly, in appointing some selected men for the visitation of the rest. Fourthly, in joyning temporall menincommission with the spirituall guides of the church, to take view of, and to censure the actions of men of Ecclesiasticall order: because they are directed not onely by Canons, but lawes Imperiall. Fifthly, when matters of fact are obiected, for which the canons and lawes Imperiall judge men depriueable; the Prince, when hee seeth cause, and when the state of things require it, either in person, if he please, or by such other as hee thinketh fitte to appoint, may heare and examine the proofes of the same, and either ratifie that others did, or voyd it: as wee see in the case of August. Epist. 162. Caecilianus, to whom it was objected that hee was a Traditor, and Faelix Antumnitanus that ordayned him, was so likewise, and that therefore his ordination was voyd. For first, the enemies of Caecilianus disliking his ordination, made complaintes against him to Constantine; and hee appointed Melchiades and some other Bishoppes, to sitte and heare the matter. From their judgement, there was a new appeale made to Constantine. Whereupon hee sent to the Proconsull to examine the proofes that might bee produced. But from his iudgmēt the complainants appealed the third time to Constantine, who appointed a Synode at Euseb. li. 10. cap. 5. Arle. All this hee did, to giue satisfaction (if it were possible) to these men; and so to procure the peace of the Church. And though he excused himselfe for medling in these businesses, and asked pardon for the same: (for that regularly, hee was to haue left these iudge ments to Ecclesiasticall persons) yet it no way appeareth, that hee did ill in interposing himselfe in such sort as hee did, the state of things being such as it was: nor that the Bishoppes did ill, that yeelded to him in these courses, and therefore in cases of like nature, Princes may doe whatsoeuer hee did, and Bishops may appeare before them, and submit themselues to their iudgement; though in another case Ambrose refused to present himselfe before Valentinian the Emperour, for tryall of an Ecclesiasticall cause. Neither is it strange in our state that Kinges should intermedle in causes Ecclesiasticall. For In Henrico. 2. pag. 96. Matthew Paris sheweth, that the ancient lawes of England prouided, that in appeales men should proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishoppe, from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop, and that, if the Arch-bishop should faile in doing iustice, the matter should be made knowne to the King; that by vertue of his commandement it might receiue an end in the Arch-bishops Court; that there might be no further proceeding in appeales without the Kings consent.

From the power which Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall, let vs proceed to the power they haue ouer persons Ecclesiasticall; and see, whether they be supreame ouer all persons; or whether men of the Church bee exempt from their iurisdiction, That they are not exempted by GODS law, wee haue the cleare confession of Cardinall De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 28. Bellarmine, and others: who not onely yeeld so farre vnto the trueth, forced so to doe by the cleare euidence thereof, but proue the same by Scripture and Fathers. The Cardinals wordes are these: Exceptio Clericorum in rebus politicis, tam quoad personas, quam quoad bona, iure humano introducta est, non diuino; that is, The exemption of Cleargy-men in things ciuill, as well in respect of their persons, as their goods, was introduced & brought in by mans law, and not by the law of God. Which thing is proued, first, out of the precept of the Apostle to the Romanes, Rom. 13. 1. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers: and addeth: Ver. 16. Therefore pay yee tribute: For when the Apostle saith, Let euery soule be subiect: hee includeth Cleargy-men, as Chrysostome witnesseth: and therefore when hee addeth, for this cause pay yee tribute, he speaketh of Cleargy-men also. Whence it will follow, that Cleargy-men are bound to pay tribute; vnlesse they be exempted by the fauour and priviledge of Princes, freeing them from so doing which thing Thomas Aquinas also affirmeth, writing vpon the same place. Secondly, the same is proued out of the Ancient. Decr. 2. part. causa 23. qu. 8. ca. Tributum. For Vrbanus saith: The tribute money was therefore found in the mouth of the fish, taken by Saint Peter, because the Church payeth tribute out of her outward and earthly possessions. Ino •… at detradend. Basilicis. And Saint Ambrose saith, if tribute bee demaunded, it is not denyed, the Church-Land payeth tribute. Now if Vrbanus, Bishoppe of Rome, and worthy Ambrose Bishop of Millaine (then whom there was neuer any Bishoppe found more resolute in the defence of the right of the Church) say, that tribute is not to bee denyed, but payed vnto Princes by men of the Church: and in respect of Church-land, I thinke it is evident, there is no exemption by any Law of GOD, that freeth the goods of Church-men from yeelding tribute to Princes. For touching that text, (where our Sauiour sayth vnto Peter, Math. 17. 25. What thinkest thou Simon, of whom doe the Kings of the Gentiles receiue tribute? of their owne children, or of strangers? And Peter answereth, of strangers: Whence CHRIST inferreth, that the children are free) brought by some to proue the supposed immunity of Cleargy-men to bee from GODS owne graunt, Bellarmine sufficiently cleareth the matter. For first hee sheweth, that CHRIST speaketh of himselfe onely, making this argument; Kings sonnes are free from tribute, as beeing neither to pay to their owne fathers, seeing their goods are common: nor to strangers to whom they are not subiect: therefore himselfe being the Sonne of the great King of Kings, oweth no Tribute to any mortall man. So that when hee saide, the children are free, hee meant not to signifie, that any other are free: but onely that himselfe was free. Secondly, he rightly obserueth that this place would proue that all Christians are free from Tribute, if it proued any other then CHRIST to bee so: for all Christians are the sonnes of GOD by adoption and grace. And Hierome writing vpon this place hath these words: Our Lord was the Kings son both according to the flesh, and according to the spirit, descending of the stocke of Dauid, and being the Word of the Almighty Father: and therefore as being the Sonne of the Kingdome owed no tribute, but because hee assumed the humility of flesh, it behooued him to fulfill all righteousnesse: but vnhappy men that wee are! we are called after the name of Christ, & doe nothing worthy so great an honour. He for the great loue he bare towards vs, sustained the crosse for vs, and payde tribute: but we for his honour pay no tribute, and as Kings sons are free from tribute. These words are brought by some to proue the imagined freedome we speake of but first, they are so far from prouing any such thing, that Erasm. citat. 3 Sixto Senense. Bibl. sanct. l. 6. annot. 75. Erasmus thinketh Hierome reprehended it, and disliked it as a thing sauouring of arrogancy, that cleargymen should refuse to pay tribute, which, hee saith, is contrary to the conceit of men in our time, who thinke it the height of all piety to maintaine this immunity. And Ibid. Sixtus Senensis saith: that Hierome speaketh not of that tribute which subiects pay to their Princes here in this world, but of that which we all owe to CHRIST, so that this is that he saith, why doe not we wretched men, professing our selues to be the servants of Christ, yeeld vnto his Maiesty the due tribute of our seruice, seeing Christ, so great and excellent, payde tribute for our sakes? S. Austine in his Quaest. 2 •… . first book of Questions vpon the Gospels, saith: that Kings sons in this world are free, & that therefore much more the sonnes of that Kingdome, vnder which all kingdomes of the World are, should bee free in each earthly Kingdome: which words, Secunda secundae q. 104. art. 6. Thomas, and Lib. supradict. annot. 76. Sixtus Senensis vnderstand of a freedome from the bondage of sin, but Com. in concord. Evang. c. 69. Iansenius rejecteth that interpretation, because Austine saith: the children of Kings are free from tribute, and thinketh that Austines meaning is; that if God the King of Heauen & Earth had many naturall sonnes, as hee hath but one only begotten, they should all be free in all the Kingdomes of the world: and other apply these words to cleargy-men, though there bee nothing in the place leading to any such interpretation. But whatsoeuer we thinke of the meaning of Austine, Bellarmine saith it cannot bee inferred from these his wordes, that cleargy-men by Gods Law are free from the duty of paying tribute: because (as Chrysostome noteth,) Christ speaketh only of naturall children: and besides prescribeth nothing, but onely sheweth that vsually among men, Kings sonnes are free from tribute: and therefore, whereas the authority of Bonifacius the Eighth In 6. cap. Quanquam de de Sensibu •… . who affirmeth, that the goods & persons of Cleargy-men are free from exactions, both by the law of God and man, is brought to proue the contrary: Hee answereth, first, that haply the Pope meant not, that they are absolutely freed by any speciall graunt frō God, but only that there is an example of Gen. 47. Pharaoh an Heathen Prince, freeing the Priests of his Gods mentioned in Scripture, which may induce Christian Kings to free the Pastours of Christs Church. Secondly, that it was but the priuate opinion of the Pope, inclining to the iudgment of the Canonistes: and that he did not define any such thing. So that men may lawfully dissent from him in this point. So that we see by the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers, and the confession of the best learned among our aduersaries themselues, that Almighty God did not by any special exemption free either the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the command of Princes, and that in the beginning they were subiect to all seruices, iudgements, payments & burdens, that any other are subiect to, and required by Christ the Sonne of God, and his blessed Apostles, to be so.

But some man happily will say, that though Christ did not specially free, eyther the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the subiection to Princes, yet there are inducements in reason, and in the very light of nature, such and so great, to moue Princes to set them free, that they should not do well if they did not so. Whereunto wee answere, that there is no question to be made, but that the Pastors of the Church that watch ouer the soules of men, are to bee respected and tendered more then men of any other calling, and so they are, and euer were, where any sence of religion is, or was. The Apostle Saint Paul testifieth of the Galathians Galath. 4. ver. 14. 15. that they receiued him as an Angell of God, yea as Christ Iesus himselfe, & that they would haue euen plucked out their eyes to haue done him good. Ruffin. l. 〈◊〉 . c. 2. Theodoret. lib. 〈◊〉 . cap. 11. The Emperour Constantine honoured the Christian Bishops with the name and title of Gods, acknowledged himselfe subject to their iudgment, though he swayed the scepter of the World: and refused to see what the complaintes were that they preferred one against another, or to read their bils, but professed that to couer their faults he would euen cast frō him his purple Robe. Whence it came that many priuiledges were anciently graunted vnto them, both in respect of their persons, & goods. For first, Constantine the Great, not onely gaue ample gifts to the Pastors of the Churches, but exempted them also from those seruices ministeries and imployments, that other men are subiect to. His Epistle to Anelinus the Proconsul of Africa, wherein this graunt was made to them of Affrica, is found in Lib. 10. Hist. Eccl. cap. 7. Eusebius. Neyther is it to be doubted, but that he extended his fauours to the Bishops of other Churches also, aswell as to them. The words of the Grant are these. Considering that the due obseruation of things pertaining to true religion and the worshippe of God, bringeth great happinesse to the whole state of the Common-wealth and Empire of Rome: For the incouragement of such as attend the holy Ministery, and are named Cleargy-men, my pleasure is, that all such in the Church wherein Caecilianus is Bishop, be at once and altogether absolutely freed, and exempted from all publicke Ministeries and Seruices. Neither did the Emperors only exempt them from these seruices, but Nouel. Constit. 79. 83. & 123. they freed them also frō secular iudgements, vnles it were in certaine kindes of criminall causes. Wherein yet a Bishop was not to be cōuēted against his wil before any secular Magistrate, without the Emperors cōmand. Neyther might the temporall Magistrates condemne any Cleargy-man, till hee were degraded by his Bishoppe, howsoeuer they might imprison and restraine such vpon complaints made. And answerably hereunto the Councell of Matiscon prouideth, Concil. Matisconen •… . 1. Canon 7. that no Cleargy-man for any cause, without the discussion of his Bishop, shall bee wronged & imprisoned by any Secular Magistrate, & that if any Iudge shal presume to doe soe to the Cleargy-men of any Bishoppe, vnlesse it be in a criminall cause, hee shall bee excommunicated as long as the Bishoppe shall thinke fitte. This was all the immunity that Cleargy-men anciently had by any grant of Princes, and as much as euer the Church desired to enjoy: but that which in latter times was challenged by some, and in defence of the claime whereof, Thomas Becket resisted the King: till his bloud was shedde, was of another kinde. For whereas it was not thought fitte by the King and State of the Realme at that time, that Church-men found in enormous crimes, by the kings Iustices, should be deliuered ouer to their Bishoppes, and so escape ciuill punishment, but that confessing such crimes, or being clearely conuinced of them before the Bishoppe, the Bishoppe should in presence of the Kings Iustices degrade them, and put them from all Ecclesiasticall honour, and deliuer them to the Kings Court to be punished: Becket was of a contrary minde, and thought, that such as Bishoppes degraded or putte out of their Ministery of the Church, should not bee punished by the ciuill Magistrates; because as hee sayd, one offence was not to be punished twice. Matth. Pari •… in Henrico. 2. pag. 98. The occasion of this controuersie betweene the King and the Arch-bishoppe, was giuen by one Philip Brocke, a Canon of Bedford: Who beeing brought before the Kings Iustices for murther, vsed vile and contemptuous speeches against them; which though it were proued against him before the Arch-bishoppe, yet hee was only depriued of the benefit of his Prebend, and driuen out of the Realme for the space of two yeares, for so horrible and bloudy a crime. This was one of those sixteene Articles concerning the ancient customes of the Realme, whereunto Becket and the rest of the Bishoppes did sweare, and whereof hee so soone repented againe: namely that Cleargy-men accused of any crime, should at the summons of the Kings Iustices appeare in the Kings Court, to answere to such things as to that Court should be thought to appertaine; and in the Ecclesiasticall, what pertained thereunto: and that the Kings Iustices should send to see, what was there done: and that if they should bee conuicted of any enormous cryme, or confesse the same; the Bishoppe should not protect thē: then which course nothing could be deuised more reasonable. Neyther is it absurd for sheepe to judge their Pastors in these cases, as Bellarmine u De Clericis. lib. 1 cap. 28. fondly affirmeth. That the Councell of Canone. 9. Chalcedon, and Toledo, forbid Cleargy-men to leaue the Eccesiasticall Iudges, and to prosecute their quarrels one against another before Temporall Magistrates; and the Councells of y Toletanum. 3. Can. 13. Carthage, and Catthag. canone. 9. Agatha, condemne Canone. 23. them that chuse rather to bee tryed in Ciuill Courts then Ecclesiasticall, when they haue power to chuse; or that begin suites there without the permission of their Bishoppe, no way contrarieth any thing that I haue sayd: for howsoeuer some things are to bee handled in the Ecclesiasticall Courts, as properly pertaining to them, either naturally and originally, or by graunt of Princes: and other thinges concerning Church-men, not to bee brought into Ciuill Courts but in due sort, and with respect had to their places and rankes, yet neuer had they any such absolute exemption and immunity, but that in criminall causes, such as theft murther, and the like, and in tryall of the title oflands and inheritances, and the right of aduocation of Churches, they were to bee tryed in ciuill Courtes, and no other, whether the differences grewe betweene Lay-men and Cleargy-men, or Cleargy-men among themselues. As likewise they were to do homage, and sweare fealty, for such lands, honours, and Baronryes, as they held of Princes. Thus wee see, how fauorable Princes haue beene in graunting priuiledges concerning the persons of such as attend the seruice of God. Neyther were they lesse carefull to free such lands and possessions as they indowed the Church with, from such burdens taxes and impositions, as other temporall possessions are subject to. So that howsoeuer in the Apostles times, and long after, euen till the time of Ambrose (as it appeareth Ambros. in Orat. de tradeud. Basilie •… . by his writtings) the Church-lands payd tribute, yet afterward by Codice Iustinian l. sancimus. Tit. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesijs. Iustinian and other Christian Emperours, they were freed from those impositions. Neither is it to be maruailed at, that Christian Princes, out of their deuout and religious dispositions were thus fauourable to the Church, seing euen the Heathen Princes did as much for the Idolatrous Priestes of their false-Gods: for we read in the booke of Cap. 47. Genesis, that in the time of that great famine that was in the dayes of Ioseph, when the people of Egypt were constrained, after all their money and cattell were spent, to sell their land to Ioseph the Steward of Pharaoh, in whose hands all the prouision of Corne was, to buy them bread, so that all the land of Egypt became Pharaohs; yet the Priests were not forced to sell their lands; for they had an ordinary from Pharaoh, and they did eate their ordinary which Pharaoh gaue them. And when as afterwardes Ioseph let the people enjoy their land again, which he had bought for Pharaoh, yet so, that onely foure parts of the increase thereof should bee to themselues, for the seed of their fieldes, for their meate, and for them of their householdes and their children to eate; and the fifth part should be Pharaohs, whose now the land was: the land of the Priests was free from this rent and charge, as not being Pharaohs. Yet were not the priuiledges and immunities which Christian Princes gran •… ed to Ecclesiasticall persons, to prejudice other men, nor to lay too heauy a burden on them; and therefore it was lawfull for Princes, when they saw any inconveniences, in that too much of their land, by passing into the right and possession of Church-men, was freed from seruices and charges, to Dried o de libert. Christian. l. 2. c. 3. stop the passing of any more into such dead hands as would yeeld them no helpe; and cleargy-men were bound in conscience voluntarily to, Canone 19. contribute to all publike necessities when need required; though the Temporall Magistrates might not impose any thing vpon them as we find it ordered in the third councell of Lateran, and in the Canone 46. fourth vnder Innocentius the third: yea if they should contemptuously and presumptuously refuse to beare part of the common burdens, notwithstanding any pretended priviledges, the supreame Prince might force them to put too their helping hand, rather then the whole state of the cōmon-wealth should bee shaken and indangered, or other parts and members of it too heauily burdened, as De •… cr. Eccl. Mini •… t. & Benef. l. 7. c. 10. Duarenus learnedly and excellently sheweth. This may suffice touching the exemption of Cleargy-men, either in respect of their persons or goods, & the right by which they inioy the same. And thus haue we runne through all the different Degrees & Orders of Ecclesiasticall Ministers, and shewed what their power, office, and authority is, both seuerally, and assembled in councels: and what power Princes haue to commaund ouer them, or to intermeddle with the businesses and affaires more specially belonging to them:

CHAP. 54.

Of the calling of Ministers: & the persons to whom it pertaineth to elect & ordaine them.

NOw it remaineth that we first treate of the calling of Ministers; for Heb. 5. 4 No man taketh this honour vpon him but he that is called, as was Aaron •… : Secondly, of the things required in them: and thirdly of their maintenance,

Touching the first, which is the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers, Saint Lib. 1. com. in ep. ad Galat. c. 1 Hierome noteth, that there are 4 sorts of such men as are imployed in the businesses & affaires of Almighty God. The first are such as are sent neither of men, nor by men, but by Iesus Christ, as the Prophets in olde time, and since the comming of Christ, those Twelue designed immediatly to the Worke of the Ministery by Christs owne voyce, specially called Apostles, The second, such as are sent of God, but by man, as Bishops and Ministers, which succeede the Apostles, and deriue their commission from them. The third are such as are sent of men, and not of GOD, who are they that are ordained by fauour of men, not judging rightly of the quality of them that are to serue in this calling; who yet are not simply denyed to bee sent of God, as if they had no commission from him, but therefore onely, because if the Ordainers had done their duties; they should haue made a better choyce, and sent other, and not these: for being sent by men that haue authority, though abusing the same, they haue a true and lawfull Ministery till they be put from it by superiour authority, else were all Ministration of Sacraments, and other sacred things voyde, performed by such as simoniacally or by sinister meanes get into these holy places. The fourth are such as neither are sent of GOD, nor of men, nor by men, but of them-selues, of whom our Sauiour Christ saith, Iohn. •… 0. 8. all that came before me were theeues & robbers: and of whome almighty GOD pronounceth, and sayth by the Prophet Ieremy, Ier. 23. 21. I sent them not, & they 〈◊〉 : I spake not to them, & they prophecied. This euill is carefully to bee declined, and therefore CHRIST would not suffer the diuels to speake that which was true, least vnder the pretence of trueth, errour might creepe in; seeing hee that speaketh of him-selfe cannot but speake lyes. These are the foure sortes of them that serue in the worke of the Ministery; whereof the last haue no calling at all and all they doe is voide: the Third haue a lawfull commission, though they obtayned it by sinister meanes, and bee vnworthy of it, so that they could not bee put into it, without the faulte of the ordayners. The First had a lawfull but extraordinary calling, needefull onely in those first beginnings of Christianity, and not longer to continue. The second haue that calling which is Ordinary and to continue, whereof wee are now to speake. In this calling there are three things implied: Election, Ordination, and Assignation to some particular Church, whereof men elected and ordained are appointed to take charge.

In ancient times there was no ordination at large, without particular Assignation, and sine titulo, allowed, as it appeareth by the Councell of Chalcedon, forbidding any 〈◊〉 Canone 9: such thing to be done, and voyding any such Act if it should bee done, and therefore in those times the very electing and ordayning, was an assigning of the elected & ordayned to the place of Charge they were to take, and a giuing of them the power of iurisdiction as wel as of order. But this Canon in latter times grew out of vse: whence ensued great confusions in the state of the Church, as De sacris Eccles: minist: & Benefi: lib: 1: cap: 16: Duarenus rightly noteth: yet are we not of opinion, that all such ordinations are voyde in the nature of the thing; whatsoeuer the Ancients pronounced of them according to the strictnesse of the Canons. For seeing Ordination, which is the sanctifying of men to the worke of the holy Ministery, is a diffeernt thing in nature from the placing of them, where they shal do that holy worke; and a man once ordained needeth not any new Ordination, when he is remoued from one Church to another, it is euident that in the nature of the thing, Ordination doth not so depend on the title and place of Charge the Ordayned entereth into, as that Ordinations at large should bee voyd; yet are they not to bee permitted, neither are they in our Church. For the Ordinations of Ministers in Colledges in our Vniuersities, are not within the compasse of those prohibited Ordinations at large, and sine titulo: and none other, by the order of our Church, may bee Ordayned, vnlesse he be certainly prouided of some definite place of charge & imployment. And as the Auncient were thus precise in admitting none into the holy Ministery, but with assignation of the particular place of his imployment; so they tooke as strict order, that men once placed should not sodainly be remoued and translated to any other church or charge. In the Councell of Canon •… 1: Sardica, Hosius the President of that Councell sayd; That same ill custome and pernicious corruption is wholy to be plucked vp by the rootes, that it may not be lawfull for a Bishoppe to passe from his citie to any other city. For the cause why they doe so, is knowne to all, seeing none is found to passe from a greater citie to a lesser: whence it appeareth, that they are inflamed with ardent desires of couetousnesse, and that they serue their owne ambitious designes, that they may exercise dominion, and grow great. If therefore it seeme good to you all, that such an euill as this is, may be more seuerely punished, lette him that is such a one, bee reiected from all communion, euen such as Lay-men inioy. To whom all the Bishoppes answered; it pleaseth vs well. To whom Hosius replyed; Though any shall bee found so ill aduised, as haply in excuse of himselfe to affirme; that hee receiued letters from the people, to draw him from his owne city to another; yet I thinke, seeing it is manifest, that some few not sincere in the Faith, might be corrupted by reward, and procured to desire his translation, all such fraudes should altogether bee condemned: So that such a one should not bee admitted, so much as to the communion which Lay-men enioy, no not in the end: which thing if it seeme good vnto you all, confirme and settle it by your Decree. And the Synode answered, it pleaseth vs well. Leo, to the same purpose writeth thus; Leo ep: 8 •… : cap: 8: If any Bishoppe, despising the meanenesse of his owne citie, shall seeke to gette the administration & gouernment, of some more noted, and better respected place, and shall by any meanes translate & remoue himselfe to a greater People, and more large and ample charge, let him bee driuen from that other chaire which hee sought, and lette him bee depriued also of his owne. So that hee bee neither suffered to rule ouer them, whom, out of a couetous desire, hee would haue subiected to himselfe, nor ouer them, whom g in pride hee contemned and scorned. And the like is found in other: but as Lib. 5. cap. 8. Theodoret sheweth, it was ambition, and such other like euils, that these Holy Fathers sought to stoppe and preuent, rather then generally to condemne all Translation of Bishops from one Church and cittie to another. For these changes may sometimes bring so great and euident vtility, that they are not to be disliked. And therefore the same Ibidem. Theodoret sheweth that notwithstanding this Canon, Gregory Nazianzen, was remoued from his Church, and constituted Bishop of Constantinople. And Lib. 7. cap. 39. Socrates reporteth, that Proclus was remoued thither from Cyzicum. Wherefore passing by these matters as cleare and resolued of, Let vs proceed to see, first, to whom it pertaineth to Elect: Secondly, to whom it belongeth to ordaine such as are duly elected and chosen to the worke of the Ministery.

Touching Election, D. Bilson. perpet. gouernment. cap. 15. pag. 339. wee thinke, that each Church and People, that haue not by lawe, custome, or consent, restrayned themselues stand free by Gods law to admitte, maintaine and obey no man, as their Pastor, without their liking: and that the peoples election by themselues or their rulers, dependeth on the first principles of humane fellowships and assemblies: for which cause, though Bishops by Gods lawe haue power to examine and ordaine, before any may be placed to take charge of soules: yet haue they no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their wils, nor to force them to yeeld obedience and maintenance to any without their liking. And therefore anciently (as Epist 89. LEO sheweth) the custome was that hee should bee chosen of all, that was to bee ouer all, that the wishes and desires of the Cittizens should bee expected, the Testimonies of the people should be sought, the will and liking of the noble and honourable should be knowne, and the Cleargy should choose. All which thinges are wont to be obserued and kept in ordinations, by them that know the rules of the Fathers, that the rule of the Apostle may be followed in all things, who prescribeth, that hee who is to be ouer the Church, should not onely haue the allowance of the faithfull, giuing witnesse vnto him, but the testimony also of them that are without, and that no occasiō of any scandall may be left, while he, who is to be the Doctor ofpeace, is ordained in peace and concord, pleasing vnto God, with the agreeing and consenting desires of all. And in the same Epistle hee addeth Teneatur subscriptio Clericorum, honoratorum testimonium, ordinis consensus & Plebis: That is, Let the subscription of the Cleargy be had, the testimony of the honourable, and the consent of the order and people. Lib. 1. Epist. 4. Cyprian to the same purpose writeth thus: The people beeing obedient to the precepts of the Lord, and fearing God, ought to seperate themselues from a sinnefull and wicked Ruler, and not intermingle themselues, or to haue any thing to do with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest: especially seeing they haue power eyther to chuse such Priestes as are worthy, or to refuse such as are vnworthy. And a little after in the same Epistle, hee hath these words: For which cause it is diligently to bee obserued and kept, as from the tradition of God, and the Apostles, (which thing also is obserued and kept with vs, and almost throughout all Prouinces) that for the due performance of the worke of Ordination, when any Ruler and Gouernour is to be ordained, the Bishops of the same Prouince, which are nearest, should come together vnto that people, ouer whom he is to be sette, and that the Bishoppe should, be chosen in the presence of the people, which most fully and perfectly knoweth the life of euery one, and hath perceiued by their conuersation what kind of workes they are wont to do. Which thing also we see to haue bin don in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague, to wit, that vpon the voyces of the whole brotherhood, and the judgment of the Bishops, which came together & which sent their letters, expressing their opiniō of him, the Episcopall dignity was cōferred vpon him, & with the imposition of hands he was ordained into the voyd roome of Basilides. That in the time of Chrysostome, the people had interest in chusing their Pastors, it is euident out of his booke of Lib. 3. Priest-hood. The Fathes of the Nicene Councell (as wee finde in Lib. 1. cap. 9. Theodoret) write to the Church of Alexandria, and to the beloued brethren of Egypt, Lybia, and Pent •… polis in this sort: If haply any Bishop of the Church de fall asleepe, let it be lawfull for such of the sect of Meletius, as haue beene not long since restored to the Communion of the Church, to succeede into the place of him that is dead, if so be that they shall seeme to bee worthy, and the people shall chuse them: yet so notwithstanding, that the voyce and consent of the Bishop of the Church of Alexandria bee added to seale and confirme the same. And touching the election of Nectarius, the Bishoppes of the first councell of Constantinople write thus: Theod. l. 5. c. 9 Wee haue ordained the most reverend and beloued of God Nectarius, Bishop, before the whole Councell, with all consent and agreement, in the presence of Theodosius the Emperour, beloued of God, and of the whole cleargy, the whole city likewise with vnanimous consentagreeing thereunto. And Leo provideth and taketh order what shall bee done, when they that should elect, agree not. His words are these: Leo ep. 84. c. 5. When ye goe about the election of the chiefe Priest or Bishop, let him be advanced before all, vpon whom the consenting desires of the Cleargy and People concurre with one accord: and if their voyces be divided betwixt twaine, let him be preferred before the other, in the iudgment of the Metropolitane, which hath more voyces and merits: but let none be ordained against their wils and petitions, least the people despise or hate the Bishoppe which they neuer affected, and lesse care for religion when their desires are not satisfied. And Grego •… y the Bishoppe of Rome long after, allowing the election by the people, hath these wordes: Gre. l. 2. ep. 2 •… If it be true that the Bishop of Salona bee dead, hasten to admonish the cleargy and people of that city, to choose a Bishoppe with one consent that may bee ordained for them. And to Magnus about the election of the Bishoppe of Millaine, hee saith: Lib. 2. ep. 2 •… Warne the Cleargy and people that they dissent not in choosing their Priest, but that with one accord they elect some one, that may bee consecrated their Bishoppe. By all which testimonies wee see what interest aunciently the people had in the choyce of their Bishops, and how carefull good Bishops were that they should haue none thrust vpon them against their wills, that they should proceede to election with one accord if it might bee; or otherwise, that such should be ordained as were desired by the greater part, and that all things might be done peaceably and without tumult.

But how much in time they abused this their power, it is too evident. For In Epi •… . 〈◊〉 Nazianzene reporting the choyce of Eusebius to bee Bishoppe of Caesarea, sayth, the Citty of Caesarea was in a tumult, and the people divided about the choyce of their Bishoppe; and the sedition was sharpe, and hardly to bee appeased; and that, as men distracted in many mindes, some proposing one, and some another, as is often seene in such cases, at length the whole people agreeing on one of good calling among them, commended for his life, but not yet baptized, tooke him against his will, and with the helpe of a band of souldiers that was then come to the Citty, placed him in the Bishops chaire, and offered him to the Bishoppes present, & mixing threates with perswasions, required to haue him ordained and pronounced their Bishop. Likewise at Antioch (as Lib. 1. c. 24. Eusebius reporteth) there was raised a grieuous sedition about the deposing of Eustathius: and after, when another was to be chosen, the flame therof so increased, that it was like to haue consumed the whole city. For the people being diuided into two parts, the Magistrates of the citie supported the sides, and bandes of souldiers were mustered as against an enemy: and the matter had vndoubtedly beene tryed by the sword, if God, and the feare of the Emperour writing to them, had not asswaged the rage of the multitude. But howsoeuer, such was the dissention, that eight whole yeares the place was without a Bishop. Euag. 〈◊〉 2. c. 〈◊〉 . & 8. When Dioscorus Bishoppe of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell of Chalcedon, & Proterius sette in his place, a mighty & intollerable sedition grew among the people for it: some affecting Dioscorus, & some cleauing to Proterius. The people opposed themselues against the Magistrates, and when they thought with strong hande to suppresse the vprore, the multitude with stones, beat the souldiers into the church, besieged thē in it, & destroyed a number of them with fire: and, vpon the death of Martian the Emperour, they chose a new B. and brought him into the church on Easter day. They slew Proterius, and sixe other with him in the Temple, and drew his body wounded and mangled along through the quarters of the citie. Ruffin. l. 2. 〈◊〉 c. •… 1. The like dissention grewe in the Church of Millaine after the death of Auxentius the Arrian Bishoppe; but the issue was very happy: for Ambrose, at that time a secular Magistrate, seing the diuision to be very dangerous, and threatning the ouerthrow of the state of the citty, entred into the Church, and made an excellent Oration, perswading them to peace; wherwith all sides were so well pleased, that with one consent, they desired to haue Ambrose for their Bishoppe, who was not yet baptized: and the Emperour was carefull to satisfie their desire, and commaunded that it should be as they had desired Ibid. cap. 10. In the Church of Rome, after Liberius, Damasus succeeded in the Episcopall office: whom Vrsinus, a certaine Deacon of that Church, not enduring to bee preferred before him, waxed so madde, that hauing perswaded and drawne vnto him a certaine ignorant & rude Bishop, and gathered together a company of turbulent and seditious persons in the church of Sicinius, hee procured himselfe to be made Bishop against all order, law, and auncient custome. From which fact proceeded so great sedition, nay so great warre (some of the people defending Damasus as lawfull Bishop, and some Vrsinus) that the places of prayer were filled with the bloud of men. The people in this sort abusing their authority & power, were restrained by the decrees of Coucels, and by the lawes of Princes, and their right and power to choose their Pastours, many waies limited and straitned, till in the end it was wholy taken from them. For first, the Councell of Canone 13. Laodicaea forbad, that elections of such as were to serue in the holy Ministery of the Church, and execute the Priests office, should bee left to the multitudes. But that Councell was but particular, and could prescribe no lawes to the whole world: and therefore after this, the people swayed things very much still, and Vbi suprà. Leo Bishoppe of Rome, after this time, charged the Bishoppes to thrust none vpon the people without their consent. And euen in the Romane church the election of the people continued a long time after this decree of the Councell of 〈◊〉 . For Pope Nicholas the second, in the Councell of Laterane, in the yeare of our Lord 1059. with the consent of the whole Synode, decreeth on this sorte: Decreti part. 1. dist. 23. ca. 1. Instructed & guided by the authority of our predecessours, and other holy Fathers, wee decree and determine, that when the Bishoppe of this Vniuersall Church of Rome dyeth; first of all the Cardinall Bishops shall most diligently consult together about the election of a new, and soone after they shall take vnto them the Cardinall Cleargy-men, and so the rest of the Cleargie and people shall come to giue consent to the new election. And because the See Apostolick is preferred before all the Churches in the world, and therefore canne haue no Metropolitane ouer or aboue it, the Cardinall Bishops doubtlesse supply the place of the Metropolitane, and are to promote and lift vp the new elected Bishop to the top of Apostolicke heigth. Yea the presence and testimony of Lay-men was not excluded in such elections a longtime after: For Platina in vita Greg. 7. Gregory the seuenth was elected by the Cardinals of the church of Rome, Clearkes, Acoluthes, Subdeacons and Presbyters, many Bishops, Abbots & others, both of the Cleargy & Laity being present.

But Christian Princes, Kings and Emperours, being chiefe among those of the Laity, and so hauing a soueraigne consent among and ouer the rest, in such elections as pertained vnto them by the right of humane fellowship and gouernment, interposed themselues in these businesses, and sundry wayes abridged that liberty, that the people in some places tooke vnto them. Lib. 8. cap. 2. Zozomen noteth, that after the death of Nectarius, Bishoppe of Constantinople, the Cleargy and people resolued to haue Chrysostome a Presbyter of Antioch, a man famously renowned throughout all the Empire, to bee their Bishop. Which their resolution the Emperour confirmed by his assent, & sent and fet him, and called a Councell to make his election more authenticall. Likewise Socrates. lib. 7. cap. 29. after the death of Sicinius, though some would haue had Philip, others P •… clus Presbyters of that church to succeed, yet the Emperour by the perswasion of certaine vaine men, called a stranger thither, to wit, Nestorius, who afterward proued an Arch-hereticke, Idem. l. 7. c. 39. After the death of Maximianus, successor to Nestorius, the Emperour tooke order without delay that Proclus might bee placed in the Bishoppes chaire by the Bishops present, before the body of Maximianus was buried, least any variance and quarrelling might ensue.

Neither did the Emperours medlelesse with the election of the Bishop of Rome, then of Constantinople. For (as Annot in Platinam, in Pelag •… o. 2. Onuphrius rightly obserueth) after the Gothes were driuen out of Italy by Narses, the Lieutenant of the Emperour, and the country subjected againe to the Empire of the East, in the dayes of Iustinian the Emperour there beganne a new custome in the election of the Romane Bishoppes; which was, that so soone as the Bishop of that See should be dead, the Cleargie and people (as formerly they had done) should presently choose another to succeede into his place: but that he might not bee confecrated & ordained by the Bishoppes, till his election were confirmed by the Emperour, and till he gaue leaue to ordaine him by his Letters Pattents. For which confirmation a certaine summe of money was paide, which it is likely Iustinian did, or by his authority caused Vigilius the Bishop of Rome to doe it, that the Emperor might be assured of the conditions of the newly elected Bishoppe, least a factious and busie man being chosen, hee might conspire with the barbarous people that then sought to encroch vpon the Empire, and so cause a reuolte of the citie of Rome and the country of Italy from the Easterne Empire, the Bishoppe growing great, and the Emperour being farre off. Vpon which constitution it came to passe that the Romanes chose for the most part such a one, as they thought would be acceptable to the Emperour, and of whom hee might bee perswaded, that hee would attempt nothing preiudiciall to the state of the Empire, the Lombards about that time or presently after troubling Italy. This custome was continued till the time of Benedict the Second, Platin •… in Benedicto 〈◊〉 . in whose time Constantine the Emperour, for the good opinion hee had of him, and loue he bare to him, gaue commandement that the election of the Bishop of Rome being resolued on, the Bishops should presently proceede to the ordination of him, without expecting any confirmation from the Emperour. But the power of confirming the newly elected Bishoppe of Rome before hee might bee ordayned, or execute the Bishoppely office, was againe restored to Charles the great & his successours Kings of France and Emperours of the West, in more ample sort then it had beene before, by Decreti. part. 1. Dist. 63. c. 22. Adrian the First; which being againe taken from his successours by Platina in Adriano. 3. Adrian the Third, was restored to Otho the First, King of the Germanes, & Emperour of the West, by Decreti. part. 1. dist. 63. c. 23. Leo the Eigth. From which time it continued till Gregory the Seauenth, See before cap. 46. who though hee was glad to seeke the Emperours confirmation himselfe, when hee first entred into the Popedome, yet afterwards he disclaymed it as vnlawfull: so condemning many of his Predecessours, that had allowed and confirmed this part of Imperiall power, vnder great paines and curses to fall vpon such as should euer goe about to violate the same. After whose times other Popes reserued the whole power of electing the Romane Bishoppe to the Cardinalls alone, as wee see the manner is vnto this day. Thus writeth Onuphrius, professing that hee carefully looked ouer all the auncient monuments of the Romane Church, to finde out the certainety of these things. Neither neede we to doubt of the trueth of that hee writeth, yet for farther proofe, least any man should doubt, I will produce the reports of Historians, & the Acts of Councels to confirme that hee saith. Platina in the life of Pelagius the 2d saith, nothing was done in the election of the Romane B. in those dayes, without the Emperours consent and confirmation: and sheweth that the reason why Pelagius was created Bishoppe without the commaund of the Emperour, was, for that they could send no messenger to him, the Citty being besieged. And touching Gregory |the First, In vita Gregorij, 1. hee reporteth, that when he was chosen Bishoppe of Rome, knowing the Emperours consent necessarily to bee required in the election and constitution of the Bishoppe, unwilling to possesse that place and roome, hee sent vnto him, earnestly intreating him to make voyde the election of the Cleargy, and people: which his suite the Emperour was so farre from graunting, that hee sent to confirme the Election, and to enforce him to take the Pastorall charge vpon him, in that most daungerous and troublesome time. Whereby wee see how farre the Emperours intermedled in the election and constitution of the Romane Bishoppes in those daies. It is true indeede, that the same Platina reporteth, that In vita. Benedicti. 2. Constantine admiring the sanctity & vertue of Benedict the second, sent vnto him a sanction, that euer after all men should presently take him for Bishop (without expecting the concurrence of the authority of the Emperour of Constantinople, or the Exarch of Italy) whomsoeuer the Cle •… rgy, people; and armies of the Romanes should chuse. Not-with-standing this freed •… me and libertie continued not long: for (as wee may reade in the Part. 1. dist. 63. c. 22. Decree •… ) Charle •… the Great, and Adrian the first held a Synode in the Church of Saint Sauiour in Rome, wherein met 153 Bishops, religious men and Abbottes, in which Synod Adrian with the consent of the Bishops there assembled, gaue vnto Charles power to choose the Bishop of Rome, and to order the Apostolicall See, together with the dignity of being a Patrician or Nobleman of Rome, and besides decreed, that all Arch-bishoppes and Bishops in the Provinces abroad, should seeke investiture of him, and that no man should bee esteemed a Bishoppe, or bee consecrated, till he were allowed and commended by the King. This Decree the councell published, anathematizing all that should violate it, and confiscating their goods; yet did Plat. in Ad •… . 3. Adrian the third (as Platina reporteth) take so good heart vnto him, that whereas Nicholas the first did but attempt such a thing rather then performe it, hee in the very beginning of his Papall dignity made a Decree, that without expecting the Emperours consent or ratification, the election of the Cleargy, Senate and People should bee good. But Leo the Eight in a Synode gathered together in the Church of Saint Sauiour in Rome, following the example of Adrian the first, with the consent of the whole Synode restored vnto the Emperour that power and authority which Adrian the first had yeelded vnto him, and Adrian the third had sought to depriue him of. The wordes of that councell are these. Dist. •… 3. 〈◊〉 . 26. I Leo Bishop, and seruant of the seruants of God, with the whole Cleargy and people of Rome, doe constitute confirme, and strengthen, and by our Apostolicall authority graunt and giue to our Lord Otho the first King of Germaines, and to his successours in this Kingdome of Italy for euer, power to choose a successour, and to order the Bishop of this highest See Apostolicke, as also Arch-bishoppes, and Bishoppes, that they may receiue investiture from him, and consecration whence they ought to haue it, those onely excepted which the Emperour himselfe hath graunted to the Popes and Arch-bishops; and that no man hereafter of what dignity or religious profession soeuer, shall haue power to chuse a Patrician or a chiefe Bishoppe of the highest See Apostolicke, or to ordaine any Bishop whatsoeuer, without the consent of the Emperour first had, which consent and confirmation notwithstanding shall be had without money. So that if any Bishop shall be chosen by the cleargy & people, he shall not bee consecrated vnlesse hee bee commended and invested by the fore-named King. And if any man shall attēpt to do any thing against this rule & Apostolicall authority, We decree, that he shal be subiect to excommunication, and that if he repent not, he shall bee perpetually banished, or be subiect to the last, most grievous, deadly and capitall punishments. Hence it came that when any Bishop was dead, they sent his staffe and ring to the Emperour: and hee to whom the Emperour was pleased to deliuer the same, after a solemne fashion and manner, was thereby designed and constituted Bishop of the voyde place. Thus wee see how authentically, vnder great paines and curses, the Pope and councell yeeld that right to the Emperor, subjecting all that euer should goe about to disanull their Decree, to the great curse, perpetuall banishment, and grievous punishments. Yet Pope Hildebrand, who, as if he had beene a fire-brand of hell, set all the world in a Combustion, Naucler. vol. 2. G •… ner. 36. disanulled this Law as impious and wicked: and Victor, Vrbanus, and Paschalis succeeding him were of the same minde. By reason whereof there grew a great dissention betweene the Popes and Emperours: Henry the fourth, and after him Henry the fifth, challenging not onely the right of confirming the election of the Popes, but power also to conferre Bishoprickes and Abbeyes by Investiture of staffe and ring, as the Popes Adrian and Leo had yeelded and granted to Charles and his successours; which thing also had beene enioyed by the Emperour for the space of three hundred yeares: and the Popes on the other side thinking it vnlawfull for the Emperors in this sort to bestow either Bishopricke or Abbey, & forbidding them so to doe, vnder paine of the great curse. But Henry the fifth forced •… ope Paschall to confirme vnto him the ancient right again, and to accurse all such as should dislike, resist, or seeke to disanull it: which yet not long after bee reuersed againe in another Councell: and in the Ibidem Gener. 38. dayes of Calixtus, the Emperour resigned his right, and the Pope allowed, that within his kingdome of Germany, elections should be made in his presence, and that with the aduice of the Metropolitane and Bishops of the Prouince he might assist and strengthen the better part, and that the elected should receiue from him all things belonging to the King by the reaching forth of his Scepter. In Henrico. 1: pag. 62. Matthew Paris sayth; the contention betweene Pope Paschall and Henry the Emperour about the inuestiture of Bishops and Abbots, which the Emperors had enioyed three hūdred yeares in the times of threescore Popes was so ended, that both Bishops and Abbots should first sweare Canonicall obedience to their Ecclesiasticall superiors, and be consecrated, and then receiue Institution from the Emperour by rod and ring. Thus wee see what right and interest ancient Emperours challenged to themselues in the election of the Bishop of Rome, and in conferring other dignities of the Church, and that the latter Popes condemned that as euill and wicked which their Predecessors not onely allowed, but prescribed vnder great and grieuous paines and curses. Whereupon Annal. lib. 4. pag. 3 22. Auentinus noteth, that among the Popes, Eadem facta modò superstitionis, modò pietatis, modò Christi, modò Antichristi, modò iusticiae, modò tyrannidis nomina accipiunt: that is, That the same factes, deedes and things, are at one time branded with the marke of superstition, and at another time set out with the glorious title of Piety: at one time attributed to Christ, at another time to Antichrist; at one time iudged iust and righteous, and at another time tyrannicall and vnjust. Chronograph. lib. 4. saeculo. 10. Genebrard (acknowledging that there haue beene many vile monsters that haue gotten into Peters chaire, and that there were fiftie Popes rather Apotacticall and Apostaticall, then Apostolicall) layeth the blame vpon the Romaine Emperours, as if they had placed those monsters in Peters chaire. It is well hee confesseth that such beastes haue entred into the Church of Rome, but if hee did not, wee would easily proue the same. For (to omit Hildebrand, whom some called a monster, and an enemy to mankinde, who caused more Christian bloud to be shed, and more grieuous confusions to rent and shake in sunder the Christian world, then any heretickes or persecutors had euer done before, soe that hee was forced to confesse at his death to God, to holy Church, and blessed Peter, that hee had grieuously offended in his Pastorall office; and Ioane the Whore, because (as Annot: in Platinam in Ioanne 8. Onuphrius thinketh) shee was not Pope but the harlot of Iohn the twelfth: the Stories mention such vile monsters sitting in that Chaire, that Lib. Chron: in Benedicto. 4. Benedict the fourth is highly commended, for that though hee did nothing memorable, yet hee liued an honest and a good life. But that the Emperours were the cause of the placing of these Monsters (as Genebrard would make vs beleeue) it may not be yeldeed. For betweene the time of Adrian the third (who tooke the power of confirming popes from the Emperours) and the raigne of Otho the first, to whom it was restored by pope Leo: there entred Formosus, Bonifacius, Stephen, Romanus, Theodorus, Iohn the ninth, Christopher, and Sergius, all, men of ill note: and Iohn the twelfth, then whom the earth did neuer beare a more prodigious and vile monster. Otho Frisingens. chron. li. 6. cap. 23. This wretch, Otho, at the earnest suite of the Romanes, caused to be deposed by a Councell of Bishoppes, and Leo to bee chosen. Whereupon the power of choosing the pope, and ordering the See Apostolique, was againe by consent of Leo the pope, and the people and Cleargy of Rome, giuen and confirmed to him and his successors for euer, in sort before expressed. For (as De regno Ital. lib: 7. Sigonius sayth) Leo rightly considered, that after the time of Adrian the third, the ambition of the Romanes filled the Church with beasts, disordered these elections, and set all in a tumult: & therefore thought no meanes so fit to reforme these disorders, to represse these insolencies, and preuent these mischiefes, as to put the bridle into the Emperours hands againe. Yet not long after, the Romanes casting off the yoake, and breaking the bands in sunder, put in Boniface the seauenth, Benedict the ninth, and Syluester, who sold the Popedome to Gregory the sixt, all which popes were soe intollerably wicked, that Platina in Gregorio. 6. Platina calleth them teterrima monstra, that is, most vile, hideous and ougly monsters. And Otho Frisingens: Chron: lib: 6. cap. 31. Henry the second called a Councell, and deposed Gregory the last of them, and placed Twideger a Germane in his place, who was afterwards named Clemens, who againe restored the right of choosing the Pope to him & his successours: for that (as Sigonius De regno Ital. lib. 8. noteth) after the law prescribing & requiring the Emperours consent to bee had in such elections was taken away, the state of the church was newly put in great danger. So that Henry the second was forced to come into Italy, to set thinges in order. And therefore it is more then ordinary impudency in Vbi suprà. Genebrard, to impute all the confusions in the elections of the Romane Bishops to the Emperours, who were not the causes of them, but oftentimes staide them by their Princely power. Neither is it lesse strange that hee & other dare condemne that authority in the Emperours as vnlawfull, which had continued from the time of Iustinian to Benedict, and was againe confirmed by Adrian, Leo, & other Popes, with their Councells of Bishoppes; and by vertue where of Saint Gregory & other possessed the Episcopall chaire, who are vniustly censured by Genebrard, as entring by the Posterne gate, in this respect. Neither haue the Popes beene better, or the election freer from faction, since the Emperours were wholy and finally excluded, then they were before. For what shall we say of Bonifacius the Eigth, of whom it is said, Platina in Bonifacio. 8. & Wal •… ngham in Edwardo. 3. that he entered like a Foxe, and died like a Dog, that hee coosened poore Caelestinus his predecessour, and by false practises wonne him to resigne the Popedome to him, and resting not contented herewith, tooke vpon him to dispose of all the Kingdomes of the world at his pleasure? of Vide acta Concilij Constantiensis Sess. 11. act. 6. & Sess. 12. Iohn the three and twentith, a vile man, and a Diuell incarnate? and Alexander the sixt, of whom so many horrible things are reported by In Alexandro 6. Onuphrius, Anthropologiae lib. 22. Volaterran & others? And touching factions & schismes, whereas there haue bin thirty of them in the church of Rome, neuer any endured so long as the last which was since the Emperours were wholy excluded from intermedling with Papall elections. For it continued forty yeares, and could neuer be ended but by the helpe of Sigismund the Emperour in the Councell of Constance. Wherefore seeing so many Councells & Popes yeelded the power of electing, or at least of allowing and confirming the Popes to the Emperours, and seeing so good effects followed of it, and so ill of the contrary, there is no reason why our Aduersaries should dislike it. For seeing the people aunciently had their consent in these affaires, O •… ho 〈◊〉 . de gestis Frederic. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 11. ca. 〈◊〉 . Fredericke the Emperour had reason when hee said, that himselfe as King and ruler of the people, ought to bee chiefe in choosing his owne Bishop.

Neither had the Emperours onely this right in disposing of the Bishopricke of Rome and other dignities Ecclesiasticall, but other Christian Kings likewise had a principall stroake in the appointing of Bishops. For (as Vol. 2. gen. 38. Nauclere noteth) the French Kings haue had the right of Inuestitures euer since the time of Adrian the first: and Defens pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicanae. cap: 43. Duarenus sheweth, that howsoeuer Ludouicus renounced the right of choosing the Bishop of Rome, yet hee held still the right of Inuestiture of other Bishops, into the place whereof came afterwards, that right which the King vseth, when in the vacancie of a Bishopricke hee giueth power to choose, and some other royalties which the Kings of France still retaine. It appeareth by the Canone 6. twelfth Councell of Toledo, that the Kings had a principall stroake in elections in the Churches of Spaine: and touching England, Matthew Paris testifieth, that Henry the first by William of Warnaste his 〈◊〉 In Henrico. 1. pag: 56. agent, protested to the Pope, he would rather loose his kingdome then the right of Inuestitures; and added threatning words to the same protestation. Neither did he onely make verball protestations, but hee really practised that hee spake, and gaue the Arch bishopricke of Canterbury to Rodolphe Bishoppe of London, inuesting him by Pastoral staffe & ring. Articuli cleri prescribe, that elections shall be free frō force, feare, or intreaty of Secular powers: yet so as that the Kings license bee first asked, & after the election done, his royall assent and confirmation bee added to make it good. Whereupon the Statute of prouisors of Benefices, made at Westminster the fiue and twentith of Edward the third, hath these wordes: Our Soueraigne Lord the King and his heires shall haue and enioy for the time, the collations to the Archbishoprickes and other dignities electiue, which bee of his aduowry, such as his progenitors had, before free election was granted: sith that the first elections were granted by the Kings progenitours, vpon a certaine forme and condition, as namely to demaund licence of the King to choose, & after choyce made, to haue his royall assent. Which condition being not kept, the thing ought by reason to returne to his first nature.

So that we see, that at first the Cleargy & people were to choose their Bishops & Ministers; yet so, that Princes by their right were to moderate things, and nothing was to be done without them. But when they endowed Churches with ample revenewes & possessions, & disburdened the people of the charge of maintaining their Pastors, they had now a farther reason to sway things then before. And thence it is, that the Statute aboue-mentioned saith: the Kings gaue power of free elections, yet vpon condition of seeking their licence & confirmation, as hauing the right of nomination in themselues, in that they were Founders. Likewise touching Presbyters, the auncient Conc. Carth. 4. Canone 22. Canon of the Councel of Carthage (which was, that Bishops should not ordain clearks without the consent of their Cleargie, & that also they should haue the assent and testimony of the Citizens) held while the Cleargy liued together vpon the common contributions and divident, but when not onely titles were divided & distinguished, and men placed in rurall Churches abroad: but seuerall allowance made for the maintenance of such as should attend the seruice of God by the Lords of those Countrey townes, out of their owne lands, and the lands of their tennants, they that thus carefully provided for the Church, were much respected. And it was thought fit they should haue great interest in the choosing and nominating of Clearkes in such places. Novel. Constit. 123. c. 1. 8 Iustinian the Emperour, to reward such as had beene beneficiall in this sort to the Church, and to incourage others to doe the like, decreed: That if any man build a Church or house of Prayer, and would haue Clearkes to be placed there, if hee allow maintenance for them, and name such as are worthy, they shall be ordained vpon his nomination. But if he shall choose such as bee prohibited by the Canons as vnworthy, the Bishop shall take care to promote some whom he thinketh more worthy. And the Councell of Conc. Toletan. 9. Canon. Toledo about the yeare of Christ 655, made a Canon to the same effect. The words of the councell are these: We decree, that as long as the Founders of Churches doe liue, they shall be suffered to haue the chiefe and continuall care of the said Churches, & shall offer fit Rectors to the Bishop to be ordained. And of the Bishop neglecting the Founders shall presume to place any others, let him know that his admission shall be voyde, and to his shame; but if such as they choose be prohibited by the Canons as vnworthy, then let the Bishop take care to promote some whom he thinketh more worthy. Whereby we see what respect was anciently had to such as founded Churches, & gaue lands and possessions to the same: yet were they not called Lords of such places, after such dedication to God, but Patrons onely: because they were to defend the rights thereof, and to protect such as there attended the seruice of God: & though they had right to nominate men to serue in these places, yet might they not judge or punish them if they neglected their duties, but onely complaine of them to the Bishop or Magistrate: Neither Duaren. de sacris Eccl. Minist. l. 5. c. 4 might they dispose of the possessions thus giuen to the Church, and dedicated to God, but if they fell into poverty, they were to be maintained out of the revenewes thereof. This power and right of nomination and presentation resting in Princes and other Founders, can no way prejudice or hurt the state of the Church, if Bishops (to whō examination and ordination pertaineth) doe their duties in refusing to consecrate & ordaine such as the Canons prohibite; but very great confusions did follow the Popes intermeddling in bestowing Church-liuings and dignities, as wee shall soone finde if wee looke into the practise of them in former times.

CHAP. 55.

Of the Popes disordered intermedling with the elections of Bishoppes and other Ministers of the Church: their vsurpation, intrusion and preiudicing the right and liberty of others.

THe Popes informer times greatly preiudiced the right and liberty of other men and hurt the estate of the Church of God three waies: first by giuing priuiledges to Fryers, (a people vnknowne to all antiquity) to enter into the Churches and charges of other men, to do Ministeriall acts, and to get vnto themselues those things which of right should haue beene yeelded to other. Secondly, by Commendams, and Thirdly, by reseruations and prouisions.

Touching the first, In Henrico. 3. pag. 672. Matthew Paris noteth that about the yeare of our Lord 1246, the Preaching Fryers obtained great priuiledges from the Pope, to preach, to heare confessions, and to do other ministeriall acts, euery where disgracing the ordinary Pastors, as ignorant and insufficient to gouerne the people of God. This new found order of Fryers, he sayth, seemed to many discreet and wise men to tend to the ouerthrow of the order of Pastors and Bishops setled by the blessed Apostles and holy Doctors: and that, not hauing beene aboue thirty yeares in England they were growne more out of order, then the Monkes of S. Austine and Benedictes order were in many ages. For such was their impudent and shameles boldnesse, that they came to the Synodes of Bishops, Prelates, & Arch-deacons, sitting as Presidents in the middest of their Deanes, Rectors, and other worthy men, requiring their letters of commission and priuiledge to be read, and themselues to be admitted and commended to preach in their Synodes and Parish Churches as Embassadors and Angels of God with all honour. In this insolent sort went they vp and downe from place to place, and asked of euery man, (though of a religious profession) to whom he confessed himselfe; and if any one answered, that hee made his confession to his owne Priest, they asked againe, what Ideot that was? they told him hee was neuer hearer of Diuinity, that hee neuer studied the Decrees, and that he was not able to discusse any one cōtrouersy; adding that such Priests wereblind, & guides of the blind; & willed all men to come vnto thē as to men knowing to discern betweene Leprosie and Leprosie: to whom the hard and obscure things were knowne, and the secrets of God reuealed: whereupon many (especially Noble-men and Noblewomen, betooke themselues to these, contemning their owne Pastors: soe that the ordinary Ministers grew into great contempt, which grieued them not a little, nor without cause. But of these Fryerly people no man hath written better then Armachanus: Armacanus Serm. 4. fact. in vulgari apud crucem S. Pauli London. Anno. 1356. who excellently deciphereth their intollerable hypocrisie, iniustice, and couetousnesse, joyned with all cunning and coozening practises and deuises. Their hypocrisie he discouereth, in that though they pretended pouerty, yet they had houses like the stately pallaces of Princes, Churches more costly then any Cathedrall Churches, more and richer Ornaments then all the Prelates of the world, more and better bookes then all the Doctors and great learned men of the world: cloysters, and walking places so sumptuous, stately and large, that men of armes might fight on horsebacke and encounter one another with their speares in them, and their apparell richer then the greatest and most reuerend prelates. Their iniustice he sheweth in their iniurious intruding into other mens Churches & charges, depriuing thē of their authority, honor; & maintenāce: & their couetousnes, in that they sought only to do those things that might bring gaine: and insinuated themselues into the fauour and liking of the great ones of the world, little regarding those of meane condition. Whereupon hee warneth all men to take heede of them as wicked seducers, that enter into houses and lead captiue simple women laden with sinnes, bringing in sectes of perdition; and in couetousnesse making merchandise of men by crafty and fained words of flattery. See to this purpose Clemangis de corrupto Ecclesiae statu. Gerson contra Bullam. Mendicantium. This is that vnprofitable, and most dangerous and damnable generation of disguised and masked hypocrites, which like Locusts are come out of the bottomlesse pitte, in these last ages of the world, eating vp and deuouring whatsoeuer is greene and flourishing vpon the earth.

The Monkes in their beginning were a people of a farre other sort: For they tooke not on them to preach or minister Sacraments, but were a kind of voluntary penitents, according to that of Saint Hierome; Hier. contra. Vigilantium non procul à fine. Monachus Plangentis, non Docentis officium habet; that is, a Monke is a mourner, hee is no teacher. And againe: Ad Heliodorum. Alia Monachorum est causa, alia Clericorum. Clerici pascunt ones, Ego pascor. Illi de Altari viuunt, mihi quasi infructuosae arbor •… securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad Altare non defere: that is, The condition of Monkes and of Clearkes is very different. Clearkes feede the sheepe, but I am fedde; they liue by the Altar, but if I bring not my gift to the Altar, the Axe is lifted vp against mee, and layd as to the roote of an vnfruitfull tree. And therefore (as De Sacris Eccles. minist. & Benef. li. 1. c. 20. Duarenus noteth) in ancient times Monkes were meere Lay-men, neyther were there any Priestes or Clearkes found in Monasteries; but they came all, as other of the people did, to the common Temples and Churches, to bee taught, to pray, and to receiue the Sacraments. Which thing hee sayth, Iustinian the Emperour plainely enough expresseth: and with him agreeth Bishoppe Panopliae lib. 4. cap. 75. Lindan, who sayth, that in ancient time all Monkes were Lay-men, and that they were all excluded and shut out of the Quire: when they came into the Temple and house of God, sometimes they did send for a Priest to do Ministeriall actes among them, and in the end some of them were ordained Priests, that soe they might haue the Ministration of Sacraments among them, and make as it were a certaine Church among themselues, and so neither be forced to go to other Churches, nor to borrow Priests from other. And to the same purpose Erudition. Theol. de sacra. fidei lib. 2. part. 3. cap. 4. Hugo de Sancto Victore sayth, that by speciall fauour and indulgence, the diuine orders of Ministery are granted to Monkes, that they might liue more quietly within themselues; not that they should exercise Prelacie in the people of God; but that they might celebrate the communion of God within their owne priuate retiring places, which yet they say in the beginning was not so. For Monkes and men dwelling in the wildernesse, are sayd to haue had Priests assigned vnto them. But (as Vbi supra. Duarenus noteth) hereby the passage was opened, and all Monkes began to bee ordained Priestes, (though they had no gouernement of the Church) that they might procure the more dignity to themselues: the order and degree of Cleargy-men being more high and honourable then that of Monkes. Neyther did they long containe themselues within these bounds after they had attained to be Priestes: but gotte authority and iurisdiction ouer Churches abroad, eyther because they were founded within their lands, or for that it pleased the Pope to take them from Bishops, and subiect them to these Monkes. At the first (as the same Ibidem ca. 21: Duarenus noteth) they liued apart, in certaine abiding places, which they had in the mountaines and deserts, whence they were called not onely Monkes, but Heremites and Anchorites, though at certaine houres and sette times they mette. Afterwards they beganne to liue together, and the places where they liued were called Caenobia of the communion of life. And when certaine Ecclesiasticall persons remaining in cities and places of resort, and teaching the people, tyed themselues to like obseruations, though haply not altogether so strict, as these had done, they were called Vide Cassandri cosultat. de Canonicis. Canonici, that is Regulars, rather then Monachi, Monkes, of which order S. Austine is supposed to haue bin the author. Afterwards in processe of time, some other Cleargy-men liuing together, & tied to the obseruation of rules and Canons, but not so strict as these, nor so neere to Monkish profession, were called secular canons, & the other for distinctions sake Canons Regular. In these societies young men were trained vp, as likewise they were in all Cathedrall Churches, till the founding of the Vniuersities, passing through all the minor orders and performing for a space the duties belonging to them, that so they might be fitted for greater imployments. Duarenus vbi suprà. cap. 22. The Monkes had one among them, that commanded ouer all the rest, named Coenobiarcha, Archimandrita or Abbas; and for the better perforformance of his duty, tooke vnto him another, whose helpe he might vse in the gouerning of those that were subiect to him, who was named a Prior. This Prior either assisted the Abbot in the gouernment of those Monks, which liued within the boūds of the Monastery, and was called a Prior Claustrall; or those lesser Couents that were abroad and yet subject to the Abbot, and was named a Prior Conventuall. By that hath bin saide, wee see, that the profession of Monkes in the beginning was voluntary penitency, and a retired life, not meddling with publique affaires, either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall, (as appeareth by the Decree of the councell of Canone 4. Chalcedon) that they were meere Lay-men, that they gloried not in the perfection of their estate, as they that call themselues Religious in our time doe, but confessed, that men of action and employment, who conflicted with the manifolde oppositions of the World, and declined not the battell, were more valiant Souldiers of Christ in his spirituall warfare, then themselues, who fearing their owne weakenesse did runne away. They acknowledged themselues inferiour to the whole Ecclesiasticall order, came to the common Prayers and Sacraments with the rest of the people, and payde their Tithes, and yeelded all other duties, as well as the rest: howsoeuer in the end they degenerated, and grew out of kinde, putting themselues into the Ministery, intruding themselues into the government of the Church, spoyling the Bishops of their Iurisdiction, and inferiour Pastors of their maintenance, by appropriating to themselues the liuings that formerly belonged to them,

But the Fryers professe an intermeddling with the publicke direction and guidance of the people of God, causing great confusions in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, and are most vnlike the auncient Monkes, and their beginning was but of latter time. These were principally of foure sorts: but among them all the Minorites or Franciscans seemed to be the strictest. For whereas the Monkes possessed lands in common, though none of them had any personall propriety in any thing, and the rest of the Fryers had the right of moueable goods in cōmon, though they possessed no lands, these professed to haue nothing but the bare and single vse of things, without all right or claime, as I haue shewed Cap. 43. before. About which profession of theirs, there was great contention in the time of Iohn the two and twentieth, the folly and hypocrisie of which men (thinking perfection to consist in pouerty) is sufficiently refuted by De Cosinliis Euangelicis & statu perfect. Gerson, In extravagant. tit. de verb signif. & in extravag. ad Conditorem Canonum. Iohn the two and twentieth, Com. in concord. Evangel. c. 100. Iansenius, and other, who shew, that perfection consisteth in the vertues of the minde, that poverty or riches neither make a man better nor worse, and consequently pertaine nothing to perfection, otherwise then as the care and loue of them hindereth, or the neglect of them furthereth the fervency of loue.

From this first way whereby the Pope disturbed the Ecclesiasticall order, which was by giuing priuiledges to exorbitant Fryers, let vs proceede to the second, which is by Commendams. In auncient times (sayth De sacr. Eccl Minist. & Be nef. l. 5. c. 8. All commendams are not to bee condemned, notwithstanding any abuse of the same: for sometimes by reason either of the scarcity of sufficient Pastors, or th •… insufficiency of the Pastors maintenance arisi •… g out of one C •… urch. more Churches then one are committed to one. Duarenus) when a worthy Pastour was not presently found to bee set ouer a church so soone as it was voide, to avoyde those euils and inconveniences, which for the most part Anarchy bringeth forth, the custome was, that in the meane while the voyde church should bee commended and committed to some honest man, who being but as a Tutor and Procurator onely, should bee bound faithfully to giue an account of that hee should doe. For hee was not Pastor of the church, but appointed onely for a time to take care of it. But in time, this thing (which was at first most profitable and behoouefull, and devised to provide for churches in vacancie,) was strangely turned to the hurt and plague of them. For they who by the canons may not haue the gouernement of churches or Monasteries committed to them, haue both churches and Monasteries commended vnto them perpetually, and as long as they liue. And such is the forme of this committing or commending in the Popes grants, that they to whom churches are so commended, haue free power not onely to dispose of such things as belong vnto them, but to consume, waste and spend them, without beeing subject to any account. And truely it is strange, that men of witte and vnderstanding, who devised this fraudulent kinde of practise, found not out some fairer colour of so great and grosse a corruption, that so they might not haue seemed so plainely and openly to haue despised the canons, and to make a mocke of them. Thus farre Duarenus. In this sort the Pope gaue the greatest Bishopperickes in the World in Commendam, or perpetuall administration to his Cardinalls, and sometimes in title also; but so, that they were called Bishops elect of such a place, and neuer consecrated.

The third way whereby the Pope preiudiceth the Church, is by taking on him to giue Church-liuings in all partes of the world to whom hee pleaseth; a thing neuer thought of in the first ages of the church. For the Bishoppe of Rome had no power to ordaine Clearkes out of his owne Diocesse, or Bishoppes out of his owne Prouince, the Canons prouiding that a Bishoppe should bee chosen by the Cleargy and people, and ordained by the Metropolitane and other Bishoppes of the Prouince, It is true indeede, that as Patriarch of the West hee was to confirme the seuerall Metropolitanes subiect to him, either by imposition of handes, or by sending the Pall as all other Patriarches likewise were to doe; but in the Patriarchshippe of any of the rest hee might not meddle, as appeareth by the Binnius in vita Adrian •… secundi. tom. 3. Concil. part. 2. contention betweene Rome and Constantinople about the Bulgarians; nor within his owne Precinctes further then the confirming of the Metropolitanes, as it is euident by the Councell of Action. 16. Chalcedon, forbidding the Patriarche of Constantinople to meddle in the ordinations of Bishoppes, and requiring him to content himself with the confirmation of Metropolitanes, to whom yet in the same Councell equall priuiledges with the Bishoppe of Rome are giuen. So that it is not likely that in those times the Romane Bishoppes challenged to themselues any such power and right, as now they doe. Nay De Sacris. Ec. minist. & Benef. l. 3. cap. 1. Duarenus pronounceth, that there is no doubt, but that the more auncient and holy Bishoppes of Rome, contenting themselues with their owne Church, left the administration of other Churches free to their owne Bishoppes, as rather thinking themselues Bishoppes of that one cittie then of the whole world, which thing haply moued a certaine Bishoppe (of whom Paulus Li. 9. de rebus gestis Francor. Aemylius maketh mention) to answere somewhat peremptorily to Gregory the Eleuenth, asking him why hee went not to his Church? for whereas Gregory satte at Auinion, and not at Rome, hee said vnto him, If one should aske thee why thou goest not to Rome, that hath beene so long forsaken of her Bishoppes, thou wouldest haue much lesse to answere then I haue. But the latter Bishoppes of Rome contented not themselues herewith; neither did they thinke it enough to bee Bishoppes of Rome, and prime Bishoppes amongst & before the rest, but they would needes bee vniuersall Bishoppes, and therefore thought it no robbery to concurre with all other Bishoppes, and to preuent them if they could in giuing voyde Benefices before them: And because it was not easie to preuent the Bishoppes in this sort, in Prouinces and Kingdomes farre remote, therefore they found out a more certaine and ready way, whereby to take from them their right and power: for a custome grew in and preuayled, vnknowne to former times, of certaine Papall graunts wherein Benefices not voyde were commaunded to bee bestowed and conferred when they should be voyd, vpon such as the Pope should thinke fit, and specially vpon strangers. These were called Gratiae expectatiuae, and Mandata de prouidendo: and Matth. Parisiens. in Henrico: 3. p. 639. hereof the whole state of England complayned to Innocentius the Fourth, affirning, that by vertue of these Prouisions, there were so many Italians beneficed in England, that the reuenues which they had from hence was 60000 markes; which was more then the bare reuenue of the Kings, and yet as if this had not beene enough, there came one Martine with Commission from the Pope to wrong the poore Church of England a little more. This man conferred certaine Benefices actually voyd of the value of thirty markes by the yeare vpon strangers, and when they dyed hee put in others without the priuity of the Patrons, and went about to assure to such as hee pleased the like Benefices not yet voyde, whensoeuer they should bee voyde; besides many other most vniust exactions, wherewith hee vexed the poore English, putting all such as resisted against him vnder the sentence of excommunication and interdiction, taking more on him then euer any Legate did (though he came not as a Legate) to the great preiudice of the Crowne of England; seeing no Legate was to come hither, vnlesse he were desired by the King. The Messengers that the State of England sent to the Pope, to make knowne their greiuances and complaintes were greatly disliked by the Pope, and their message no way acceptable to him: and therefore though dissembling the matter hee gaue them some good words, as if there should be no more such Prouisions made, but onely for some particular persons, and they not aboue twelue in number, yet such was the good nature of the man (as Matthew Pag. 669. Paris noteth) that he would not suffer the poore English, though sore beaten with many stripes, once to cry or complaine. But because they published these their complaints in the Councell of Lyons, which was holden at the time of their comming, hee was exceeding angry, and Ibidem. dealt with the French King to make warre against the King of England, and eyther to depriue him of his Kingdome, or to make him wholy to stoope to the pleasure of the pope, and the Court of Rome: which the French King vtterly refused to do. After these things thus past betweene the Pope and the English, he did worse then euer before. Pag. 674. Whereupon there was a new meeting of the States of England, wherein these grieuances were made manifest, and complained of: First, that the Pope was not content with his ordinary reuenew of Peter-pence, but exacted other contributions without the Kings knowledge. Secondly, that the Patrons of Churches were not permitted to present Clearkes, but Romanes were put into them, who neyther vnderstood the Language, nor euer meant to liue here; but carried away the money out of the Realme. So that neyther was the people instructed, hospitality kept, the Churches repaired, nor any good done: and beside, Pag. 667. the Originall Patrons were depriued of their right, one Italian succeeding another in the Churches founded by them, without their knowledge, and that vnwelcome Messenger, Non obstante, too often sent vnto them. These their complaints, the King, the Bishops, Abbots, Lords and Commons made knowne by their letters Pag. 687. and messengers to the Pope, with earnest desire of reformation and redresse: but could receiue none other answere from him, but that the King of England had his Counsell, and so had he; that the king began to kicke against him, and to play the Fredericke. And such was his displeasure, that all English were repelled and driuen away as Schismatickes. After this, new letters were againe written to the Pope, and in the end a priuiledge was graunted, that noe Prouisions c P. 689. should be made for Italians, Cardinalls, or the Popes Nephewes, before the King were first earnestly intreated to be content with thē, only to abuse such as would be abused. For the Pope went forward still in his prouisions, as formerly hee had done, as appeareth by his letters to the Abbot of Saint Albons, and by the Pag. 791. worthy letters of the Bishoppe of Lincolne written to the pope about these matters, and his Pag. 843. speeches against the Pope a little before his death. And here by the way, it is worth the noting, that Pag. 848. Matthew Paris hath, that in the time of Gregory the Ninth vppon complaint of onde Robert Tewing Patron of the Church of Lathune, the popes Graunt made in preiudice of his right was reuersed, because it was not knowne that the Patrone of that Benefice was a Lay-man when it was giuen by the pope. Soe that if it had beene in the gift of a Cleargy-mam, it must haue stood: so ready was the head of the Church to oppresse Church-men, and their possessions of all other were most fitte for spoyle. So little respect was there had to religion in those dayes, and soe were all things returned to their old Chaos againe: Whence it came that Pag. 496. Pag. 791. the heartes of all men went away from the pope and the Church of Rome, whereof the one sought to bee esteemed a Father, and the other a Mother to all Churches: but the one of them proued a step-father, and the other a step-mother. Neyther did the pope like a wilde Bore make hauocke only in the Vine-yard of the Lord of Hosts, planted in this Island, which lay open to be spoyled by all passengers, but he playd his part also in all other Kingdomes of the West: though some resisted more against his intrusions then others. Touching France, wee read in the booke intituled, Pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicae, aduersus Romanam aulam, defensio Parisiensis Curiae, Ludouico vndecimo Gallorum Regi quondam oblata, turned out of French into Latine by Duarenus, and added to his booke De sacris Ecclesiae Ministeriis, that there being a great number of goodly Churches founded by the Kings of France, when the Bishops of Rome began to prejudice the liberties of them, the King, the Nobles, the Princes of the bloud, the Cleargy and commons, assembled to resist the vexations, oppressions, & wrongs of the Court of Rome, & made many good Constitutions for the repressing of such insolencies. So Lewys, when first the Pope began to meddle, in the yeare one thousand two hundred sixty seauē, decreed that Preslacies & Dignities electiue should be giuen by election: and such as are not electiue, by collation, and presentation of Patrons: and that the Court of Rome should extort no money for any such thing out of the Kingdome of France. And when, notwithstanding this Decree, in processe of time the Court of Rome attempted divers things contrary to the liberty of the church of France, Charles the Sixth, with the advise of his Nobles, Prelates, Abbottes, Colledges, Vniversities, and other partes of his Kingdome, in the yeare one thousand foure hundred and sixe, made a Constitution, whereby hee restored the church to her auncient liberty: and this Decree was published in the yeare one thousand foure hundred and seauen; in which yeare Benedict the Pope, and his Ministers hauing imposed and exacted great summes of money, a new complaint was made to the King: and thereupon a Decree made, that nothing should bee payde out of France in the nature of Annates or Tenthes, and that such as had beene excommunicated for refusall of them, should bee absolued againe. In the yeare one thousand foure hundred and eighteene, a Constitution was made, whereby all Reservations and Apostolicall graces, as they call them, together with all exactions of the court of Rome were forbidden. And when as the Romanes contemning all Constitutions, ceased not to trouble and confound the Hierarchy of the Church, and scattered abroad euery where throughout the World their Reservations and expectatiue graces, (whence followed great and horrible deformities in the church) at last a Generall Councell was assembled for the Reformation of the church, in the Head and members: which prohibited these Reseruations and expectatiue Graces, restored the canons touching Elections and Collations, and subjected all that should contumaciously resist (yea though the Pope him-selfe) to due punishment. The Decrees of this councell, Charles the Seauenth confirmed, with the consent of all Estates of his Kingdome, and this his Decree of Confirmation was called the Pragmaticall Sanction. But the Popes neuer rested till they had, if not wholly ouerthrowne it, yet greatly weakened it. The attemptes of Pius the Second (who beeing a private man in the Councell of Basil, set it forward what hee could) are not vnknowne, as also of Sixtus the Fourth, Innocentius the Eighth, Alexander the Sixth, Iulius the Second, and Leo the Tenth, who published a Constitution, whereby the Pragmaticall Sanction was much weakened, though not wholly taken away; and those his new Decrees were called Conventa, that is, agreements betweene the King and him. From these Decrees the Vniversity of Paris appealed to a Generall councell. And thus wee see how well the Popes fulfill the commaundement of Christ in feeding his Sheepe, that labour so mainely the ouer-throw of those canons, which being taken away, the whole Ecclesiasticall Order is confounded, whole countries are made desolate and forsaken, Kingdomes are robbed of their money and treasure, & churches are ruinated and subverted. For so did all good men out of wofull experience complaine in former times.

Wherefore passing by these intrusions, vsurpations, and tyrannicall inter-meddling of Popes with things not pertayning to them, it is evident by that which hath beene saide, that the Election of fit Ministers to teach the people of God, pertaineth to the cleargy and people, by the reasons and grounds of humane societies, vnlesse by their owne consent, forfeiture, restraint of superiour authority cōmaunding ouer them, or speciall reasons prevailing more then those generall grounds of humane fellowship, it be taken from them. As in case of founding churches and endowing them with lands, the Patrons haue the right of presenting: & in cases of intollerable abuses, negligences or insolencies, the Prince (as Head of the people) assumeth to himselfe the nomination of such as are to serue in the holy Ministery of the church.

Some there are that thinke the right of the people in choosing their Pastours and Ministers to bee such, as that it may not bee limited, restrayned, or taken away vpon any consideration what-soeuer, and that therefore there is no lawfull Election of Ecclesiastical Ministers, vnlesse the people chuse: But the errour of these men is easily refuted. For seeing the Scripture & Word of GOD giueth no such power to the people, and all the interest they haue, or canne claime, is but from the ground of humane fellowship, subject to many limitations, alterations and restraintes, there is no reason to thinke that necessarily the people must euer elect their Pastors. In the reformed Churches of France & Geneua, the people giue no voyces in the election of Ministers, but are onely permitted, if they haue any causes of dislike or exception, to make them knowne to the Pastours and guides of the Church; and the power of iudging of such exceptions resteth wholy in them. In so much that when one Morellius a fantasticall companion sought to bring the elections of Bishoppes and Ministers to bee Popular, and swayed by the most voyces of the people, hee was condemned by all the Synodes in France, as Epist. 83. Beza sheweth in his Epistles. That there is no precept in the whole new Testament forcing popular elections it is euident: And the onely example that is brought of any such thing, is that of the Actes. 6. seauen Deacons; but first there was some speciall reason, why the peoples consent was sought in the election of these Deacons, beeing to bee trusted with the treasure of the Church, and the disposing of the contributions of the faithfull: and secondly, from one example, a generall rule may not bee gathered, Seeing the circumstances of things, times & persons, admit infinite varieties; some alleadge that place in the Acts for proofe of popular elections, where the Apostles are said to haue appointed Elders or Presbyters by Acts. 14. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth that kind of election, that is made by the more part of the voyces of the Electors expressing their consent by lifting vp of their handes, as sometimes men shew their consent by going to one side of the place or roome where they are, whence they are sayd, Pedibus ire insententiam. But surely these places are vnaduisedly alledged for proofe of popular elections. For first, the Apostles onely are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and consequently the election pertayned to them onely, and they onely elected; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to elect, and not to gather voyces. Secondly, though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doe originally signifie that kinde of election, which is made by many, expressing their consent, and giuing their voyces or suffrages by lifting vp of their handes; yet may it bee extended more generally to signifie any election of many expressing their consent by writing, by liuely voyce, or by going to one side of the place where they are; yea any choyce whatsoeuer, though made by one alone, as it appeareth in that the Acts. 10. 41. Apostles are said to haue beene witnesses formerly designed and appointed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereas Christ only chose them, and they were not elected by the voyces of many, or any but himselfe alone. And in Ecclesiasticall writers the Can. Apost. cap. 1. Chrysostom. hom. 14. in Acta. in illa verba. cum orassent impo •… uerunt illis manus. Concil. Nicen. in epist. ad Alexandrinos. apud Theodoret. hist. Ec. li: 1. cap. 9. same word signifieth Ordination that is by Imposition of handes, as it were easy to proue by many testimonies of Antiquity.

CHAP. 56.

Of the Ordination of Bishoppes and Ministers.

FROM the Election of Ministers, whereof wee haue sufficiently spoken, let vs proceede to their Ordination, with which none but the Guides of the Church are trusted; And therefore, howsoeuer the people may sometimes elect; yet they are charged, 1. Tim. 5. 22. not to lay hands hastily on any man, nor to communicate with other mens sinnes. So that the moderation of all things in this kinde resteth in them, & this is all that the Scripture prescribeth touching the designing and appointing of Ministers: namely, whom, and how, they that haue power of ordaining, must ordaine. Ordination is the setting of men a part to the worke of the Ministery, the commending of them with fasting and prayer to the grace of God, and the authorizing of them to performe things pertayning to God; which others, without such sanctification neither may nor can doe. Wherein the Ceremony of Imposition of handes is vsed. First, to expresse the setting of them apart for sacred imployment. Secondly, to let them knowe that the hand of God is with them, in all that they doe in his name, and by his authority to guide, direct, strengthen & protect them. Thirdly, to note out the person vpon whom the Church by her prayers desireth the blessings of Almighty God to bee powred in more plentifull sort then vpon others, as being to take charge of others. This Ordination is either of Bishoppes, to whome the care and gouernment of the Church is principally committed; or of other inferiour Cleargymen.

Touching the Ordination of Bishoppes, the Councell of Canone. 4. Nice decreeth, that a Bishop must be ordained by all the Bishops in the Prouince: and that if it seeme hard, either in respect of some vrgent necessity, or the length of the wayes, that they should all meete, yet there must bee three at the least to concurre in all such ordinations, the rest by their letters testifying their consent, and the Metropolitane confirming that they doe. The Councell of Canone 19. Antioch in like sort decreeth, That a Bishoppe shall not bee ordayned without a Synode, and the presence of the Metropolitane; That the Metropolitane by his letters shall call vnto him all the Bishops in the Prouince, if conveniently they may come together; if not, that at the least the greater part be present, or giue their consent by writing. And that if at any time there grow any difference among the Bishoppes of the Prouince about the person that is to bee ordayned, the greater part of voyces shall sway all. In the Second Councell of Canone. 1 •… . Carthage, all the Bishops with one consent said: It seemeth good to vs all, that without consulting the Primate of each Prouince, no man easily presume, though with many Bishoppes, to ordaine a Bishoppe in what place soeuer without his commaund: but if necessity shall require, that three Bishoppes in what place soeuer they bee with the commaund of the Primate shall haue power to ordaine a Bishoppe. And because the concurrence of the Metropolitane, was to bee sought, and his presence or direction had in euery ordination; therefore least by his fault there might be too long and dangerous delayes, it was ordered that vnlesse it were in case of necessity, all ordinations should bee within three monthes after the voydance of any place: and that if by the fault of the Metropolitane there were any longer delay, he should be subiect to Ecclesiasticall Censure and punishment. In latter times vnder the Papacy, they Bellar. de notis Ecclesiae. li: 4. cap. 8. permitted by speciall dispensation one Bishop assisted with two mitred Abbots, to ordaine a Bishoppe, contrary to all the old Canons requiring three Bishoppes at the least. The forme and manner of ordination we finde in the Fourth Councell of Canone. 2. Carthage, which prescribeth that when a Bishoppe is to bee ordained, two Bishops must hold the booke of the Gospels ouer his head, and that one powring forth the blessing vpon him, all the other Bishoppes that are present must touch his head with their handes: This is the forme of Episcopall ordination.

But touching Presbyters & Deacons, the Hispalens. Canone. 6. Councell of Hispalis saith: That the Bishop alone may conferre Ecclesiasticall honour vpon them, but that alone he cannot take it from them, which yet is not so to bee vnderstood, as if the Bishop alone without his Presbyters might ordaine Presbyters, but that hee may without the concurrence of other Bishops, giue that honour of Presbyteriall order, which without them he cannot take away againe. For otherwise the Councell of Carthagi. 4. Canone. 3. Carthage prouideth that in the ordination of a Presbyter, the Bishoppe holding his hand on his head, and blessing him, all the Presbyters that are present shall holde their handes by the handes of the Bishoppe. Whereas Ibid. Canone 4. in the ordination of a Deacon, it sufficeth that the Bishop alone, put his hands vpon the head of him that is ordained; because he is not sanctified to Priestly dignity, but to the seruice of the Church. So that other Ministers are to concurre in the ordination of the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, as well as the Bishoppe; being equall to him in the power of Order and Ministery, and his assistants in the worke of it; yet hath the Bishop a great preheminence aboue them in the Imposition of hands: For regularly no number of Presbyters imposing hands can make a Minister without the Bishoppe. The reason whereof is, because no Ordinations are to be made sine titulo, that is, without title or place of employment: and none but Bishops haue Churches, wherein to employ men; seeing they onely are Pastours of Churches, & all other are but their assistants and coadiutors: not because the power of order which is giuen in Ordination is lesse in them then in Bishops. So that Bishops alone haue the power of Ordination, and no man may regularly doe it without them. Whereupon ordinarily, and according to the strictnesse of the old canons, all Ordinations made otherwise, are pronounced voyde: as wee reade of one Athan. Apol. 2. Coluthus, whose ordinations were therefore voyded, because he tooke on him to ordaine, being no Bishop, but a Presbyter onely.

But seeing Bishops and Presbyters are in the power of order the same; as when the Bishops of a whole Church or countrey fall from the Faith, or consent to them that so doe, the care of the church is devolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholicke; and as in the case of necessity they may doe all other things regularly reserued to Bishops only (as In 4 Cap. ep. ad Ephes. Ambrose sheweth, that the Presbyters of Egypt were permitted in some cases to confirme the baptized, which thing also Lib. 3. Ep. 26. Gregory after him durst not condemne.) So in case of Generall defect of the Bishops of a whole countrey, refusing to ordaine any but such as shall consent to their Heresies, when there appeareth no hope of remedy or helpe from other parts of the Church, the Presbyters may chuse out one among themselues to be chiefe, and so adde other to their numbers by the imposition of his and their hands. This I haue proued in my Chap. 39. third booke out of the authorities of Armachanus, and sundry other, of whom Alexander of Hales speaketh. To which wee may adde that which In Sent. l. 4. dist. 24. q. 5. Durandus hath, where he saith: That Hierome seemeth to haue beene of opinion, that the highest power of consecration or order, is the power of a Priest or Elder. So that euery Priest in respect of his Priestly power may minister all Sacraments, confirme the baptized, and giue all Orders, howsoeuer for the avoydiug of the perill of Schisme, it was ordained that one should bee chosen to haue a preheminence aboue the rest; who was named a Bishop, and to whom it was peculiarly reserued to giue Orders, and to doe some such other things. And afterwards he saith: that Hierome is clearely of this opinion. Neither can the Romanists deny this, & justifie their owne practise. For their Chorepiscopi, or Titular Bishops, are no Bishops (as I haue Chap. 29. proued at large out of Damasus, not disputing or giuing his private opiniō, but resoluing the point, and prescribing to other what they must beleeue & practise, & yet doe they of the Church of Rome permit these to ordaine, not onely Sub-deacons, and other inferiour Cleargy-men, but Priests and Deacons also; and holde their Ordinations to be good and of force. If any man haply say, that 〈◊〉 Bishop when he is old, and weake, or otherwise imployed, may haue a Coadiutor, and consequently, that it is no such absurdity to admit these Suffragan and Titular Bishops; and that therefore they may haue power to ordaine, as being truely Bishops, and yet Presbyters in no case bee permitted so to doe: for answer herevnto let him reade what I haue written in the 29. chapter of this booke concerning this matter.

CHAP. 57.

Of the things required in such as are to be ordained Ministers: and of the lawfulnesse of their Marriage.

FRom the election and ordination of Ministers, we are to proceede to the things required in them that are to be chosen and ordayned. 1 Tim. 3. If any man (saith the Apostle) desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy worke. A Bishop therefore must be vnreproueable, the husband of one wife, watching, sober, modest, harberous, apt to teach, not giuen to wine, no striker, not giuen to filthy lucre: but gentle, no fighter, not couetous, no young scholler, but well reported of, euen of those that are without. The canons of the church require the same things, and adde some other; as that no man may be chosen and ordained a Minister of the Word and Sacraments till he be thirty yeares of age: nor none that was baptized in his bed, and the like. The Papists proceed further, and not contenting themselues with the moderation of the Apostle, and the Primitiue Fathers, admit none into the holy Ministery, but those that are vnmarried, or being married, promise to liue frō their wiues: & yet not so neither, if either they haue beene twice married, or if they married with a widow. Wherefore letting passe the things the Apostle prescribeth, and those other which the Canons adde, of which there is no question, let vs come to the marriage of them that are to bee admitted into the holy Ministery of the Church.

It is clearely confessed by the best learned in the Romane Church, that Bishops, Presbyters and other Cleargy-men, are not forbidden to marry, or being married, before they enter into the Ministery, to continue in matrimoniall society with their wiues, by any law of God: and therefore there is little feare of offending against God, eyther by admitting such into the Ministery as will not liue single, or by entring into it, with purpose of marriage. Secunda. secundae. quaest. 88. art. 11. Non est essentialiter annexum debitum continentiae ordini sacro (sayth Aquinas) sed ex statuto Ecclesiae: vnde uidetur, quod per Ecclesiam possit dispensari in voto continentiae, solemnizato per susceptionem sacri ordinis: that is, It is not essentially annexed vnto holy order, that men should containe and liue single that enter into the Ministry, but by the Decree of the Church onely. So that it seemeth, that the Church may dispence in the vow of continency, though made solemne by taking holy orders. And in another place hee sayth: Part. 3. quaest. 53. art. 3. that it is from the Churches constitution, that they who are entred into the holy orders of the Church, may not marry: which yet is not the same among the Graecians, that it is among the Latines. For the Graecians make no vow, and do liue with their wiues that they married before they entred into orders: of the same opinion is In Sent. lib. 4. dist. 39. quaest. 2. & 3. Bonauentura, who acknowledgeth, that in the Primitiue Church, it was otherwise touching this matter, then now it is in the Church of Rome; and endeauoureth to giue reasons of the difference. In 4. sent. dist. 37. Scotus, and Dialog. Occam, are of the same iudgement: and all the rest of the Schoole men of note agree with them. And In respons. ad articulos Parisienses. Opusc. tom. 1. tract. 27. Caietane, a great learned Diuine, and a Cardinall in our time, pronounceth confidently, that it cannot be proued, either by reason or authority, (setting aside the Lawes that are positiue, and vowes which men make to the contrary) that a Priest doth sinne in contracting marriage. And that therefore the Pope with good conscience may dispense with such a one, and giue him leaue to marry; though there be no inducement of publike profit, or benefit leading him so to do. And addeth that reason seemeth to bee strong on the contrary side for the lawfulnesse of such dispensation: because (as it appeareth by Peter Lombard in the fourth of the Sentences) neyther Order, in that it is Order, nor holy Order, in that it is holy, crosseth or hindereth marriage. And (as it is in the Decrees) Deacons in auncient times might marry, euen in the West Church: and (as it is in the same Decrees) they of the East Church are ioyned in marriage, euen after they are entered into holy Orders. Neither is that glosse to bee admitted, which expoundeth their coupling or ioyning in marriage, of the liuing in marriage formerly contracted: Seeing the whole course & coherence of the Text speaketh of the Contract of Marriage, as by the opposition of the practise of the West Church (the Priests whereof are saide not to marry) it may bee confirmed. These are the wordes of Cardinall Caietan. With him agreeth Cardinall De Clericis lib. 1. c. 8. Bellarmine, and confirmeth that hee saith by three reasons, whereof the first is this: Priestes are not forbidden by Gods Law to company with their wiues, which they married before they entered into holy Orders: Therefore they are not forbidden to marry after they are entred. The consequence he proueth; because if any thing bee found in marriage that cannot stand well with the sacred function and imployment of Ministers, it is the act of Matrimony and not the contract, which is a thing most honest, and is soone past. Whereupon, they that dislike the marriage of Church-men, were wont to alleadge the cares of houshold, and of children, causing distraction of mind, and other like things, and not the contract or Sacrament of marriage: & therefore he rightly reproueth Clicthoueus, for that hee Lib. de Contitinentia Sace •… dotum. cap. 4. thinketh the matrimoniall society of such as were married before they became Ministers of the Church, is not forbidden by Gods lawe; and yet feareth not to say, that the contract of marriage ensuing after the entrance into the holy Ministery is forbidden. Wherefore leauing the consequence as good and sufficiently proued, he confirmeth the antecedent in this sort. That presbyters are not forbidden by Gods lawe to liue with their wiues, which they married before they entered into the holy Ministery, it appeareth in that the Romane Church hath for many ages past permitted the Presbyters of the Greeke Church to liue with their wiues which they married before their Ordination; which it could not doe, if so to liue were forbidden by Gods law: That so the Romane Church hath allowed those of the Greeke Church to liue with their wiues, hee proueth by good authority. For in the Cap. cum Olim. De coniugatis. Decretals it is reported, that a certaine Grecian, while hee was yet in the minor Orders, according to the custome of the Greeke Church married a wife, and afterwards when he was a Priest begat a sonne of his lawfull wife. This Priests son was thought fitte to bee a Bishop, and chosen so to be: the Arch-bishoppe made question, whether he might confirme his Consecration or not, as doubting of his Legitimation. To whom Innocentius the Third writeth thus: Wee considering that the East Church neuer admitted the vow of continency, but that they of the East while they are yet in the Minor Orders contract marriage, and when they are in the higher Orders, vse that marriage which they then contracted, doe commaund, that vnlesse any custome be against it (in that these Grecians liue among the Latines) if there be no other Canonicall impediment, you proceede without doubting to the Confirmation and Consecration of him. Wherby it is euident that the Bishoppe of Rome allowed the marriage of the Grecians: for Innocentius saith, this Presbyter, after he was a Presbyter, begatte a sonne of his lawfull wife: and approueth, nay commaundeth his sonne as lawfully begotten to be ordayned, if it were not offensiue, because he conuersed among the Latines. The next reason that Bellarmine bringeth is, for that there is no prohibition of Almighty GOD found either in the old, or new Testament: and the third, for that it is said in the Coū cell of Cap. 10. & Di: 20. ca. de Libellis. Ancyra, that Deacons, with the licence of the Bishoppe, may marry after they are ordayned. Whence it followeth, that they are not forbidden to marry by GODS Law; seeing Bishoppes may not dispense with GODS Law. And This Councell (as Bellarmine truely noteth) is most auncient, and approued by Leo the Pope.

The vttermost therefore that our Aduersaries canne say, is that the Church by her authority hath forbidden the marriage of Presbyters and Bishops: wherefore let vs take a view of the lawes of the Church concerning this matter: and for our more orderly proceeding in the examination of the same, let vs first obserue what the Church decreed, touching them that being married enter into the Ministery. Secondly, touching them that entered being single. Concerning the first, it is euident, that till the time of Siricius, married men were permitted throughout the whole Church to enter into the Ministery, and to liue with their wiues. In the Epistles of Epist. 49. Cyprian among other things, Nouatus, ordained a Presbyter of Carthage by Cyprian, is charged, first, that he suffered his owne father to die of hunger, and tooke no care for his buriall when he was dead. Secondly, that by violence offered to his owne wife, hee caused her to be deliuered of her child before her time; so that the child dyed, and he was guilty of the murther thereof: for which crimes hee feared to bee put from his Priestly function, and the Communion of the Church; and therefore preuented his punishment by a voluntary Schismaticall departure. Where wee see a Presbyter permitted by Cyprian to liue with his wife, and no way blamed, for that hee had companied with her: but for that when shee was with child by him, hee had stricken her in such violent sort, that shee was vntimely deliuered, not without the death of the childe. Whereupon Pamelius hath this annotation vpon the Epistle of Cyprian: Many married men at that time were taken into the Cleargy, because there were few other to bee had: and therefore it is not to be maruailed at, that Cyprian maketh mention of the wife of Nouatus who was a Priest. That Tertullian was married, it appeareth by the booke which he hath written to his wife: and that neither he nor shee voluntarily seperating themselues had vowed continency, it appeareth by the perswasions he vseth to induce her to liue single, and not to marry againe after his death, in those euill & dangerous times, if haply he should die before her; or at the least, if shee could not nor would not containe, to marry with none but a beleeuer. Had shee bound her selfe by vow to containe, hee would not thus haue left her to her owne liberty, and if she could not, nor would not containe, he was bound by the Apostles rule, not to defraude her, but to yeeld vnto her due benevolence. Neither haue wee these examples onely, but many more: for wee reade in Gratian, of the sonnes of Presbyters and Bishoppes, that were promoted to the Papall dignity. Dist. •… 6 So was Bonifacius the Pope, the sonne of Iucundus the Presbyter: Faelix the Pope, the sonne of Faelix the Presbyter: Agapetus the Pope, sonne of Gordianus the Presbyter: Theodorus the Pope, sonne of Theodorus the Bishoppe, and many more hee sayth there were, who beeing the sonnes of Bishoppes or Presbyters, were advanced to sit in the Apostolicall Throne. And addeth, Ibid. that when the sonnes of Presbyters and Bishoppes are saide to haue beene advanced and promoted to be Popes, wee are not to vnderstand them to haue beene such as were borne of fornication, out of lawfull marriages, which were lawfull vnto Priests before the prohibition: and in the Orientall Church are proued to be lawfull vnto them euen vnto this day. Lib. 5. c. 2 •… Socrates sayth, that in Thessalia there was a particular custome growne in, that if a Cleargy-man, after hee became a Cleargy-man, companied with his wife, which hee marryed while hee was yet a Lay-man, hee should bee put out of the Ministery of the Church. Whereas all the most famous Presbyters and Bishoppes also in the East, might if they pleased, but were no way by any Law constrained to refraine from the company of their wiues. So that many of them euen when they were Bishoppes, did beget children of their lawfull wiues. A particular and most approued example whereof wee haue in the Father of Gregory Nazianzene: who beeing a Bishoppe, not onely liued with his wife till death divided them, but became the Father also of Gregory Nazianzen, (as worthy and renowned a man as any the Greeke Church euer had) after he was entered into the priestly Office, as appeareth by his owne wordes reported by In Carm. de vitâ suâ. Gregory Nazianzen. For after many motiues vsed by him to Gregory Nazianzen his sonne, to perswade him to assist him in the worke of his Bishoply Ministery, the last that hee most insisteth on, is taken from the consideration of his olde age, dis-inabling him to beare that burden, and performe that worke any longer that hitherto hee had done. And therefore intreating him to put to his helping hand, he breaketh out into thesewords: Thou hast not liued so long a time as I haue spent in the priestly office, therefore yeeld thus much vnto mee, and helpe mee in that little time of my life that is yet behinde: or else thou shalt not haue the honour to bury mee, but I will giue charge to another to doe it. Heere we see Gregory Nazianzens father was employed in the priestly function before hee was borne: and that therefore hee became the father of so worthy a sonne after hee was a Bishoppe, or at least after hee was a Presbyter. Neither was the father of Gregory Nazianzene singular in this behalfe. For Ep. ad Drac. Athanasius writing to Dracontius, (who beeing greatly in loue with a retyred and monasticall kinde of life, refused the Bishoply Office when hee was chosen vnto it; for that hee feared hee might not in that state liue so strictly as formerly hee had done) controuleth this his conceit; and telleth him that hee may in the Bishoppes office hunger and thirst as Paul did, drinke no wine as Timothy, and fast often as did the Apostle. So that the Bishoppes Office is no cause of doing ill, or doing lesse good then may bee done in other states of life: and there-upon assureth him, that hee hath knowne Bishoppes to fast, and Monkes to eate: Bishoppes to drinke no wine, and Monkes to drinke it: Bishoppes to worke miracles, and Monkes to doe none: lastly, many Bishoppes neuer to haue married, and Monkes to haue become fathers of children: and on the contrary side Bishoppes to haue become fathers of children, and Monkes to haue liued altogether as Monkes without desire of posterity. Neither can this authority of Athanasius bee avoyded, as Bellarmine seeketh to avoyde it; namely, that those Bishoppes did ill, which hee sayth, became fathers of children. For Stromat. l. 3 p. 196 Clemens Alexandrinus an auncient Greeke Father sayth expressely, The Apostle admitteth the husband of one wife to bee a Bispoppe, and that though hee bee a Presbyter, Deacon, or Lay-man, if hee vse marriage aright, and so as not to incurre iust reprehension, hee shall be saued by the procreation of children. In 1 ad Tim. 3 Chrysostome accordeth with Athanasius and Clemens Alexandrinus, and sayth, that mariage is in so high a degree honourable, that men with it may ascend into the Episcopall chayres: euen such as yet liue with their wiues. For though it be an hard thing, yet it is possible, so to performe the duties of marriage; as not to be wanting in the performance of the duties of a Bishoppe: wherevnto Lib. 1. cap. 11. Zozomen agreeth saying of Spiridion that though hee had wife and children, yet he was not therefore any whitte the more negligent in performing the duties of his calling, and of Gregory Nyssene it is reported that though he were marryed, yet he was no way inferiour to his worthy brother that liued single. But some haply will obiect, that Epiphanius is of another minde, and that hee sayth, Epipanius Heres. 59. where the strictnesse of the canon is obserued, none but such as are vnmarried, or resolued to refraine from matrimoniall society with their wiues, are admitted into the ministery of the Church. Wee deny not, but that he sayth so: But hee confesseth in the same place, that many in the Church did liue with their wiues in his time, and beget Children euen after their admission into the ministery. Soe that the strictnesse of the Canon hee speaketh of, was not generall, but in some certaine places onely, as I noted before out of Lib. 〈◊〉 . cap. 21. Socrates. Nay, it is euident by Socrates, that howsoeuer in Thessalia, Thessalonica, Macedonia and Hellas this strictnesse preuailed; yet all the Bishoppes of the East besides, were left to their owne liberty: and howsoeuer some in diuerse places went about to take away this liberty, yet the worthyest men the Church had, stood in defence of it, protesting they would not suffer themselues to bee inthralled in this behalfe. to which purpose, that of the famous and renowned Synesius is most excellent: who, when they of Ptolemais would needes haue him to be their Bishoppe; (which thing hee little desired) hee made them acquainted with his present condition, and resolued purpose for the time to come. Synesius ad fratrem pag. 68. lib. Epist. God (sayth hee) the Law, and the sacred hand of Theophilus hath giuen vnto mee a wife, I therefore tell all men afore-hand, and testifie vnto all, that I will neither suffer my selfe to be altogether estranged and seperated from her, neyther will I liue with her secretly as an adulterer. For the one of these is no way pious and godly, and the other no way lawfull: but I will desire and pray vnto God that exceeding many and most good and happy children may be borne vnto mee. Neyther will I haue him, that is to be chiefe in ordayning of mee to be ignorant hereof.

This liberty the councel in Canone 12. Trullo impeached in respect of Bishops, but in respect of Presbyters it continueth in all the East Churches of the world, euen till this day, Greeke, Armenian, and Ethiopian: warranted vnto them by the Canons of the Apostles; Iudgment of Bishops, Decrees of Councels, and the consent of all other partes of the World. For first, the Apostle Saint Paule telleth the Corinthians 1. Cor. 9. 5. hee had power to lead about a wife a sister, as well as the brethen of the Lord and Cephas. Which words Stromat. lib. 3. pag. 192. Clemens Alexandrinus interpreteth in this sort. Paul feareth not in a certaine Epistle to speake to his yoake-fellow: which hee did not lead about with him, because he had no neede of any great seruice. Therefore hee sayth in a certaine Epistle: Haue wee not power to lead about a sister, a wife; as the rest of the Apostles? but they truely, as it was meete, because they could not spare their Ministery: attending without distraction to preaching, lead their wiues about, not as wiues but as sisters; which should minister together with them, among the women which kept the houses, by whom the doctrine of the Lord might enter into the closet of women, without reprehension or suspicion. Neyther doth Clemens Alexandrinus only so vnderstand the wordes, but a Decreti part. 1. dist. 31. ca. 11. Romaine Bishoppe also. Soe that our Aduersaries haue no reason to charge vs with hereticall peruersenesse, for expounding the Apostles words, of the Apostles wiues. Neyther can their interpretation of faithfull women following the Apostles, and ministring vnto them things necessary, any way stand with the Apostles drift and meaning: for first, it is no way to be conceiued, that those Apostles which had wiues, would not lead them about rather then strange women. Secondly, the word of leading about, implyeth a kinde of authority, right and interest, in those women which the Apostles lead about: which might be verified of them in respect of their wiues, but not in respect of such women as out of their deuotion followed them, if any soe did. Thirdly, the Apostle doth not say, Wee haue power to lead about a woman a sister, as they reade it, but a sister, a woman, or wife. Now the addition of woman to sister is idle and needelesse: seeing euery sister is vndoubtedly a woman; Therefore wee must vnderstand the Apostle to say; a sister, a wife. Hier. contra Iouinian. lib. 1. Hierome indeede vnderstandeth the Apostles words of strange women, and not of their wiues: yet denieth hee not, but that other interpret them otherwise, and translateth, and alleageth the wordes doubtfully, of the Apostles leading about women or wiues. Besides this claime that the Apostle maketh of power and authority in this behalfe, elsewhere prescribing what manner of men must bee chosen vnto the Bishoppes office, hee sayth, 1 Tim. 3. 3. A Bishoppe must be the husband of one wife, one that canne rule his owne house, hauing children vnder obedience, with all honesty. Now to say, they were to forsake their wiues as soone as they should enter into this calling, is most absurd, and contrary to the very Law of God and nature. For it is not in the power of the man to withdraw himselfe from his wife, with whom hee is one flesh, seeing 1. Cor. 7. 4. the man hath not power of his body, but the wife. Whereupon Part. 3. qu. 53. art. 4. ad Primum. Thomas Aquinas resolueth, that a man entering into holy Orders, cannot without the consent of his wife withdrawe himselfe from her; but is bound to liue with her still, and to yeeld vnto her due beneuolence. Neyther may man and wife part by consent perpetually, but for a time onely, according to that of the Apostle; Defraud not one another except k 1. Cor. 7. 5. it bee by consent for a time, that ye may giue your selues to fasting and prayer; and againe come together, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Answerable hereunto, the Canons attributed to the Apostles forbid Bishoppes, Presbyters and Deacons l Canone. 6. to putte away their wiues vppon any pretence of religion. The wordes of the Canon are these: Let no Bishoppe Presbyter or Deacon, put away his wife vppon any pretence of religion; if hee doe let him be put from the Communion, and if hee persist, let him be remoued from his Order. This Canon (sayth In explicatione canounm. Zonaras) condemneth those sacred Ministers of the Church that put away their wiues. For that such putting of thē away seemeth to be done in disgrace of marriage: as if the companying together of man and wife were an impure and vncleane thing. Whereas the Apostle pronounceth, that Hebr. 13. 4. Mariage is honourable, and the bedde vndefiled. The Romanists to avoyd and decline the force of this testimony, say, that this Canon forbiddeth Bishoppes, Presbyters and Deacons the casting away of all care of prouiding for their wiues, but not the forsaking of their company: but this their euasion is easily refuted. First, because there is no shew of euill in Cleargy-mens prouiding for the necessity of their wiues, which they married while they were Lay-men: nay it would seeme vnto all men most vnnaturall for them to cast off all care of them, and all men would condemne them for soe doing; but in the companying with them (in the sinister iudgment of some men) there is: in respect whereof some forsake their wiues, vnder a pretence of religion: Secondly, because the Fathers in the Canone •… 12. Sixth Generall Councell (who no doubt vnderstood the meaning of these Canons farre better then the Romanists do) vnderstand them, as forbidding Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, the refrayning from companying with their wiues, and not the neglecting to prouide for their necessities. In the Councell of Nice some went about to make a Law, that Bishops and Ministers of the Church should not, after their entring into the holy Ministery, company with their wiues, which they had formerly married. But Socrates. lib. 1. cap. 8. Paphnutius Bishop of a citty in the vpper Thebais, who was a most holy man, by whom miracles had beene wrought, and who for confessing the faith of Christ, had had one of his eies pulled out though himselfe were neuer married, cryed out aloud, and besought them, to lay noe such heauy yoake on the neckes of them that were entered into the holy Ministry: affirming, that Marriage is honourable among all, and the bedde vndefiled: calling the company of a man with his wife by the name of chastitie: and aduising them to take heede, least they did greatly hurt the state of the Church by making so strict a law, for that all cannot endure soe seuere a rule of Discipline: and for that also this rule haply cannot bee soe easily obserued by their wiues. To these speaches of Paphnutius the whole assembly of Bishoppes assented. So that this controuersie was ended, and each man left to his owne liberty. This of Paphnutius is reported by Vbi supra. Socrates, Lib. 1. c. 22 Zozomen, In vita Paphnutii. Suidas, Hist. Eccles. Nicephorus, and alleadged by Dist. 31. c. 12. Gratian as true: yet De Clericis l. 1. c. 20. Bellarmine & the Iesuits feare not to reject it as false, as if they knew better what was done one thousand three hundred yeares agoe, then all that euer haue bene since: & the better to discredite this poore report, they charge both Socrates and Zozomen with Heresie, and contemne their stories. So must all goe to the ground, that standeth in their way, be it neuer so auncient; and yet they are the men that pleade Antiquity. But if this bee a fayned and counterfeit story, what are the signes of the forgery, whereby they discerne it to be so? Surely there appeare none; but it cannot bee true (the Iesuite saith) because it is contrary to the report of Epiphanius and Hierome. Touching Epiphanius I haue shewed already, that hee hath nothing contrary to this narration of Socrates and Zozomen: for hee confesseth that Bishoppes and Presbyters in his time 〈◊〉 Heres. 59: liued with their wiues, and begatte children of them, in such places where the strictnesse of the Canon was not admitted. So that the Canon he speaketh of, which was admitted in Thessalia, Thessalonica, Macedonia, and Hellas, and was proposed and rejected in the Councell of Nice, was but particular and locall; which may stand well enough with the narration of Socrates and Zozomen, that the Councell of Nice decreed nothing touching this point, but left it as they found it. The like may bee saide of Hierome. For Hierome writing against Vigilantius, speaketh of certaine Bishoppes, which would ordaine no Deacons vnlesse they marryed wiues, thinking that no single men liue chastly: who surely (if any such were found in those times) are not to bee excused. But if they onely demaunded first of them that were to bee ordayned, before they ordayned them, whether they would liue continently, or not, and if they answered that they would not, willed them to marry before they ordained them (as Zonaras writing on the Canons of the Apostles sheweth that they doe in the Greeke Church) they were not to be blamed: Seeing the councell of Canone 10. Ancyra permitted Deacons, protesting when they were ordained, that they would not liue single, to marry after they were entered into Orders. But Contra Vigilantium. Hierome in opposition to the practise of these men, asketh what the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and of the Apostolicke See shall doe, which admit into the Cleargy, virgines, or such as contayne, or such as if they had wiues, yet cease to bee husbands? whereby it may seeme, that this Canon of Bishoppes liuing from their wiues, was admitted generally, which is contrary to the narration of Socrates. But they that vrge these wordes of Hierome, should consider; first, that hee doth not say, that these Churches mentioned by him, admitted none to the Ministery, but such as were single, or hauing wiues, resolued to liue no longer with them in matrimoniall society; but that they admitted such as had neuer beene maryed, or hauing had wiues, ceased to bee husbands, contrary to their practise, that would admit none, as hee sayth, vnlesse they saw their wiues to haue great bellies, or heard the children crying in their mothers armes. Secondly, supposing that these Churches mentioned by Hierome, admitted none but such as had neuer beene maryed, or hauing beene maryed, ceased to bee husbandes, hee plainely sheweth by the particular mention of these Churches; As in the councell of Constantinople, Can. 2. Egypt, and the East a •… e opposed to A •… a, Thracia, &c. that there was no such thing generally prevayling: and so no way contrarieth the report of Socrates and the rest. Wherefore seeing neither Epiphanius nor Hierome, will by their contradiction eleuate the authority of Socrates, Zozomen, and the rest, the Cardinall will improue their narration by another meanes. The councell of Canone 3. Nice, hee sayth, forbiddeth Bishoppes, Presbyters, and Deacons, to haue any woman in their houses, besides their Mother, Sister, or Aunt: whence hee thinketh it may bee inferred, that it did forbid euery of these to haue any Wife dwelling with them in the same house; seeing if they might haue wiues, they might vndoubtedly haue handmaides to attend them. This proofe is no better then the former: for in the canons of the Nicene councell, translated out of the Arabian tongue, and put into the sirst Tome of councels by Binnius out of Alphonsus Pisanus; (in which, as Francis Turrian professeth, in his Proeme before the same canons, there is nothing but that which is approued, and worthy that great Synode of Nice) the Decree of the councell is conceiued and expressed in such wordes, that it is evident it was neuer meant to bee extended to such Bishoppes, Presbyters, or Deacons, as haue wiues; but to such onely, as neuer were married, or are widowers. The wordes are these. Canone 4. We decree, that Bishoppes dwell not with women, neither any Presbyter that is a widower: the same is decreed touching euery Presbyter that is vnmarried, and the Deacons which haue no wiues: and that Priests might liue with their wiues in those times, the 78. of those Canons maketh it most cleare, for it layeth a more heauy punishment vpon him, that hath a wife liuing, and liuing with him, if hee committe adultery, then vpon him, that neuer was married, or is a widower. Wherefore let vs passe from the Councell of Nice, to the Councell of Gangra. Lib. 2. cap. 33. & Sozome. lib. 3. cap. 13. Socrates sheweth that Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, so farre disliked marriage, that hee perswaded many women to forsake their husbands, that hee contemned married Presbyters, & condemned the prayers and blessings of Presbyters hauing wiues, which they married while they were Lay-men. Now it is not to bee imagined, that hee would haue despised them if they had put away their wiues, (for he perswaded to that; and many women hearkning vnto him, departed from their husbands) but because they retayned them still; yet did the Canone 4. Councell of Gangra condemne him; adding, that if any one contrary to the Apostolicall Canons, shall presume to put any one of them, that haue taken holy orders, as Presbyters, or Deacons, from companying with their wiues, he shall be deposed. To this we may adde the Sixth Generall Councell holden in Trullo, wherein a Decree was passed, that such as doe enter into the Ministery being married, shall bee permitted to liue with their wiues. The wordes of the Councell are these: Canone 13. Because wee haue vnderstood, that it hath beene deliuered to the Church of Rome for a Canon, that Deacons or Presbyters, who shall bee thought worthy to be ordained, shall professe and promise to company no more with their wiues; wee keeping the ancient Canon of Apostolicall perfection and order, will and decree, that the marriages of such men, as are in holy orders, hence-forth, and from this moment of time shall bee firme and stable, no way dissoluing their coniunction with their wiues, nor debarring them from companying with them, at conuenient times. Wherefore if any man be found worthy to bee ordained a Subdeacon, Deacon, or Presbyter; Let him by no meanes bee debarred from entring into such a degree; because hee liueth with his lawfull wife, neither let it bee required of him, at the time of his ordination, to promise to refraine from the lawfull companying with his wife; least by so doing, wee bee forced to doe wrong to marriage, ordained of God, and blessed by his presence: The Evangelicall voyce crying out alowde, the thinges which GOD hath ioyned, let no man sunder: And the Apostle teaching, that Marriage is honourable, and the bed vndefiled: And againe saying; Art thou bound to a wife? seeke not to bee loosed, &c. Thus doe the Fathers and Bishoppes assembled in this Councell, forbidde and condemne the putting of Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons from the society with their wiues, alleadging the ancient Canon, vse, and custome, and many excellent authorities, and reasons out of the Scriptures and word of God; shewing that no such thing canne bee done without great iniury to the state of Marriage, and without separating those whom God hath joyned together: and yet sodainely forgetting themselues, they Canone 12. forbidde Bishoppes to liue with their wiues; so ouerthrowing the auncient custome and Canon, and separating those that God hath ioyned together. Whereby that which had beene free from the Apostles times (as In explicatio. Canonum Apostol: Zonaras noteth) was forbidden, & the Canon of the Apostles repealed. Yet did these Fathers (as wee see) most carefully prouide, that Presbyters and Deacons should not bee restrayned. And indeede, this liberty hath continued according to their Decree in this behalfe passed; euer since, in all the East Churches of the world. For first, touching the Greeke Church, which is principally directed by the Canons of this Councell, it is euident by Cap. 21. the censure of the Orientall Church, vpon the Confession of Auspurge, translated out of Greeke into Latine, and published by Stanislaus Socolouius. Secondly, the Sixth Canone •… 3. Generall Councell testifieth, that the Armenians were so farre from disliking the marriage of their Cleargy-men, that they ranne into the other extreame. For they confined the Election of Church-men within the stocke of Church-men; as the Priesthood was confined in the time of Moses law, and contained within the tribe of Leui. And thirdly, Damian. a Goes de morib. Aethiop. Damianus a Goes witnesseth, that among the Aethiopian Christians, Cleargy-men are married: and that by dispensation of the Patriarche, after the death of the first wife, their priestes and Ministers may marry the second, though without such dispensation they may marry but once. The Armenians & Aethiopians (I suppose) haue not restrained their Bishops from liuing in matrimoniall society with their wiues, more then their Presbyters and Deacons: seeing they take no notice of the prescriptions of the Sixth Generall Councell, wherein this restraint began: The Armenians receiuing but only the three first, and the Aethiopians only the first foure Generall Councels.

Thus hauing taken a view of the course of things in the Church, from the beginning, and made it euident, that generally there neuer preuailed any restraint of Cleargy-men from companying with their wiues, which they married while they were but yet Lay-men, or in the inferiour orders and degrees of Ministery: and that the greatest part of the Christian world hath euer from the beginning, euen vnto this day enjoyed the liberty which some vniustly sought to impeache; let vs see where it was restrained or taken away, and by whom. Of the restraint in Thessalia, whereof Heliodorus was Author, as likewise in Thessalonica, Macedonia and Hellas, and of the endeauours of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, resisted by the Bishops in the Councell of Gangra, I haue spoken sufficiently already and haue shewed, that this restraint could not preuaile, nor continue in those partes: all these Churches holding their liberty in this matter euen vnto this day. Therefore I will proceede to speake of the restraint, that some sought to bring into the West Church. The first restraint of Bishoppes, Presbyters, and Deacons from companying with their wiues, that I do finde in the West Church, was in the Prouinciall Councell of Canone. 33. Elliberis in Spaine, holden in the yeare three hundred and fiue, twenty yeares before the Councell of Nice, consisting of nineteene Bishoppes. But I hope our Aduersaries will not much presse vs with the authority of this Councell: seeing themselues make so little account of it as they doe. There are some most excellently learned (sayth Tom. 1. Conciliorum: Binnius, in his notes vpon this Councell, that thinke it erroneous, and of no authority, and that it is to be contemned as rejected by the Church, for fauouring the heresie of Nouatus, the conceit of Vigilantius, and their opinion, that would haue no pictures in Churches. Locor. Theolog. lib. 5. cap. 4. Melchior Canus sayth, the thirty sixth Canon of it is erroneous: and De Imaginib. lib. 2. cap. 9. Bellarmine sayth, it was but Prouinciall, not confirmed, and that it erred in many things: namely, in not admitting to the Communion of the Church vpon their repentance, such as in the time of persecution denyed the faith, or otherwise ranne into grieuous and enormous crimes and sinnes. And Cardinall Baronius, howsoeuer Tom. 1. anno. Domini 57. num. 119. & trib. sequent. varying in his opinion touching this Councell, yet Tom. 2. anno 305. num. 42. confesseth, there is no mention of it among the Ancient, as of others; and that it was vtterly suppressed, as if it had neuer beene because it was ill thought of, as fauouring Nouatianisme. And therefore contrary to this Councell, the Councell of Canone. 4 & 5. Ancyra, nine yeares after decreed, that they that fell in the time of persecution, and denied the faith, after condigne penance should bee receiued to the Sacraments of the Church againe: and that Canone 9. Deacons protesting at the time of their ordination, that they cannot; nor are not resolued to containe, but that they purpose and desire to marry, shall remaine in the Ministery, though they marry after their ordination. This councell was confirmed by Dist. 20. cap. de Libellis. Leo the fourth, and by the Councell of Nice, as it is in the Actione 4. Councell of Florence. So that hitherto, no restraint of Cleargy-men from companying with their wiues preuailed. But almost foure hundred yeares after Christ, Inter Epistolas Dec •… etales Syricius Bishoppe of Rome, writing to the Bishoppe of Tarracon, (by whom he vnderstood that very many Priests and Deacons in those parts, after their ordination, liued with their wiues which they had formerly married, and begat children of them as before; and iustified their soe dooing by the example of the Priests of the Law) excusing that which was done, as proceeding from ignorance, if they would acknowledge themselues in fault, and refraine for the time to come, commanded that no such thing should be any longer permitted. Whereupon the Can. 2. & 3. second Prouinciall Coūcell of Arle, holden in the time of this Syricius, decreed, that no maried man should bee admitted to the degree of Priest-hood, vnlesse hee would promise to refraine from the company of his wife, and yet permitted him to haue her liuing in house with him. Epist. 3. Innocentius the first, who beganne his Popedome about the yeare of our Lord foure hundred and two, insisted in the steppes of Syricius his Predecessor, and drew some particular Bishops to concurre with him. So that in some particular councels, the lawfull society and companying of Cleargie-men with their wiues, beganne to bee restrained. In the Canone 3. second councell of Carthage, as it is vsually reckoned, but indeed the last, the Legate of the Bishop of Rome being present, procured the Bishoppes to passe a Decree, that Bishoppes, Presbyters and Deacons, should refraine from the company of their wiues; falsely affirming, that the Apostles did teach so, and Antiquity practise so; contrary to that which I haue before alleadged out of the canons of the Apostles, the councell of Gangra, the speeches of Paphnutius in the councell of Nice, the report of Socrates the Historian, and the Decree of the sixth Generall councel, affirming the leauing of Cleargy-men to their liberty in this behalfe to bee Apostolicall and Auncient. The Canone 1. first councell of Toledo holden in the yeare of our Lord foure hundred, decreed, that Deacons which had liued with their wiues, should not bee preferred to bee Presbyters, nor Presbyters to bee Bishoppes, though they had so done before the restraint made by the Bishoppes that were before them, but laide no other punishment on them. The Councell of Canone 9. Agatha holden in the yeare fiue hundred and sixe, sheweth plainly, that at that time many Prouinces tooke no knowledge of the Decree of Syricius and Innocentius; but that their Presbyters and Deacons liued with their wiues still; and excuseth them in respect of their not knowing of any restraint; and continueth them in their places, onely debarring them from further promotion, and prescribing that the Decree of Syricius shall take place in time to come; and that such as knowe of it and disobey it, shall bee remoued from their places. The Canone 2. first Councell of Turon, holden in the yeare foure hundred foure score and two, sought to remitte something of the seuerity of some particular Councels, wherein the Bishoppes directed by the prohibition of Syricius and Innocentius, had gone too farre. The words of the Councell are these: Though our Fathers, out of the authoritie committed to them, decreed that what Priest or Deacon soeuer, should bee found to begette children of their wiues, should bee put from the communion of the Lord; yet wee moderating this extreame seuerity, and by a more equall constitution mollifying and mitigating that which was too hard, haue decreed: That a Priest or Deacon continuing in Matrimoniall society with his wife, and not ceasing from the procreation of children, shall not bee lifted vp to any higher degree, nor offer sacrifice vnto God, nor minister to the people: but let this be enough for them, that they are not put from the Communion. Thus wee see, that within a short time after the publishing of these Decrees, the Bishoppes were forced out of due consideration to remit something of that seuerity, that some other set on by Syricius and Innocentius had vsed, till at length the execution of these Decrees was in a manner wholy neglected as vnprofitable, and too heauy a burthen for the Ministers of the Church to beare. Whereupon we shall finde, that in all the Prouinces of the West, the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church were married, at that time that Hildebrand climed vp into the Papall Chaire, and had beene long before. Priests in those times (saith Lib. 5. Annal. Boiorum. pag. 564. Auentinus) had wiues publickly, as all other Christians, and begate sonues and daughters of them, as it appeareth by the instruments of donations made to Churches, and Abbaies, wherein these Priests wiues together with their husbands, are brought as witnesses, and are stiled by the name of Presbyterissae. Yea so generall and so well setled was the mariage of Cleargy-men in those times, that when Hildebrand beganne to restraine and forbid it, the whole Nation of Cleargie-men rose vp against him, called him Monster, and enemy of man-kinde, and pronounced him to bee Antichrist. And such was the resistance against this rash and inconsiderate attempt of the Pope, that hee could by no meanes prevaile, though hee caused so great confusions, tumults and disorders in the Christian worlde, as the like had neuer beene seene in any of the bloudy persecutions, that were in the time of the Primitiue Church: and was forced to confesse a little before his death, that hee had caused grieuous scandals in the Christian world. The circumstances of the whole narration found in the Historians are these. Naucler. vol. 〈◊〉 . generat. 36. So soone as the Decree of Hildebrand was published, presently the whole faction of Cleargy-men was enraged against him: crying out that hee was an hereticke, and a man damnably erring in his judgement, who forgetting the speach of our Lord, that saith, All men receiue not this word; Let him that can receiue it, receiue it: and of the Apostle who saith, Let him that cannot containe, marry; for it is better to marry then to burne, would by violent inforcement constraine men to liue after the manner of Angells; and while hee denyed, and sought to restraine the ordinary & accustomed course of nature, loosed the reines, and gaue free liberty to whoredome, and vncleannesse: protesting, that if hee should goe forward to vrge the execution of this his Decree, they were resolued rather to forsake the Ministery, then their marriage. And that then hee, before whom men did stincke, should see, whence Angels are to be had, to vndertake the gouernment of the Church and people of God. Notwithstanding all this resistance, and these earnest protestations, Hildebrand went forward, vrged the matter, and reproued the Bishops as carelesse and negligent. The Arch-bishop of Mentz fearing the Popes displeasure, and yet considering, that it would bee no easie matter to alter a custome so strongly and by so long tract of time confirmed, proceeded moderately in those parts, where he had to doe: giuing those of the Cleargy halfe a yeares respite, to aduise themselues, praying and beseeching them to resolue to doe that willingly, which of necessity they must doe. But after the time expired, which hee had giuen vnto them, hee called a Synode, and was earnest with them, that without all further delay or excuse, they would presently, either abiure their marriage, or put themselues from seruing any longer at the Altar. They on the contrary side alleadged many reasons to perswade him, not to vrge them to any such extremities: and when they found, that neither intreaty, and humble petition, nor weight of reason would prevaile, but that though professing himselfe vnwilling thus to vrge them, yet he was forced so to doe by the Popes mandate; and that therefore hee must haue no deniall, but that they must yeelde; they went out of the Councell-house, as if it had beene to deliberate, and resolued among themselues either never to returne, or otherwise so to returne, as to pull him out of his chaire, before hee should pronounce so cursed a sentence against them, and to take away his life from him; that so his vnhappie end might be a warning to all posterities, that no succeeding Bishoppe might euer dare to attempt, so to wrong and dishonour the Priestly degree and order. The Arch-bishop by the meanes of some, that wished well vnto him, vnderstanding of this conspiracy, to preuent the tumult, which hee saw to bee vnauoydable, if hee did not speedily giue them some satisfaction and contentment, sent vnto them, besought them to bee quiet, and to returne into the Synode; and promised, that as soone as any opportunity should bee offered, hee would doe his best endeauour to perswade the Pope to desist from these courses: These things were done in the yeare 1074. The yeare following, the Arch-bishoppe againe vrged by the Pope called another Councell at Mentz, to which the Popes Legate came, bringing his letters and mandates, and requiring him to vrge them presently, to yeeld, and if they should refuse so to doe, to punish them with the losse of their degree and order, which thing when hee was about to doe, presently all the Cleargy-men which sate round about, rose vp, and so refuted, and reiected that hee said, with words, and by the violent moving & shaking of their hands, and gesture of their whole bodies, shewed themselues to bee so moued against him, as that hee feared euer to goe out of the Synode aliue; and so at last, ouercome with the difficulty of this atttempt, hee resolued to desist from medling with this matter any more, which hee had so often to no purpose taken in hand, and to leaue it wholly to the Pope to doe what hee would. These were the vaine attempts of the Romanistes for the restrayning of lawfull Marriage, which though they preuailed not at the first, according to the wishes of the wicked Pope, yet caused the most horrible confusions in the Westerne Church, that euer had been: for Lay-men taking occasion hereupon, despised their Priests, medled with the Ministration of Holy thinges, ministered the Sacrament of Baptisme, annoynted men with the filthe which they tooke out of their eares, in steade of oyle; did many things most disorderly, and committed sundry intollerable outrages. And therefore it is most strange that De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 19. Bellarmine should so forget himselfe as he doth, For whereas all stories impute these confusions, prophanations and contempts of sacred things to the restraint of marriage, and the disgracing of it, so hard is his forhead, that he blusheth not to write, that the marriage of Ministers would hinder the due and reuerent administration of Sacraments; and that experience shewed it, in that in Germany, in the time of Gregory the Seauenth when Priests began to marry wiues, there grew so great contempt of the Sacraments, that Lay-men beganne to administer them, as Nauclerus, and others report. In which speech of his, there is no word true: for neither did Priests begin to marry in Gregories time, but had beene ordinarily married long before, as Vbi suprà. Nauclerus testifieth, saying, it was an old & confirmed custome, that was not easily to bee altered, which Gregory sought to take away, when hee went about to forbid the marriage of Priests: So that they did rather cease to marry in his time then beginne. Neither doth any story impute the confusions, prophanations, & contempts of Sacraments and sacred things in those times to the marriage of Priests, which was publickely allowed long before, without any such euill ensuing, as Vbi suprà. Aventinus, and others doe testifie, but to the restraint of it. And therefore it was not the beginning (as Bellarmine vntruely saith) but the ending of Priests marriages in Gregories time, that brought in so many and hideous euills into the Christian world. Thus hauing seene with how bad successe Gregory the Seauenth beganne this restraint in other partes of the Christian world, let vs take a view of our owne countrey, and see what footing it had here. Lib. 7. Henry Huntingdon an auncient Historian and of good creditte, reporteth that before the time of Anselme Bishoppe of Canterbury, the marriage of Presbyters and other Ministers of the Church, was not forbidden in England; & that when he forbad it, howsoeuer hee pleased some, for that there seemed to bee greater purity in single life, then in the state of Marriage; yet this his prohibition seemed to other to be very dangerous: fearing that whiles he sought to bring men to that, which is aboue the reach, and without the compasse of humane frailty, hee would occasion many greeuous and scandalous euills. But howsoeuer, this his endeauour tooke not place by and by, for the same authour reporteth, that after that time one Iohn Cremensis, a Cardinall came into England, and went about to restraine the Marriages of Church-men: So that it appeareth, that Anselme had effected nothing. This worthy Cardinall (as hee reporteth) held a Synode at London, and in the same made a vehement and bitter speach against the marriage of Presbyters; asking if it were not an impure and vnfitting thing for a Minister of the Church to rise vp from the side of an harlot, (for so it pleased him to terme the lawfull wiues of Church-men) and to goe to the Altar to consecrate the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood. But see the judgement of God, saith Huntingdon. The Impure Cardinall that had thus inveighed against Marriage, the night following was taken in bed with an Harlot though hee had said Masse and consecrated the blessed Sacrament in the morning; which thing Math. Paris. in Henrico. 1. pag. 67. was so euident that it could not, and so foule, that it was not fitte to be concealed, and hee addeth, that if any Romane Prelate or other dislike this his most true reporte, hee were best to take heede hee follow not the example of Cremensis, least the like dishonour come vnto him as did vnto Cremensis, who being at first receiued in very glorious manner, was in the end cast out with disgrace; and vvho despising lawfull marriage, feared not to commit most filthy vvhoredome. Hereupon it seemeth, the matter of restraint of Presbyters marriage had no good successe at that time; which appeareth also in that Math. Paris. in Henrico. 1. pag. 68. after this time in a Councell it was referred to the King, & hee vvas authorised & appointed to punish such Presbyters and ministers of the Church, as he should find married, but he notably deceiued the Popes Agents, that thus authorised him; for hee tooke money of such as vvere found to be married and suffered them so to redeeme their liberties, vvhich grieued them not a little: yet did they in the end so farre forth obtaine their desires, and the tyranny of Antichrist so farre prevailed, that Presby ters durst no longer bee knowne publickly to be married, but were forced to take another course: for as it appeareth by the Constit. Othonis de vxoratis à Benefici •… amouendis. Decrees of Otho, in the time of Henry the Third, many contracted matrimony secretly, and when in processe of time children were borne vnto them, for their good when they saw it fit, they would take order it might be proued they were married, and their children borne in mariage, either by witnesses, or publicke instruments, either while they liued, or after their death. Whereby it is evident, that howsoeuer the impure Romanists sought to keep Cleargy-men from marying, and to force them by the censures of the Church, and other extremities to put away their wiues, yet at that time they durst not pronounce their mariages voyde, nor their children illegitimate; for if they had, these men would not so carefully haue provided to bee able to make proofe of their mariages for the good of their children. So that though there wanted not instruments, set a worke by the Pope some hundreds of yeares past, that sought to restraine the mariage of Cleargy-men, yet was not their restraint like vnto that of the Romanists at this day, for they did not so restraine Cleargy-men from marying, or liuing with their wiues, as to pronounce their mariages to be voyde, neither did they separate those that God had joyned together, but if they would marry, or continue with their wiues, which they had formerly maried, they permitted them so to doe, and onely put them from the minstery. Presbyters in former times (saith o Duarenus) if they tooke wiues in those n De Sacr. Ecclminist, & Benef. l. 4. c. 8. places where mariage was forbidden, were put from the ministery, or perhaps where more severity was vsed, were excommunicated; but their mariage was not voyded; yet is it not to be denyed, but that Syricius and Innocentius spake very vnreverently of the state of mariage, indeavouring to proue that Presbyters are not to bee suffered to marry, because to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh, & they that liue in the flesh cannot please God. How absurd and inconsiderate this kinde of reasoning is, euery man (I thinke) will easily discerne: for whereas the Heb. 13. 4 Apostle, and after him Socrat. l. 1. c. 8 Paphnutius in the Councel of Nice, pronounce that mariage is honourable among all, and the bed vndefiled: and Chrysostome affirmeth that it is so honourable, that men may be lifted vp into the Bishops chaires with it; with what face can these men say, that to liue in mariage 〈◊〉 In 1 ad Tim. 3 is to liue in the flesh, in such sort as not to please God. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10 Bellarmines evasion, that they speak not of mariage simply, but of forbidden mariage, such as that of Priests is, when they say, to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh, & that therefore they say only, they who liue in vnlawfull & forbidden mariage, liue in the flesh; & cannot please God, will not serue the turne. For they speak not of vnlawfull & forbidden mariage, but goe about to proue, that mariage is to be forbiddē & denied to Presbyters, by a reason taken frō the nature of it, & something in it, or consequent of it, in respect whereof it cannot stand with the holinesse of the degree and calling of Presbyters and Ministers: So that they say simply, to liue in mariage; is to liue in the flesh: and that therefore the holy Ministers of the Church, who may not liue in the flesh, must bee forbidden to marry; their words being a reason mouing them to prohibite mariage, and not taken from the prohibition, as it will easily appeare to any one that will take the paines to view the Epistles of the Romane Bishops (if yet they haue not beene corrupted, as many other t Syricli ad Himericum c. 7. Innocen ad Victricium c. 9. & in cp ad Exuperium c. 1 things of like nature haue.) But how-so-euer wee censure these sayings of the Popes, it is most certaine, that those particular Bishops of the West, who vpon misconce it, sought to restraine Presbyters from liuing with their wiues, yet neuer proceeded so far as either to pronounce their mariages vnlawful, or to dissolue them, till of late. And therefore they were most contrary in their judgments to the lewde assertions of Papists; who thinke and teach, that the mariages of Church-men are adulteries, and feare not to say, that it is worse for a man to take a wife to liue with continuallie, then to joine himselfe vnto harlots: which prodigious assertion, all men in former times, euen they who were most averse from the mariage of Cleargy-men would haue detested. If a Presbyter (saith the councell of Can. 1. Neocaesarea) will marry a wife, let him be put from his order, but if hee commit fornication or adultery, let him bee driuen further, and put to pennance. Whereunto the councell of Can. 33. & 18 Helliberis before-mentioned, agreeth, prescribing that such as commit adulterie shall be put from the communion of the Church for euer: and likewise the councell of Can. 12. Arverne. Some other indeede there were that proceeded a little further, and put them from the communion of the Church, that would liue in Matrimoniall society; but the Bishops in the Councell of Turonens. 〈◊〉 . Canone. 2. Turon thought good to moderate that extremity, and onely to keepe them from further promotion and sacred imployment: and with them the Bishops in the fifth Councell of Canone. 4. Orleans agree So that these Bishops though inconsiderately restraining marriage, yet durst not pronounce the marriages of Church-men voyde, as our Aduersaries now do; neyther did they (for ought I can read) force men to make any vow of continence. For though some of them required a promise of liuing single, yet was it no vow; seeing a promise made to men is farre different from a vowe, which is a promise made to God. And many of them (as it may seeme) vrged such as they admitted into the Ministery to no such promise at all: but receiued them in such sort, that they should so lōg be imployed, as they would refraine, & that if they pleased to marry, they should still injoy the Communion of the Church, but should not be imployed in sacred function any longer. Touching the promise which some required, the second Councell of Toledo prescribeth, that at eighteene yeares of age they of the Cleargy shall b Canone. 〈◊〉 . resolue to marry, or promise to containe; & that at twenty they shall be made Subdeacons. The Councell of Canone. 10. Ancyra prouideth, that if Deacons shallprotest when they are ordained that they will not liue single, but will haue wiues, they shall be permitted to marry, and yet keepe their places. But if professing that they will containe, they betake themselues to former or new marriages, they shall inioy the Lay-communion, but shall be put out of the Ministery and Cleargy. Whereby it appeareth, that there was no vniforme obseruation in the promise of continencie, that was required: seeing the one of these two Councels requireth it at eighteene yeares of age, of such as were not yet Subdeacons, and the other leaueth such as were to bee Deacons to their owne choyce at the time of their ordination: nor that this promise was thought to make voyd the ensuing mariage; seeing such as contrary to promise, returned to the state of mariage, were permitted to enioy the communion of the Church as Lay-men, though in some places they were put out of the Ministery and Cleargy. I say in some places, because it appeareth by the Concil. Tolet. 1. Canone. 4. Councell of Toledo, appointing that such shall haue but the places of Lectors only, that they were not wholy depriued of the honour of Cleargy-men in all places. Afterwards indeed in the Canone. 10. Ninth Councell of Toledo, the Bishops finding that all their former indeauours preuailed not, though they voyded not the mariages of Cleargy-men, nor iudged them to be adulteries as our Aduersaries do, yet they adjudged such as should be borne of such marriages to a kind of bondage, and depriued them of that possibility of inheritance, which formerly they might haue had. But this was but the particular Decree of that prouinciall Councell, and soe could binde none but those fewe Churches in those partes. Neyther did it. For long after heere in England, (as I haue shewed) the Ministers of the church were publikely maried without any such wrong done eyther to them or their children. And long after the restraint of Gregory the seauenth, when this Decree of single life had in some sort preuailed, they did still secretly marry, and when they saw cause for the good of their children, made proofe of their mariages. Neither is it to be maruailed at, that some particular Synodes in the west, set on by the Bishops of Rome, went about in some sort to restraine the lawfull Mariages of church-men: (lawfull I say, both by the lawe of God, and the resolution, allowance, & practice of the greater part of the Christian Churches) seeing they forbade those, which euen in the iudgement of our aduersauersaries themselues, I thinke cannot bee denied to haue beene lawfull. If the widdowe or relicte of a Presbyter or Deacon, shall ioyne herselfe to any man in mariage (sayth the first Councell of Orleans) let them after chastisement bee seperated, or if they persist in the intention of such a crime, let them be excommunicated. Wherewith f Canone. 15. the Canone. 32. Epaunine Councell agreeth, and the second Councell of Canone. 29. Bracar, saying: If any widdow of a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon take an husband, let no Cleargy-man, nor no religious woman banquet with them; neither let her euer communicate, onely at the time of her death, let the Sacraments of the Church bee administred vnto her. Likewise, the Councel of Canone. 22. Antisiodorum, decreeth to the same effect. Neither can it be answered, that these Councels forbid the widdows of Presbyters, Deacōs, & Subdeacons to marry, because during the life of their husbands, vpon some voluntary parting, they bound themselues by promise to liue continently. For the Councell of Matisconens. 2. Canone 16. Matiscon decreeth, that if the wiues of Subdeacons, Exorcistes, or Acoluthes, shall after their death, ioyne themselues in marriage the second time, they shall bee separated, and thrust into the houses of Nunnes. And yet these might lawfully liue with their husbands, euen in the judgement of them that made this decree. Neither were they any way induced necessarily to promise to containe.

Thus hauing seene, where, when, and by whom, the forbidding of the lawfull marriage of Presbyters entred into the Church, in what sort it was vrged at the first, how afterwards, what contradiction it found, & how farre forth in the end it preuailed; it remaineth that wee proceed to see what good followed vpon it. Where first Annal. Boiorum. lib. 5. pag. 565. & 571. Aventinus telleth vs, that after the restraint of Hildebrand, vnder the honest name of Chastity, the greatest part euery where, without checke of punishment, committed whoredomes, incests, and adulteries, and that the Lawe of single life, which offended the good, was exceeding pleasing to impure companions, who now for one wife might haue sixe hundred Harlots. Neither is this the priuate conceit of Auentinus, alone, but all good & wise men beare witnes with him, that hee speaketh the truth; & say as much as he. Bern: speaking of the state of the Cleargie in his time, saith, Bernard. de Conuersione, ad Clericos. c. 29. Many, not all truely, but yet many vndoubtedly, who neither canne bee hid they are so many, nor care to bee hid they are so shamelesse; many surely seeme to haue made the liberty in which they are called, to serue as a fitte occasion to satisfie the flesh; abstayning from the remedy of Mariage, and powring forth themselues into all manner of sinfull wickednesses. And in the same Chapter he saith, That if wee digge downe the wall, according to the wordes of the Prophet Ezechiell, wee shall see horrible things in the house of God. For after whoredomes, adulteries, and incests, there are found the passions of ignominy, and the workes of impurity and filthinesse. Would to GOD (saith hee) those thinges that are most vnnaturall, were not committed: that neither the Apostles needed to write of them, nor wee to speake; and that no man would beleeue that so abominable lust did euer possesse the minde of man. Were not those Citties, which were the Mothers of this impure filthinesse, long since condemned by the iudgement of God himselfe, and consumed with fire? Did not the fire of hell, impatient of delay, preuent the time, and in a sort before the time, consume that cursed Nation? Did not fire, brimestone, and the sto •… mie tempest, consume the very earth and ground it selfe, as priuie to such confusions, as should neuer so much as once bee thought of? Was not all the whole land and ground it selfe turned into an horrible Lake? Surely, fiue heads of the Monster Hydra are cut off: but woe is vnto vs, innumerable moe are risen vp. Who hath reedified those Cities of villany? who hath inlarged the walles of impuritie? and who hath spread out those venimous branches? Woe, woe! the enemy of man-kinde hath scattered euery where round about, the vnhappy reliques of that sulphureous burning, and hath sprinckled the body of the Church with those execrable ashes, & hath filled some of the Ministers of the Church, with that filthy, stinking, and impure running sore. Saluianus in like sort, in his booke of diuine Prouidence, hath these wordes. Saluianus de Diuina prouideutia lib 5. citat. ab E •… encaeo. lib. 1. de Continentia. cap. 12. It is surely altogether a new and strange kinde of conuersion, that some men talke of, lawfull thinges they doe not, and vnlawfull thinges they committe. They refraine from mariage, but refraine not from Rape. What doest thou O foolish perswasion? God forbad sinne, not mariage: your deedes agree not with your profession. You should not bee the friends of enormous crimes, who professe to doe the workes of vertue. It is a preposterous thing that you doe, it is not conuersion but auersion. You that haue long since (as the same is) forsaken the worke of honest mariage, cease at the last; from sinfull wickednesse. With these agree the Historians generally, Sigebertus in C •… onico. Anni 1074. reporting that innumerable euills followed the prohibition of the mariage of Cleargie-men, published by Pope Hildebrand; that few liued continently, though some counterfaited so to doe for filthie lucres sake, and for ostentation; and that many ioyned both periurie and adultery together: and not contenting them-selues with an ordinary degree of wickednesse, multiplyed their whoredomes and adulteries exceedingly.

Whereupon wee shall finde, that many of the best learned, most judicious, & worthiest men, the Church had in latter times, wished the Law of single life to be taken away, euen as many resisted it when it was first made. Durandus in his booke Rubric. 4 •… fol. 35 De modo celebrandi Concilii, proueth by many reasons, that it were fit that the libertie of mariage were againe restored to Priests in a Generall councell. AEn. Sylv. de gest. concil. Bas. In the councell of Basill, when exception was taken against the choice of Amedeus Duke of Savoy, (whō many thought fit to be Pope) for that he had beene a maried man, and had children, it was answered by some of good esteeme, that that was no exception, and that haply it were much better that Priests were permitted to liue in mariage, then restrained. For that many of them might be saued in chaste mariage, which now perish in their filthie and impure single life. Aeneas Sylvius a great man in that councell, who was afterwards Pope, and named Pius the second, in an Ep. 307. ad Ioan. Fiundt. Epistle to a friend of his, who was in the holy orders of the ministery of the church, & yet desirous for the avoiding of fornicatiō, to marry a wife, writeth thus: We suppose that you are not ill advised, if when you cannot containe, you seeke a wife, though that should haue been thought on before you had entred into holy Orders. But wee are not Gods, neither can wee fore-see things to come. Wherefore seeing things are come to this passe, that you cannot resist the law of the flesh, it is better to marry then to burne. Yet cannot the Pope be perswaded to dispense with you; but he standeth resolued to holde his seuere course still, and thinketh it not fit to grant that to one, which may be hurtfull vnto many. If therefore you desire safely to marry, you must expect some other Pope, who may be more inclineable and yeelding. And of this Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards named Pius the second, In Pio 2. Platina, and Ennead. 10 l. 6. pag. 731. Sabellicus report, that hee was wont to say, That they had, no doubt, reason to leade them so to doe, that forbade the Marriage of Cleargy-men, but that there were much greater reason now to leaue it free againe. Fastorum l. 1. Baptista Mantuanus saith, that many thought the Lawes against mariage to bee euill; that they which made those Lawes, had not sufficiently considered what the nature of man can beare, that CHRIST neuer put so vnpleasant a Yoake vpon the neckes of men; that this burden, too heavie for the shoulders of men to beare, hath brought forth many monstrous effects: that it was a shew of Piety, but indeede too great boldnesse, that laide this burthen vpon the shoulders of men; that it had beene more safe to haue gone that way wherein the divine Law directeth vs, and to haue trode in the steppes of the Auncient Fathers, whose life was better in marriage, then ours that is single. Tit. Qui Clerici vel •… oventes matrimonia contrahere possunt. Citat. ab Andr. Frisio l. 4. de Ecclesia. Ioannes Antonius saith, in the time of the Primitiue Church, it was lawfull for Presbyters, and such as were entered into holy Orders, to haue wiues, so that they refrained from companying with them, vpon the dayes wherein they celebrated: that afterwardes in the Westerne Church, they that were entred into holy Orders were commaunded to containe: which commaundement (hee sayth) yeelded matter to ensnare the soules of many men, and therefore hee verily beleeueth, that as the Church brought in this precept of continencie, so the time will come, when the same Church will reverse and revoke it againe: which revocation shall be agreeable to that of the Apostle, who sayth, 1 Cor. 7. 25. Concerning Virgins, I haue no commaundement, but I giue advice. With Antonius agreeth Panormitanus: who proposing the question, whether the Church may giue leaue to Presbyters to cōtract mariage, or to liue y De Clericis conjugatis. cap. cum olim. in mariage, as the Graecians doe, aunswereth, that hee beleeueth it may: & that he is assured it may in respect of them, who are not tyed by vow implyed or expressed. Which hee proueth, because continencie in secular Cleargy-men is not of the substance of order, nor prescribed by the Law of GOD. For that otherwise the Graecians should sinne, and no custome could excuse them: seeing no custome is of force against the Law of GOD. Neither doth hee onely thinke, that the Church hath power thus to doe, but professeth, hee thinketh it were behoouefull, and for the good and saluation of the soules of men, that such as are willing to containe, and to lead a life of higher perfection, should be left to their owne will, and that such as are not willing to containe, should by the Decree of the Church be set free to contract marriage. Citat. ab Andre •… . Frisio. de Ecclesia, lib. 4. Alfonsus Veruecius, as Andreas Frisius telleth vs, discoursing of the words of Paul, (For the auoyding of fornication, let euery one haue his owne wife) sayth, they containe no precept, but a concession or graunt: and affirmeth, that by vertue of this grant, euery one that cannot otherwise auoyde fornication, may marry a wife. And after certaine remedies prescribed to be obserued & vsed by Presbyters, that they may auoyde fornication, at last, confidently giueth counsell to him, who hauing tryed all those meanes cannot containe, rather to marry a wife, and soe to prouide for his owne saluation, then to commit fornication, and so cast himselfe head-long into eternall death: but yet perswadeth such a one to doe nothing without seeking the Popes consent hopeing that he will dispense in such a case; seeing the power hee hath, was giuen him for edification, & not for destruction. I dare confidently say, (sayth De Inuent. Rerum. lib. 5. cap. 4. Polydere Virgill) that it hath beene soe farre from beeing true, that this inforced Chastity hath excelled that which is in marriage: that no sinfull crime hath brought greater disgrace to the order of the Ministery, more euill to religion, or made a greater and deeper impression of sorrowe in all good men, then the staine of the impure lust of Priests. And therefore haply, it were behoouefull for the Christian commonwealth, and for the good of them that are of that sacred order and ranke, that at the last a publicke Lawe might bee made to giue leaue to Priestes to contract mariage. Wherein rather they might liue honestly and holily without infamy, then in most filthy manner defile themselues with this sinne of Nature. And Bishoppe Citat. a chemnitio •… n exami ne Trident. Concil. Lindan sayth: Surely euen at this day, it is lawfull to take chast and honest married men into the order of Priesthood: which (in my judgment) might much better bee done in some prouinces of Germany, then to set ouer them certaine most impure companions, or any longer to endure and tollerate Knaues, Apostataes, and sacralegious Pastours. With these agreeth In Declamat. de la •… dib. Matrimonij. Erasmus, affirming, that in his conceipt, hee should not ill deserue, nor take the worst course for the furthering of humane affaires, & the right informing of the manners of men, which should procure liberty of mariage (if it might bee) both for Priestes and Monkes. And therefore Sigismund the Emperour, a lttle before the Councell of Basill began, published a reformation of the Cleargy, in which among other things this was one, that forasmuch as more euill commeth by the forbidding of mariage then good, it were better and more safe to permit Cleargy-men to liue in the state of mariage according to the custome of the Orientall Churches, then to forbid them so to do. In the Councell of Trent, the Orator of Bauaria moued to the same purpose. And Vbi spurâ. Chemnitius reporteth from George the Prince of Anhault, that Adolphus Bishoppe of Mersbergh his vncle, would often say, before euer Luther began to stirre, that if there were a Councell, hee would bee a perswader, that Cleargy-men might be permitted to marry: and professed that hee knew, that many for the quiet of their consciences secretly contracted mariage with those women which they kept vnder the name of Concubines. And surely euen the Popes themselues were content to winke at things in this kinde. Georgius Cassander, a man of infinite reading, excellent iudgment, and singular piety and sincerity, and therefore soe much respected and honoured by Ferdinand and Maximilian the second, that they held him the fittest man in the world to compose the controuersies in religion, & sent for him to come vnto them for the same purpose, is clearely of opinion In Consultatione de Sacerd. Caelibatu. that howsoeuer some in ancient times forbad the marriage of Cleargy-men, yet now it were fit and necessary that that lawe were abrogated: first, because it is found by wofull experience, to bee the cause of many grieuous euils: secondly, for that the seuerity of Discipline, and strictnesse in all courses of life, that was in vse when this Lawe began first to bee vrged, is cleane gone, or much decayed, euen in the opinion of all. Soe that that which was fitte in those times, may now bee most vnfitte. Thirdly, for that many godlie and learned men are thereby Aeneas Syluius writing to Petrus Noxetus hath these words. Adhuc caui ne me •… acer ordo inuolueret. Timeo enim continentiam &c. Epist. 50. discouraged from entring into the Ministerie, refusing to binde themselues to the obseruation of this lawe of single life whereby the Church looseth the benefitte of their labours; fewe young men, indeed religious and pious, applying themselues to the study of Diuinity: but such onely for the most part, as seeke nothing but riche and good liuings, that intend a dissolute course of life, and resolue aforehand, to wallow in all impurity of lust, (besides some fevve, who inconsiderately before they know themselues, fall into the snare.) Neither doth hee onely thinke it fitte, that married men be admitted into the Ministery; and suffered to company with their wiues, according to the custome of the Orientall Churches, but is of opinion also, that they may be permitted to marrie, after they are entred into holy Orders, yea though there were no allowed example of any such thing heretofore; seeing the prohibition is but positiue, and many positiue constitutions haue beene abrogated. But indeede there are not onely examples of men marying after entring into Orders: but also of the Churches allowing the same. For touching Subdeacons and Deacons, there can be no question; seeing the Councell of Canone. 10. Ancyra, which was most ancient and confirmed by Leo the Pope, as De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 18. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, decreed, that Deacons, with the Bishoppes leaue, might marrie vviues after their entrance into holy Orders. Vide suprâ. In the time of Gregory the Seauenth, and before, as it appeareth by the stories of those times; Priestes did marrie after Orders: and when hee went about to forbidde them so to doe, hee vvas condemned by the whole Nation of Cleargie-men, and deposed in a Councell of Bishoppes: being justly disliked as for other things, soe for this his Antichristian and vile attempt. Neyther did those men, which desired a Decree to be passed, to giue the liberty of marriage vnto Church-men, of whom I haue spoken, desire onely the permitting of maried men soe to continue, but of such as are not maried for to marrie, as it easily appeareth by their discourses. And surely howsoeuer there might bee some reason of expedience, rather to permitte maried men to enter into the Ministery, and to continue in the same state, then to suffer such as come into it vnmarried, to marry afterwardes: yet if the one be lawfull (as Vbi suprà. Bellarmine rightly noteth) the other cannot bee vnlavvfull. For if any thing be found in mariage, that cannot stand with the sanctitie of the Ministery, or the due execution of it, it is not the contract, which is a thing most seemely and honest and soone past, but the act of it, and the cares accompanying that state of life. The manner, custome and obseruation of the Greeke Churches, is described by Zonaras in his explication of the Canons of the Apostles: where he saith, that Presbyters, Deacons, & Sub-deacons before they be ordained, are asked whether they will liue single or not: and if they answere that they will; they are presently ordained. But if they answere, that they will not: they are permitted to take them wiues first: and then are ordained after mariage. Soe that they giue them leaue to marrie after they haue chosen them, though before they ordaine them: but if refusing to marry before ordination (when they are willed to resolue what they will doe) they marrie afterwardes, they are putte from the Ministery, but not from their wiues.

For farther proofe hereof see the first booke of Claudius Espencaeus de Continentiâ. By that which hath beene said, it is most cleare and euident, that the mariage of Ministers is justifiable by Gods Lawe, by the Canons and practice of the greatest part of the Church, and by the judgment of sundry of the greatest and worthiest of the World, in those places, where it seemed to be most disliked, in all ages, euen till our time: yet there remaineth still one doubt, touching the lawfulnesse of their Mariages that by vowe had promised the contrary. Concerning which point, two things are to bee obserued: first, whether their mariage bee voide, that vowed not to marrie. Secondly, whether they do sinne that vppon any occasion, or change of the state of things, do contrary to such their vow. Touching the first of these two pointes, to wit, that the mariages of such as had vowed the contrary, are not voyd, vvee haue the judgment of sundrie the best learned among the Fathers. For first, Cyprian speaking of Virgins hath these words: Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 11. Quod si ex fide Christo se dicauerunt, pudice & castè sine vlla fabula perseuerent. Ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent, si autem perseuerare nolunt, aut non possunt, melius est nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant: That is: if by faith they haue dedicated themselues to CHRIST, let them chastly, and with all honest shamefastnesse, without lying, or falshood so continue, and resolute and constant, let them expect the reward of Virginity: but if they will not, or cannot perseuere, it is better that they should marry, then that by their sinnes they should fall into the fire. Which wordes are cleare enough for proofe of that which wee defend. Yet De Monach, l. 2. c. 34 Bellarmine and some others seeke to avoyde them; making as if Cyprian did onely say, that if Virgins that are to resolue, and are yet free, thinke they cannot containe, it were better for them to marry then to burne. But this evasion serueth not the turne: for Cyprian speaketh of such as haue alreadie dedicated themselues to God, willing them to perseuere; and yet saith, if they will not, or cannot containe, they were better to marry then to burne: and therefore he thinketh mariage after a vow made to the contrary to be good, though he that voweth without constant purpose of performing, is not without fault. Pamelius writing on this place of Cyprian hath these wordes: If Cyprian by a certaine indulgence permitted such Virgines vpon whom the vaile was not yet put, to marry rather then to burne, let no man marvaile at it: seeing their mariages, if they doe marry, are not dissolued by any Canons, but they are onely enjoyned penance. Saint Austine agreeth with Cyprian: for, speaking of the mariages of such as had vowed the contrary, he hath these wordes: Aug. de bono Viduitatis. They who say, that the mariages of such men are not mariages, but rather adulteries, as it seemeth to mee, doe not acutely and diligently enough consider what they say: but a certaine likenesse and shew of trueth deceiueth them. For, because they are saide to chuse CHRIST to bee their Husband, which out of a certaine loue of Christian sanctity, refuse to marry, there are some that argue and say, that if shee bee an adulteresse which marryeth to another man while her husband liueth, as the LORD himselfe defined in the Gospell, then so long as CHRIST liueth, ouer whome Death hath no more dominion, shee must needes bee an adulteresse, which hauing chosen him to bee her husband, marryeth vnto any mortall man: They truely which thus say, seeme to bee moued, by some reason, that is not to bee contemned: but they little consider, how great absurdity followeth vpon that which they say: for seeing a woman may laudably (euen while her husband liueth) with his consent vowe continency vnto CHRIST; according to the argument of these men, no woman may so doe; least (which once to thinke is impious) shee make CHRIST himselfe an adulterer, to whome shee marryeth, her husband yet liuing. After this refutation of their reasons, hee goeth forward to shew the absurd consequences of their opinion. By this inconsiderate opinion (saith he) of them that thinke the marriages of women, falne from an holy purpose, if they doe marry, to bee voide, not a little euill is brought forth: for from hence it commeth, that women are separated from their husbands, as adulteresses, and not wiues. And while they thus separate them, and force them to containe, they make their husbands truely and indeede adulterers: when as (these their wiues yet liuing) they marry. Thus doth Austine resolue, that mariages after vowes made to the contrary, are lawfull and good; though the not performing of vowed continency, is a sinne (as hee thinketh) more grieuous then adultery, not for that the mariage of such is to bee condemned, but because the inconstancie in not performing that was purposed, and the violating of the vow are condemned. Non susceptio à bono inferiori, sed ruina ex bono superiori: not for that they doe a lesser good, but because they fall from a greater. Lastly, not for that they afterwardes maryed, but for that they violated their first faith of continency. Which thing that the Apostle might briefly insinuate, hee would not say, that they haue damnation which marry after the purpose of a more high degree of sanctity: not for that they are not to be disliked that so do, but least their mariage it selfe might seem to be condemned; but when hee had saide, they will marry, hee by and by addeth, Hauing condemnation, and expresseth why; Because they haue broken their first faith. That it may appeare that the Will which fell from a former purpose, is condemned and reproued, whether mariage follow or not. If any man doubt whether Saint Austine were the Author of this booke, De bono viduitatis, wherein these things are found, as some doe; and consequently, whether he were of the opinion wee haue recited, or not: hee may easily know, that this is Saint Augustines judgement, whether this be his booke or not; by his Epist 70 Epistle to one Bonifacius, who had vowed a monasticall retyred, and single life, and yet afterwards did marry; whom hee telleth, hee cannot now, as otherwise hee would, exhort to that kind of life, which he had formerly vowed, because of his wife, so that he thought not his mariage voyde, or that he was to be separated from his wife. His wordes are these: Thy wife hindereth mee that I cannot exhort thee to this kind of life; without whose consent it is not lawfull for thee to containe. &c. And De sancta Virginitate. cap. 34. else-where speaking of certaine women, who abode not in that which they had first vowed, which had a desire of mariage, but maried not for feare of disgrace, he saith; It were better for them to marry then to burne: that is, then to bee wasted with the secret flame of the conscience in lust. And Hierome also is of the same opinion. For speaking to a certaine virgine that had priuately vowed virginity, and that could not endure the straight keeping of her mothers house, he hath these words: Hieron. Epist. 47. de suspecto Con •… bernio vitando. If thou be a virgine, why dost thou feare carefull and diligent keeping? If thou be corrupted, why dost thou not openly marry? This is as a board to swimme out on after shipwracke. So should'st thou temper that which thou begannest ill, by vsing this remedy. Neither truely doe I say this, for that I take away repentance after sin, (that so that which is ill begun, may still continue) but for that I despaire of drawing of you from that ill company into which you are entered. And in his Epistle to Demetriades he hath these wordes: The ill name and report of some that behaue not themselues well, disgraceth and dishonoureth the holy purpose of virgins, and obscureth and blemisheth the glory of the Heauenly and Angellike family: who must bee plainely and peremptorily vrged and required either to marry, if they cannot containe, or to containe if they will not marry. To these we may adde Heresi. 61. Epiphanius, who indeede maketh it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, a thing euill, and such as God will judge and punish, to forget, neglect, and not to performe a vowe made to God; but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, a thing that casteth men into the condemnation of hell fire, and plungeth them into euerlasting destruction as to liue in adultery: Who defendeth, that it is better to descend to that state of life, which is lawfull and honourable, with one fault of breaking the vow passed to the contrary, and with teares of repentance to wash away the impurity of that one, fault of inconstancy, and so to bee saued, then to liue in sinne continually and so to perish. So that, though hee thinke it a fault for a man to promise a course of continencie to GOD by vowe, and not to performe it; yet hee thinketh it better for a man after this one fault committed, which may bee repented of and forgiuen, to marry, then by liuing in continuall adultery, to adde one sinne vnto another, and to plunge himselfe into endlesse destruction. Erudit. Theolog. de Sacram. fidei. lib. 2. part. 11. c. 12. Hugo de sancto victore maketh two constructions of the wordes of Saint Austine before alleadged. Whereof the one is, that hee speaketh of secret vowes, whereof the Church canne take no knowledge, because there is no witnesse of them; and that Saint Austines meaning is, that mariages after such vowes, are to bee reputed good by the Church. The other is, that the Church in the time of Austine, allowed mariages, after a vowe made to the contrary, but that now the same Church (for consideratiōs her mouing) hath determined otherwise, and by her authority made them voyd. The former of these constructions is too weake and cannot be allowed. For, that Austine thinketh mariage is lawfull and good, after knowne vowes made to the contrary, it is euident by his Epistle to Bonifacius, whom he blameth for breaking his vow, whereof himselfe and Alipius were witnesses, and yet alloweth his mariage; as also for that in the place interpreted by Hugo, hee sheweth that some who were of another judgement, (as indeed we finde Epist. 2. ad Victricium. cap. 12. Innocentius Bishop of Rome to haue beene) dissolued mariages after vowes made to the contrary, which they would not, nor could not haue done, if those vowes had beene altogether secret & vnknowne. Neither doth that hee saith in the 2d place, any better avoyd the cleare euidence of Saint Austines judgment, then the first. For no difference of times, and conditions of men and thinges, canne so change the nature of vowes and mariages, as that a vowe at one time should make voyd an ensuing mariage, and not at another. Others therefore there bee, who goe about to avoide the euidence of the authorites of Austine and the Fathers brought to proue the validity of mariage, after vowes made to the contrary, by making a distinction of vowes. These men therefore make 2. sorts of vowes: naming some simple, and other solemne; and affirme that the latter do debarre men from mariage, and voyd their mariages if they do marry; but that the former do so debarre them from marrying, that they cannot marry without some offence, and yet if they do, their mariage is good and not to be voyded. The Diuines of the Church of Rome (as In secundam secundae. quaest. 38. art. 11. Caietane rightly noteth) differ much in opinion, about the difference of these vowes. For some of them thinke, that they differ in such sort, as that one of them is a promise onely, and the other a reall and actuall exhibition; & that the solemnity of a mans vow consisteth in a reall and actuall exhibition of himselfe, and putting himselfe into such an estate, as cannot stand with marriage. But this opinion (as hee rightly noteth) cannot bee true; seeing there is no such repugnance simply, and in the nature of the thinges, betweene the Order of the holy Ministery and Marriage: as appeareth in that the Ministers of the Greeke Church (as tyed by noe vowe) are judged by all to liue in lawfull Mariage, notwithstanding their Ministery; and also in that the entering into noe religious Order, voydeth mariage, vnlesse it be approued by the Church. There is therefore (as he sheweth) another opinion, that it is not from different nature of the vowes, that the one voydeth mariage contracted, and the other doth not; but from the authority of the Church, that will haue mariage after a vowe made in one sort to bee voyd, and not in another The latter of these two opinions De Monachis. lib. 2. c. 34. Bellarmine sayth, Scotus, Paludanus and Caietane follow: and (as Panormitan reporteth) the whole schoole of Canonistes. And these do answere to the authorities of the Fathers, denying mariages to bee voyde after a solemne vowe, that they are to bee vnderstood to deny them to be voyde by Gods Law, and that there was no Law of man then passed to make them voyde, when they liued, that they knew of, and that therefore they might rightly bee of opinion in those times, that no vowes made insuing marriages to be voyde; seeing no vowes doe voyde marriages by GODS Law, and there was no law of man in their time making marriage voyde in respect of a vowe made to the contrary. Soe that euen in the judgment of many of the best learned of our Aduersaries themselues, Mariage after a vow is not voyd by Gods law, but only by the positiue Constitution of the Church, which will haue it so to bee. But against this positiue Constitution two things may be alleaged: first, that it began from that erroneous conceipt, which Anstine refuteth in his booke do bono viduitatis: as it appeareth by the Epistle of Innocentius, grounding his resolution for voyding of mariages in this kinde, vpon that verie reason of their beeing espoused to Christ, which haue vowed vnto GOD that they will liue continently. Secondly, that the Church hath no power simply to forbidde any man to marry, whom Gods Law leaueth free: seeing single life is one of the things that men may be counselled and advised vnto, but cannot be prescribed and imposed by commandement: that the Church may keepe men from mariage, if they will inioy some fauours, as wee see in Colledges and Societies, or that She may by her Censures punish such as vnaduisedly, and without just cause, shall breake their vow and promise, wee make no question: but that She may simply forbid any one to marry, how faulty and punishable soeuer otherwise, wee vtterly deny. Neyther is the reason that is brought to proue this power to bee in the Church of any force. For though it were graunted, that the Church by her authority for respectes best knowne to her selfe, may forbid a man to marry with some of those with whom God permitteth him to marry; yet wil it not follow, that she may absolutely forbid any one to cōtract mariage; seeing parents to whom it pertaineth to direct the choyce of their children, may forbid them to marry with such as they iustly dislike, and yet they may not simplie restraine them from marying. So that though it were yeelded, that the Church for causes best known to her selfe, may forbid mariage with moe then the Law of God doth: and that in such sort, as to void it, hauing greater power in this behalfe then naturall parents: yet would it not follow that shee may simplie forbid any one to marry, and voide his mariage if he do: whereas the Law of God voideth it not. And so vvee see, that as mariage after a solemne vow is not void by the Lavv of God, so the Church hath no power to make any law to make it voyd.

But because though it be so, yet it may seeme, that no man that had vowed the cōtrary can marry without sinne, it remaineth, that wee proceede to consider and see whether there be any cases, wherein a man, that vowed the contrary, may marry without offence to God. First, touching this poynt, the Schoole-men generally resolue, that the Pope may dispence with a Priest, Deacon, or Sub-deacon to marry though he haue sollemnely vowed the contrary by entring into holy Orders; because the duty and bond of containing is not essentially annexed vnto holy Orders, but by the Canon of the Church onely. Secunda secundae, quaest 88. art. 〈◊〉 Aquinas, and they of that time thought hee might not dispense with a Monke to marry. For that single life is essentially implyed in the profession of a Monke, and cannot be seperated from the same, as it may from the office and calling of a Priest. But since that time the generall opinion is that he may; because though single life cannot be separated from the profession of a Monke, yet he that is a Monke may be freed from that profession that he hath made, and cease to be a Monke. Neither is this onely the opinion of the Schooles, but the practise of Popes hath concurred with the same. For (as In 4. sent. dist. 58. Petrus Paludanus reporteth) a Pope reviued a Monke, who was next in blood, and to succeed in the Kingdome of Arragon, and dispensed with him to marry a wife for the good of that Kingdome. In secunda secundae loc. cit. Caietan sayth, the like is reported in the stories of Constantia, daughter and heire of Roger King of Sicily; who was a religious woman, and of fifty yeares of age, and yet by the dispensation of Caelestinus, was called out of the Cloyster, and permitted to marry with the Emperour Henry the Sixth, who begatte of her Fredericke the Second. And Lib. 4. de eccl. Andreas Frisius reporteth out of the Histories of Polonia, that Casimirus, sonne of Mersistaus King of Polonia, was a Monke, and ordayned a Deacon, and yet when after the death of Mersistaus his father, there was none to sway the Scepter of that Kingdome, (whence many mischiefes followed) Benedict the Ninth gaue him leaue to marry a wife, making him to leaue his Cloyster, his Vowes, and Deaconship, that so there might bee a succession in that Kingdome. So that there is no question, but that for a common good, men may bee dispensed with to marry, that haue solemnely vowed the contrary. Yea Opus. tom. 1. tract. 27. Cardinall Caietan proceedeth further, and sayth, that the Pope may dispense with such to marry as haue vowed the contrary, not onely for the publike benefite & good of the whole, or Common-wealth, but for the greater good of the parties that haue so vowed. Erudit. theol. de sacr. fid. l. 2. part. •… 2. c. 4 Hugo de Sancto Victore disputing what vowes they are that must bee kept, pronounceth peremptorily, that the vowes of fooles are to be broken, and not kept; & defineth all those to bee the vowes of fooles, that either are made de malo, or de bono male: That is, for the doing of some ill, or for the doing of some good, but not well. For example, if one vow to kill a man, as they did in the Actes, that Acts 23. 〈◊〉 . bound themselues by a vowe neither to eate nor drinke till they had killed Paul; such a vow is de malo & malum; That is, it is for the doing of an euill thing, and it selfe is euill. In quo prima culpa fuit vovere, secunda foret, si impleretur, perficere: that is, in which kinde it was ill to vow, and it would be worse to performe: and therefore such vowes are not to be kept. Neither are they onely the vowes of fooles, that are made for the doing of some euill, but they also that are made for the doing of good, if they be not well and rightly made, are to bee reckoned among the vowes of fooles that are to be broken. Now that vow is not well made, which though it be touching something that is good, yet it is touching that which either one may not lawfully doe, or it is not expedient for him to doe: One may not doe, as if a woman vow continency without the consent of her husband: Which it is not expedient to do, as if a man in fasting or any other worke purpose the doing of that which is aboue his strength and ability. All these vowes of fooles, as well of the second, as of the first kinde, may bee broken without seeking any dispensation. For a dispensation is then needefull when the vow is good and advisedly made, and yet (in some particular case that may fall out) not to bee kept. In which case either the whole is remitted, or some other thing equivalent is by way of commutation enjoyned. Wherefore let vs consider what is to bee thought of the vowes of single life, made by men of the Cleargy in latter times. Touching which Vbi supra. Andreas Frisius rightly noteth, that if the vowes of children in respect of their want of judgement, and the vowes of them that are constrayned, bee little to be regarded, because they are not voluntary, there is little respect to bee had to those vowes of single life, that men made in latter times; seeing for the most part they desired not that they vowed, but some other things; in respect whereof they doubted not to vow that, they had neither purpose nor desire to performe. It was the hope of honour, wealth, ease, and a voluptuous life, that drew the most part of them to make promise of that which they neuer had any loue vnto, and some other of a better minde, finding that they could not otherwise enter into the Ministery of the Church, ranne into it, before they considered of the great waight of the burden which they put vpon their shoulders. It cannot be denyed (sayth In Consult de Caelibatu Sacerdotum. Cassander) but that they did ill, and ensnared the consciences of men, who admitted young men not yet knowne to themselues, into the Ministery, and when they founde the burden of single life too heauy, which yet together with the honour of their calling they were forced to take vp, rather dissembled, and in a sort approued any impurity in them, then they would remitte any thing of their owne law, or suffer them to marrie, without consideration of the difference of times, manners, and course of life; which haue made thinges not onely hard but impossible to bee performed, that were in the time of greater seuerity of discipline (as De vita spirituali. Gerson rightly obserueth) not so hard. So that from this hard Law, and the violent vrging of it, many grieuous and most abominable scandals in the Church haue proceeded. Wherefore seeing in the judgment of the best Learned of the Fathers, mariages are good notwithstanding vowes made to the contrary, I thinke wee may boldly resolue, that howsoeuer they did ill, that made inconsiderate vowes of single life, which they neuer meant to performe; yet they did not ill, that out of consideration of their owne infirmity chose rather to marry, then continually to displease God by wallowing in all impurity. Hugo de sancto 〈◊〉 E •… ud. Theolog. de Sacrament. fidei lib. 2. part. 11. ca. •… 2. victore bringeth in the secret thoughts of men bound with such vowes, solliciting and vrging them in this sort: Thou canst not resist so violent a passion, nor indure the heate of such burning desires, which haue proclaymed warre against thee, not for this day, or the next, or the third, or fourth alone, nor for the space of a month, or a yere; they will neuer leaue thee, they will not spare thee, they will giue thee no peace nor rest, so long as thou shalt liue vpon the earth, and carry about with thee this mortall flesh, they will alwayes oppresse thine intention, and auert thy cogitation, that thou shalt neuer bee able to lift vp thy minde with liberty, or thy will with purity vnto God. See therefore what thou doest: Thou loosest this world, and gainest not the other. It were better for thee at least to avoyde these present torments, then wholy to perish, and no where to see or enioy any good. God doth see that thou sufferest these thinges vnwillingly, that thou art drawne to that thou wouldst not, and giuest consent but by constraint. It may be he will haue respect to the violence of thy passion, that he will take pitty on thee, and pardon thy excesse; especially seeing the Apostle saith, it is better to marry then to burne; and againe, for the auoyding of fornication, Let euery one haue his owne wife; it is better to vse the lawfull remedy for this infirmity, then sinfully still to burne in lust. Where vnto hee bringeth in the inconsiderate votary, answering thus. The Lord knoweth that I cannot containe. When I thought I could, I willingly resolued so to doe, and would willingly still continue in the same will and resolution, if I could indure it. But I canne no longer abide the heate of these burning desires. Wherefore I resolue to doe that which onely remaineth, which is to marry a wife, and so to suppott my weakenesse and infirmity: Sory truely, that I am forced to come downe from the heigth of that good I aspired vnto; but yet despaire not, because I descend to those thinges that are lawfull. I had rather, in inferiori bono saluari, quam in summo periclitari, that is, I had rather be saued, contayning my selfe within the limits of the lower degrees of good, then to indanger my selfe in the highest: and if it be a fault that I descend, and performe not that I purposed, I will repent of this my fault, and by all due satisfaction pacifie and appease my God; nothing shall seeme hard vnto mee, so that I may avoyde this passion, and decline this death, in quâ viuens teneor, that is, in which I am holden though I liue. These reasons he saith must needes preuaile, and cannot bee resisted; if mariage after a vow made to the contrary be lawfull; if the Church may not dissolue it, and if saluation may bee attained by men liuing in it, as I haue sufficiently proued they may: and therefore our Aduersaries rashly condemne such as in our time haue maried, notwithstanding their vowes. If a man (saith Vbi supr •… . Frisius) shall vndertake to carry a burden to a certaine place, and after finding his inability to performe it, shall desire to be excused, and that some lighter burden may be laid vpon him, hee is much better to be allowed of, then hee that goeth on in that hee vndertooke, and fainting by the way hurteth himselfe, and disappointeth him that set him on worke: and in like manner hee is rather to bee approued, that prayeth to bee eased of the ouer-heauy burden of single life, and resolueth to liue honestly in mariage, then hee that will still liue single, though neuer so wickedly, whatsoeuer Pighius and Eckius prate to the contrary: who feare not to preferre a Priest that liueth in adultery, before him that marieth a wife. Besides all this which hath beene said, seeing single life is not simply good, and to bee desired, but respectiuely to certaine endes, therefore they that chose to liue single, & intended not the glory of GOD, the good of his Church, and the more opportunities of doing good without distraction, did not make any lawfull vow; seeing a vow must bee of that which is good, and properly of the better good; and consequently were not tyed to the keeping of it; it being resolued, that the vowes of fooles, that is, such as are made without respect to the right end, without due consideration of their owne strength, and a free and voluntary purpose of performing that they promise, are not to bee kept. Whence it will follow, that the most part of the vowes men made in latter times, not intending the right end, are not to be kept.

CHAP. 58.

Of Digamie, and what kinde of it, it is that debarreth men from entering into the Ministery.

HITHERTO wee haue proued the lawfulnesse of Ministers mariage, and sufficiently shewed that no Law of GOD or the Church forbiddeth it, and that no rash and inconsiderate vowe hindereth it, if men cannot containe: Now let vs proceede to see, whether they bee any more restrayned and limited in their mariage then other men. Some there bee who thinke they are, and teach, that they must marry but once onely; whereas other may lawfully marrie as often as they please. And further, they suppose, that if any man haue beene twice maried, or haue maried a Widow, hee may not beé admitted into the Ministery. The ground of which conceit is that of the Apostle, where hee saith: 1. Tim. 3. 2. A Bishop must be the husband of one wife: But the meaning of the Apostle is, that he, who is to be chosen a Bishoppe, must not haue more wiues then one at one time. So that the Digamie the Apostle condemneth is not the hauing of two or more wiues successiuely, but the hauing of more then one at the same time. Of which it is that Apologia. 2. Iustine Martyr speaketh, when expounding that saying of our Sauiour: Hee that marieth her that is for saken, committeth adultery, hee concludeth that they, who according to mans lawe runne into Digamies, by our Masters judgement are found to bee sinners. And therefore In locum Timothei praedict & in Titu. Chrysostome expoundeth the text of the Apostle as meant of Polygamy, which is the hauing of many wiues at once. His wordes are these: The Apostle saith not this as making a Law, that none without a wife may bee made a Bishoppe, but appointing a measure of that matter. For it was lawfull for the Iewes to be joyned in the second mariage, and to haue two wiues at once. Thus doth hee interpret the Apostles words, though he were not ignorant that some followed another interpretation. And therefore De Cleric •… . lib. 〈◊〉 . cap. 23. Bellarmine vntruely denyeth, that any of the Ancient followed this interpretation, but Theodoret. And the Annotations vpon that place Rhemistes confesse that Chrysostome so interpreteth them, but they say, that writing vpon Titus hee followeth the other interpretation; but surely it were strange if hee should so soone forget himselfe. Let vs heare therefore what he saith, that so we may the better discerne whether he dissent from himselfe, and interpret the wordes of the Apostle to Titus as they would haue him, or not. His wordes are these: The Apostle purposeth vtterly to stoppe the mouthes of heretickes which condemne marriage; shewing that marriage is without fault, and so precious, that with it a man may bee preferred euen to the holy seate and chaire; of a Bishoppe. Also with this saying hee chastizeth vnchast persons, while he suffereth them not after their second mariage to bee taken to the gouernment of the Church. For hee which is found not to haue kept his beneuolence towardes his wife, which is gone from him, how should hee bee a good teacher of the Church? Nay rather to vvhat crimes shall hee not daily bee subiect? for you all knovv, that although by the Lavves, such second Mariages are permitted, yet that thing is open to many accusations. Therefore he will haue the Bishop to giue no occasion to them that are vnder him. These are the wordes of Chrysostome. Neither can any man doubt, that will advisedly consider them, but that hee speaketh of a second mariage while the first wife liueth, but is gone away (for so are the wordes, and not defunct or dead, as our Adversaries translate for their advantage,) and not of a second mariage after the death of the first wife. For if he did, he would not condemne them that marrie the second time as vnchaste and wanton, or make them subject to any crimes. With Chrysostome agreeth Theodoret: his wordes are these; Theod. in loc. Tim. praedict. The preaching then beganne, and neither did the Gentiles exercise Virginity, nor the Iewes admit it, for they esteemed the procreation of children to be a blessing. And therefore for as much as at that time they were not easily to bee found which exercised continencie, of such as had maryed Wiues he commandeth them to be ordayned which had honoured Temperancie. And concerning that saying, the husband of one Wife, I thinke certaine men haue saide well. For of olde time both Greekes and Iewes were wont to be maryed to two, three, or more wiues at once. And euen now when the Imperiall Lawes forbid men to marry two Wiues at one time, they haue to doe with Concubines and Harlots. They haue saide therefore that the holy Apostle sayth, that he that dwelleth honestly with one onely Wife is worthy to bee ordained a Bishoppe. For, say they, hee doth not reject the second mariage, who hath often commaunded that it should be vsed. For a woman (sayth he) is bound by the Law, so long as her husband liueth; but if her husband be dead, she is free, that she may marry with whom shee will, onely in the Lord, &c. For if he haue thrust away his Wife, and be joyned to another, hee is worthie to bee reprehended, and is justly subject to accusation: but if force of death haue disjoyned his first Wife, and Nature vrging, haue compelled him to bee joyned to a second Wife, his second mariage is proceeded not of his will, but of casualty. These things considered (saith Theodoret) I admit the interpretation of those which haue so vnderstood the place. Neither doe Chrysostome and In •… und. loc. Theodoret only thus interpret the wordes of the Apostle, but Theophylact also. The Apostle (saith he) prescribeth, that he who is to bee chosen a Bishop, must bee the husband of one Wife, because of the Iewes to whom Polygamy was permitted, that is, to joyne mariage with many together. And Hierome maketh mention of this Interpretation. The Apostle Hier. ad Oce •… m. (saith he) was of the Iewes, and the first Church of Christ was gathered out of the remaines of Israell. He knew it was permitted by the Law, and ordinary among the people, by the example of the Patriarches and Moses, to begette children of many Wiues: vvhich thing also vvas permitted vnto the Priests, and therefore hee commaunded that the Priests of the Church should not take vnto themselues the like liberty, nor haue tvvo or three vviues at once: but that they should haue one only vvife at one time. And though he rather incline to another interpretation; yet in his Commentary vpon Titus, hee mentioneth this againe, vvithout any signification of dislike, and saith, We must not thinke that euery one that hath beene but once maried, is better then hee that hath beene tvvice maried, but that (indeed) hee may better exhort to one onely mariage, and continencie, that can bring forth his ovvne example in teaching. For other vvise if a young man marry a vvife, & shee dye vvithin a little vvhile after, & after her he marry a second, vvhich vvithin a short time hee looseth also, and then continue continent, hee is to be preferred before him that liueth vvith one vvife till his olde age. So that often-times, if he that hath beene but once maried, be preferred before him that hath beene tvvice maried, his happinesse is chosen rather then his vvill. And as sundry great and vvorthie Divines did soe interprete the Apostles vvords as to condemne Polygamie, and not to exclude from the Ministery mentvvice maried; so the practise vvas according there-vnto. For hovv-soeuer many vrged the other Construction of the Apostles vvordes, and excluded men tvvice maried from the holy Ministery; yet others did not so. And therefore Tertullian, vvho vvas a Montanist, and condemned second mariage, in his booke of Monogamie, interpreting the Apostles vvords, of such as had maried the second vvife, & speaking bitterly against the Catholikes of those times, saith: the Holy Ghost fore-savv there should come some that should affirme all things to be lawfull for Bishops. For (sayth he) how many are there among you that gouerne the Church, which haue maried the second time: insulting against the Apostles, and not blushing when these vvords are read vnder them. Vbi supra. Hierome vvas of opinion, that men twice maried might bee chosen to be Bishops or Presbyters, if they maried both, or one of their vviues before they vvere baptized. Which vvas the case of very manie in those times: seeing, (besides those who vvere conuerted from Paganisme) manie that were borne of Christian parents put off their baptisme along time. So that some were elected Bishops before they were baptized, as we read of Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 11. Ambrose. Hereupon he saith, the nūber of such as had bin twice maried, & yet vvere admitted into the holy Ministerie, vvas exceeding great. His vvords are these: All the world is full of these Ordinations: I speake not of Presbyters, nor those of inferiour degrees: I come to Bishops, whom if I shall go about particularly to name, I shall muster together soe great a nūber as will exceed the multitudes of them that were at the Councell of Ariminum. And it appeareth by the Epistle of Epist. 22. cap. 1. & 2. Innocentius to the Bishops of Macedonia, that they thought as Hierome did: that such as vvere not twice maried after Baptisme might be admited into the Ministery, hovv often soeuer they had beene maried before. It is true that Innocentius vvas of another minde, and De bono coniugali. Austine likewise: But Hierome vvho is vvont to spare no man that crosseth his conceipt, calleth them Hypocrites, and telleth them that they are like the Scribes and Pharizees, that did straine at a Gnat and swallow a Camell that tithed Mint and Annis-seede, but let passe the weightier things of the Lawe: because they admitted such into the Ministery, as had kept Harlots before their Baptisme, and yet reiected such as had beene maried, for that sinne is washed away in Baptisme, and nothing else. Rem nouam audio (sayth hee) quia peccatum non non fuit, in peccatum reputabitur. That is, it is a new and strange thing that I heare, because it was no sinne to haue a vvife, therefore it shall be reputed for a fault and sin. Whoredome, Impiety against God, parricide, incest, and the sin against Nature, are purged and washed away in the Baptisme of Christ: but this, that a man hath had a vvife, sticketh fast vnto him still. So are the filthy stewes preferred before the honourable and vndefiled mariage-bed. Let the Pagans heare vvhat the Haruestes of the Church are, out of which our Barnes are filled. Let the Cathecumens (who are not yet baptized) heare likewise, and let them take heed they marry no wiues before baptisme, neither enter into the state of honest mariage, but let them giue themselues to all impurities: only let them take heed of the name of mariage, least after they shall beleeue in Christ, this may prejudice them, that sometimes they had not concubines, nor Harlots, but lawfull vviues. Zonaras in his exposition of the Canons of the Apostles, followeth the Opinion of Hierome, and so doth Sedulius, Scotus, and Anselme, as Bibliothecae Sanctae. lib. 6. annot. 318. & 325. Sixtus, Senensis reporteth. And this opinion vvas very generall, as it appeareth by Lib. 10. Epist 82. Ambrose, who though he disliketh it, yet saith exceeding many did approue it.

So that to resolue this point: wee see some vnderstood the words of the Apostle as ment against Polygamie only, or the hauing of many wiues at once, and not successiuely: and that accordingly many were permitted to gouerne the Church that hadbin twice maried: & that of them that vnderstood the words of the Apostle, as ment of the not hauing of more wiues then one successiuely: some excluded only such as had more thē one wife after baptisme: others, all that had bin twice maried, either before or after. But we shall find that they who generally excluded all them, that had bin twice maried fr •… 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 entring into the Ministery, had no good reason leading them so to doe. For neither is he alwaies better, that hath beene but once maried, then he that hath beene twice maried, as I haue shewed out of Hierome; neither canne he alwayes better exhort to continence; for how canne hee exhort others to liue continently, and not to marry the second time, or after the death of their wiues, that himselfe in his widow-hood committed Adultery, or liued as a whore-monger? seeing the Apostle willeth both men and women, rather to marry the second, third, or fourth time, then to burne in lust, and to commit adultery or fornication. There is therefore a third reason yeelded of this pretended prohibition of marying a second wife, after the death of the first: which is mysticall and taken from a kinde of Sacramentall signification, which must be found in them, that are to be admitted into the holy Ministery of the Church. And surely either this reason must preuaile, or none: for if it were some morall defect and imperfection, that debarreth men twice maried from entering into the Ministery; or for that it is a signe of incontinency to haue beene twice maried; it might be washed away in Baptisme, as well as Whoredome, and other Crimes, which yet these men deny. Let vs see therefore what force there is in this Reason of mysticall signification. August. de bono Coniugali. The mariage of the Fathers in the time of the old Law (saith Saint Augustine) by their many wiues, expressed and figured those Churches, out of the many Nations, People and Kinreds, of the world, that were to ioyne themselues vnto Christ in Spirituall mariage at his comming: but the mariage of Christians, figureth specially that perfect vnity that shall bee in Heauen, of all faithfull and holy ones, both with Christ, and amongst themselues. This is Augustines reason, and this the Bonauentura in 4. sent. dist. 25. quaest. 3. Schoole-men vrge. But it is strange that men of Learning should stand so confidently vpon so weake a ground. For if the expressing of the vnity betweene Christ and the Church his Spou •… e, by the vndeuided vnity that is betweene one man and one woman, be necessarily required in him that is to be chosen a Bishop or Presbyter; then of necessity, every one that desireth to be a Bishop or Presbyter, must marry a wife, that so his mariage may expresse the Spirituall mariage betweene Christ, and the Church. Nay, seeing Christ neuer withdraweth himselfe from his Church, but daily begetteth sons and daughters of her vnto God; each Bishop must haue a wife, and company with her continually; that so by the matrimoniall vnity that is betweene him and his wife, hee may expresse the vnity, that is betweene Christ and the Church. Their answere hereunto is, that as Christ is a Husband, so hee is a Virgin; and that therefore a man may beare an expresse resemblance and representation of Christ, by Virginity, as well as by Mariage, So that it sufficeth if either hee bee a Virgin, or haue beene but once maried, that is to be thought capable of Ecclesiasticall honour. But this answere vvill not serue the turne: For though a man bee no Virgin, (as In duab. Epist. Citat. ab Erasmo in vita Hieronymi. Hierome professed of himselfe, that hee vvas not; and as it is euident Augustine vvas not, in that Aug. confess. lib. 4. cap. 2. & lib. 6. cap. 15. he had children borne vnto him:) yet it is not necessary, in the iudgement of our Aduersaries, that such a one should marry a vvife, to make himselfe capable of Ecclesiasticall honour. Whence it followeth, that there is no necessity of Representing either the Virginity of Christ, or his matrimoniall Coniunction vvith the Church, by the Virginity or mariage of such, as are to be admitted into the holy Ministery. Besides this, it is not enough to expresse the Vnity betweene Christ and the Church, that a man marry but one vvife; but it is required also, that he defile not himselfe, by being ioyned vnto harlots; but that he keepe himselfe intirely to his owne vvife. For so it is, betweene Christ and his Church; vvho not onely hath no other wife or spouse, but the Church of the faithfull; but also so intirely loueth her, that hee giueth no part of his loue to any stranger. So that hee, that marying but once, hath either before or after such mariage, committed adultery or fornication, doth not expresse the vnity that is betweene Christ and the Church. And yet our Aduersaries, that are so peremptorie against such as haue beene more then once maried, set open the doores to let in both Whoremongers and Adulterers into the Church, and house of God. And therefore the wordes of Hieron. ad •… num. Hierome may rightly be applyed vnto them. That they tithe Mint and Annisseed, and omitte the weightier things of the Law; & that they straine at a Gnat and swallow a Camell, rejecting them as vnworthy that haue not offended, and admitting such as haue; justifying the sinner, and condemning the Innocent. But that wee may perceiue the weakenesse of this mysticall Reason, wee must obserue that our adversaries admit none into the Ministery that haue beene maried, vnlesse either their wiues bee dead, or by consent of their wiues they resolue to containe, renouncing that power and interest the man hath ouer the body of his wife; and so (indeed) ceasing to bee husbands. So that if their Presbyters, and other Cleargy-men haue resemblance of CHRISTS mariage with the Church in respect of their mariage, it is while they are no Cleargy-men, but meere Laymen. Now how-soeuer it may be required of them that are to bee admitted into the Ministery, that they haue not beene scandalous before their enterance: yet I thinke it is not required, that they haue beene cleare representations or figures of CHRIST; but this is to bee looked for afterwardes, when they supply his place. Wherefore wee may assure our selues that this was not the reason that moued those to debarre men twice maryed, from entering into the Ministery that so did: but partly a mis-vnderstanding of the Apostles words; partly for that as De sacr. eccl. minist. & Ben. l. 4. c. 8. Duarenus noteth, though often marying bee permitted, both by Gods Law and mans Law: yet the olde Fathers did not greatly like it, as arguing immoderate incontinency in them that so doe.

Whereupon we shall finde that in auncient times they were all put to penance that maryed the 2d time, though Lay-men, and neuer intending to enter into the Ministery. The wordes of the Can. 3. & 7. Councell of Neocaesarea are these: Concerning such as often take them wiues, and such as are often marryed, it is ordered that they shall obserue and fulfill the time of the penance which is prescribed vnto them: yet so as that their conversation and faith may shorten the time. And the same Councell forbiddeth a Presbyter to bee present at the mariage-feast of them that are the second time maryed; seeing it is prescribed, that they must bee put to Penance that marry the second time. And asketh what Presbyter that is, that will for a mariage-feast consent to such mariages. And Referente Ambrosio in 7. c. 1. ad Cor. & in 3. 1. ad Tim. Aug. serm. 243. de temp. Isid. l. 2. de Divin officiis c. 19 another Canon forbiddeth such mariages to be blessed in the Church. Can 1. The councell of Laodicea provideth in this sort, touching them that marry the second time: Concerning them that (according to the Ecclesiasticall Rule) are freely and lawfully joyned in the second mariage, and haue not secretly so joyned them-selues: It is fit that for some short time they giue them-selues to prayer and fasting: which being past, by a kinde of Indulgence, they may be restored to the Communion. The Apud Gratian. part. 2. caus. 31. q. 1 Author of the vnperfect worke, that goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome, proceedeth a little farther in this sort: The Apostles (saith he) commanded to enter into the second mariage for the avoyding of fornication. For according to the precept of the Apostle, it is lawfull to take a second wife: but according to the rule and prescription of Trueth it is (indeed) Fornication. This conceipt grew so farre, that the Councel of Can. 8. Nice was forced to make a Canon that the Catharists should not be receiued into the fellowship of the Church, vnlesse they would communicate with such as fell in the time of persecution, & with such as had beene twice maryed: whereby it appeareth that some rejected them, as though they might not haue beene receiued into the Church; no not after Penance.

So that to conclude this point touching Digamie, it is not the hauing of more wiues than one successiuely, that the Apostle condemneth: but the hauing of more wiues at once. Three reasons are brought by our Adversaries to proue the contrary: but they will be found too weake if we examine them. The first is, that Polygamie, or the hauing of many wiues at once, was not in vse in the Apostles time, & that therfore the Apostle had no reason to forbid it: but this may easily be refuted by good authorities, Your Masters (saith In Triphone. Iustine Martyr speaking to the Iewes) euen to this day, suffer euery one of you to haue foure or fiue wiues: & in his In Apol. post. Apologie he vnderstandeth by Digamie, the hauing of more wiues then one at one time, & not successiuely: for hee saith, they which according to mans Law doe enter into Digamie or second mariages, are sinners, according to the Doctrine of our Teacher and Master. And Theodoret sayth: In loc. Tim. In former times both Iewes and Gentiles tooke vnto them in mariage many wiues. Their second reason is this. The Apostle requireth that a widdow must haue beene the wife of one husband: and his meaning must needes bee, that she must not haue had more husbands then one successiuely. Therefore when hee prescribeth, that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, his meaning is, that hee must not haue had more then one wife successiuely, the forme of speach being the same. That when he speaketh of widdowes hee meaneth that they must not haue had more husbands then one successiuely, they proue, because howsoeuer Men haue sometimes had more wiues then one, at the same time; yet Women neuer had more husbands: and Rhemenses in locum Titi. hereupon they charge vs, with intollerable impudencie, violent wresting of the Scriptures; and bringing such an interpretation of the Apostles words, as neuer came into any wisemans cogitation before, when wee say, hee repelleth such from entering into the order of widdowes, as haue had two husbands at once, and not such as haue beene twice maried. But if it please them to giue vs leaue, wee will shew them, that they are too violent, and say they know not what. For wee thinke, nay we know it hath bene heard of, that a woman should haue two husbands at one time: yea that both amongst Iewes and Gentiles in former times women forsaking their husbands, or forsaken of them without iust cause, haue married againe: which the Apostle might iustly condemne, and debarre such as had so done, from entring into the order, and ranke of sacred Widdowes. Neither is it hard to shew, that our interpretation hath beene thought of, and approued, more then a thousand yeares agoe, by men of as great wisedome, as our great maisters that thus insult ouer vs. For Theodoret vpon these very words of the Apostle, writeth thus. Hereof also, it is manifest that he reiecteth not second mariages, but decreeth that they liue chastly in matrimony: for hee which before hath established the secōd mariage by law, hath not here forbidden her which hath bin twice married to obtaine bodily reliefe. And In hunc locum. Theophilact likewise sayth: The Apostle requireth Monogamie of her, that is to be admitted into the company of widdowes: that is, that shee haue beene coupled but to one husband at once, as a signe of honesty, chastity and good manners. Concerning these Widdowes, two things are to be considered. First, hovv and in what sort they were imployed by the Church. Secondly, how farre fortth they were tyed not to leaue the Church-seruice and to marryagaine. Touching their seruice, it was first and principally, about women that were to be baptized, for their instruction and the addressing of them-selues to that Sacrament and the sacred Rites of the Church accompanying the same: as appeareth by the Lib. 3. cap. 15. Constitutions of Clemens, it being more fitte for them, to haue priuate and often accesse vnto them, then for men. Which thing also Haeresi. 79. Epiphanius sheweth, calling them by the name of Diaconesses. Secondly, the attending, and taking care of the sicke and impotent. Touching the second point, wee suppose that these widdowes, (being of great Age, destitute of all outward supportes, seeking reliefe of the Church, and dedicating themselues to the seruice thereof) did by this very act, professe and make knowne their purpose of continuing in that estate of Widdowhood, and performing such seruice, as to them any way appertained. And therefore the Apostle condemneth them, that after such profession made, waxed wanton against Christ, sought to put themselues out of the holy Ministery & seruice they had dedicated themselues vnto, & to returne to Secular courses of life againe. These according to the iudgment of Haeresi. 61. Epiphanius were subiect to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, just dislike and blame, and were to be condemned for their leuity, and inconstancie; but not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is to the condemnation of eternall death and destruction, if declining adultery and other like vncleanenesse, they choose rather to marrie, then to defile themselues with such impurities. And De Bono viduitatis. Augustine resolueth that their marriage, (notwithhanding any profession they seeme to haue made to the contrary) is not to be condemned as euill, or to be dissolued: but that onely their breach of promise made to God and his Church and their falling from their purpose, is to bee disliked and condemned. Thus do these learned and holy Fathers resolue, touching such widdowes as the Apostle speaketh of. And Peter Lumbard vpon these words of the Apostle in like sort, adding: that they breake their first faith euen that they professed in baptisme, in that violating so solemne a promise, and turning away so scandalously from the calling they had voluntarily put themselues into, they seeme to forget and cast from them the very faith and profession of Christians. Soe that it is cleare, and not denyed by vs, that these widdowes made a kinde of promise and profession of continuing in widdow-hood, when they were admitted to the Almes and seruice of the Church: and that it was a fault not to be excused, to shew themselues inconstant in this respect: yet such was the tendernesse of the Church in auncient times, knowing the weakenesse of the sexe, as not to cast any snares vpon them or to tye them by the bond of any solemne benediction or consecration to a necessity of continuing in such an estate. but shee thought good to leaue them to their owne diliberations and resolutions: so that, though they were wont to putte a kinde of sacred vaile on such virgins, as voluntarily deuoted themselues to God; yet Epist. 9. ad Episc. Lucaniae. Gelasius forbiddeth any Bishoppe to attempt any such thing, as the vailing of a widdow: If widdowes (sayth hee) out of the mutability of their mindes, hauing made a kinde of profession of not marrying againe, shall returne to marriage, it shall be at their perill in what sort they will seeke to pacifie God: seeing (according to the saying of the Apostle) they haue broken their first faith. For as (if haply they could not containe, according to the Apostle) they were no way forbidden to marry; so hauing deliberated with themselues so to do, they ought to keepe their promise of continent liuing made to God, but wee ought not to cast any snare vpon such, but onely to exhort them to do that which is fit, by the consideration of the eternall rewards and punishments, that God hath prepared for men, according to their workes, that soe wee may cleare our selues and make knowne what wee thinke, and they may bee left to giue an accompt of that they doe, knowing best their owne intention. This was the Decree of this Pope, and some other were of the same iudgment who admitted widdowes to no benediction, but that of Penitencie: nor suffered no other vayle but the vayle of penitents to bee put vpon them. But it Vide Binnium tomo 2. Concil. pag. 115. annot. in Toletan. 4. seemeth this course was not holden afterwards: succeeding Bishops degenerating from the wise and discreet moderation of their Godly predecessors, and laying heauier burthens on mens shoulders then was fit.

CHAP. 59.

Of the maintainance of Ministers.

HAuing briefely run through all those things that concerne the different degrees, orders and callings of them Almighty God employeth in the Ministery of holy things: it remaineth, that in the last place I come to speake of the maintainance of them. That an honourable intertainement is due to the Ministers of God, and disposers of his heauenly Treasures, there neithes is, nor can bee any doubt: The light of Nature, the sence of Piety and the Presidents of the Iewes and Gentiles before Christ, and all Christian Kingdomes, Nations, and People since, most clearely conuincing it. 1. Cor. 9. 〈◊〉 . Who goeth a warre-fare at any time (sayth the Apostle) at his owne charge? who dresseth a Vineyeard and tasteth not of the fruite of it? Who attendeth and feedeth a flocke, and eateth not of the milke of it? It is an Axiome most cleare and euident in the light of Nature, that The labourer is worthy of his hire, and the detaining of his wages is one of the sinnes that crye so loud, that he that sitteth in heauen heareth them. If this bee true in them that are imployed in any seruice, businesse or worke in the world, for the good of men; how much more in respect of them, that labour to procure their Spirituall and eternall good? Ibid. vers. 11. It is a small thing (sayth the Apostle) that we should reape your carnall things that haue sowne vnto you spirituall things: Galat. 6. 6. therefore let him that is instructed in the word, make him that instructed him partaker of all his goods The Galathians thought them-selues so much bound to the blessed Apostle Saint PAVLE (by whose ministerie they were conuerted from Idolatry to serue the true and liuing GOD) that Galat. 4. 15. they would haue plucked out their eyes, to haue done him good: perswading themselues, they were noe way able to make recompence vnto him, for all the good hee had done vnto them. And the Apostle is bold to tell Philemon, that he oweth himselfe vnto him. This thing is so cleare and 〈◊〉 Philem. 29 evident, that I suppose no man will contradict any Part of that which hath been said: yet notwithstanding it is not to bee dissembled, that Wickliffe and some others, let fall some inconsiderate speeches, out of an immoderate dislike of the abuse of things in the Romane Church: wherein all piety, care of Religion, and performance of pastorall duties being neglected by the most part of men: nothing was sought after, but riches, honour, and greatnesse, accompanyed with excessiue and riotous expences, to the great scandall of the World. For the opinion of In Trialogo. Wickliffe was, that the Ministers of the Church ought to make no such claime to tithes, possessions, or lands, or any other reward of their labours, as may be pleadable in any temporall court of Iustice, as each man doth to the things that are come to him by inheritance from his Fathers, or by his owne purchase, but that they should content themselues with the title of originall Iustice; by vertue whereof, that is due to euery good man that is fitting to him, & answerableto his condition, merite, and worthinesse. This opinion of Wickliffe proceeded from a dislike of some-thing he conceiued to be amisse, but knew not how to reforme. And the censure of Gerson vpon this and the like Articles was right and good, that they who proposed them, had cause of offence at many abuses, by them reprehended: but that to goe about to reforme things out of order by such a course as those Articles imported, was to east out one Deuill by another: where-vpon hee sheweth, that a golden meane is to bee followed, betweene that immoderate flattery, that gaue too much to the Pope and his Cleargy, and caused them to forget that they were men, and to encroach vpon the right and possession of all other men; and that vile detraction, that diminisheth the honour and reputation; and taketh away the reward of worth and learning, to the ruine of the Church, and bringing in of all Barbarisme and confusion. Wee say therefore, that this position is to be rejected, as contrary to the cleare evidence of Heauenly Trueth, the light of Nature, and the practise and Iudgement of all the world; whether wee respect Iewes, Pagans, or Christians. For is it so, (the Apostle himselfe disputing and determining the case) that the Ministers of God, by the rules of the Law of Nature, & that giuen by Moyses, haue more right to a maintenance, fitting to their worth and callings, than the labourer hath to his hyre? And are not all Christian Princes and Magistrates bound, to force by their Lawes such as with-holde that which is thus due? Nay, may not the Church by her censures make them that are instructed to minister out of their temporall goods to such as instruct them? Surely there is no doubt but they may. Which duety being done, the Minister hath as good right by Positiue Law, to that maintenance that is fitting for him; and may as lawfully sue for it in any court of Mundane Iustice, as any other may for that which by any right of this World pertaineth to him. This (I ihinke) will not bee much gainsaide: For all men will graunt, that a competencie of maintenance is due by the prescript of Gods Law, and the Law of Nature: and that Princes must take order that it be yeelded. But the onely thing that is questionable is, whether God haue determined of this competencie, or left the judgment & determining thereof vnto men.

In the Olde Law, himselfe from Heauen declared what hee thought to bee a fitte allowance for his seruants the Priests and Leuites; which wee shall finde not to haue beene sparing, but very liberall. For, besides the Tenths of all the things that the rest of the Tribes possessed and enjoyed, he gaue them Cities to dwell in, and fields adjoyning to the same. Touching Tithes in the booke of Leviticus it is thus written; Leuit. 27. 30. All the Tithe of the Land, both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruite of the Trees, is the Lords, it is holy to the Lord: and of euery Tithe of Bullocke, and of Sheepe, and of all that goeth vnder the rod, the Tenth shall be holy vnto the Lord. And as God prescribed and commaunded this Rent of the Tenth to be payde vnto him out of all that men possessed by any right deriued frō him; so by his Prophets he did exact it whē it was vnpaid. Malach. 3. 10. Bring (saith the Lord of Hosts by his Prophet Malachie) all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meate in my house, and proue me now herewith, if I will not open the windowes of Heauen vnto you, and powre you out a blessing without measure: I will rebuke the deuourer for your sakes, and hee shall not destroy the fruit of the ground, neither shall your vine bee barren in the field, saith the Lord of Hostes; and all Nations shall call you blessed, for you shall bee a pleasant Land. And touching Cities for the Priests and Levites to dwell in; God spake vnto Moses his seruant in this sort: Numb. 35. 2. &c. Commaund the children of Israel, that they giue vnto the Leuites of the Inheritance of their possession, Cities to dwell in: Yee shall giue also to the Leuites, the Suburbs of the Cities round about them; so they shall haue Cities to dwell in, and their Suburbs shal be for their Cattell, anà for their substance, and for all their Beasts: and the Suburbs of the Cities which ye shall giue vnto the Leuites, from the wall of the Citie outward, shall be a thousand Cubites round about: These Cities, by Gods owne appointment, were fortie and eight. Besides this standing Rent of Tithes, which God commaunded his people to pay vnto the Priests and Leuites, and these Cities, which they were to giue them to dwell in; hee made them yet a more plentifull and ample allowance out of his owne immediate Reuenue, and the presents that were daily brought vnto him. For whereas the people (after they were entred into the land of Promise) stood bound to make some acknowledgment, that they had receiued all of Gods hands, & therefore were to giue vnto him, the best, first, and principall of all that they were blessed with, euen the first of the fruits they gathered; The Leuites by Gods appointment had their parts in these first-fruits: Nay, as wee may reade in the booke of Numbers, God gaue these first-fruits which the people offered to him, to the Priests, saying vnto Aaron, & his sonnes, Numb. 18. 12. All the fat of the oyle, and all the fat of the wine, and of the wheat, which they shall offer vnto the Lord for their first fruits, I haue giuen them vnto thee: and the first ripe of all that is in their Land, which they shall bring vnto the Lord, shall be thine. This Allowance did God make them, out of his set Reuenue of first fruites; and yet was not vnmindfull of them, when any other presents were brought vnto him. So that they, 1. Cor. 9. 13 Who attended at the Altar, were (indeede) partakers of the Altar. Thus wee see in what sort God did prouide for his seruants the Priestes & Leuites, in the time of the Lawe.

Wherefore now it remaineth, that, passing by that Addition, that was out of those Offerings, which were proper to those times, we come to see, whether the same kind of prouision by Tithes (which GOD then prescribed) remaine still in force, by Vertue of any Lawe of GOD, or not. Here wee shall find a great and maine Controuersie betweene the Schoole-men and the Canonists. For the Schoole-men (for the most part, nay all, if we may beleeue De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25. Bellarmine) doe thinke, that Tithes are not due since the comming of CHRIST, by any Lawe of GOD or Nature. The Canonists resolue the contrarie, and are so peremptory in their opinion, that they doe (almost) condemne such of Heresie, as thinke otherwise. Secunda secundae. quaest: 87. art. 1. Aquinas one of the greatest Rabbins amongst the Schoole-men, determineth the Question in this sort. The Precept concerning the paying of Tithes in the time of the old Law, was partly Morall, Naturall, and Perpetuall; & partly Iudiciall, applyed to the condition of that people, & so to continue no longer by force of Gods prescription, then that state should continue. In that it prescribed a sufficient, large, and honourable maintenance, to bee yeelded to them that attended the holy things of God, it was Naturall and Morall, and is to continue for euer; but in that it prescribed such a proportion, as a fit and competent maintenance, namely the Tenth part out of euery mans increase, it was not Naturall, but Iudiciall, applyed & fitted to the condition of that people. For the whole Nation of the Iewes being diuided into thirteene Tribes, and the Tribe of Leui, that serued at the Altar and in the Temple, hauing no Inheritance or Possession amongst the rest, but God himselfe being the inheritance of them of that Tribe, that they might haue in some proportionable sort, as good an estate of maintenance as any of the rest, hee gaue vnto them the Tenth of all that the rest had. If it bee said, they were not the Tenth part of the people, but the Thirteenth; and that therefore to make them equall with the rest, GOD should haue giuen them the Thirteenth part onely, and not the Tenth: hee answereth, that therefore GOD gaue them something more then each of the rest of the Tribes had; First, for that he knew all that he allowed them would not be duly and exactly payd vnto them, but that they should loose some part of that which he meant vnto thē: which by this ouerplus of Allowance, he would make vppe vnto them againe. Secondly, for that hee would haue their allowance to be something better then that which others had, they being more neare vnto him then the rest. Thus doth he make the particular determination of the tenth, to bee judiciall, fitted to the condition of that people; and neither Morall nor Ceremoniall: & yet sayth, that as all things that were done in that state, and by that people, figured some thing that was afterward to come to passe: so this paying of the tenth of that each man possessed, though it were a iudiciall constitution, and not ceremoniall, yet figured the perfecting of all things by Christ the Sonne of God. For in that the number of ten, is the vttermost extent and perfection of numbers, beyond which no man goeth in numbring; by giuing the tenth part (that signifieth perfection) to God, and keeping nine (expressing imperfection) to themselues, they professed their own wants, defects, and imperfections, and the desire, hope and expectation they had, that God, (in whom onely perfection is found) would in his good time perfect all things by Christ his Sonne. How aptly these things are deliuered by THOMAS let the Reader iudge. There are other that likewise insist on the number of ten, as being the vttermost extent of number, but to another purpose. For they say, in that the people of God gaue vnto him the tenth of all that they possessed, which is the vttermost bound, and extent of all the things they had, they did thereby expresse the desire they had, that this tenth part, as being the bound and limit of all the rest, (in a sort included within it,) should sanctifie the rest; and that in respect of the blessing, which God hath promised vnto that, which is giuen vnto him, it should be as a wall of defence, for the safekeeping of the rest. And yet neither Thomas, nor these, make the paying of the tenth to be Ceremoniall, in respect of these significations, for then no such custome might be vsed amongst Christians, as some ignorant men haue taught in our age, out of this false conceipt. But Thomas supposeth the paying of the tenth, in the particular determination to be iudiciall, and the other thinke it Naturall and perpetuall. For (say they) seeing something is to bee yeelded to GOD out of that which wee haue, and the number of tenne is the bound of all the things wee haue, or canne haue, at least one of tenne is to bee payed vnto God, for an acknowledgment of our obligation vnto him, and for the maintenance of his seruice, and those that attend the same. For if wee may passe the number of ten, which is the bound of our possessions, and yeeld no one part thereof as an acknowledgment to God, we neede not to pay any thing to him at all.

This opinion is strongly confirmed, in that Gen. 14. 20, Abraham payed tithe to Melchizedech, (who was a Priest of the high God, and blessed him in the name of the Lord) of all that he possessed, before any law written, or any particular prescriptiōthat we read of touching the same. Whereby hee shewed (as it may more then probably be concluded) that tithes are due by the Law of nature. Neither did Abraham onely by his fact, shew the naturall duty of paying tithe, but Iacob also confirmed the same by the vowe hee made; That if God would prosper his iourney, and bring him backe in safety, the Lord should be his God, and Gen. 18. 22. hee would offer vnto him the tenth of all that hee should giue him. But some man perhaps will say, that this vowe of Iacob, prooueth rather the contrary: namely, that hee was not bound to pay tithes: for men doe vowe such things as they are not bound vnto, by any generall law of God or Nature. And therefore Cardinall De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25. Bellarmine sayth, It had bin an impious thing, for Iacob in this conditionall sort; to haue vowed the paying of tithe, if by the generall law of GOD, and Nature, hee had beene bound thereunto. But surely this saying of the Cardinall is impious, and iniurious to the holy Patriarch, who neuer was charged with any Impiety, in respect of this his vowe; neyther can bee (as I suppose) and yet necessarily must bee, if this inference of the Cardinall bee good. For it is the first commandement in the law Naturall and Morall; Thou shalt haue no other Gods but mee and the holy Patriarch was bound by a generall Obligation of the lawe of Nature, to take the Lord for his God, and yet he voweth conditionally, That if the Lod will bee with him, keepe him in his journey, and bring him safe backe againe, Ver. 21. he shall be his God, and hee will serue him: which if the Cardinall say true, he could not doe without Impiety.

But lesse vs passe by this ouer-sight, and see what is to bee resolued touching this point. It seemeth by the fact of Abraham, and vow of Iacob, before the Law, by the prescription of the same in the time of the Law, and by the judgement and practise of Christians since the time of the Gospell: that the duety of paying Tithes is naturall and perpetuall. Orig. Hom. 1 •… in Numeros. How doth our Righteousnesse (sayth Origen) exceede the Righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees, if whereas they doe not taste of the fruites of the earth, before they offer the first-fruites to God, and set out the Tithe for the Leuites, wee doe no such thing, but so vse, or rather abuse the things which God hath giuen vs, Vt Sacerdos nesciat, Levita ignoret, Altare non sentiat; That is, in such sort, that the Priest shall not know of it, the Levite shall neuer heare of it, and the Altar of God neuer feele it, or haue any sense of it. Saint In Malach. 3. Hierome saith, Quod de Decimis, Primitiisque diximus, quae olim dabantur à populo Sacerdotibus & Levitis, in Ecclesiae quoque populis, intelligite quibus praeceptum est, non solùm Decimas & Primitias dare, sed & vendere omnia quae habent, & dare pauperibus: quod si facere nolumus, saltem Iudaeorum imitemur exordia, & pauperibus partem demus ex toto, & Sacerdotibus & Levitis honorem debitum deferamus: quod qui non fecerit, Deum fraudare, & supplantare convincitur. That is, Vnderstand that which I saide of Tithes and first-fruites, which of olde were giuen by the people to the Priests and Leuites, concerning the people of the church also, who are commaunded not onely to giue Tithes and first-fruites, but to sell away all that they haue, and to giue to the poore: which if we will not doe, at the least let vs imitate those beginnings of the Iewes, that wee may giue a part of all to the poore, and yeeld due honour to the Priests and Levites: which who so doth not, is convinced to defraude and deceiue God. Heere wee see Hierome is of opinion, that Christians stand bound at least to performe as much touching the matter of tithes and first fruits as the Iewes: & that he maketh the not paying of tithes to be a sinnefull defrauding of God: but that which hee addeth of selling all and giuing to the poore, is not to bee vnderstood as meant generally, but onely in some cases that may fall out. With Hierome, Augustine, or the Authour of the Sermons De tempore, whosoeuer hee was, agreeth, saying, De tempore serm. 219. Audi indevota mortalitas, nosti quia Dei sunt cuncta quae percipis, et de suo non accommodas omnium Conditori? That is: Heare O mortall man, voyde of devotion, thou knowest that all the things that thou enioyest are Gods, and wilt thou present him with nothing that made all, &c. Hee vouchsafeth to require onely the Tenth, and the First-fruites, and thou denyest him: what wouldest thou doe if hee should challenge nine parts, and leaue thee but the Tenth? For why might not God say, the men that serue thee are mine, I made them: the Earth that thou tillest is mine, the seed thou sowest is mine, the Oxen are mine that thou weariest in thy worke: yea, the showres of raine, the blasts of winde, and the heate of the Sunne is mine: all the things which cause thy increase are mine: and thou onely puttest to thy hand: therefore the Tenth onely is due vnto thee, and the rest is mine? but God (who is rich in goodnesse) hath not giuen thee so sparing a reward of thy labour; for behold hee is content thou shall haue nine parts, and exacteth onely the Tenth: and thou most vnthakefully, perfidiously, and falsly with-holdest it from him, and therefore in his wrath hee often depriueth thee of those nine parts that thou mightest haue had, destroying and bringing to nothing all that which thou hopedst to reape, by immoderate drougth or raine, by haile, frost, or some other meanes, as seemeth best vnto him. But whatsoeuer wee thinke of the Author of these Sermons, it is certaine Saint Augustine did vrge a necessity of paying the Tenth at least of all that men possesse. Aug. in Psal. 146. Set out (saith he) some certain thing out of thy revenewes, increase, or gain, if thou wilt the Tenth, though this be too little: for the Pharisees payde tithes of all that they possessed: and yet, If our Righteousnes exceed not theirs, we cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen. And if we vrge you to the paying hereof, sayth he, think not that we seek your wealth, but your wel-doing. With Augustine agreeth In Math. 23 Chrysostome. The first Councell of Hispalis (as we reade in Iuo: part. 2. c. •… 74. in 2. tom. concil. p. 954. apud Bin. Iuo) vrgeth the paying of tithes as commavnded by God, & pronounceth that he maketh a prey of thinges holy vnto God, and is as a theefe and a robber, that payeth not tithe of all that he possesseth; and that all the curses which God powred out on Caine, that made no good diuision, but gaue the worst to God, and kept the best to himselfe, shall be powred vpon him. The first Ca. 17. Councell of Orleance sheweth that tithes were payed at that time: and the second Can. 5. Councell of Matiscon saith, The law of God prouiding for the Priests and Ministers of the Churches, commaunded the people to bring into the holy places, the Tenth of their increase, for an hereditary portion; that so being hindered by no labour, they might in due sort attend the worke of the holy Ministerie: which law the whole multitude and heape of Christians, hath kept inuiolablely for a long time. The Fathers assembled in the Can. 14. Councell of Forum Iulii, after they haue alleadged the mandate of Almighty God in the third of Malachie, adde, that God himselfe pronounceth, that his wrath and indignation abideth vpon the Nation or People, which fulfilleth not this his commaundement with an intire heart, and a good will: and after recitall of the blessings and curses that follow them that keepe or breake this commaundement; If yee beleeue not vs, or despise vs (say they) because we are men, beleeue God himselfe in his threats and promises; and whosoeuer thou art, that professest thy selfe a Christian, De suis, non d •… is, da Domino; quia omne quod sumus, viuimus, & habemus, eius est, & de ipsius benignitatis suscepimus manu: that is, giue vnto God of his owne, not of thine; seeing all that we are, liue & haue, is his, and wee haue receiued it at the hand of his goodnes. The Fourth Canone. 9. Councell of Arle decreeth thus; let euery one offer to God the Tenth & First fruites of all the increase of his labour, as it is written, Thou shalt not be slow to offer thy Tithes and first fruits vnto God. The Councell of Mentz vnder Charles the Great, prescribeth in this sort: Cap. 38. Wee admonish and commaund that no man neglect to pay Tithes vnto God, which God himselfe appointed to be giuen, because it is to be feared, least as each man shall with-hold from God that which is due vnto him; so God for his sinne should take from him those thinges that are necessary, and which hee would otherwise suffer him to enioy. Which agreeth with that of Augustine in his booke of his 50. Homilies, where he saith: Homil. 48. Our Ancestours did therefore abound in wealth, and had plenty of all thinges, because they gaue Tithe to God, & Tribute to Caesar: Modò autem, quia discessit deuotio Dei, accessit indictio fisci, nolumus partiri cum Deo Decimas, modò autemtotum tollitur, hoc tollit Fiscus, quod non accipit Christus. That is, But now because deuotion giueth nothing to God, the Officers of Princes call for our Treasure, to fill their Coafers; wee will not so part & deuide with God, as to giue him the Tenth, and therefore all is taken from vs by men, the Exchequer seazeth on that, which Christ could haue no part of. The Councell of Tribur alleadgeth and alloweth the saying of the Authour of the sermons de tempore before cited, and addeth these wordes. Canone. 13. If any man aske why Tithes are payed, let him know that they are therefore payed, that God being pleased with this deuotion, may giue more largely the thinges wee haue neede of. The perswasion of the necessity of paying Tithes, was so deepely imprinted in the mindes of our Forefathers, that when they were ready to die, there was no account concerning things in this world, they more carefully sought to perfit, than this; and therefore, after they had taken order for satisfying all that they could any way finde to bee behind, in this kinde; they were wont, (lest happily something there might bee that came not to their minde) to appoint that the second best of those moueable thinges they had, should be brought after them to the Church when they went to be buried, as a Recompence, if in any thing they had done wrong in paying their Tithes; and this thing thus brought after them, was named a Linwood Provincial. lib. 1. de consuetudine. Mortuarie.

Thus we see, the fact of Abraham, and Vow of Iacob before the giuing of the Law; the prescription of Almighty God in the time of the Law; the Resolution of learned and worthy men, and the practise of the Church since the comming of Christ, proue strongly, That Tithes are perpetually and for euer due; yet the Schoolemen, and such as follow them, are of another opinion. De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25. Bellarmine goeth about to proue that Tithes are not due by Gods law, in this sort. They are neither prescribed in the old Law, nor in the new (saith hee) therefore they are not due by Gods Law. That they are not prescribed in the new (he saith) it is cleare, but proueth it not. But that tithes are to be paid, may bee proued by necessary consequence out of that which is prescribed in the new Testament. That they are not prescribed in the old, he cannot say; all the bookes of the old Testament being full of Mandates, Threats, Promises, and Encouragements to moue men to pay Tithes. But he saith, the precepts that are founde in the old Testament, requiring and vrging men to pay Tithes, were Iudiciall, not Morall and Perpetuall. That they were not moral, hee endeauoureth to proue, because there was no Lawe concerning the paying Tithes before the time of Moses. If hee speake of a written Law, it is true there was no such before Moses, neither touching Tithes, nor any thing else: but if he speake of a Law simply, wee say there was a Law before Moses, which moued Abraham to pay Tithe; and that as (presupposing the knowledge of the Creation of the world in sixe dayes, and Gods rest in the seuenth) Reason conuinceth vs, that one day in seauen must bee a day of Rest from our owne workes, affaires, and businesses, that we may spend it in diuine thoughts, meditations, prayers, and prayses of God: So in like sort, the number of Tenne, being the vttermost extent, limit, and bound of all numbers, it being presupposed, that something is to bee giuen to God, out of that wee possesse, the very light of Reason will make vs knowe, that we ought not to passe the number of Tenne, but that one of tenne (at the least) is to be yeelded vnto God out of all that wee possesse; and that not the worst, (for wee doe not so deale with mortall Princes) but the best, the first and principall. Which is confirmed vnto vs, in that the Gentiles and people that knew not God, but by the light of Nature, and such Traditions as they had receiued from the Patriarches, did pay tithes as well as the Iewes did, and the Christians doe. The proofe hereof, the Reader may finde at large out of diuers Authors in a M. Carleton of Tithes. Treatise of Tithes, written not long since, and in Comment. in Concord. Euang. cap. 84. Iansenius. But some man (perhaps) will say, that this confirmation is too weake; for that many among the Gentiles were Circumcised as well as the Iewes, and that yet it followeth not from thence, that Circumcision was prescribed & imposed by the Law of Nature; so that the custome; practise, and obseruation of the Gentiles paying Tithes, will not proue that it is a naturall duty to pay Tithes. But they who bring this Obiection, should know, that there is a great difference between these two Observations of the Gentiles; For the one was but in some certaine parts of the world onely, and among such people as were descended of Abraham, or by Leagues, Compacts, and Perswasions, were induced by them to be Circumcised. But the paying, vowing, and offering of Tithes to their supposed gods, was generall amongst all the Gentiles, Romans, Grecians, and Barbarians. Wherefore we may resolue, that the prescription of Tithe, was not meerely Iudiciall, and fitted to the State of the people of the Iewes (as Bellarmine out of Aquinas would haue it) but that it was Naturall, and from the beginning. And surely it is worth the noting, how strangely he forgetteth himselfe, and so runneth into grosse contradictions in this point. For first, to make it seeme probable, that this prescription was but meerely Iudiciall, hee saith: De Clericis, li: 1. cap. 25. The intendment of God, in prescribing Tithe was, that there should be a certaine equalitie amongst the parts and Tribes of his people; and that therefore he allotted the Tenth to the Leuites, who were almost the tenth part of his people; and yet after hee saith, Eod. capite, Dubio. 4. The Leuites were not the sixtieth part of the people: and proueth the same out of the first and third of Numbers. So that it cannot bee imagined that the reason of allowing this proportion to the Leuites, was for that they were little lesse than the tenth part of the people, that so they might haue at least as much as the rest, if not a little more: especially seeing it may easily be proued, that the Cities and Suburbs that were allowed vnto them, by God himselfe, besides the First-fruits, & that part of the Sacrifices which they had, was as much as the possessions of any Tribe, though they had had no Tithes at all. So that the possessions of the Leuites and Priestes beeing more than the thirteenth part of the whole land, (whereas they were not the sixtieth part) and all the Tithes, First-fruits, and a part of the Sacrifices, being assigned vnto them besides, it is most cleare & euident, the Intendement of God in allowing Tithes vnto the Leuites, was not the equalling of them and the rest. But to conclude this point, if we had neither the fact of Abraham, the vow of Iacob, the custome of the Gentiles before CHRIST, nor any other reason to perswade vs, that Tithes are due by Gods Law; yet this very prescription in the time of Moses Law, would proue sufficiently, that Christians must yeeld the Tenth (at the least) of all their increase towards the maintenance of the Ministers. For seeing the Ministerie of the Gospel is much more glorious then that of the Law, and the Obligation of the people vnto them stronger, there can bee no doubt made, but that Christians are bound to giue the Tenthe of their increase (at the least) towards the maintenance of them that attend the seruice of God: and consequently, that God hath not left it to men to determine what is a competent allowance for his servants (as some thinke:) which thing may easily be proued, if any man shall make any question of it. For seeing they of Levies Tribe had so large an allowance, whereas yet the most part of them were but ordinary Levites, and imployed in meane seruices, the Priests being (in comparison) but a few, and attending but by courses once in 24 weekes: there is farre greater reason, that the Ministers of the Church that attend more holy things, and that continually, (whose Education out of their owne Patrimonie hath beene chargeable vnto them, and whose profession of Learning and Knowledge is such, that the very furnishing of them with Bookes, is a matter of great expence) should haue a more plentifull allowance made vnto them than the Levites. Neither is there any kinde of Provision for Ministers fitter than this by Tithes. For if they haue their allowance in money, the prices of things often rising, it may bee too short; neither will they haue so sensible a fellowfeeling of the blessings of God, or his punishments the people taste of, if they haue their allowance certaine, & no way subiect to those different courses of Times that others haue. And therefore we shall finde, that howsoeuer in the very first Times, Christians were forced to supply the necessities of their Ministers by other meanes, before things were setled; yet so soone as there was any quiet establishment of things, they embraced this course of providing for Ministers by Tithes, as of all other the best.

These Tithes (before there was that perfect distinction and division of Parochiall Churches that now is) they payed to the Bishop and Cleargy jointly. Whereupon we shall finde, that at first, as all Lands, so all Money, Tithe, First-fruits, and other Contributions made to the Church, were in the hands of the Bishoppe and Cleargy joyntly, but of the Bishop principally, as more eminent than the rest; and that hee was bound to Gelas. cp. 9. ad Episc. Lucaniae. Vide Gratian. part. 2. decreti caus 12. q. 2 divide all into foure parts, whereof one serued for his owne maintenance, another for the Cleargy, the third for the Reparations of the buildings and houses belonging to the Church, and a fourth for the Reliefe of the Poore, and the entertainement of Strangers. And therefore at the first the Cleargy was maintained out of a common dividend, and the portion allowed to each man was named This word imported no base but an honorable allowance. Sportula, and they that liued by these allowances, Sportulantes. In which sense Cyprian writing of some that he had designed to bee Presbyters, hath these wordes: Cypr cp. 66. & 34. Presbyterii honorem designâsse nos illis iam sciatis, & ut sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur, & divisiones mensurnas aequatis quantitatibus partiantur sessuri nobiscum provectis & corroboratis annis suis.

But this course continued but a while: for afterwardes as there was a division of Parochiall Churches, with particular assignation of seuerall Presbyters to take care of them; so likewise of the tithes of the increase of the lands & possessiōs of such as were within those Limits, the Bishop & Cleargy of the city, or of the chiefe church, liuing in common of such landes, revenewes and possessions as had beene giuen to the church, and the tithes and offerings of them that receiued Sacraments, and resorted ordinarily to be taught in the Cathedrall church; till in the end, as the Inhabitants of the country abroad, so they of the Cities likewise were put to Parochiall divisions, and none but the Bishop, Cleargy, and such as pertained to them, resorted ordinarily to the Cathedrall or great Church, but to other divided from it; and then was there no more tithe payde to the Bishop and Cleargy of the Cathedrall or chiefe church, but to the inferiour Churches onely, the Bishop and his Cleargy, of the Mother Church, liuing of such lands as were giuen vnto them: which also in processe of time they diuided. So that the Bishop had his distinct possessions, lands, and reuenewes, proper to himselfe; and likewise they of the Cathedrall Church.

So that to conclude this matter, as tithes are payable by the lawes of God, & men, for the maintenance of Gods seruice, and them that attend the same: so before there was any particular diuision of Parochiall Churches, and while each citty and the places adioyning made but one Church, they were due, and of right to be payed, by men liuing within those limits, to the Bishop and Cleargy joyntly, who by a joynt care, were to gouerne and teach the people of such places. But after Parochiall Churches were deuided, each man was, and is to pay the tithes of the things he possesseth, within each parish, to that particular Presbyter that ruleth the same. And therefore it is an error to thinke as some do, that before the councell of Lateran, men might pay their tithes to what places and persons they pleased; and that by the decrees of that Councell, they were first limitted to the place of their habitation. For the thing that was ordered in the Councell of Lateran, was not the limiting of the dutie of paying tith to one certaine and definite place, as if men had bin free before to pay them to whom and where they listed, but whereas men dwelling in one place, and hauing lands, liuings, and possessions in another, thought they might pay the tenth of the increase of such things as they had in other places, to the Minister of the place where they dwelt, and of whom they receiued the Sacraments: The In indice in appendicem Concil. Lateranens. 3. de Pactionib. 39. & 40. Councell decreed that the Tythes of such lands, as men had lying elsewhere, should not be payd by them, in the places of their habitation, but where the land lyeth; and personall tythes in the place of their abode, where they are partakers of the holy things of God, and not elsewhere: Then which nothing could be more iust and reasonable. Neyther did the Councell of Lateran alone, take order for this matter, but the Councell of Mentz cited by Part. 2. causa. 16. qu. 42. 1. c. Gratian prouideth likewise, that if any man giue away such places, as he had proprietie in, or other things, the tyth shall not be alienated from the Church, it did formerly belong vnto.

But that men were alwaies bound to pay their Tythes of such things as they possesse, within the place of their habitation, to the Ministers of the same, it may easily be proued, in that, very Auncient Councels do prouide, that no man shall pay the tythes of such things as hee hath within the limits of any place, but to that Church, to which all they that inhabit there resort for Baptisme, and spirituall instruction. Wee decree (sayth) Citatus. part. 2 causa. 16. qu. 1. cap. 55. Anastasius, Bishop of Rome, that if any man seeke to with-hold the Oblations, and Tythes, which the people ought to yeeld vnto the Church, or giue them away from that Church, where they of the places, where such Tythes arise, doe vsually receiue the Sacrament of Baptisme, to any other without the Bishops consent, let him be accursed. It hath seemed good, not onely to vs, but to aur Auncestors, (sayth Ibid. cap. 45. Leo the Fourth) that the people shall pay their Tythes, where they and their children are baptized, and no where else. The Canone. 47. Councell of Wormes prouideth, that if any man with the Bishops consent builde a new Church within his owne land, the Auncient Church shall not bee preiudiced, but all accustomed Tythes shall be still paid vnto it. The Habetur. Tomo. 3. Concil. apud Binnium. pag. 65 •… . Councell of Ticin sayth, there are certaine Lay-men, who hauing Churches or Oratories within the compasse of their owne landes and possessions, pay not the tithes to those Churches, where they are partakers of the benefit of Baptisme, Preaching, Imposition of handes, and other Sacraments of Christ: but giue them to their owne Churches, or their owne Clearkes, as they list: which is contrary to the Law of God, and the sacred Canons. And therefore the Councell of Cap. 13. Mentz in the time of Arnulphus, decreed, That Auncient Churches shall not be depriued of their tithes, or other possessions, and that the things that formerly did belong vnto them, shall not be giuen to new Chappels, or Oratories.

The first wrong that was offered vnto Churches, in depriuing them of their tythes, that preuailed, was in fauour of Monkes, who hauing their Mansion houses within the precincts of parishes, and landes belonging to the same, which for their prouision they held in their owne hands, and vsed for their owne benefit, rested not till they obtayned of the Pope and other Bishoppes to haue them Tithe-free. The Councell of Lateran vnder Alexander the Third ordayneth, Indice in appendicem. That religious men shall pay no Tithes out of such their landes as they tille themselues. But if they shall rent any, they shall pay Tithe as other doe: and likewise if they let any landes out vnto Countrey-men to be tilled, they shall pay Tithes out of them; yea if they shall get new landes, after their foundation and confirmation of their Priuiledges, they shall pay Tithes, though they keepe them in their owne handes. But this exemption of Religious men, (though very preiudiciall to the Church) staid not heere, but preuayled yet further, to the great hurt of the Church: and therefore wee reade, that some sought to exempt their Farmers also from paying Tithes: which the Bishoppes assembled in the Councell of Cabilonens. 2. Canone 19. Cabilon disliked, and commaunded that both Bishops and Abbots should permit their Tenants to pay Tithes in the places where they receiued the Sacraments: and that they should keepe the Tithes of such fieldes and Vineyardes, as they held in their owne occupation, to themselues. Thus we shall finde that this Monkish generation first robbed the parochiall Churches, within the boundes whereof their houses and possessions were, of a great portion of Tithes due vnto them, by their priuiledges and exemptions: and that after they had tasted the sweetnesse of this robbery, they went forward, till they had subiected those Ministers and their Churches to themselues, to whose Iurisdiction they were formerly subiect; And got the Tithes that others payed to parochiall Churches, to bee appropriated to themselues, that at first by priuiledge exempted themselues from paying Tithes; forgetting that of Saint Hier. ad Heliodorum de laude vitae solitariae. Hierome; Alia Monachorum est causa, alia Clericorum, Clerici pascunt oues, ego pascor, illi de Altari vivunt, mihi quasi infructuosae arbori securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad Altare non defero; nec possum obtendere paupertatem cum in Evangelio anum viduam, duo quae sola sibi supererant aera, mittentem laudauerit Dominus, mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet; illi si peccauero, licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis, vt Spiritus salvus sit. That is, the condition of Monkes and the condition of Cleargy-men differ very much. Cleargy-men feede the Sheepe of CHRIST, but I am fedde; they liue by the Altar, but if I bring not my gift to the Altar, the Axe is laid vnto mee, as to an vnfruitfull Tree; neither •… nne I pretend Pouerty, seing the Lord in the Gospell, praysed the Widow, that cast in two Mites, which was all that shee had; I may not sitte in the presence of a Presbyter, but if I offend, he may deliuer me to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saued.

But as these idle bellies, and euill beasts, by the fauour of Popes and Prelates, got into their hands the portion which God appointed for his seruants the Ministers of his Churches; so in the end growing odious to the world, for that professing mortification, and a voluntary penitentiall course of life, they abounded in wealth & surfetted vpon pleasures, more then any secular men in the world, they were deuoured of others, who seazed vpon their houses, tooke from them their reuenewes, and together with their other liuings, led captiue that portion of tithes, they found in their possessions; and hold it (in sort) as the former vsurpers did, euen to this day. So that wee may truely pronounce, that the Cloisters of Monks are guilty of all that horrible Sacriledge, that hath layed wast so many Churches, spoyled so many Christians of the comfort of Godly Pastors, that otherwise they might haue enioyed; & brought the Cleargy into that meane estate, that now it is come vnto. For it is not to be imagined, that euer any Lay-man would once haue entertayned a thought of receiuing tithes, that (as consecrated things to God, and holy vnto him) were to bee put into the Store-house of his Temple, if they had not found them, (who by the originall of their order, and institution, were to pay, and not to receiue tithes) possessed of them and spending them in most vile and shamefull manner. Neither shall we euer finde (as I thinke) that Lay-men inherited this portion of the Lord, in sort as now they doe, till the suppressing of the houses of these irreligious Monkes; which were become cages of vncleane Birdes, and dens of theeues and robbers. It is true indeed that De Sacris 〈◊〉 . minist. & benef. l. 7. c. 1. Duarenus hath, that the right of receiuing sacred tithe, Clientela titulo, was by certaine Princes, with the consent of the whole Cleargy, made ouer to Knights and Marshall men for defending the Church and people of CHRIST against the enemies of Religion. But this was for the good and benefite of the Cleargy, and in their right; and not as now it is, by absolute Title of Inheritance, and Fee-simple, or Freehold. The beginner of this kinde of assignation of tithes to Lay-men for defence of the Church, was Charles Martell: as Duarenus saith, and the third Councell of Laterane reversed and voydedit more then foure hundred yeares since.

From tithes, (which the Lord God, possessor of Heauen and earth, appropriated to himselfe, as his owne particular portion from the beginning, though all were his) let vs proceede to see what the devotion of men gaue vnto him since the appearing of CHRIST his Son in the world. Touching which point, first we shall find in the sacred story of the Evangelists, that many ministred vnto CHRIST out of their substance, and that hee had a Bagge wherein he kept the things which the faithfull ministred vnto him; and out of the same supplyed his owne necessities, and the wants of others, as Saint In Iohan. 13. Augustine obserueth. So that he did not liue so as to haue nothing, or to begge, (as some here-tofore haue thought) whose errour Pope Iohn the two and twentieth long since condemned. Heere was the first patterne of Church-goods, and treasure, as Augustine noteth. After the death, resurrection, and returne of CHRIST into Heauen, such was the devotion of the beleeuers in the beginning, that many of thē Acts 4. 34. 35. solde their possessions, and brought the price thereof, and laid it down at the Apostles feet. Which communication of the goods of the first Christians, though it extended to the benefite of all, yet was there a speciall respect therein had to the Apostles; to whom they would haue nothing to be wanting, and to whose disposition all was committed. The reason why they rather solde their possessions, and turned their lands into money, then gaue them to the Apostles for the reliefe and maintenance of themselues, & others, was, (as Decr. part. 2. caus. •… 2. q. 1. c. 15 some thinke) for that the Church was soone after to bee remooued from those parts, and to be dispersed amongst the Gentiles, which made them little regard to haue lands and possessions in Iudaea.

But after these times when the Christians were dispersed throughout the world, & Churches established amongst the Gentiles, they thought it better to giue lands vnto the Churches, for the maintenance of the Ministery, reliefe of the Poore, & entertainment of Strangers, then mony; as being a more sure, certain, & settled Indowment, & cōsequently fitter forchurches established. Of which change we may read in the epistle attributed to Ibid. c. 16 Vrbanus Bishop of Rome about the yeare two hundred twenty sixe. And though the first course of giuing all that men possessed to the common benefite, soone ceased, & was neuer practised (for ought we read) amongst the Gentiles: yet great was the devotion of Christians, turning from Gentilisme, in those first Ages of the Church, while the blood of CHRIST lately shed, was yet warme in mens hearts: so that they gaue many goodly & ample Indowments & Possessions to the Church. Where-upon we shal find, that the church had very anciently goods & lands, as well as treasure. For the councel of Canon. 15. Ancyra holden in the yeare 314, voydeth the sale of such things, as the church made by Presbyters when there was no Bishop; & leaueth it in the choyce of the Bishop when he is chosen, if he please, to resume the things themselues againe. The Canon. 25. councell of Antioch in the yeare 340, maketh mention of the Fields, lands, and possessions of the church, and taketh order how they shall bee disposed. Agri Ecclesiae (saith Ambrose) solvunt tributa: that is, the fieldes and landes of the church pay tribute. Duaren. de sacr. eccl. min. & benef. l 2. c. r Constantine the Emperour made a Law, that it might bee lawfull for such as pleased, to leaue their goods vnto the church. And Ibid. Licinia a rich and wealthie Matron, gaue her goods by will vnto the church of Rome, when Marcellus was Bishoppe. Hilary Bishop of Arle (as Devit a contemplativa. l. 2. c. 9. Prosper reporteth) not onely possessed such things as the church had formerly but greatly increased the possessions of it, receiuing the inheritances of many, who gaue that they had to the church. Thus did the devout Christians of the Primitiue church religiously giue, & the godly Bishops take such temporalties as were giuen vnto them. And therefore the conceipt of Wickliffe (if that bee true that is imputed to him) and some other, cannot well bee excused, who thought that Constantine, and other Christian Emperours sinned in giuing, and Syluester and other Bishops in receiuing temporall goods and possessions.

It is true, that great was the superfluitie of Church-men in latter times, and their state such as made them forgette the things that most concerned them: whence grew that saying Religiopeperit diuitias, & filia deuorauit Matrem: That is; religion brought forth riches, and the daughter hath deuoured the mother. Vol, 2. generat. 11. pa. 505. Nauclere reporteth, that there was a common conceipt amongst many, that when Constantine first began to endow the Churches, with lands & possessions, a voyce was heard from Heauen saying, Hodie venenum Ecclesiae estimmissum, that is, This day is poyson powred into the Church: and in processe of time, temporall Princes (finding that the indiscreet deuotion of men, giuing more then was fit to the Church, preiudiced the state of their Kingdomes, & common-wealthes) made statutes of Mortmaine, to stay men from putting any more of their lands and possessions into such dead hands, as would do them no seruice. But such is the infelicity of the sonnes of men, that commonly they run out of one extremity into another: and while they seeke to avoyd one euill they fall into another as bad or worse. The abuse of the riches and wealth the Church had in the time wherein Wickliffe liued, made him so farre dislike the present state of things: that hee thought the contrary would right all againe: as the manner of men is, when they goabout to straighten a thing that is crooked, to bow it as much the other way. But De potest Eccle •… ast. considerat. •… 2. Gerson, a right good religious & wise man bringeth in an euen & just moderation, to interpose it selfe betweene these extremities, that neither men giue so much to the Church, as to make her sette her feete on the neckes of Emperours, nor yet bring her to want and contempt which hath beene the course of some men in our times, the vnhappy sequells of whose proceedings, wee see already in part; and it is to be feared, that posterity shall feele the smart of it in more grieuous sort then we do.

But to returne to the matter whence we are a little digressed. These Lands, which deuout and good people gaue vnto the Church, were at first possessed ioyntly by the Bishop and Cleargy: but in processe of time, a diuision was made and either knew distinctly their owne, and had power to dispose of it; so that they did nothing preiudiciall to the inheritance of their Churches, or tending to the hurt of them that were to succeede them. For (to restraine them from doing any such thing) the Bishop was forbidden by the lawes of the Church, to let any thing belonging to his See, without the confirmation of his Cleargy, and the Ministers abroad, to alienate, exchaunge, or demise any thing without the consent of the Bishop, and Patrons, or founders of the Churches. Otherwise, both the Bishop might dispose of himselfe alone, of that portion that belonged vnto him, and the Ministers of their Tithes, Oblations, Obuentions, and Glebe-landes, without the Bishops intermedling with them. Onely three things were due to the Bishop out of the liuings of inferiour Ministers. For first, as De sacris Eccles. minist. & Benef. lib. 7. cap. 5. Duarenus noteth, the Ministers of inferior Churches, were to giue yearely a certaine tribute or pension vnto the Bishoppe; which Tribute or Pension was called Cathedraticum, quod Cathedrae, id est honori Episcopali, debeatur. Secondly, when the Bishoppe goeth to visite his Diocesse, and the parishes abroad, the inferiour Ministers are to giue him entertainment, and prouide for him: which is called Procuratio; Quia Ecclesiae Episcopum procurant, 〈◊〉 . curant, alunt & tuentur, sicut pueri dicuntur procurari a nutricibus: That is, Procurations, because the Churches abroad, must take care, prouide and procure, all things necessary for the Bishops lodging, diet and entertainment. But because in these visitations some Bishops grew too chargeable, therefore the Councell of Sub. Alexand. 3. cap. 4. Lateran limiteth what company a Bishop shall haue with him, when hee goeth to visit. Thirdly, in former times, the fourth part of the Tythes due to inferiour Churches, and the fourth part of such thinges, as by Will men gaue to them, was by the Ministers of these Churches, to be paid vnto the Bishop, which thing is now growne out of vse. Neither is there any other thing payable, and due to the Bishop, from inferiour Ministers, but Procurations onely.

Thus were Church-lands, and tithes, (which at first were enjoyed by the Bishop and Cleargy joyntly) in time diuided, and eyther of them had an entire power to dispose of the same, as seemed good vnto thē, without the intermedling of the other: yet was there a difference made betweene such things as they had by right of inheritance or by the gift of their friendes, and those thinges which they gayned and gathered vppon their Ecclesiasticall liuings. For sundry Canons prouided, that Bishops and other Cleargy-men, might make their last Will and Testament, and giue to whom they pleased, that which came to them by inheritance, the gift of their friendes, or which they gained vppon the same. But that which they gayned vpon their Church-liuings, they should leaue to their Churches. But the Church of England, had a different custome: neither were these Canons euer of force in our Church: And therefore, her Bishops and Ministers might euer at their pleasure bequeath to whom they would, whatsoeuer they had gained, either vpon their Church liuings, or otherwise. And surely there was great reason it should be so, for seeing, The labourer is worthy of his hire, why should not they haue power to giue that which was yeelded vnto them as due recompence and reward of their labours, to whom they please. And how can it bee excused from iniustice and wrong, that men (spending a great part of their owne Patrimonie, in fitting themselues for the Ministery of the Church, which conuerted to the best aduantage and benefitte, might greatly haue enriched them) should not haue right and power to dispose of such thinges, as they haue lawfully gayned, out of those liuings which are assigned to thē, as the due reward of their worthy paines? Yet are there some that are much more iniurious to the holy Ministery. For Doctr. fideili. 4. art. 3. cap. 42. Waldensis out of a Monkish humour, thinketh that Cleargy-men are bound to giue away, whatsoeuer commeth to thē, by inheritan ce, or by any other meanes; & that they ought not to possesse any thing in priuate, and as their owne. And alleageth to this purpose the saying of Origen, Hierome, and Bernard: that the Cleargy-man that hath any part or portion on earth, cannot haue the Lord for his portion, nor any part in heauen. But Cardinall De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 7. Bellarmine answereth to these authorities, That these Fathers speake of such as content not themselues with that which is sufficient, but immoderately seeke the things of this world; and proueth, that Cleargy-men may haue, and keepe lands and possessions as their owne. First because the Apostle prescribeth that such a one should be chosena Bishop 1. Tim. 3. 4. As gouerneth his owne house well, and hath children in Obedience; which presupposeth that he hath something in priuate, and that is his owne. Secondly, hee cofirmeth the same, by the Can. 40. Canons of the Apostles, the Councell of Can. 48. Agatha, Martinus Bracharensis in his Canon. 15. Decrees, and the first Councell of Canon. 1. Hispalis; and further addeth, that a man hauing Lands, Possessions and Inheritance of his owne, may spare his owne liuing, and receiue maintenance from the Church: for proofe whereof he alleageth the Glosse, and Iohn de In cap. Clericos. 1. qu. 2. Turrecremata, a Cardinall in his time of great esteeme; and confirmeth the same by that saying of Christ, Math. 10. 10. The Labourer is worthy of his hyre: and that of the Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 9. 7. Who goeth to warfare at any time, at his owne charge?

FINIS.

AN APPENDIX CONTAYNING A DEFENSE OF SVCH PARTES AND PASSAGES OF THE FORMER foure bookes, as haue bin either excepted against, or wrested to the maintenance of Romish errours.

Diuided into three partes.

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.

SINCE the time I presumed (good Christian Reader) to offer to thy view, what I had long before for my priuate satisfaction obserued touching certaine points, concerning the nature, definition, notes, visibility, and authority of the Church much questioned in our times: first there came forth a Pamphlet; intituled; The first part of Protestant proofes for Catholique Religion and recusancie: After that a larger discourse bearing the name of, A Treatise of the grounds of the old and new religion: & thirdly, the first motiue of one Theophilus Higgons, lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his Religion. The Author of the first of these worthy workes, vndertaketh to proue out of the writings of Protestant Diuines, published since the beginning of his Maiesties raigne ouer this Kingdome, that his Romish faith and profession is Catholique. The second endeauoureth to make the world belieue, that Protestants haue no sure grounds of Religion. And the third, hauing made shipwracke of the faith, and forsaken his calling, laboureth to iustifie and make good that he hath done. Euery of these hath beene pleased for the aduantage of the Romish cause, amonst the Workes of many worthy men, to make vse of that which I haue written; the first seeking to draw mee into the defence of that hee knoweth I impugne: and the other two taking exceptions to certaine parts and passages scattered here and there. Such is the insufficiencie and weakenesse of the idle and emptie discourses of these men, that I almost resolued to take no notice of them: But finding that the last of these good Authors fronteth his booke with an odious title of Detection of falshood in Doctor Humfrey, Doctor Field, and other learned Protestants, and addeth an Appendix, wherein hee vndertaketh to discouer some notable vntruethes of Doctor Field, and D. Morton, pretending that the consideration thereof moued him to be come a Papist; I thought it not amisse to take a little paynes in shewing the folly of these vaine men, who care not what they write so they write something; and are in hope, that no man wil trouble himselfe, so much as once to examine what they say: yet not intending to answere all that euery of these hath said (for who would mispend his time, and weary himselfe in so fruitlesse a labour?) but that which concerneth my selfe, against whom they bend themselues in more speciall sort, then any other; as it seemeth because I haue treatised as Maister Higgons speaketh, of that subiect, which is the center and circumference in all religious disputes. And b •… cause Mr Higgons is pleased to let vs know his name, whereas the other cōceale theirs (it being no small comfort for a man to know his Aduersary) I will do him all the kindnesse I can, & first begin with him, though he shewed himselfe last, and from him proceed to the rest. What it is that maketh him so much offended with me, I cannot tell; but sure it is, he hath a good vvill to offend me: for hee chargeth mee vvith trifeling, egregious falshood, collusion, vnfaithfull dealing, abusing the holy Fathers, and I knowe not what else. But such is the shamelesse, and apparant vntrueth of these horrible imputations, that it is altogether needelesse to spend time, & bestow labour in the refutation of them. Yet because in the suspicion of heresie, falsehood and vfaithfull dealing in matters of faith, & religion, no man ought to be patient; I will briefely take a view of his whole booke. And though his beginning bee abrupt, and absurd, his whole discourse confused, and perplexed, and all that he doth, without order, or method; yet to giue satisfaction to all, I will follow him the same way hee goeth. I was vnwilling (good Christian Reader) to trouble thee with such discourses; but the restlesse importunity of our aduersaries, setting euery one a worke to say something against vs, forceth mee thereunto. Read without partiality, and Iudge betweene vs, as God shall direct thee.

THE FIRST PART, Contayning a discouery of the vanitie of such silly exceptions as haue beene taken against the former foure Bookes, by one Theophilus Higgons.
§. 1.

THE first exception Master Higgons is pleased to take against me, is, that in all my foure Bookes I haue not graced any Father with the glorious title of Saint: his words are these. Pag. 4 I am bold to intreat D Feildes leaue to honour Augustine with the name of Saint, howsoeuer hee hath not once vouchsafed in his foure Books to grace him or any Father with this glorious title. It is strange that such a novice as he is, should dare to begin in so scornfull a manner, with so shamelesse an vntruth, as if hee had been anold practitioner in the faculty of lying; but his desire (it seemeth) was to giue as good proofe at first as possibly hee might, of the good seruice hee is like to do, if his new Masters wil be pleased to make vse of him, & imploy him as they do others. For otherwise he could not but know he might easily be convinced of a lye; for I haue giuen the title of Saint to Augustine, that worthy and renowned Father, more then once, twice, or thrice; & I call Leo, blessed Leo, & so giue him a title aequivalent to that of Saint, & more often found in the writings of the Ancient. If happily it offend him, that euery time I name any Father, I giue him not the title of Saint, let him take the paines to peruse the writings of Alexander of Hales, Tho. Aquinas, Scotus, Durandus, Waldensis, Sixtus Senensis, and other of that sort, & I doubt not but hee will soone perceiue his folly, & cease to be angry with me any longer, vnlesse he be resolued to condemne them also. This surely is a childish and a bad beginning, and may make vs justly feare he will performe little in that which followeth.

§. 2.

THat which he hath in the next place, that Pag. 12. &. 13 D Humphrey, and I, admit try all by the Fathers, is true, but to no purpose; for he and his consorts know right well, that the Fathers make nothing for them, and therefore they are soone weary of this course of tryall, as often as they are brought to it, as it appeared by Hardinges writing against Bishoppe Iewell. For whereas the challenge was made by that worthie Bishoppe, to try the matter of difference betweene the Romanists and vs, not onely by discourse of reason, or testimonies of Scripture, wherein all the world kn •… w our Adversaries to be too weake; but by authorities of the Auncient, wherein they were thought to haue more strength. And whereas to that purpose hee brought out against them all the renowned Fathers, and Bishoppes that lined in auncient times, the decrees of Councels then holden, and the report of Historians: Harding could finde none to speake for him, but Martialis, Abdias, Amphilochius, & such branded counterfeits, nor no other proofes of his cause, but the fayned Epistles of the auncient Popes, and shamelesse forgeries vnder the honourable names of holy Fathers, with other-like base stuffe. The thing that offendeth Master Higgons in Doctor Humphrey, is, that he saith the Romanistes are like Thrasilaus, who, in a madde humour, tooke all the shippes in the Atticke hauen to bee his owne, though he possessed not one vessell: or rather maketh the degree of their phrensie greater, because they see, and yet seeing dissemble, that they are destitute of all defence from the Fathers. Which saying of the worthy and renowned Doctor, is most true, and shall bee defended against a farre better man, then Theophilus Higgons, though childishly hee charge him with Notable, and vast vntruth in this behalfe. Neither shall hee, nor any of his great Masters euer proue, that I haue vntruely alleadged the cause why Luther, Zuinglius, and other, at the first seemed to decline the tryall by the Fathers: for the true cause was indeede, as I haue alleadged, the feare of the corruptions of the Fathers workes, and writings; and not any imagination, that the Fathers generally from the beginning were in errour: which is so barbarous a conceit, that it cannot enter into the heart of any reasonable man. Neither was it any folly in them (as this wise man is pleased to censure the matter) to decline the tryall by the Fathers in those times after barbarisme, superstition, and tyrannie had so long prevayled, and almost layd waste all learning, religion, and liberty of the Church, seeing Vincentius Lyrinensis prescribeth, that after Heresies haue long preuailed, & growne inueterate, wee Contra profanas hae •… corum nouitat •… s. shoulde flie to the Scriptures alone.

SECT. 3.

IN the third place (he saith) Pag. 14. & 15. Hee was desirous to vnderstand, why, amongst other particulars, I should esteeme it a folly, and inconstancy in the Romanistes to say that Purgatory is holden by Tradition and yet proued by Scripture. Which argueth, that the man is either very weake in vnderstanding, or else maketh himselfe more simple, then indeed he is. For hauing shewed, that the name of Tradition, sometime signifieth euery part of Christian Doctrine, deliuered from one to another, either by liuely voyce only, or by writing: sometimes such partes there of onely, as were not written by them, to whom they were first deliuered; and that our Aduersaries, so vnderstand the word in the controuersies betweene them, and vs. I note it as a contradiction amongst Papistes, that some of them say, Purgatory is holden by Tradition, in that latter sence, & other, that it is proued by Scripture: as likewise that some of them alledge for proofe of vnwritten Traditions the article of the consubstantiality of the Sonne of God with the Father, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost from them both; and others constantly affirme that those Articles may bee proued out of Scripture. Now if to bee written, and not to bee written, to be holden by vnwritten Tradition, or Tradition opposite to writing, and to bee proued out of Scripture, bee not contradictory in Master Higgons his apprehension; it is no great matter of what side he be.

§ 4.

IN the Fourth place he saith: Pag. 17. & 18. I accept the rule of Saint Augustine, that whatsoeuer is frequented by the vniuersall Church, and was not instituted by Councels; but was alwayes holden, that is beleeued most rightly to be an Apostolicall tradition. And that liberally I adde, that whatsoeuer all, or the most famous and renowned in all ages, (or at the least is diuers ages) haue constantly deliuered, as receiued from them that went before them, no man doubting, or contradicting it, may be thought to be an Apostolical tradition. Whence hee thinketh hee may conclude ineuitably by my allowance, that prayer for the dead may bee thought to be an Apostolicall tradition, many famous and renowned Fathers in diuers ages mentioning prayer for the dead, and none disliking or reprouing it. For answere whereunto I say; that prayer for the resurrection, publike acquittall in the day of Iudgement, and perfit consummation, and blisse of them that are falne asleepe, in the sleepe of death, is an Apostolicall tradition, and so proued by the rule of Saint Augustine, and that other added by mee; as likewise prayer made respectiuely to the passage hence, and enterance into the other World: and hereof there is no controuersie betweene vs, and our Aduersaries. But prayer to ease, mittigate, suspend, or wholy take away the paines of any of them that are in hell, or to deliuer men out of the supposed Purgatorie of Papists, hath no proofe from either of these rules, as shall appeare by that which followeth: and therefore, this poore nouice hath not yet learned his lesson aright, nor knoweth what it is he is to proue. But if he will be content to be enformed by me, the thing he must proue (if he desire to gratifie his new masters, & to maintaine the Romish cause) is, that all the Fathers, or the most famous amongst them, from the beginning of Christianity, did in the seuerall Ages wherein they lived, teach men to pray for the deliuerance of their friends and brethren out of the paines of purgatory; which if hee will vndertake to doe, hee must bring some better proofes, then such as are taken from the mutuall dependance and coniunction of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, which yet principally hee seemeth to vrge. For many Catholicke Christians (whom this Gentleman must not condemne) made prayers for such, as they neuer deemed to bee in Purgatory. Neither did the ancient Catholicke Church (as he fondly imagineth) in her prayers, and oblations for the dead, intend to releeue soules temporally afflicted in a penall estate; but in her generall intention (whatsoeuer priuate conceites particular men had) desired onely the resurrection, publicke acquitall, and perfect consummation, and blessednesse of the departed, and respectiuely to the passage hence, and entrance into the other world, the vtter deletion, and full remission of their sinnes, the perfect purging out of sinne, being in, or immediately vpon the dissolution in the last instant of this life, and the first of the next, and not while the soule and body remaine conioyned. This is strongly proued, because the most auncient amongst the Fathers, make but two sortes of men dying, and departing out of this world, the one sinners, the other righteous; the one prophane, the other holy: so Dionysius in his Hierarchie; so Epiphanius against Aerius; so Ambrose in his booke De bono mortis: and Cyrill of Hierusalem in his Catechisme; & all of them teach, that the soules of the Iust are in a joyfull, happie, and good estate, and present with God in an excellent sort, immediatly vpon their dissolution •… nimā departure hence. Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 7. patt 1. Obdormitio sanctorum (saith Dionysius) est in laetitia, & spe immobili, quia peruenerunt ad finem certaminum, & norunt se totos percepturos Christi-formem requiem: that is, The falling a sleepe of the holy ones, is in ioy & gladnesse, and immoueable hope, because they are come to the end of their combates; and againe, they know they shall altogether bee partakers of the rest of Christ, beeing come to the end and bound of this life: so that they are filled with holy ioy and gladnesse, and with great delight and pleasure, enter the way of the most happy regeneration. Wherevpon the friends, and kinsmen of any faithfull man departed, when they carry him to his bedde of rest, pronounce him blessed, as indeede hee is, hauing obtayned the wished end of victory; and send forth Hymnes of gratulation to GOD, that hath made him a conquerour, and praying that they also may be admitted into the like rest, carry him to the Bishoppe to be crowned with garlandes, who Eodem cap. part. 3. prayseth the departed as beeing in a most happy condition; and amongst other, the party presently dead as beeing a companion of Saints, and partaker of like happinesse with them. After this his body is layde vp with other already fallen a sleepe in the Lord; comfortable places of Scripture are read, touching the resurrection, and blessed hope of the iust; and the Bishoppe prayeth GGD to forgiue vnto him all his sinnes committed through humane infirmitie, and to place him in the land of the liuing in the bosomes of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob. Thus doth Dionysius teach, that the soules of all faithfull ones are at rest with GOD immediatly vpon their departure hence; and yet sheweth, that the Bishoppe was wont to pray for the departed at the time hee was brought to his bed of rest; which thinges seeming not well to agree together; hee demaundeth what good the prayer of the Bishoppe doth the dead; seeing euery one shall receiue the rewardes of the things he did in this life, whether good, or bad; and prayers haue no force to put any man after death, into any other estate then that hee is worthy of, when he dieth. Whereunto he answereth, that by desiring & wishing that good to the departed which GOD hath promised, and of his mercy vndoubtedly will doe vnto them, he accompanieth them to the presence of GOD, and the place of rest which hee hath appointed for them; solemnely convaying them thither with his desires, and as hauing the power of binding and loosing, and discerning betweene the holy and prophane, separateth in a sort (by the solemne good wishes hee sendeth after them) such as GOD hath adjudged to eternall happinesse, from other not partakers of like pretious hope with them: admitting the one (as deare vnto GOD) by way of declaration, and convoy, into their resting place, and rejecting the other. So that the prayers Dionysius speaketh of; were made respectiuely to the departure hence, and first enterance into the other world, & were nothing else, but an accōpanying of the faithfull departed to the Throne of God, with desire of that vtter deletion of sinne, and full remission of the same, which is not to bee found but in the dissolution of soule and body, and in the first enterance into the other world; but of any relieuing men temporally afflicted in a penall estate after this life, hee neuer dreamed. In fide lib. 5. Irenaeus is of opinion, that the soules of the faithfull goe into a certaine invisible place, and are there stayed till the Resurrection: but of Purgatory (as In argumento lib. 〈◊〉 . Erasmus noteth) hee maketh no mention. In respons. ad quaest. Orthod. quaest. 7. Iustine Martyr teacheth, that after the departure out of the body, there is presently a separation made betweene the soules of the just, and the vnjust, and that they are carryed into places worthy of them, and fitte for them: that is to say, the soules of the just into Paradise, where they enjoy the company of Angels and Archangels, as also the sight of our Saviour IESVS CHRIST: but those of the vnjust and wicked, into infernall places. De Trinit. in initio. Tertullian sayth, There is a place whether the soules of good and euill men are carryed, and where they haue a kinde of fore-judging and discerning of that which shall be adjudged to them in the last judgement. And Lib. de 〈◊〉 cap. 33. & 34. againe hee sayth, That euery soule immediatly vpon the departure hence, is in this appointed invisible place, hauing there either paine, or ease, and refreshing: that there the rich man is in paine, and the poore in a comfortable estate: for, sayth hee, why should wee not thinke, that the soules are tormented, or refreshed in this invisible place appoynted for them in expectation of the future Iudgement? In quadam vsurpatione & candida eius. The Iudgement doubtlesse is begunne there: So that neither is good altogether wanting to the innocent, nor the sence and freling of euill to the nocent. Heere wee see Tertullian maketh but two sorts of men departing hence: and that hee thinketh, that presently after their departure hence, the good are in a kinde of imperfect possession or enioying of that good they looke for hereafter: and the euill and wicked in a kinde of state wherein they already beginne to taste of those euerlasting miseries that shall swallowe them vppe, in the daie of judgement. So that according to his opinion, there is no Purgatorie nor state of temporall paine and affliction after this life, out of which there is hope of escape or deliuerance. Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration made in the praise of Caesarius after many comforts against the sorrowes conceiued for the losse of so worthy a man: addeth this as the chiefest of all other. Verbis sapientum adducor vt credam generosam omnem, Deoque charam animam; posteaquam corporis vinculis soluta hinc excesserit, protinus, bonum quod eam manet, persentientem, & contemplantem, (vtpote eo quod mentem caligine obducebat, vel purgato, vel abiecto, vel quo verbo eares appellanda sit nescio) mirabili quadam voluptate affici, & exultare, atque hac vita veluti gra •… issimo quodam ergastulo relicta, excussisque compedibus, quibus animi penna deprimi solebat, hilarem ad Dominum suum conuolare, beatitudinem recondita Imaginatione quadam iam percipere. That is, I am induced and inoued by the sayings of the wise to beleeue, that euery generous soule, and such as is beloued of GOD, presently after the loosing from the bonds of the body, and departure hence, (that which darkened the minde, beeing either purged out, or cast from it, or done away in what sort I cannot well expresse) beginneth sensibly to discerne and behold that good, which remaineth for it, to bee filled with wonderfull delights, and to leape for ioy: and that leauing this life as a most grieuous prison, and hauing cast off those fetters, that depressed and held her downe, desiring to mount vpon high with her siluer wings, shee flieth ioy fully to her Lord and presently in a certaine apprehension, beginneth to tast of that hidden happinesse, that shall be reuealed. Haeres. 75. Epiphanius speaking of the Godly departed, remembred in the praiers of the Church, sayth, they are and liue with God. De bono mortis cap. 10. 11. Ambrose is more full to this purpose then any of the former, for in his booke de bono mortis, first he sayth, all soules remaine in certaine habitations till the day of Iudgment, whence they shall be called forth in that great day of resurrection. Secondly, that till the fulnesse of time appointed, they all are holden in an expectation of the reward due vnto them, & are not in full possession of it. Thirdly, that in the meane time neither the soules of the wicked are without some present sence of euill, nor the other without some enioying of good. The ioy of the good and righteous he sheweth to bee in respect of the victory which they haue obtained ouer the flesh, the deuine testimony which they haue in their consciences of their former walking in the waies of God, making them not to feare the future iudgment: their escape out of the prison of the body of death, the liberty they are come to, and the possessing of the promised inheritance &c. Heare we see plainely, that Ambrose maketh but two sorts of men, two sorts of soules separated from the body, and two estates, assuring vs that all good faithfull-ones ordained to eternall life are presently after their seperation in a state of happinesse, boldly hastening to the view and and sight of that God whom they haue so carefully serued, to which purpose he alleageth that of the Prophet to the Angell: shall there be giuen a time to soules after they are seperated that they may see the thing thou hast spoken of? and the Angells answer. Seauen daies shall their liberty Esdr. 4. endure, that in those seauen daies they may see the things, that haue beene spoken, and after they shall bee gathered into their dwelling places: out of which (as I noted before) he thinketh they shall not bee called till the resurrection, so that according to the opinion of Saint Ambrose there is no place of temporall paine and punishment after this life appointed for the soules of men dying in state of Grace.

Neither was this the opinion of Dionysius, Irenaeus, Iustin Martyr, Tertullian, Nazianzen, Epiphanius and Ambrose only, but all the auncient were of the same judgment, touching the state of the faithfull departed: and therefore neuer any of them made any praiers for the deliuering of them out of temporall paine and punishment; but as it hath beene before obserued, they made prayers for them respectiuely to their passage out of this world, and the entrance into the other; as also for their resurrection, publike acquitall in the day of judgment, and perfit consummation. This the Masse-booke and all the prayers that are found in any auncient bookes of Ecclesiasticall prayers, doe clearely shew. George Cassander hath published a booke of Ecclesiasticall prayers, gathered out of the old Liturgies and Bookes of diuine seruice that hee could meete with: amongst which there are many, pro commendatione animae: some few of them I will produce for example. The first. We beseech thy clemency, O God, mercifully to receiue the soule of thy seruant, returning vnto thee; Let Michaell the Angell of thy couenant be present with it, and vouchsafe to place it amongst thy Saints and holy ones in the bosome of Abraham, Isaacke, and Iacob, that beeing freed and deliuered from the Princes of darkenesse, and the places of punishment, he may be confounded with no errors of his first birth, of ignorance, or of his owne iniquity, & frailty, but that rather he may bee acknowledged of thine, and enioy the rest of holy blessednesse, and that when the day of the great Iudgment shall come, being raised vp amongst thy Saints and chosen ones, hee may be satisfied with the glory of the cleere beholding of thee. The 2d Vouchsafe O Lord to giue to thy seruant a lightsome place. a place of refreshing, and quiet; Let him passe by the gates of hel, & the punishments of darkenesse; let him remaine in the mansions of the Saints, and in holy light, which of old thou promisedst to Abrahā, & to his seede: let his spirit sustaine no hurt; but when the great day of resurrectiō & reward shal come, vouchsafe to raise him, together with thy Saints & chosen ones: blot out & doe away his sins euen to the vttermost farthing, & let him attaine the life of immortality with thee. The 3; Receiue the soule of thy seruant which thou leadest out of the dirty & miry gulfe of this world, to the heauenly coūtry: receiue it into the bosome of Abrahā. be-dew it with the dew of refreshing: & let it be kept apart from the cruell burning of the fiery & flaming hell. The 4: Graunt that thy seruant may escape the place of punishment, the fire of hel, & the flames af the lowest gulfe. The like may bee shewed in the rest, for they are all framed to the same purpose, forthe escaping of hel, the power of the Prince of darknes, & the deuouring gulfe of eternall condemnation: al which things, in the judgment of our Aduersaries thēselues, are granted vnto men dying in the faith of Christ, & state of grace, in the very entrance into the other world, and the first instant of the next life: so that all the prayers that wee finde in the auncient, were made respectiuely to the passing hence & entrance into the other world, with desire of the Resurrection, and perfect consummation which we expect in the last day: and because this passage is often past, & they that are departed, already entred into their rest, before their friends whom they leaue behinde them, canne send so many good wishes after them as they desire; it was an ordinary thing with the Auncient, in their prayers to acknowledge and professe they were perswaded the thing was already granted and performed, which they desired: and to beseech GOD notwithstanding, to accept their voluntary deuotions, & good affections. In this sort Confess. lib. 9. cap. 13. Augustine prayeth for Monica, his Mother, That God will keepe her from the powers and Princes of darkenesse, and remit her sinnes: And yet saith, Hee beleeueth it is already done that hee asketh. So Vbi suprà. Nazianzen professeth his assured perswasion, that Caesarius is with God, and yet commendeth him to God. And the like wee finde in Tomo. 3. in orat. de obitu Valentiniani. Ambrose touching Valentinian. By all which it is euident, that the Auncient prayed not to deliuer the departed out of Purgatorie, or any estate of temporall affliction; but on their obite dayes, acknowledged the goodnesse of God towards them, preuenting all desires of men, declared their readinesse to entreate for them, if they were in neede or danger, and not past before they could send their good wishes after them, and expressed their desires of the perfecting and accomplishing of all that which is yet wanting to them. And as the Auncient were wont to pray for their brethren and friends on the dayes of their obites, and the deposition of their bodies, respectiuely to their passage hence, and the escaping of the daungers of hell, and eternall death in the same: so in like sort Bellarm. de Purgato •… io. lib 2. cap. 5. in processe of time, in those dayes wherein their obites were remembred and by returne of times represented to them, they vsed the same forme of prayer againe, as if they had beene but euen then in the passage hence, and in danger of hell, and the powers of darkenesse. But as on the dayes of the birth, circumcision, apparition, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, (for so wee call the dayes answering to these, & representing them to vs, signes and remembrances, carrying the names of the things themselues,) men so speake, asif God did then send his Sonne into the world to be borne of a woman, to be made vnder the Law, to suffer, ouercome, and triumph ouer death, & by ascending into Heaven, to take possession thereof for vs: and yet meane not (as the wordes may seeme to import) that Christ doth newly take flesh, and is borne of the Virgin, &c. But that he is borne vnto vs, and wee made partakers of the benefits of his birth circumcision, passion, &c. So in the dayes wherein they remembred the obites of their brethren and friends as then present, and prayed for them as then in passage hence, and in danger to be swallowed vp of hell & destruction; they desired not that which the words may seeme to import, (for that was granted to them on their dying dayes, or else they are vncapable of it for euer:) but that which is yet wanting to them. In which sense the wordes of that prayer in the Masse-booke must bee vnderstood: Offic. pro defunctis in Anni-uersarijs. Lord Iesus, King of glory, deliuer the soules of all faithfull ones departed, from the hand of hell, and from the deepe lake: deliuer them from the mouth of the Lyon, that the lowest hell swallow them not vp, and that they fall not into the dungeons of vtter darkenesse: but let thy Standard-bearer, holy Michael, present them into the place of holy Light, which of old thou diddest promise to Abraham and to his seede. For these dangers of falling into the deepe lake, the mouth of the Lyon, the dungeons of vtter darkenesse, and being swallowed vp of the lowest Hell, the dead in Christ escaped in the day and time of their dissolution: neither is there any thing to be wished farther vnto them in this behalfe, but that publicke acquitall, and full and perfect escape in the day of Iudgement, according to that other prayer found in the Missall: Vbi suprá. O gracious God, which calledst backe the first man to eternall glory; O good shepheard, which broughtest backe the lost sheepe vpon thy shoulder to the folde; Righteous Iudge, when thou shalt come to Iudge, deliuer from death the soules of them whom thou hast redeemed: Deliuer not the soules of them which confesse vnto thee, vnto the beasts, forsake them not for euer. In all these prayers there is no word of petition for the deliuerance of the dead out of any paines or punishments, but for their escaping, avoyding, declining, and not falling into hell, eternall condemnation, the power of Satan, and the mouth of the Lyon.

It is true, that some long since began to pray to deliuer men out of paines and punishments; or to suspend, mitigate, and ease their paines: but in such sort, as the Romanists dare not pray. It was an opiniō of many, whootherwisewere right beleeuers, that all Christians professing the truth in Christ, how ill soeuer they liue, shall bee saued in the end. Frustrà nonnulli (saith S. Augustine) immò quamplurimi, aeternam damnatorū poenam, r Aug. in Ench. ad Laur. c. 111. & cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos, humano miserantur affectu: atque ita futurumesse non credunt: that is; there are some, nay, there are exceeding many, who out of an humane affection commiserate the eternall punishments of the damned, and their torments that are without ceasing: these men thought the sayings of CHRIST and his Apostles concerning the eternall punishments of the wicked, were vttered rather minacitèr, then veracitèr: and that they rather shew what men according to their deseruing should suffer, then what indeede they shall suffer. Hence it came, that many did pray for the deliuerance of men out of hell, that died in mortall sinne. This opinion De dormientibus. Damascene followed, and whereas the Prophet asketh, Who shall confesse vnto thee O Lord in hell? he answereth, that the threats of the Iudge are terrible, but his vnspeakable mercy exceedeth all: and is of opinion, that Christ when he went downe to hell, deliuered such as had liued honestly; though without the knowledge of God, preaching vnto them, and perswading them to beleeue in him: which he saith, is not to contradict the Prophet, but to shew that God is ouercome of his mercie, as hee was in the case of the inhabitants of Niniue, Ezechias, and Achab, to whom that was threatned, which yet mercy staide that it should not be executed. This mercy hee thinketh shall prevaile and ouercome, till the time of retribution come, and the time of negotiation be past; so that till the day of Iudgment, we may help them that are in hell, but that afterwards there shall be no place left for the relieuing of any there; or the deliuering of any thence. The same Vbi supra. Damascene teacheth, that all men when they depart hence, are weighed in the ballance, and that if their well-doings and vertues in the right skale waigh downe the other, they shall bee brought into a place of refreshing: that if the skales be equall, mercy carryeth it; if the euill doings in the left skale bee too heauy, mercy supplyeth that which is wanting to the waight of the right skale: yea, that though their euill doings doe much exceed their vertues; when they are waighed, yet the exceeding goodnesse and mercy of GOD shall sway the matter for their good: and pronounceth, that in whomsoeuer any conscience of good at any time appeared, GOD will stirre vp the hearts of men to pray for them, that they may be deliuered, and that none shall perish euerlastingly, but such as liued so vilely, that no man sendeth a good wish after them when they are gone. Hereupon he bringeth forth sundry examples of men deliuered out of the hell of the damned by the prayers of the liuing: for first, he saith, that all the East and West know, that Gregory the Great, prayed for Traian an Infidel, and a persecutor of Christians in the time wherein hee liued, almost fiue hundred yeares after his death, mooued so to doe, by the consideration of some vertues that were in him: and receiued this comfortable answere from God, I haue heard thy prayers, and doe pardon Traian, but see heereafter thou offer no more sacrifice vnto me for any godlesse, vnbeleeuing, and prophane person. Secondly, hee reporteth that Tecla the Protomartyr, by the prayers which shee powred forth to God while shee liued, deliuered Falconilla out of hell, who was a worshipper of Idols, and averse from Christian religion as long as she liued. Another Tale he telleth of a dissolute man, continuing in a wicked course of life euen till his end: who appeared to a good Father after his death, in flaming fire, first vp to the necke, afterwards vpon the prayers that were made for him, vp to the girdle onely: so finding ease and deliuerance out of his torments. This opinion was very preuailing in Augustines time, and therefore with all modesty he opposeth himselfe against it, & sheweth himselfe willing to yeeld as much to them that were so minded, as possibly hee might; and saith, Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 67. if they would onely haue the paines of the damned to bee mitigated, or wholy suspended till the day of iudgment, and acknowledge them to be eternall, hee would not greatly striue with them. Vppon this conceipt of the mitigation or suspension of the paines of such as are in hell, many in former times made prayers for the damned in hell. Vbi supra. Damascene reporteth, out of the sacred history of Palladius to Lausus, that Macharius the Great, praying oftentimes for the dead, and carefully seeking to know, whether his prayers did helpe or profit them any thing or not, a certaine drie skull of a dead man, who had beene an Idolater, which by chance lay in the way, by the commandement of God, brake forth into the liuely voyce of a man, saying: O Macharius, when thou offerest vp thy prayers for the dead, wee for the time finde some ease. Sixtus Sen •… sis Bilioth. Sanctae. lib. 6. annotat. 47. Praepositi •… us Presbyter of the Church of Leoden, was of opinion, that prayers for the damned may bee multiplied in such sort, that in processe of time they may be freed from all paine and punishment, though not perpetually, as Origen thought: yet till the time of the general resurrectiō, at what time (their bodies resumed) they shall be cast into euerlasting punishments, without all hope of any refreshing or comfort. Ibid. Gilbertus Pictauiensis supposed, that there is something continually taken away from the paines of the damned, by the prayers and oblations of the faithfull, without any consumption of them, or vtter taking of them away: as infinite proportionable parts may be taken from a Line, without consuming of it, though it selfe be finite. Ibld. Gulielmus Antisiodorensis thinketh, that prayers be auaileable and helpefull to the damned, not to diminish or interrupt rheir torments, but to strengthen the sufferers, that so the burden, that lieth on them, may be borne by them with the lesse paine: as, if a man giue meate to him that is ready to faint vnder his burthen, or wine that cheereth his heart, hee maketh him the better able to beare it, though he no whit diminish the weight of it.

Thus we see, there is no such Booke 1. part, 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. mutuall dependance and connexion of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, as Theophilus Higgons childishly imagineth: and that many prayed for the dead, that neuer dreamed of Purgatory, some praying only for the resurrection, publike acquitall, and perfect consummation of the dead, and respectiuely to their passage hence, and entrance into the other world, for the remission of their sinnes, and their escaping of hell, and euerlasting destruction: other, out of an erroneous conceipt, for the deliuerance of men dead in mortall sinne, out of the hell of the damned, or for mitigation of their paines, or at least, the suspension of them for a time, as Damascene and sundry others before mentioned: and therefore the poore nouice is to be put in minde, that hee grossely abuseth himselfe, and others, when soe sadly he citeth Saint Iohn Pag. 59. Damascen, for proofe of the deliuerance of men out of purgatory, that speaketh no word of any such thing, but of the deliuerance out of hell, or the mitigation of the paines of them that be there; which hee should not do that talketh of nothing but falsehood, notable vntruethes and collusion in our writers, especially seeing De Purgato. rio. lib. 2. c. 8. Bellarmines grace telleth him, that the author of the booke vnder the name of Damascen, writeth so absurdly, that we may assure our selues Damascen was not the author of i •… Hauing thus out of the writings of the Fathers deliuered the sense and purpose of the auncient Church in praying for the dead, it is strange that this shamelesse companion should charge mee Pag. 31. with collusion, there being no part of that I haue said, that he or any other can except against, nor any thing concealed by me that is foūd in the Auncient, touching this point. I would desire him therefore to tell mee if hee can, wherein I informed him amisse, as hee saith I did? for first I shewed that there was an Auncient custome of commemorating the departed, of rehearsing their names and offering the sacrifice of praise for them, to expresse the assurance Christian men haue of the immortality of the soule, and their hope of the resurrection. Secondly, that this sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is of praise and thankesgiuing, was offered for the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyres, and the blessed Mother of Christ, and euery soule at rest in the faith of Christ: for proofe whereof I produce the Liturgy that goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome. Thirdly, that the Auncient prayed for the soules of men in their passage hence, and entrance into the other world. Fourthly, that they prayed for the resurrection; publique acquitall in the day of judgment, and perfit consummation of the departed: all which customes and obseruations I allow and approue. Fiftly, that some prayed for the remission, or mitigation of the paines of men in hell. Sixtly, that some other out of a conceipt that there is noe iudgment yet passed, and that none of the iust enter into heauen till the resurrection, prayed for their admittance into those Heauenly Pallaces, and into the presence of God: but that none of the Ancient euer prayed to deliuer men out of purgatory. What collusion or what vnfaithfull dealing doth Maister Higgons finde in any of these passages? yet the faithlesse and perfidious Apostata hauing Pag. 32. as he sayth, experience of my vnfaithfull dealing, directed himselfe to foure considerations; whereof the first is, that it is vanity in vs Protestants to accept and refuse the Liturgy of Chrysostome at our pleasure; the second, that Chrysostome did pray for the dead; the third, that it was by way of thankesgiuing, and not of petition, that the Church offered sacrifice to God for the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, &c. the fourth, that in the Liturgie of Chrysostome there is prayer for the dead: To the first of these wise considerations I answere, that wee doe not accept and refuse the Liturgie of Chrysostome at our pleasures, but that wee admitte it so farre forth onely, as wee finde the thinges it hath in it confirmed out of the indubitate writings of the Auncient, and in other things relie not much vpon the credit of it. Now that which I alleadge it for, hath proofe out of Epiphanius, and others; and therefore I might rightly alleadge it as I did, and doubt of the credit and authority of it in some other thinges. To the second wee say, Chrysostome did pray for the dead, not to deliuer them out of Purgatory, whereof hee neuer dreamed, nor any Greeke Father that euer liued, but in such a sort as Maister Higgons dareth not pray; namely, for the ease of men in hell. Chrysostome, sayth Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 6. annot. 47. Sixtus Senensis, in his three and thirtieth Homilie vppon Mathew, interpreting these words, The damsell is not dead but sleepeth, treating of the care that is to be taken for the dead, fell in a sort, into the opinion of them, who thinke that the suffrages and prayers that are made here in the Church, doe profit as well those that are damned in hell, as those that enjoy eternall glory. For there hee hath these words: If many barbarous nations doe vse to consume in fire, together with the dead, the things that pertaine to them; how much more oughtest thou to deliuer to thy sonne departed, such things as hee possessed, not to bee burnt to ashes, but that they may make him more glorious! Supposest thou that hee went hence defiled with spottes and staines? giue vnto him the things he had when he liued, that he may wash away those spots. Supposest thou, that he departed in righteousnesse? giue them to him for the increase of his reward. And againe, that prayers and oblations doe bring some refreshing to them that departed hence without repentance; the same Chrysostome seemeth to shew in his third Homily vpon the Epistle to the Philippians; where he speaketh to them that bewaile the dead, more then is seemely, in this sort: Bewayle them that died in the midst of great riches, and procured with their riches, no consolation to their soules, who when they had power to wash away their sinnes, would not so do: let vs weepe for those, but with seemely modesty: let vs helpe them what wee can, let vs procure vnto them some helpe, though small: yet let vs helpe them: but how, or in what sort? let vs pray, and exhort others to pray for them: let vs without ceasing giue almes to the poore for them: this thing hath some comfort doubtlesse, &c. To the third consideration, I say, that the Auncient offered for the Patriarches, Prophets; Apostles, &c. by way of thankesgiuing principally, but in a sort also by way of petition: which this good man also Par. 33. confesseth, and bringeth Gersons authority to proue they might do soe: who Part. 1. lect. 2. super Marcum. sayth, that as it is not absurdly deliuered by the learned Diuines, that there is an addition or increase of accidentall felicity in the Saints: soe it is not inconuenient, if in this respect also we recommend them to God in our Deuotions. To which purpose it seemeth to bee, that In lib. Sacrament. citat. 〈◊〉 Sixto Senens. Gregory ordaineth, that men shall pray in this sort, in the sacred mysteries l 6. Biblioth. Sanctae annotat. 47. of the Eucharist: We haue receiued, O Lord, the diuine mysteries, which as they profit thy Saints for their glory, so wee beseech thee that they may profit vs for our health. And Chrysostome willeth the liuing parents to giue something out of their substance to their children departed, though they suppose they are departed in the state of righteousnes, for the increase of their reward. Touching the fourth and last consideration of this considerate and aduised young man, we confesse that Chrysostome, or the Author of the Liturgie, that goeth vnder his name, whosoeuer he was, teacheth men to pray vnto God, to remember all them that are falne asleepe in the hope of the resurrection of eternall life, and to make them to bee at rest, where the light of his countenance is seene: But that this forme of prayer must bee vnderstood in the same sence that the other in the Missal is, wherein men are taught to pray to God, to deliuer the soules of all faithfull ones departed from the hand of hell, from the deepe lake, and from the mouth of the Lyon, that the lowest hell swallow them not vp, and that they fall not into the dungeons of vtter darkenesse: or else as proceeding from that opinion that Bibliothec. sanctae. lib. 6. annot. 345. Sixtus Senensis speaketh of, that the soules of the Iust are not in heauen-happinesse, till the resurrection: and not of any deliuerance out of Purgatory. For there is not any the least signification of the desire of easing men temporally afflicted in another world, expressed in any prayer found in Chrysostomes Liturgie. Neither doth it any way contrary any thing that wee professe that hee teacheth men to pray to God, to graunt; what is yet wanting to the faithfull departed, or to such as are aliue, at the suite & supplication of the holy Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, &c. For seeing it is confessed by vs, that the Saints in heauen doe pray for vs in a generality, we may desire of God the graunting of such things as we or others need, not only vpon our own suite, but much more for that there are so many supplyants to him for vs, not in earth alone, but in heauen also, though without sence or knowledge of our particular wantes. So that there is nothing found in Chrysostome, either touching prayer for the dead, or invocation of Saints, that maketh any thing for the confirmation of popish errours. For neither doth Chrysostome in that Liturgie, pray for the ease of men in Purgatorie; neither doth he inuocate any Saint, but calleth vpon God onely, though not without hope of being heard the rather, for that not onely the faithfull on earth, but the Saints in heauen also make petition for him. But Master Higgons asketh Pag. 33. why I concealed these things? To whom I answere that I did not conceale any of them: For, howsoeuer citing some other parts of Chrysostomes Liturgie, to another purpose, I had no reason to bring in these passages, being altogether impertinent to my purpose, and the matter in hand; yet in other places, I haue shewed at large the ancient practise in all these things: and therefore this seduced runnagate, whom Sathan the tempter hath beguiled, had no reason to compare me to the Tempter, leauing out certaine wordes in the text he alleadged vnto Christ.

§. 5.

IN the next place he Pag. 34. obiecteth to vs the heresie of Aerius, condemned by Augustine, amongst many other impious heresies; and Augustines conclusion, that whosoeuer maintaineth any of the hereticall opinions condemned by him, is no Catholicke Christian: and telleth vs, that this censure toucheth vs very neere: but that I demeane my selfe plausibly, and artificially, to avoid the pressure of that difficultie which is too heauy for me to beare. Whereunto I briefly answer, that I demeane not my self artificially, to avoid the force of any trueth, which I esteeme & value aboue all treasures in the world, but in all sincerity vnfold those thinges which Papists seeke to wrap vp in perplexed and intricate disputes, to the entangling of the Readers: For I shew that the naming of the names of the departed, the offering of the sacrifice of praise for them, the praying for their resurrection, publike acquitall, & perfect consummation and blisse in the day of Christ; yea the praying for their deliuerance from the hand of hel, & the mouth of the Lyon, & the vtter deletion & remissiō of their sins, respectiuely to their passage hence, & first entrance into the other world, are not disliked by vs: and that thus far the general intention of the Church extended: but that, to pray for the deliuerance of mē out of hel, or for the mitigation or suspension of the punishments, that are in hel, was but the priuat deuotiō of some particular men, doubtfully & eroneously extending the publicke prayers of the Church; farther then they were meant and intended by her; and that in this particular they fell from the trueth: which, if M. Theophilus Higgons shall deny, & justifie such kind of prayers for the dead, we will be bold to call him by his new name Theomisus. But he is desirous Pag. 3. to know of me, or any other, without lies, obscurities, and circuitions, whether Cyrill of Hierusalem, concurring absolutely with the Papists in this point of prayer for the dead, and Augustine agreeing with him, fell away from the truth or not? That he professeth himselfe an enemy to lies, obscurities, and circuitions, the best sanctuaries of their euill cause, I greatly maruell, & feare, that if he giue ouer the aduantage, which he and his companions are wont to make thereof, this his first booke will be his last. But in that he saith, Cyrill of Hierusalem concurreth absolutely with the Papists, in the matter of prayer for the dead, and Augustine with him, hee doth as beseemeth him: for he vttereth lies, and vntruthes, which before vnaduisedly he condemned. For first, it is most certaine, that Cateches •… . Cyrill maketh but two sortes of men departing out of this life: sinners, & righteous: and that he thinketh, as Chrysostome also doth, and after them Damascene, & many other; that wicked and sinfull men in hell, may find some ease, & be relieued, by the prayers of the liuing; but of Purgatory he speaketh not. Touching Augustine, he dissenteth altogether from this opinion of Chrysostome, Cyrill, and Damascene, & August. Enchir. ad Laur. cap. 110. thinketh, that the prayers of the Church, for such as excelled in goodnes, are thanksgiuings to God: for such as died impenitently in grieuous sins, comforts of the liuing, but no helpes of the dead: for those that were neith •… exceeding good, nor exceeding euill, propitiations and meanes to obtaine fauour and remission. But whether they of this middle sort be in any penall estate after death, or whether by the mercy of God, and working of his grace, the prayers of the liuing accompanying them, they bee freed from sinne, and the punishment of it, in the first entrance into the other world, he resolueth nothing: and therfore there was no cause, why this good man, Pag. 113. reflecting, as he saith, vpon my assertion, should bee amazed to behold such a repugnancie betweene these things, to wit, Augustine ran doubtingly into the opinion of Purgatorie: and yet he affirmeth, there is no doubt but that some sinnes are remitted in the other world, and t •… at some soules may be relieued by prayer. For in the iudgement of wiser men then Mast •… r Higgons, these thinges imply no contradiction; and therefore the Grecians admit the latter of them, and yet deny Purgatory. Yea, in their Apologie touching Purgatory, they say, if there be remission of sinnes after this life, there is no enduring of the punishments due to sin, it being one thing to haue remission of a sin, or fault, and another to suffer the extremity of punishment it deserueth. That there is therefore remission of sinnes of a middle sort of men, after this life, in the entrance into the other world, Augustine made no doubt; and to that purpose he alleadged the saying of Christ, concerning the sinne that is neither remitted in this world, nor the other: from thence to inferre, that some sinnes are remitted after this life. But whether there be any Purgatory-punishments after this life, or not, hee was euer doubtfull: as appeareth by sundry places in his workes, where he saith, Enchrid. ad Laurent. c. 69. Perhaps there is some such thing: it is not incredible that there is some such thing: and whether there be or not, it may be found out, or it may be hid: neither will it follow, that because he maketh three estates of men dying, whereof some are so good, that wee haue rather cause to giue God thankes for them, then to pray: others so ill, that they cannot be relieued: and a third sort, that need our prayers, and may be releeued by them; that therefore there is a third place, wherein they are to be temporally afflicted. For all this may be in the passage hence, and entrance into the other world; the prayers of the liuing accompanying them, and God purging out that which is impure, and remitting that which offendeth him, in this middle sort of men, euen in that first entrance into the state of the other world. And surely Augustine himselfe, in his owne Confess. li •… 9. cap, 13. prayer for Monicha, his mother, neuer speaketh one word of releasing her out of paine or punishment; but prayeth God not to enter into iudgment with her, to suffer none to diuide her from him, and take her out of his protection, to keepe her, that neither the lyon, nor dragon, by force, or subtilty, interpose himselfe, for that shee will not plead that shee hath not trespassed, lest shee should be conuinced and the accuser should preuaile against her, and gette her to himselfe: but that her trespasses are remitted to her by Christ: so shewing that hee made his prayer for her respectiuely to the state shee was in, in her passage and while she stood to be judged: and because this might seeme to bee already past, and the things hee asked performed, when he prayed, hee sayth, he thinketh God hath already done that he prayeth for, but beseecheth him to accept his voluntary deuotions. Two places there are found in Augustines workes, where he seemeth peremptorily to affirme, that there is a penall state, and purging fire after this life: the first is in his one and twentieth booke De h Cap. 24. ciuitate Dei: where he sayth, When the dead shall rise againe, there shall some bee found to whom after they haue suffered punishments, mercy shall be shewed, that they be not cast into eternall fire. But the words (as Viues noteth vpon the same place) are not found in some auncient manuscripts, nor in that printed at Friburge. The other place is in his Cap. 20. second booke De Genesi, against the Manichees. The words are these. Hee who happily shall not till his field, but shall suffer it to be ouer-growne with thornes and briars, hath in this life the curse of his life in all his workes: and, after this life, hee shall haue either the fire of Purgation or eternall punishment: which wordes beeing spoken of them that till not their fielde, that suffer it to bee ouer-growne with thornes and bryers, whose whole life is accursed in all they doe, and not of such good men to whom some imperfection cleaueth, are vttered according to that opinion then preuayling of deliuerance out of hell; which Augustine in that place would not stand to discusse, but else-where refuteth at large. So that the thinges t •… are found in Augustine clearely resolued on, are onely these, First, that some sinnes are remitted after this life: which wee graunt, vnderstanding that remission to bee in the first enterance into the other world. Secondly, that they are onely the lesser sinnes that are thus remitted after this life, and not those more grieuous wherein men dye without repentance, for these exclude from the Kingdome of Heauen. Thirdly, that prayers do helpe men dying in those lesser sinnes. Which likewise we acknowledge to be true, if such prayers be conceaued, and vnderstood as made respectiuely to the enterance into the other world. Fourthly, that there is no deliuerance of men dying in the state of mortall sinne out of hell, and that noe prayers can benefit them in this behalfe. In all these pointes his resolution is full and cleare, but whether the paines of men damned in hell may be eased, mitigated or suspended for a time by the prayers of the liuing, he Ench •… id ad Lau •… entium. cap. 112. professeth hee will not striue, so that the wrath of God be acknowledged to remaine eternally vppon them. Neither is this contradictory to that which he hath Ibid. cap. 110. else-where, that the prayers of the liuing are no helpes of such as are damned, but onely comforts of the liuing: For hee meaneth that they are no helpes able to free and deliuer them out of that state of punishment, wherein they are: but whether they may some way ease them, or not, hee will not much contend: and therefore hee sayth, that whom praiers profit, either they profit them for full remission, as they doe men dying in the lesser sinnes: or that their damnation may bee the more tolerable, and easie. The Papists Higgons. pag. 29. applying these latter words of more tollerable damnation, to the state of soules in their supposed Purgatory, is absurd: for they cānot in any proper sense be said to be dā ned. These things being thus distinguished, wee see there is nothing found in Augustine for confirmation of the Popish error, touching Purgatory: that no testimonies of Augustine could seale vp M. Higgons his heart in this idle conceit of Purgatory, as vntruly he Pag. 30. sayth they did: that wee no way oppose our selues against the vniuersall resolution and practice of the whole Church, which to do, Augustine pronounceth insolent madnesse: that we no way contradict this worthy Father, reporting to vs the doctrine and tradition of the Church: and consequently that Higgons ridiculously, and idlely; Pag. 36. asketh whether Augustine, or I, know better the sense and iudgment of Anti •… uity? thereupon childishly Pag. 37. making a comparison betweene him and me: for I make no question, but he knew the sense of Antiquity right well; neither do I dissent from him in any thing that he constantly deliuereth; and for the comparison, confesse my selfe vnworthy to be named the same day: but whereas hee Ibid. saith, hee found sincetity in him, & vnfaithfulnes in me, I defie the faithles Apostata, & challenge him, or any of the proudest of his consorts, to tell me truely wherein I haue shewed the least vnfaithfulnesse? It seemeth he measureth other men by himselfe, and his companions; but we are not like them, making marchandize of the word of GOD. After these idle discourses, he Pag. 38 passeth from me to that reverend, renowned, and worthy Divine, Doctor Humfrey, in his time, the light and ornament of the Vniuersitie that bred him, whom such a silly novice as M. Theophilus, durst not haue looked in the face while hee liued. But it is easier to insult vpon a dead lyon; then a liuing dog; & that maketh him barke against him; but such was his great reading, variety of learning in all kindes, profound science, and mature judgement, as made him so highly esteemed at home and abroad by all that knew how to judge of things aright; that the scornefull speeches of this Renegado, concerning his Rhetoricall flourishes, will neuer be able to diminish or lessen the good opinion, that most deseruedly all wise and good men holde of him. Yet let vs see what it is that this graue censurer reprehendeth in D. Humfrey: surely hee knoweth not what himselfe. D. Humfrey speaking of the ancient commemoration or commendation of the dead, saith, We retaine it in our Colledges; which is most true: but hee hath spied, as he supposeth three differences: for first, as he saith, the commendation and commemoration then vsed, was at the Altar: but we haue no al •… : 2. in the holy sacrifice, but we admit no sacrifice: 3. with intention to relieue the dead, but we haue no such intention. For answer whereunto, I say briefly, (for he deserueth no large answer) that we haue altars in the same sort the Fathers had, though we haue throwne downe Popish Altars: that wee admit the Eucharist to bee rightly named a sacrifice; though we detest the blasphemous construction the Papists make of it. And lastly, that the Fathers did not intend to relieue all them they remembred at the Altar; no more doe we: that they accompanyed their friends soules going out of their bodies, to stand before God with their prayers and good wishes; that they prayed for their resurrection, publique acquitall in the day of CHRIST, & perfit consummation, and so doe we: that they neuer knew any thing of Purgatory, nor neuer prayed to deliuer any one frō thence, no more doe we: & that therefore D. Humphrey might well impute phrensie to the Romanists, as challenging the Fathers in this & other points, whereas they are destitute of all defence from them. That which he Pag. 39 interlaceth of froathy volumes, in which we silly men, for lacke of his direction, spend our time, is lesse to be esteemed then any bubble or froath vpon the water: for all men know that this Church neuer wanted worthy men, matchable with the proudest of the adverse Faction in the study of the Fathers, Councels, Histories, and Schoolmen: neither is there any decay of these kindes of study now, thanks be giuen to God, as both our friends & enemies (I thinke) will beare vs witnesse. Thus doth this Champion end the first part of his first booke, hauing plaide his prizes very handsomely as you see.

§. 1.

IN the second part, first hee indeavoureth to proue the perpetuall visibility of the Church, which he saith, Pag. 44. I teach sincerely and effectually: though with some mixture of corruption in my Discourse concerning the same: but telleth vs not what those corruptions be: and therefore I know not what to say to him till I heare farther from him. Secondly, he laboureth to shew that the visible Church is free from damnable errour, which we willingly yeeld vnto; but that which he addeth Pag. 45. touching the not erring of Generall Councels, is not so cleare: as it appeareth by that which I haue In the fifth booke of the Church. Chap. 51: elsewhere noted out of Picus Mirandula, and Waldensis. There is extant an excellent conference between Nicholas Clemangis & a certaine Parisian Schooleman, touching this point, wherein he vvilleth him cōsideratly to think vpō it, lest as he thinketh it to be a matter of rashnes to affirme that Generall coūcels may e •… re, so likevvise it be not altogether free frō temerity & rashnes, pertinaciously to defēd, that general coūcels cannot erre, vnles it vvere proued by most strōg authorities, or certain reasons: & farther addeth, that though it vvere most certainly proued, that councels cannot erre: yet it vvere not fit for them that meet in councels to rely vpon this persvvasiō, lest vnder the shadovv, & vpō the occasiō of this cōfidence, they might proceed vvith lesse cōsideratiō, and more lightly then they should: but to make vs doubt that Councels may erre sometimes in their determinations he bringeth sundry reasons; whereof one is, that the most part of men that are in the Church (Hee speaketh of the Church in his time) are meerely carnall, seeking the thinges of the world, and no way sauouring the things of God, or regarding the good of the Church: that these men are reputed the wisest, and most sufficient to manage the affaires of the Church: that when Councells are to bee holden, either they are chosen, or put themselues into such imployments. And consequently, that things being carried in Councels by voyces, there is little reason to expect any great good, either for the due setling of the perswasion of men in matters of faith, or the reformation of such thinges as are amisse in matters of Discipline and manners. Whereupon hee telleth of the ill successe of the Councell of Pisa, and of another called at Rome by Balthazar then Pope: Into the midst whereof an owle came flying, making an horrible noise, and satte vpon a beame in the midst of the roome where the Synode was holden as shee had beene President of the assembly; and could not bee made to giue place, till shee was beaten downe dead: yea concerning the Councell of Constance, wherein the long-continued Schisme, by reason of the Anti-p •… pes was ended, and the peace of the Church restored: hee saith that many thinges fell out in it, which were not fruites of the spirit, but workes of the flesh, as contentions, emulations, dissentions, sectes, clamours, out-cries, mockings, and the like. But of the erring of Councels, I haue else-where treated at large, & therefore will not insist vpon the repetition of the same thinges in this place. Onely, lette vs heare what master Higgons canne say for their not erring. He thinketh to strike the matter dead with the resolution of Gerson, a man, as hee saith, highly aduanced by me. It is true that I esteeme of Gerson as of a most learned, iudicious & godly man, that mourned for the confusions hee saw in the Church in his time, that reproued many abuses, gaue testimony to many parts of heauenly trueth, then contradicted by those carnall men of whom Clemangis speaketh, who counted gaine to bee godlinesse, and scorned all that liued as beseemeth Christians, traducing them as hypocrites, and I know not what else. Yet I thinke no man will inferre, vpon any commendation that I haue giuen him, that I must of necessity imbrace as true whatsoeuer hee saith. Waldensis is a man highly esteemed by our Romanistes, yet will they not allow his opinion, that Councells may erre. Alphonsus á castro, Adrian the Pope, and other, who teach that the Pope may papally erre, are highly prized by them: yet will they not graunt that the Pope may erre as they teach: but what is it that Gerson saith? surely, that Part. 4. de Vnitate Graeeorum Consid. 6. Whatsoeuer the Pope and a Generall Councell of the whole Church determine, must bee receiued as true. It is true indeede that hee saith so, but it appeareth by the words immediately following, that he speaketh not of a Generall Councell consisting of the Bishoppes of the West onely, such as was the Councell of Trent in our time; But of a Generall Councell consisting both of Greekes and Latines; and therefore he saith, if the Grecians dissenting from the Latines in the article of the proceeding of the holy Ghost, and not admitting the determination of the West Church, shall say, that the Councell that defined, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the son, was not truely Generall; that they were not duly called to the same, and consequently, that notwithstanding their dissenting they are not to be iudged pertinacious, obstinate and subiect to the curse; it were diligently to be considered what they would say; or some fitting meanes were to be found out, that all thinges might bee brought to an agreement, without persisting in a peremptory proofe of the same article against them: for that, men disposed to resist, would hardly euer bee conuinced in this point. And further hee wisheth men to thinke vpon it, whether, as some determinations of doubtes and questions passed and agreed on in Paris are saide to binde none but those that are within the Diocesse of Paris, so it may not bee said in like sort that the determinations of the Latine Church binde the Latines onely: and secondly, whether that which is defined and holden as an article of faith, •… ay not bee made to bee no article, by bringing thinges to the same state they were in before any determination passed. Which thing he exemplifieth in a Decree of Bonifacius, voyded by one of his successours. To what purpose Master Higgons alleadgeth the opinion of Gerson touching the not erring of Generall Councels, I cannot tell: for I am well assured neuer any such Councell as yet approued Purgatorie and Prayer to deliuer men out of it, nor I thinke euer will. But whatsoeuer we thinke of Councells, there is no question to bee made but that the Church is free from damnable errour, as master Higgons in the title of his chapter vndertaketh to proue. But whether it be free from all ignorance and errour as he seemeth in the discourse following to inforce, it is not so cleere: neitheir doth that text of Saint Paul touching the House of God, 1. Tim 3. 15. which is the Church of the liuing GOD, the pillar and ground of trueth, nor any other authority or reason brought to that purpose, proue the same; and particularly, touching that place of Saint Paul to Timothie, it is euident the Apostles wordes are to bee originally vnderstood of the Church of Ephesus; and that he maketh the glorious title, of pillar and ground of truth, common to that particular Church, with that which is vniuersall; and consequently, that this title proueth not euery Church or society of Christians to which it agreeth, to bee free from errour: vnlesse wee will priuiledge all particular Churches from danger of erring. If any man doubt whether the Apostle giue the title of pillar & ground of trueth to the Church of Ephesus, it is easily proued by vnanswerable reasons. For (as Lyra writing vpon the wordes of the Apostle rightly noteth): The Apostle writeth to Timothy, and giueth him directions, that hee may know how to behaue himselfe in the Church of God: that is, how to order and gouerne it. Now the Church which Timothy was to order and gouerne, was not the vniuersall Church, but the Church of Ephesus: therefore the Church, wherein he was wisely to behaue himself; was but a particular Church; and the same Church in which the Apostle directeth him how to behaue himself, he calleth the Church of the liuing God, the pillar, & ground of trueth, therefore he giueth this title to a particular Church: though hee restraine it not to it, as master Higgons vntruly Pag. 46. saith I doe: so that I haue not eluded the grauity of this testimony, as hee is pleased vniustly to charge me, but I giue the right sence of it: whence it followeth, that seeing particular Churches may bee said to bee pillars of trueth, this title doth not proue that society of Christian men to which it agreeth, to bee free from all errour.

From the reprehension of our opinion, in that wee thinke the Church subiect to some kinde of errour, hee falleth into a discourse touching Pag. 47. the confusions of Protestants, admitting innumerable sectaries into one vast and incongruous Church; which hee saith is a meere Chymera, thrust together and fashioned in specificall disproportions; and hence, he saith, it is Pag. 46 that I laying the foundation of my Babell, feare not to say, that the Churches of Russia, Armenia, Syria, Aethiopia and Greece, are and continue partes of the true Catholique Church: For answere whereunto I say, that wee doe not admitte any Sectaries into the Communion of the true Catholicke Church, much lesse innumerable Sectaries: for wee admitte none into the Communion of our Churches, but such as receiue all the lawfull Generall Councells, that euer were holden touching any question of faith, the three Creedes, of the Apostles, of Nice, and Athanasius; and whatsoeuer is found to haue beene beleeued and practised by all not noted for singularity and nouelty at all times and in all places. So reiecting Arrians, Zuenchfeldians, Anabaptistes, Familistes and all other like monsters. Touching the differences betweene the Churches of England, Denmarke, Zueden, Germany, France, &c. They are not specificall, as this bad Logician fancieth; but imaginary, or meerely accidentall. And for the Churches of Greece, Russia, Armenia, Syria & Aethiopia, agreeing in all the thinges before mentioned; it is most strange that this Schismaticall fugitiue should dare vtterly to reiect them from the vnity of the Catholicke Church, and to cast into hell so many millions of soules of poore distressed Christians, for so many hundred yeares, enduring so many bitter things for Christs sake in the midst of the proudest enemies that euer the name of Christ had. That all these admitte the Doctrine of faith agreed on in all the lawfull generall councels; that euer were holden, the three Creeds, and the whole forme of Christian doctrine catholickely consented on, and that they reiect and condemne all the heresies condemned by Augustine and Epiphanius, it shall be proued if Higgons or any other smatterer of that side, shall goe about to improue it. It is true indeede, that the Armenians refused to admitte the Councell of Chalcedon; but it was vpon a false suggestion, as I haue else-where shewed: 13. Booke of the Church cap. 1. And it is most certaine that they condemne the heresie of Eutiches, as likewise those other, that were condemned in the Fift and Sixt councells, and though the Grecians seeke to avoide the euidence of that part of Athanasius Creede, touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, yet doe they not deny the Creed it selfe; and my Part. 4. de vnit •… te Graeco rum. Gerson (as Master Higgons is pleased to call him) thinketh it were better to desist from the strict vrging of the allowance of tha •… determination of the Latines, touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, that both the Churches might bee reduced to vnity, then peremptorily to insist vpon the proofe of it, seeing men disposed to resist, will very hardly euer bee conuinced; so that hee doth not thinke as Master Higgons doth, that the not admitting of this Article as defined and determined by Athanasius, casteth men into hell; for then Saint Iohn Damascene should bee damned, De fide Orthodox. lib. 1. cap. 11. who denieth the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne after the publishing of Athanasius Creed. Thus doe wee moderate our censures not daring to cast all into hell that dissent from vs in some particular points, not fundamentall, as the Romanists doe: yet doe wee not thinke that euery one may bee saued in his owne sect and errour, whatsoeuer it bee: for wee exclude all such out of the communion of the true Catholicke Church as admit not all the things before specified: so that I lay no foundation of Babell, as this Babylonian is pleased to say I doe, but pitying the breaches of Sion, endeauour as much as in me lieth, to make them vp, that Hierusalem may be as a citie at vnity wit hin it selfe. But the Romanistes indeede build Babell and their tongues are confounded, euery one almost, dissenting from other, and that in most materiall and essentiall points. De peccato originis Controuers. 1. Pighius and In lib. de Originali peccato. Catharinu •… haue a strange fancie touching originall sinne, contrary to the Doctrine of other Papists: De fide & iustificatione. Controu. 2. Pighius is of Caluins opinion touching iustification. Apolog. contra Dominicum à Soto. Catharinus defendeth against the common tenent that men in ordinary course (without speciall reuelation) may be certaine by the certainty of Faith that they are in the state of grace: yea M Higgons himself saith, Pag. 48. Our faith in Christ must be trustfull, liuely, and actiue by a speciall application of his merites vnto our selues, as he was wont to preach in Saint Dunstans Church. So vrging a necessity of special Faith: which the Romanists condemne as hereticall in the Doctrine of our Church: and innumerable like differences they haue: yet all these are of one Church, Faith, & Communion: nothing, it seemeth, being necessary to the vnity of their Church, but the acknowledging of the Supremacie of the Pope. And yet, which is most strange, they that thinke he may erre, & they that thinke he cannot erre; they that make him to be but Prime Bishop, & they that make him vniversall Bishop they that attribute to him power to depose Princes, & dispose of their states, & they that deny that hee bath any such power, are of one & the same Church: But it is a Babylonicall Church.

§. 2.

FRom the perpetual visibilitie & vndoubted assurance the Church hath of holding the true Faith, he proceedeth Pag. 50. to shew our zeale in impugning & condemning the opinion of Purgatory: & that yet notwithstanding the whole vniversal Church receiued it. And thervpō saith •… he was misinformed by me & others, that the Greeks neuer s Pag. 53. intertained this doctrine. & that now he findeth that we erre, not knowing or 〈◊〉 t Pag. 54 the truth: assuring himselfe that howsoeuer some Greeks did not, or do not admit the doctrine of Purgatory precisely vnder this name, & with some other circūstances,, yet the church of Greece generally doth retaine the th •… ig it selfe. But whatsoeuer this goodfellow say to the cōtrary, we know the Greek 〈◊〉 neuer 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 thing. There is extant a most excellēt: & learned Apollogy of the 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 •… o the coūcel of Florence, or Basil, as it is thought. In this apology, first 〈◊〉 clearly 〈◊〉 that there is no purging after this life by •… e, especially materiall &c 〈◊◊〉 the Papists imagine. Secondly, they ins •… te that some a longst 〈◊◊◊◊〉 , that such as are of a middle condition, and so depart hence, are after death in a certaine obscurity, without enioying the light of Gods countenance, or holden as it were in a prison or in a state of sorrow, till by the goodnesse of God and the prayers of the Church they be deliuered: and thus much some professed in the Councell of Florence; for there was a diuision amongst them. Thirdly, they incline to an opinion that the lesser sinnes of men dying in the state of grace, are remitted after death without any punishment at all, either by fire or in any other kind, by the meere mercy & goodnesse of God. And whereas some bring proofes of remission of sinnes after this life, thereby to confirme their conceit of Purgatory, they say there is no agreement betweene remission, and purging by fire and punishment: for that eyther punishment or remission is needfull, and not both: and againe they confidently pronounce that neither Scripture, nor the fifth Generall Councell deliuered vnto vs a double punishment or a double fire after this life. This iudgment & resolution they confirme, & proue by very excellent reasons & authorities: for first, thus they argue. It more beseemeth the goodnes of God, to suffer no good though neuer so litle to passe away vnrespected & vnrewarded, thē to punish small sins & offences: but some litle good in them that haue great sins hath no reward, because of the preuayling of the euil that is foūd in thē, therefore smal euils in them that haue great works of vertue, are not to be punished, the better things ouercomming. Secondly, as is a little good in those that are mainely euill, so is a little euill in those that are otherwise mainely good. But a little good in those that are otherwise euill, can procure no reward, but onely causeth a difference in the degree of punishment, making it the lesse: therefore a little euill causeth no punishment but a difference in the degree of glory and happinesse, which it maketh to bee lesse then otherwise it would bee; whence it followeth that there is no Purgatory. Thirdly, either the wils of men departed hence are mutable, or immutable: if they be mutable, then they that are good may become euill; and they that are euill, may become good: whence it will follow (according to Origens opinion) that neyther the good are vnchangeably happy, nor the the euill vnchangeably miserable: but that men may fall from happinesse to misery, and rise from misery to the heighth of all happinesse. And soe wee shall make the punishments of all cast-awaies, euen of the diuels themselues, to be temporary: as endeed, supposing the mutability of the Will to continue after death iustly they may: for the reason why in Iustice the punishment of sinne in the damned is to be eternall, is, because they are immutably, vnchangeably, and et •… nally euill; if they bee immutable, then are they not capable of any correction; for he who is corrected, is sette right, by being brought to iust dislike, and forsaking of that he formerly affected ill; which chaunge from loue to hate, frō liking to disliking, from pursuing and following, to forsaking and flying from, cannot be found in a Will that is immutable. In 4. Sentent. dist. 21. qu. 〈◊〉 . Bonauentura disputeth the matter, how afflicting fire purgeth the soule; and answereth that some thinke, that this fire, besides the punishing vertue, and power it hath, hath also a spirttuall purging vertue, such as sacraments haue, which hee thinketh to be absurd: especially seeing Gregory out of visions and apparitions of the dead, sheweth, that soules are purged in diuerse places and by diuerse other meanes, as well as by fire: and therefore there are other, who thinke, that what this purging fire worketh, it worketh by punishing and afflicting, which helpeth and strengtheneth grace, that it may be able to purge out sinne. Now punishment and affliction canne noe way helpe grace or strengthen it, to the expulsion of sinne, but in that by the bitternesse of it, it maketh vs know how much it offendeth GOD and hurteth vs: and thereby causeth a dislike of it, or at least an increase of the dislike of it: which dislike the Will cannot newly grow vnto, if it bee immutable. For, to dislike that which before we did not dislike, or to dislike a thing more then formerly we did, vpon farther & better consideration, argueth a mutability in the Wil: so that if the Wil be immutable in those that are departed hence, immediately vpon their dissolution, as our Aduersaries think it is, the fire of purgatory can no way helpe to the purging out of sin. To these reasons they adde another, takē frō the story or parable of the rich man & Lazarus in the Gospell: where Christ sheweth that the poore man Lazarus, as soone as hee was dead, was carryed by the Angels into Abrahams bosome, & that the rich mans soule as soone as hee was dead, was found in the torments of hell. By the bosome of Abraham expressing a most excellent estate in the blessed rest of such as are beloued of God: and by hell, and the torments thereof, the vtter most condemnation, and the euerlasting punishment of sinners: and no way leauing any other place betweene these, hauing temporall affliction and paine; but making betweene them a great and vnpasseable gulfe, separating the one from the other, and establishing an extreame and immediate opposition betweene them; then which, what could bee more cleerely spoken against Purgatory & for our opinion? For if there be no middle place of temporall torment, as the Authors of this Apologie say there is not; if there be but two sorts of men, the one expressed by the condition of the rich man, the other of Lazarus: and if the one of these goe immediately, vpon death, into a place of torment euerlasting, the other into a place of rest, and into the bosome of Abraham: where is the Purgatory of Papists either in the name, or in the thing, in substance, or in circumstance? To these reasons for farther confirmation, they adde two most excellent testimonies out of In orat. de Paschate. Gregory Nazianzen, who vpon these wordes touching the Passeouer, Wee shall carrie out nothing nor leaue nothing till the morning: saith expresly and clearely, that beyond or after this Night, there is no purging; calling the life of each man heere, the Night: and yeelding no purging to be after it: and else-where hath these wordes. Serm. de plaga grandin. I omitte to speake of the torments, to which impunity doth deliuer men in the other world: for they are such, that it were better for a man to be chastised, and purged heere, then to be reserued and deliuered ouer to that punishment that is after this life, when as there is a time of punishment but not of purgation: so expressely defining, that there is no purging after the departure out of this life, and that there remaineth nothing but eternall punishment, for such as must there be punished. Elias Cretensis, a learned Grecian, writing vpon that place of Nazianzen, where he saith, Orat. 7. dc composit •… disserendi ratione pag. 210. Hee is a poore and a meane Pastour, and not liked of other Pastors, whether because hee defendeth the trueth, or for what other cause he knoweth not, but God knoweth, and (as the Apostle saith) that day of reuelation and last fire shall clearely manifest it, whereby all our workes are either iudged or purged, hath these wordes: The word iudged, Gregory Nazianzen put for tried; and purged, for reuealed or manifested: for that fire doth make the workes of iust men to shine, and burneth vppe the workes of sinners, and, that I may speake plainly and simply, manifesteth of what sort each mans workes are, those thinges being taken away, that in this world did hide them, and suffered them not to appeare to be such as indeede they are. For here oftentimes as well the workes of a vertuous man, as of an euill man are hidde: but there they are reuealed, and made manifest: therefore there judgement is passed vpon all; that is, all are tried: and againe, all thinges are purged, that is, manifested: and not by any meanes, according to the fooleries of those men, who thinke that there shall be an end of punishment, after a thousand yeares, and that, after they are purged, men shall cease to bee punished. Thus doth this worthy Bishoppe of Candie contradict the Papistes in their fancie of Purgatory, and agree with the Authors of the Apologie.

In the writings of Quaest. Armenio •… um lib. 13. cap. 1. Armacanus I finde, that one Athanasius, a Grecian, proposed sundry excellent reasons against the imagined Purgatory of the Latines, which Armachanus goeth about to answere, but indeede cannot answere: the first is this: It is no way iust that the Soule alone should bee punished for the sinnes of the whole man; or that the body should haue part and fellowship in Sinne, and glory after remission of Sinne, and not in the punishment, that purgeth out sinne. The second is this; It is more proper to God to reward good thinges then to punish euill: So that, if it were necessary, that the soules of such as are truely penitent, should after death goe into Purgatory punishments, it were much more necessary, that the soules of such as haue kept the commaundements of GOD all their life long, and at last falling into sinne, die in such an estate, without repentance, should goe first into a place of refreshing, to receiue the rewardes of their well doings, before they should be cast out into eternall punishments: but this is not to be graunted by any meanes; therefore much lesse the other. Thirdly, whereas some goe about to proue Purgatory by the custome of praying for the dead, hee sheweth by an vnanswerable reason, that if wee admitte Purgatory, wee may not pray for the dead; his reason is this. Whosoeuer causeth another to bee afflicted, doth it in one of these three sortes; either onely out of vnreasonable passion and desire of tormenting and afflicting; or for the vpholding of the course of iustice, and the example and good of others, as when murderers are put to death: or thirdly in mercy, for the good and benefite of him that is punished, as the Physician afflict •… h the sicke patient. And in this third sort it is, that God is supposed to afflict soules in Purgatory. As therefore the Physician and Surgeon delight not in afflicting their sicke patients, but deale as tenderly with them as possibly they may, due respect had to the recouering of their health and former estate: so God will afflict no more then is precisely necessary for the purging out of sinne: so that as it were vaine, if not hurtfull, to intreat the good and skilfull Physician, tendering his patient, and no way afflicting him more then is precisely necessary for the recouering of his health, either wholly to withdraw his hand, or to remitte any thing of that hee intends to doe; for that, if so hee should doe, the patient could not recouer; so in like sort, it were not onely vaine, but hurtfull, for the soules of men departed, to intreate GOD any way to lessen their afflictions, which otherwise he would lay vpon them: seeing hee intendeth to afflict them no more, then is precisely necessary for the purging out of the impurity that is found in them: and if hee remitte any thing of it, he must leaue it in them still. In this life God may worke men to a iudging of themselues, so that they shall not neede to be so chastised and iudged of him, as otherwise they should be, and so wee may pray God to ease their afflictions: but after this life, when there is no more time, nor place left for repentance, or conuersion to God, it is not so. If it be said that the punishments of them that are in Purgatory; in that they are medicinall, & for the purging out of sinne, are not to bee diminished, but that something may bee remitted of the extremity of them, in that they are satisfactory, he answereth as wee also doe; that after the remission of sinne repented of, there is no satisfaction needfull for the pacifying of Gods wrath, and that all punishments that are inflicted, are but to make vs know throughly what it is to offend God, to plucke vppe the roote, take away the remainders, preuent the occasions, and to stoppe the re-enterance of it againe.

By this which hath beene said, wee may see how aduisedly and truly Master Higgons saith, that Pag. 5 •… . the Greeke Church generally doth beleeue Purgatory: but hee will proue it doth by the censure of the Orientall Church, vpon the Augustane confession. Concerning this censure, the Authour of it was, Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople, who hath written many thinges very preiudiciall to the state of the Romish Religion: for he denyeth the supremacy of the Bishoppe of Rome, and Cap. 13. maketh the Church of Constantinople the chiefe of all Churches: hee Cap. 21. in Epilogo de abusibus. defendeth the lawfulnesse of Ministers mariage: hee Ibid. condemneth the communicating in one kinde alone, and the Ibid. consecration of vnleauened bread; Hee Cap. 21. denyeth that the Saintes heare our prayers; besides some other things of like nature: But touching Purgatorie, hee hath no word. It is true indeede that hee alloweth prayer for the dead, but to another purpose, and not to deliuer men out of Purgatory, as this seduced Nouice hath beene misinformed. For hee seemeth in part to be of the same minde that In •… 2. Lucae. Theophylacte is of; who thinketh that they who die sinners, are not alwayes cast into hell, but that they are in the power of God, that hee may cast them into hell or keepe them from it, and deliuer them if he please. Whereupon hee noteth that Christ doth not say, feare him who after hee hath killed the body doth cast into hell: but, can cast into hell: and this hee saith, as he professeth, because of the oblations and almes giuen for the dead; which greatly profit euen them also that die in grieuous sinnes: For though this Hieremias Cap. 21. deny that the Saints in heauen pray for men dying in mortall sinne, God having excluded them from his mercy, and in a sort pronounced that though Noah, Iob, or Daniell should entreat for them, they should not deliuer them, yet he saith, such as i Ibid. dye in the middle course of penitencie, and not hauing fully purged out their sinnes may be relieued by prayer and mediation: if such prayers, and intreaty be made for them, while the judgment yet continueth, and before the sentence be pronounced: for so soone as the solemne sitting shall be dissolued, and euery one carried into the place of punishment, designed and appointed for him, there neither is nor neuer shall be any mediation for him. Whereby it appeareth, hee extendeth the benefitte of these praiers, onely to the keeping of men out of hell, that might bee cast into it, and no way to the releeuing of soules afflicted with temporall paines, as Maister Higgons vntruly reporteth. So that hee agreeth with Theophylacte, in that hee thinketh me •… who otherwise might iustly be cast into hell, may be stayd from comming thither, if request be made for them in time, and seemeth to dissent from him, in that hee will not extend this mercy of God to any dying without some beginnings of repentance, whereof the other maketh noe mention: in which restraint, yet hee dissenteth from himselfe, who Cap. 12. produceth and alloweth the testimony of Damascene, reporting Gregories deliuering Traian, who dyed in infidelity, our of hell: Teclaes deliuering of Falconilla, who dyed an Idolatresse: and sundry other things of the same kind.

Thus we see, the Graecians, being a great and principall part of the Church of God, deny Purgatory, not in respect of the name, or some circumstance alone; but euen in respect of the thing it selfe, notwithstanding any thing Maister Higgons can say to the contrary: and therefore it was more then ordinary impudencie in him to say that Pag. 5 •… . none but Aerians Henricians, and Waldensians, did euer simply and absolutely deny Purgatory: and all his discourse grounded vpon this false surmise is vaine and idle. For let the Aerians, Henricians and Waldensians, bee what they will, it little concerneth vs, for wee deriue not our deniall of Purgatory from them, but from the Fathers, and the principall parts of Gods Church in all ages. That which hee hath Pag. 62. against Luthers marrying a professed Nunne, and Saint Augustines dislike of such mariages, doth but argue the distemper of his idle braine. For first, it is besides the purpose, and maketh nothing to the matter in hand. Secondly, it clearely confuteth the errour of the Romanistes who thinke mariages after vowes made to the contrary to bee voyd, which false conceipt De bono viduitatis. cap. 11. Augustine largely refuteth. Thirdly, he belyeth Augustine, for he doth not say, the mariage of such as haue vowed the contrary is euill, much lesse that it is worse then Adultery; but that the falling from the good purpose and resolution they were entred into, is worse then adultery: which falling is found amongst the Romish Votaries, more then any where else in the world, their houses of Nunnes (as De corrupto Eccles. •… atu. Clemangis, who knew the state of those Cages well enough, testifieth) being for the most part nothing else but stewes of filthy harlots. Now, though it bee worse then simple adultery to breake a vow, and burning in lust to wallow in all impurity, yet is it no way ill for men or women thus surprised to betake themselues to the remedy of lawfull mmariage. And therefore I Pag. 62. mince not the matter, as this mincing Fugitiue is pleased to say I do, but truly report the judgment of Augustine, who indeed misliketh and reproueth rash vowing, without full purpose and due care of performing the same afterwards, as a grieuous euill: and yet alloweth ensuing mariage, as lawfull honourable, and good, contrary to the impious conceipt of the Romanists, condemning the same. What is to be thought of Luther and such other as maried after vowes of single life, I haue Fift booke of the Church. chap. 57. elsewhere shewed; whether I referre the Reader. I haue Booke 3. chap. 39. likewise proued at large the lawfulnesse of Luthers ministery, notwithstanding all the corruption that was in the Church, wherein hee receiued it, and the tyranny of Antichrist endeauouring to lay all waste: and therefore the idle glaunces of this silly fellow are to be contemned as words of vanity, especially seeing such as are ordained by Heretikes, are truly ordayned in the iudgment of our Bonauent. in 4 Sentent. dist. 25. quaest. 2. Aduersaries themselues: but if all faile, he will go backe to prayer for the dead, which hath made him dead, while hee is aliue, and will proue that Pag. 70. Bernard confuted Henricus impugning prayer for the dead, with a miracle, and that therefore the impugning of prayer for the dead is pronounced impious by Gods owne voyce from heauen: surely if it could be proued, that God gaue testimony by a miracle against Henricus his impugning of prayer for the dead, to deliuer them out of Purgatory, it were something: but neither hee, nor all the rabble of Romanistes shall euer proue that. Henricus is reported to haue holden many damnable opinions, in confutation whereof Bernard might worke a miracle without any respect to his denying prayers for the dead: for he contemned the Sacraments, denyed reconciliation to penitents, & the comfort of the holy Eucharist to such as in their greatest distresses desired the same. And feared not to exclude infants from the benefitte of the Sacrament of regeneration. Epist. 24 •… Bernard himselfe describing him, and the good effectes that followed his preaching, sheweth, that hauing beene a Monke, hee became an Apostata, that hee gaue himselfe to all impurity, and that what hee got by his preaching, hee played away at dice, or spent it amongst harlots: that his preaching wrought so good effectes, that Churches were forsaken, and left without People, People without Priestes, priestes without due reuerence, and Christians without Christ: Churches were reputed Synagogues, the Sanctuaries of God denied to bee holy, Sacraments accounted vnholy, Festiuall daies depriued of Festiuall solemnities, men dyed in their sinnes, and their soules vvere euery where caught vp, and brought to the terrible iudgement-seate, neyther reconciled by penitentiall reconciliation, nor garded with the Sacrament and holy Communion; that the way of the life of Christ was shutte vppe against infants, whiles the grace of Baptisme was denyed vnto them: and that they were hindered from drawing neere to saluation, though the Sauiour him-selfe cryed out aloud for them, saying Suffer little children to come vnto mee. This is all that Bernard imputeth to him, neyther doth Willielmus Abbas (as Maister Pag. 72. Higgons vntruly reporteth) charge him with denying of prayer for the dead, but one Vitae Bernardi lib. 1. cap. 5. Gotefrey a Monke of Clarauallis, whose report is not greatly to bee regarded, because what hee addeth aboue that before alleaged by vs, touching prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, excommunications of Priests, Pilgrimages, building of Churches, and the like, hee addeth as out of Bernards Epistle before mentioned, wherein there is no such thing. So that it is very probable that hee mistooke the matter and imputed such thinges to Henricus as were taught by the Apostolici, or some other such like. Hitherto wee finde no great proofe of the confirmation of prayer for the dead, or any other point of popish errour, by miracles: so that my Peremptory denyall, that euer any miracle was done by any man in times past, or in our times, to comfirme any of the things controuersed betweene the Papists and vs, standeth as yet vncontrouled. Wherefore Maister Higgons riseth from Henricus to Gregory the first, and Augustine, whom hee sent into England for the conuersion of our Nation, who, hee Pag. 82. sayth, were Papists, and yet wrought many miracles for the confirmation of the doctrine they preached. A more trifling fellow I thinke neuer aduentured to put penne to paper; for wee confidently deny that eyther Gregory or Augustine were Papists, & say with Bishop Iewell in his worthy challenge, that all the learned Papists in the world cannot proue thay eyther of them held any of those twenty seauen Articles of popish religion mentioned by him. If some superstition began in their times to grow in, it is not to bee maruayled at: neyther will it follow, that if Augustine and his Colleagues, sent hither to sing the Lords song in a strange land, did miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith taught by them, that the same miracles confirmed euery superstitious opinion, which any of them held. For then Cyprian and the African Bishops teaching rebaptization, the Orientall Bishoppes thitking it necessary to keepe the feast of Easter with the Iewes; Papias, and all the worthy Fathers that taught, that Christ raising vp the Saintes from the dead, shall raigne with them on earth a thousand yeares in all earthly felicity, that there are two resurrections, the one of the just, the other of the wicked, and that there are a thousand yeares betweene: Lactantius, Irenaeus, and others, excluding the soules of the faithfull departed out of heauen, till the resurrection; such as held that men may be deliuered out of hell: such as held it necessary to minister the Communion to infantes: and other like Catholique Christians erring in some point of Doctrine, could doe no miracles, for the confirmation of the Christian faith amongst infidels or mis-belieuers; but that the same must be confirmations of their errors: & God must concurre with thē by confusion, as this confused companion Pag. 83. speaketh: but if this instance serue not the turne, he hath another evidence more potent and perswasiue, which serued as a Key to vnlocke his vnderstanding, and that is this. Pag. 85. Transubstantiation is affirmed by mee to be one of the greatest mysteries of Popish Religion. Gerson is highly approued by mee, and yet he affirmeth Part. 4. serm. in festo corp. Christi. that Transubstantiation is confirmed by a thousand and a thousand miracles. For answere whereunto wee say with Cassander, Cassand. in consult art. 10. de transubst. that the names of conversion, transmutation, trans-formation, and trans-elementation, are found among the Auncient, and that the word Transubstantiation was vsed some hundreds of yeares since: but touching the manner of this conversion there is great variety of opinions, yet so that all agree in this, that they vnderstand such a mutation or chaunge to bee made, that that which before was earthly and common bread, by the wordes of Institution, the invocation of GODS Name, and Divine vertue is made a Sacrament of the true Body and Bloud of CHRIST, visibly sitting at the right hand of GOD in Heauen, and yet after an invisible and incomprehensible manner present in the Church. And that the Body and Bloud of CHRIST are in the Sacrament, and exhibited and giuen as spirituall meate and drinke for the saluation and euerlasting life of them that are worthy partakers of the same. Thus much we doubt not but a thousand and a thousand miracles may confirme, and more, Gerson doth not say is confirmed by miracle. For whereas there is almost infinite varietie of opinions touching the manner of this conversion amongst such as admit it in generality, it would bee very hard for Master Higgons, or a wiser man then he is, to say, which of them any miracle euer confirmed. All admit, saith In 3 part. sum. quaest. 75. a •… . 1. Caietan, the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body & Bloud of Christ, but in truth many deny that which the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth; & therefore are diversly divided; some vnderstanding that the bread is therefore said to be made the body of Christ, because where the Bread is, the Body of Christ becommeth present: others vnderstanding nothing but the order of succession, whereby the body succeedeth, & is vnder the vailes of those accidents, vnder which the Bread (which they suppose to bee annihilated) was before: which opinion in substance Scotus followeth, though in the manner of his speech hee seeme to decline it, some admitting both the word and thing not wholly, but in part, as Durandus, who thinketh the matter of the bread & wine remaineth, the forme onely changed: & some thinking the forme to remaine, and the matter to cease. Centil. conclu •… . 39 Ockam saith there are 3 opinions touching Transubstantiation, of which the first supposeth a conversion of the Sacramentall Elements: the second an annihilation: the third maketh the Bread to be so turned into the Body of Christ, that it is no way chaunged in substance, or substantially converted into Christs body; but that onely the body of Christ becommeth present in euery part of the bread. In 4. sent. q. 6. Cameracensis, Gersons master, professeth, that for ought he can see, the substantiall conversion of the Sacramentall elemēts into the body & blood of Christ, cannot be proued either out of Scripture, or any determination of the Vniuersall Church, and maketh it but a matter of opinion, inclining rather to the other opinion of Con-substantiation. And therefore in his iudgement it was not witnessed by a thousand & a thousand persons of most holy life and profound knowledge, testifying the truth thereof vnto death, by a thousand & a thousand miracles. So that the thing which Gerson saith hath bin proued by miracles, is the true presence of Christs body & blood in the Sacrament, the exhibition of thē to be the food of oursoules, & such a change of the elements in vertue, grace & power of containing in thē, & cōmunicating to vs Christs body & blood, as the nature of so excellent a Sacrament requireth. This is the Pag. 83. key which M. Higgons found to vnlock his vnderstanding that it might runne riot into all idle & childish discourses. But see the infelicitie of the man! He was no sooner at libertie, but presently againe he was incompassed & brought into such a strait, that either he must disclaime my book, or his Protestanticall beleefe. Yet Pag. 86 did he not suffer himselfe long to bee so inclosed, but full wisely chose rather to forsake the Religion hee was bredde in, and which as a publique Preacher hee had taught others, then to disclaime my booke. Because as hee saith, that Religion cannot bee good, that is so falsely and absurdly defended by mee, and all the cheefe Authors that euer applied their paines vnto that seruice. Surely the poore fugitiue is greatly to be pittied, as weake in vnderstanding, and medling with things not fitte for him, if hee doe that hee doth in simplicity: or exceedingly to bee detested as a gracelesse person, if he doe it, as it is to be feared, out of malice. For what is it in my Booke that is so false and absurd, as that the consideration thereof should make a man forsake his religion? is not Transubstantiation one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion, as I haue said? is that falsely deliuered by mee? No: but I say no miracle was euer done to confirme any thing defended by the Romanistes against vs, and yet Gerson, highly commended by mee, saith, many Miracles haue beene wrought for proofe and confirmation of that Transubstantiation which the Papists at this day beleeue, and this is the falsitie and absurditie hee speaketh of. That no miracle was euer wrought to proue the monstrous conceit of Popish Transubstantiation, or any other Popish error, shall stand good when heauen and earth shall be no more. And if tenne thousand Gersons, nay, if so many Angells from heauen should affirme the contrarie, I would not beleeue them; much lesse Gerson, a single witnesse in such a case. This is then the absurdity that made him become a Papist, that I commend Gerson, and yet beleeue not euerything hee saith. Truely this absurdity would neuer moue any but an absurd smatterer to alter his Religion. For doth not Higgons himselfe admire Pighius, Catharinus; Contarenus, and sundry other from whom he dissenteth in the matter of justification, originall sinne, and the certainty of grace? Doth he not highly commend many that thought the Pope may erre, that he is subiect to Generall Councells, and may be deposed by them, not for Heresie alone, but for other enormous crimes also? and yet I thinke hee will not be of their opinion. So that though Gerson should thinke that the Transubstantiation which we deny, was proued by miracles, it were no such intollerable absurdity to commend him for much piety, deuotion, learning, and vertue, and yet to dissent from him in this point. In the matter controuersed in former times in the Roman Church touching the conception of the blessed virgin, were there not whorthy men on both sides? did not the Patrons of her spotlesse conception pretend and alledge sundry miracles and visions for confirmation thereof? yet was it no absurdity for Opusc. tomo. 2. tract. 1. De conceptione virginis. cap. 1. Cardinall Caietan following the current of Antiquity, to dissent from them, how many & worthy soeuer they were, & to call all their pretended miracles in question. But indeed here is no such matter; for Gerson is not so ill aduised, as to dissent from his worthy Master, & confidently to affirme that a thousand, and a thousand, renowned for piety and learning, by a thousand, & a thousand miracles, gaue testimony to the opinion of the substantiall conuersion of the Sacramentall elements into the body & blood of Christ (which the Lib. 4. dist. 11. Master of the Sentences, & the Author of the In 1. ad Corint. 11. Ordinary glosse, professe to be doubtfull, and Caietan saith so many admitted not euen in his time.) But the onely thing hee affirmeth to haue beene confirmed by Miracles is, that Christs body & blood are truely present in the Sacrament, that they are giuen to be the foode of our soules, and that the outward elements are changed to become the body and blood of Christ; which wee deny not, though we dissent from the Papists touching the manner of the conuersion, which they imagine to be substantiall; to which opinion haply Gerson might consent, as Cameracensis also did, though he professed he could not see the deduction of it from Scripture, or any determination of the Church, and inclined rather to thinke that the substance of bread and wine remaine, and that the body and blood of Christ become present together with them, according to that of Cusanus, Excitationum. lib. 6. pag. •… 25. who saith, certaine ancient Diuines are found to haue been of opinion, that the Bread is not substantially chaunged, but that it is clothed vpon with a more noble substance, as we hope to be clothed vpon with the light of glory, our substance remaining the same it was: and seemeth not much to dislike their opinion. Thus wee see, poore runnagate Higgons hath made a great out-cry, when there was no cause; for here is neither falsehood nor absurdity, but in himselfe, who to wrecke his anger hath sold himselfe to bee an absurd Patron of errour and vntruth. The rest of his friuolous discourse following, being but a reflection, as hee calleth it, vpon these premises, I will not trouble my selfe nor the reader with.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉
The Second Booke.
§. 1.

I Come to his Second Booke, in the first part whereof hee challengeth mee for traducing the foure Doctors of the Church, beginning with Gregory, and from him proceeding to the rest. To make it appeare that I haue wronged Gregory, First Pag. 101. he noteth, that the principall drift of my discourse touching the Church, is to proue that the opinions wherein the Papists dissent from the Protestants at this day, were not the doctrines of the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died, but of a faction only, predominating in the same. Secondly, pag. 102. that to this purpose I frame an appendix, wherein I produce the testimonies of sundry Fathers and Schoole-authors, to justifie the foresayd position. Thirdly, that Ibid. descending into the controuersie, whether any sinnes be remitted after this life, or not, I vse this pretense; to wit, that whereas Lombard and other do say, that some veniall sinnes are remitted after this life, we must so vnderstand their sayings, that therefore they are sayd to bee remitted after this life, because they are taken away in the very momēt of dissolution, the last instant of life being the first after life. That this is the summe of that Exposition I make of Lombards, & other mens opinion, cōcerning the remission of sins after this life wherein, how sincerely, & exactly I deale, he wil not dispute. 4ly, Ibid. That to corroborate this my Exposition, I bring a testimony of S. Gregory, not without great wrong done vnto him.

To these his obseruations I briefely answere: First, that it is true that the doctrines wherein the Papists and We dissent at this day, were not the doctrines of that Church, wherein our Fathers liued and dyed; but that I haue in any part vntruly set downe the differences betweene them and vs, this false runnagate shall neuer be able to proue: though, if his credit would reach vnto it, hee would gladly make men beleeue so. 2ly, That I haue indeed framed and added such an Appendix as he speaketh of, to my Third booke, wherein I haue produced sundry learned men, and Schoole-authors, for proofe of that my former position; calling them, as they well deserue, worthy & learned men: but, that they are mine enimies, or that I speake honourably of them for mine own aduantage; is but the saying of a silly fellow, that careth not much what hee sayth, soe he may be thought to say something. Thirdly, that this good fellow, that complaineth so much of falshood and bad dealing, hath in his third obseruation wholy mistaken the matter, & shamefully belied me; for I make not that costruction of the sayings of Lombard and others, which he speaketh of, but it is the construction of Alexander of Ales, the irrefragable Doctor, and first of all the Schoole-men. But that the Reader may the better perceiue how hee peruerteth all that commeth in his way, I will lay downe the matter at large. In the twentieth Chapter of that Appendix he speaketh of I produce the iudgment and resolution of Scotus, Durandus, and Alexander of Ales, that all sinfulnesse is vtterly abolished in the very moment of dissolution, and that there is no remission of any sin, in respect of the fault and staine after death. The words of these Authors I set downe at large. The words of Alexander of Ales are these. Summ. lib. 4. qu. 25. memb. 〈◊〉 art 3. Finall grace taketh away all sinfulnesse out of the soule, because when the soule parteth from the body, all pronenesse to ill, and all perturbations which were found in it, by reason of the coniunction with the flesh, do cease, the powers thereof are quieted, & perfectly subiected to grace, & by that means, all veniall sins remoued: so that no veniall sin is remitted after this life; but in that instant wherein grace may be said to be finall grace, it hath full dominion & absolute command, and expelleth all sin. Whereunto he addeth, that whereas the Mr of Sentences, & some other do say, that some veniall sins are remitted after this life; some answer that they speake of a full remission, both in respect of the fault and staine, and the punishment also: but that others more narrowly and piercingly looking into the thing, do say, that they are to be vnderstood to say, sins are remitted after this life, because (it being the same moment or instant that doth continuate the time of life, & that after life, so that the last instant of life, is the first after life) they are remitted in the very moment of dissolution, grace more fully infusing, and powring it selfe into the soule at that time, then before, to the vtter abolishing of all sin, all impediment formerly hindering her working, now ceasing. So that these are the words of Alexander of Ales, deliuering the opiniōof many worthy men in the church, and not mine: and therefore whether he and they doe aptly expound the sayings of the Master of Sentences, and others, or not, it is nothing to me; for I doe not so interpret the sayings of these men, nor cite him to proue they are to bee so interpreted: but cite him onely to shew, that many learned men, in former times, did thinke all sinfulnes to be purged out of the souls of men, departing hence in the state of grace, euen in the very moment of dissolution: which he clearely sheweth, and besides telleth vs how they sought to construe the sayings of them that seemed to bee of another judgement, that they might not be thought to bee contrary herevnto. The same may bee confirmed out of In 4. sent. d. 24 q. 1. Bonaventura, who sayth, it was the opinion of certaine Doctours, who were of good vnderstanding, that no sinne is remitted after death, because the force of Free-will, in respect of merite, or demerite, doth altogether cease. These, as he saith, thought, that veniall sinnes are wholly remitted and taken away, either by repentance, or by finall grace, if there bee no time and place for repentance: as when a just & good man is suddainly seized vpon by death. The Authour of the booke called Part, 3. de effectu peccati venialis. Regimen Animarum, a manuscript copy whereof I haue, who liued about the yeare 1343, hath these words. Delet gratia finalis veniale peccatum, in ipsà dissolutione corporis, & animae, ex virtute completionis sui status, quamvis motus contritionis non sit ad illud directus, & hoc ab antiquis dictum est; sed modò communiter tenetur, quod peccatum veniale hinc deferatur à multis, etiam quoad culpam. That is, finall grace doth abolish and vtterly take away veniall sinne in the very dissolution and parting of the soule and body, in that she groweth to bee in a full and perfect estate, though no motion of contrition bee directed to the putting of it away: and this was said by the Auncient, but now it is commonly holden, that many carry venial sinnes with them out of this world. euen in respect of the staine and fault. Caietan agreeth with those Auncient Diuines, that this Author speaketh of: his words are these: Caiet. opus. tom. l. tract. 23. q. 1. Patet quòd nec pro fomite purgando, qui etiam in baptizatis remanet, nec pro reliquis quibuscunque, nisi satisfactione debit â pro commissis velomissis, poenae sunt purgatoriae; sicut nihil acquirit grave ex remotione prohibentis, sed iuxta pristinam gravitatem tendit ad proprium locum: it a anima ex remotlone prohibentis, iuxta sortitam prius charitatem, in coelestis patriae mansionem sibi paratam intrat. That is; It is evident, that Purgatory paines serue neither for the purging out of the remaines of concupiscence, which still abideth euen in the Baptized; nor for the taking away of any other thing whatsoeuer: but onely for the satisfying for the sinnes of omission and commision that are past: and therefore if that bee once performed, as a heauy thing, when that is taken away which hindered, getteth no new quality or vertue, but by force of that waight and heauinesse it formerly had, goeth to the proper place where nature hath appointed it to rest: so the soule so soone as that is taken away which hindered, by force and vertue of that charitie it formerly had, entereth into the mansion of the Heauenly Countrey provided for it. Further hee addeth, that, as after death, charitie is, extra statum merendi, that is, in a state wherein there is no farther meriting: so likewise it is in a state, wherein it is capable of no increase, the increase of charitie being the bound of the merite of it: whence it followeth, that there is no purging out of any sinne after death; for if after death there bee no new increasing of that grace and charitie which during life stood together with veniall sinne, there is no purging out of any such sinne after death; seeing it is charity stirred vp, and enkindled, that consumeth sinne, as the burning Furnace doth a droppe of water, and nothing else. This is the resolution, not of a few or meane men, but of many, and those the greatest and best esteemed of in the Churches, wherein our Fathers liued and died. To these I say, Gregory seemeth to agree, saying, That the very feare that is found in men dying, purgeth out the lesser sinnes. But heere Maister Higgons hath noted Pag. 103. three points of fraudulencie, as hee saith, committed by mee in a few words: First by an omission: in that, whereas Saint Gregory saith, plerunque, for the most part it is so, I omitte and leaue out this particle: Secondly, by a reddition in that whereas Gregory saith the Smallest, I say the Lesser. Thirdly, by an extension, in that whereas Gregory saith the Soules of the iust are purged, I say in a more generall sort, the soules of men dying are purged. For answere hereunto I say, I haue no way misalledged Gregory, nor deriued any conclusion out of any words of his, contrary to his purpose and Doctrine in other places; for Dialog. li: 4. cap: 46. Gregory seemeth to bee of opinion, that the feare, that is found in the soules of good men dying, doth alwayes purge out the lesser sinnes, so often as it is found in them: but, that it is not alwayes found in them, but for the most part; whereas I haue onely said, it doth purge out such sinnes, without adding alwaies, or for the most part. And that hee addeth the particle for the most part, to shew that this feare is not alwaies found in good men, when they are to die, and not to deny the effect of purging out the smaller sinnes vnto it, wheresoeuer it is found, appeareth, in that immediatly after; by way of opposition he saith, that, nonnunquam, that is sometimes, God strengtheneth and confirmeth the mindes of men ready to die, that otherwise would feare, so that they doe not feare at all: but if wee take the words as Higgons would haue vs, yet am I no whit disaduantaged: for if the feare of Gods iudgements alone, doe for the most part purge out the lesser sinnes, it is likely that other good motions, and the strengthning of grace, and putting of it into a state of perfection, by the subtraction of impediments, should take away the rest: which is all that I haue said. For I doe not say, that hee doth agree with those that thinke all sinfulnesse is purged out in the very moment of dissolution; but that hee seemeth to agree with them, or that in consequence of reason hee should agree with them. Neither is his next exception of least, and lesser, any better then this: For Gregorie himselfe in the thirty ninth chapter of the same booke speaking of those sinnes, that are compared to timber, hay, and stubble, and are to be purged out by the fire, the Apostle speaketh of to the Corinthians; calleth them indifferently peccata parua, & minima, le •… ia, & leuissima, minuta, atque leuissima, that is small and smallest, light and lightest sins: so that small or light sinnes in the positiue degree, are the same with him that least or lightest: and therefore it was no fraudulencie in mee, not translating any sentence of Gregorie, but reporting his opinion touching veniall sinnes, indifferently and freely to name them, small, lesser, or smallest, and lightest sinnes; seeing in his meaning and phrase of speech, and trueth of the thing it selfe they are all one. The last exception is more friuolous then the two former, for speaking onely of the soules of the iust, and the purging out of such sinnes as are found in them till death, in my whole discourse, what neede was there, that I should adde iust, seeing no man could possibly vnderstand mee to speake of any other? but it seemeth the pooreman knoweth not well what hee saith, for hee will haue Gregorie to meane by iust men, men of singular s •… ctity, and not generally all that are in the state of grace: and yet denieth that all the sins of these, are purged out in death, so casting into purgatorie, not only those of the middle sort, but the best and perfittest also, contrary to the opinions of his owne Diuines. So that wee see here is much a doe about nothing: and as the poore man said, when he shore his Sowe: heere is a great crie and a little woolle. For I doe not absolutely say, that Gregory fully agreeth with these worthy Diuines before mentioned, who thinke all sinnefullnesse to be vtterly abolished and remoued out of the soule, in the very moment of dissolution; but that hee seemeth to agree vnto them; or that in consequence of reason hee should agree vnto them, in that hee maketh the very feare, that is found in men dying, to purge out their lesser sins, when it is found in them, though alwayes it be not found in them: which is not my priuate conceit, but the Grecians in their Apology touching Purgatory, long before deliuered the very same more peremptorily; namely, that Gregory by this saying, and some other found in him, doth vtterly ouerthow that Purgatory which hee is thought to teach: And if hee will bee pleased to peruse the Schoole-men, hee shall finde in Summae. lib. 4. q. 1 •… . memb. 3. •… t. 3. Alexander of Ales, that the best of them thought Gregorie to bee of opinion, as they also were, that all sinne in respect of the staine, or fault, is purged out in death: some interpreting his wordes, where hee speaketh of remission of sinnes after this life, of that remission which is in the last instant of this life, and the first of the next: and •… her •… herwise. And therefore Master Higgons might well haue spared his taxation of me, and omitted his marginall note, Pag. 103. that many such tricks were found by the Bishoppe of Eureux in the writings of the Lord Plessis Mornay. For in all that which I haue written touching this point, there is not so much as the least shadow of any ill dealing: and for that worthy Gentleman, against whom that Bishoppe so •… ght aduantage, by cauilling against some parts of his allegations; it will bee found, that hee hath more sincerely handled the controuersies of religion, then euer any Romanist did. That if any mistaking be found in him; there are many moe, and more materiall in farre lesse compasse, in the writings of Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe: and that in his anatomy of the Masse, the booke excepted against by the Bishoppe of Eureux, hee hath in such sort cutte in sunder the sinewes, not onely of the Masse, but of the whole masse of Romish religion; that all the rabble of Romanists will neuer bee able orderly to answere that whole booke, howsoeuer it is easie to cavill against some parts of any thing neuer so well written.

But to returne to the matter in hand: whatsoeuer wee thinke of Gregory, of whom I say onely, that hee seemeth to agree vnto the opinion of those Diuines, who thinke all sinnefulnesse to be purged out of the soules of men dying in the state of grace, in the moment of dissolution: it is certaine, that exceeding many of best esteeme in the Romane Church informer times, were of that opinion: and the same is proued by vnanswerable reasons. Whence it will follow ineuitably, that there remaineth no punishment to bee suffered after death, by men dying in the state of grace. For they are propositions of Saint Bernard, that all the world cannot except against; Bern: in Psal. qui habitat. Serm. 10. that when all sinne shall bee wholly taken out of the way, no effect of it shall remaine: that the cause beeing altogether remoued, the effect shall bee no more: and, that all punishment shall hee as farre from the outward man, as all fault shall bee from the inward. Now that all sinfulnesse is purged out in the very dissolution of soule and body, is confirmed, as I said, by vnaunswerable reasons; for seeing the remaines of naturall concupiscence, the pronenesse to euill, difficultie to doe good, and contrarietie betweene the better and meaner faculties of the soule, are wholly taken out of the soules of all them that die in the state of grace, in the moment of dissolution, euen in the iudgement of our aduersaries themselues, (there being nothing in the fault or staine of sinne, but the acte, desire, & purpose; which cannot remaine, where concupiscence, the fountaine thereof, is dried vp: or the habituall liking, and affecting of such things as were formerly desired, purposed, or done ill; which cannot be found in a soule, out of which, all naturall concupiscence, inclining to the desiring of things inordinately, is wholly taken away, and it selfe turned to the entire desiring of God alone, and nothing, but in, and for him; as is euery soule, out of which, concupiscence, inclining to affect finite things inordinately, is wholly taken away.) It is more then euident, that all sinnefulnesse is wholly taken out of the soule of each good man, in the very moment of his death, dissolution, and departure hence. See then the absurditie of Romish Religion! the soule of a good man, in the moment of death, is wholly freed from all sinnefulnesse there is nothing found in it, that displeaseth God: charitie, and grace, making those in whom it is, acceptable to GOD, is perfect in it: and yet it must bee punished, to satisfie the iustice of GOD, because it was sometimes sinnefull. Truely Ieuer thought, whereas there are two things in sinne, the fault, deformity, or staine; and the punishment; that Christ, who is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world, by the working of his sanctifying grace, purgeth out the one; and by vertue of his satisfactory sufferings, freeth such as he purgeth from the impuritie of sinne, from the punishment due vnto it; and that in proportionable sort he purgeth out the one; and, by vertue of his satisfactory sufferings, freeth vs from the other. So that when sinne is onely so purged out, that it is no more predominant, there remaineth no condemnation, but yet some punishment, as in the case of Dauid; and when it is wholly taken away, there remaineth no punishment at all: which whosoeuer contradicteth, is iniurious to the sufferings of Christ, & the Iustice of God, who will not require one debt to be twise paid. For it is most certain, that Christ suffered the punishments, not only of those sins, that men commit in the time of ignorance, 〈◊〉 , and the state of Nature, before Baptisme and Regeneration, but of all sinnes: and that the reason, why notwithstanding godlesse men are subiect to all kindes of punishments, as before; is, because they doe not become one with CHRIST; nor are made partakers of his sanctifying Spirit, purging out the sinfulnesse that is in them; that they might enjoy the benefite of his satisfaction: as likewise the reason, why good men, such as Da •… id, turning to God by repentance, are still subject to some punishments in this life, notwithstanding their vnion with CHRIST, is, because they are not so fully conjoyned to CHRIST, and made partakers of his Spirit, as to be purged from all sinne. For if they were, they should be freed from all punishment by his sufferings: he hauing suffered for all them, that become one with him, all that the Iustice of God requireth. This is that heresie of the Papists, which I speake of, namely that, to satisfie Gods Iustice, the soules of men dying in the state of grace, must suffer punishments answereable to the sinnes they some-times committed, though now pure from all sinne. This conceipt neuer any of the Auncient had: howsoeuer some of them supposed, that sinfull men in hell, may be eased or deliuered thence; and some other (as Augustine, & such as followed him in the Latine Church) were doubtfull whether some impuritie might not remaine to be purged out of the soules of men dying in the state of grace, by afflictions and chastisements after this life. And therefore it is vntrue that M Higgons saith, Pag. 108. This imputation of heresie cleaueth as fast to the Fathers, whom we pretend to honour and reuerence, as to any Papist at this day. If Gerson, or any other whom I honour, held this heresie, they held it not heretically, as the Romanists now doe: euen as Cyprian helde the heresie of rebaptization, and sundry of the Auncient the heresie of the Millenaries, but not heretically: so that Vincentius Lyrinensis saith, Contra prof. Hae •… t. novit c. 9 The Fathers were saued, and the children condemned: the authors of errours acquited, & the followers of them in the same, cast into the pit of hell. But Mr Higgons saith, Bernard (whose sayings touching the not punishing of such as are freed from the impurity of sin I alleadge; thereby to ouerthrow the erroneous conceipt of Papists touching Purgatory) admitteth Purgatory: & therefore Pag. 105. I traduce the Testaments of the dead, to establish such doctrines as they impugne. For answer whereunto I say, that whether Bernard admit Purgatory or not: yet may hee haue a sentence, which supposing all sinfulnes to be purged out in the moment of dissolution, proueth that there is no Purgatory, to which purpose I alledge him, & therfore traduce not the testaments of the dead to establish any Doctrines they impugned; as M Higgons vntruely & vnjustly chargeth me. For my Pag. 107 distilling our Church out of the writings of learned men liuing vnder the Papacie, I shall haue a sitter place to answere him, when I come to his Appendix: where I will make it appeare, that the Israel of God hath not binforced (as he vntruely saith it hath) to seeke to the Philistines as the distressed Israelites did for the sharpening of their tooles, when there was no Smith in Israel: but that the Israel in Canaan deriueth it self from that Israel that sometimes was in Egypt in misarable bondage, enjoyeth the jewels and treasures, & fighteth against the enemies of God, with the weapons brought from thence. And thus much touching Gregory.

§. 2.

IN the next place hee commeth to Augustine, whom he saith; I haue likewise abused. The words wherein the supposed abuse is offered vnto him, are these. The Romish manner of praying for the dead hath no certaine testimony of antiquity, for no man euer thought of Purgatory till Augustine, to avoide a worse error, did doubtingly runne 〈◊〉 : after whom many in the Latine Church embraced the same opinion; but the Greeke Church neuer receiued it to this day. 〈◊〉 inwhich words he saith: I note the temerity; irresolution, and folly of Augustine: the Reader, I doubt not, will note his temerity and folly, in s Pag. 108. censuring me thus without a cause: for I note not Saint Augustine for temerity, nor make him the Author of a new fancy, as hee falsely chargeth mee but shew, that, whereas there were very dangerous opinions in the Church in his time; touching the state of the departed, (many of great esteeme thinking that men dying in mortall sinne, and adjudged to hell, shall in the end come out thence and be saued hee sought to qualifie the matter in the best sort hee could, with least offence vnto them, and to bring them from that error, and therefore sayth, Enchirid. ad Laurentium. cap. 67. If they would acknowledge the punishments of such to be eternall, and thinke onely that they may bee mitigated or suspended for a time, or that men dying in the state of grace, yet in some lesser sinnes are afflicted for a time in the other world, (though he know not whether these things be so or not) yet he would not striue with them. This is not to be the author of a new fancy; but, in hope to reclaime men from a great extremity, to leaue something lesse dangerous in the same kind, doubtfull: and this is all that I say of Saint Augustine; neither is this my priuate fancy: but the Graecians, in that learned Apology before mentioned, haue the same obseruation, to wit, that hee wrote not those things which hee hath touching Purgatory, out of a certaine perswasion, and as vndoubtedly holding them to be true: but as it were in a sort inforced, and for the avoiding of a greater euill, which was this, that there is a purging of all sinnes after death, as some then thought. So that as it seemeth, thinking it something a violent course, directly to go against the opinion of many; and fearing, his words would not seeme probable, if whereas others thought all sins may be purged out after death, he on the contrary side should say none may be purged, hee chose rather to goe in a middle way not contradicting that which is lesse absurd, and inconuenient: (that so he might more easily bring them he had to deale with from that which was farre more inconuenient,) then too much to exasperate thē. This was the apprehension the Grecians had of Augustines writings touching this point: which whosoeuer shall without any sinister affection peruse, will find to bee righte and true. Touching irresolution, it was farre from Augustine in matters pertaining to the rule of faith: but in other things, wherein men may bee ignorant and doubtfull, and dissent one from another; without danger of eternall damnation: no man was more slow to resolue; no man more inclined to leaue things doubtfull. But howsoeuer, that hee was doubtfull and vnresolued in the points concerning the state of the dead, it is euident in that he sayth: Vbi supr. If they, whose mercifull error he refuteth, would onely thinke, the paynes of them that are in hell to bee mittigated, or suspended: hee would not greatly striue about it: though, I am well assured, hee would not willingly haue resolued, that these things are so. The like may be sayd touching the temporall affliction of good men dying in the state of grace, but yet with some lesser sinnes: for hee was euer doubtfull concerning the same: and neuer resolued that they are vndoubtedly in a state of temporall afflictions, as Maister Higgons vntruly Pag. 113. reporteth, and thence inferreth many things childishly against mee: but that they are in a state wherein prayers may auaile thē: which two things are very different. For the Graecians in their Apology, before cited, admit remission of sinnes after this life, and yet deny that there is any estate of temporall affliction. And I haue shewed before, how sinnes may be sayd to bee remitted after this life in the enterance into the other world, without admitting Purgatory-punishmēts. But it cannot be excused that I say, Augustine fearefully opposed himselfe against the error of thē, who thought all right-beleeuing Christians, how wickedly soeuer they liued, shall in the end bee saued. Surely the Graecians said as much before, and are in good hope to be excused: and therefore I am in some hope that I may be also: for I do not say that he so feared any thing, as to conceale any truth he was thorowly resolued of, and which hee held necessary to be knowne of all: but that he feared to offend them hee dealt with, farther than of necessity hee must: and therefore resolued to yeeld to them as farre as possibly hee might, without impugning knowne and resolued truthes, they being many and of great esteeme, that were otherwise minded, then he was. Thus haue I no way wronged St Augustine, but done him the the greatest right I could: for I haue shewed, that he impugned not onely the error of Origen, touching the saluation of all, euen the Diuell and his Angels, and of such as thought that all men, or at least all Christian men though Heretickes and Schismatickes, shal in the end be saued: but of them also that thought only that all right-beleeuing Christians shall be saued how wickedly soeuer they liue: affirming, that noe such thing may be yeelded, and yet professing himselfe doubtfull touching the mitigation and suspension of their paines for a time, as also whether men dying in the state of grace, and yet with some lesser sinnes, bee afflicted for a time, and after deliuered. So that hee brought the conceit concerning the saluation by fire and punishment, of men departing hence in the state of sinne, from that exceeding large extent, to this straite: assuring himselfe more might not be yeelded, and professing he knew not whether so much might or not. And therefore hee was the author of this limitation, that the errour should not be so dangerous; but not of the errour it selfe, touching the saluation of men dying in the state of sinne: which no way tendeth to his disgrace; but to his commendation.

But Master Higgons will proue Pag. 110. that hee was not the first that fell into the opinion of this Purgatory, of men dying in the state of grace; first out of the Magdeburgians, and secondly out of the testimonies of sundry Fathers, teaching the same Purgatorie before Augustine, as he pretendeth: To the Magdeburgians it may be answered in a word, that they speake of the Purgatorie of such as departe hence in mortall sinne, when they attribute the errour of Purgatory, to Origen and others before Augustines time. For Origen made all punishments, euen those of the Diuell and Damned ones, to be but Purgatory-punishments: and therefore that they say is nothing to our purpose. Wherefore let vs see what testimonies of Fathers, before Augustine, Master Higgons canne produce, for confirmation of his supposed Purgatorie. The first hee bringeth is Saint Basil. in Esaiae. 9. Basil, who writing vpon those wordes of Esay, Iniquity shall •… ee burned as fire, and deuoured of the fire as any grasse, and burned vp in the thicknesse of the wood, and againe, all the earth shall bee set on fire in the furious and fierce wrath of the Lord; and all the people shall be as it were burned by fire: First sheweth, that iniquity may fitly be compared vnto grasse, the generation whereof is infinite, in that sinne begetteth and succeedeth it selfe, fornication, fornication, lying, lying: and so in the rest. Secondly, that if wee reueale and make bare our sinne by confessing and acknowledging it, we make it like drie grasse, fitte to bee deuoured and consumed by the purging fire: but that, if it become not like drie grasse, it shall not bee deuoured by the fire. Thirdly hee interpreteth the thicknesse of the wood to bee men darkned in their cogitations, and keeping many euills in the secret of their hearts. Fourthly, whereas it is said, the earth is set on fire by the fierce wrath of the Lord, hee saith the Prophet meaneth, that earthly things are deliuered to the punishing fire, for the good of the soule: according to that of the Lord, I come to send fire into the earth, and my desire is, that it be kindled assoone as may bee. Fifthly, hee sheweth, that whereas the Prophet saith, The people shall be burned as with fire, he threatneth not destruction, but promiseth purgation: according to that of the Apostle, If any mans worke burne, &c. Heere indeede mention is made of purging-fire; but it is the fire of tribulation in this world, and of diuine affections which it kindleth, for the consuming and burning vppe of the sinnes of them, that acknowledge them, and make them bare by feeling & confessing how displeasing they are to God: whereas otherwise it worketh no such effect. But heere is no word, nor circumstance, whence it may be collected, that Basil speaketh of any Purgatory after this life; nay it is plaine, he speaketh of that fire, which Christ came to bring into the world, and to cast out vpon the earth, and which hee desired to bee kindled, as soone as might bee: which things, I thinke are not appliable to Popish Purgatorie. Nazianz. Orat. 40. in sanctum Baptisma. The Scripture, saith Gregorie Nazianzene, mentioneth a purging-fire, which CHRIST came to send into the earth, and himselfe anagogically is called fire: the nature of this fire, is to waste and consume away the grosser matter, and vitious disposition of the minde: and therefore CHRIST desireth to haue it kindled as soone as may bee, that wee may haue the benefit of it: which I thinke can hardly bee vnderstood of Purgatorie, vnlesse we suppose CHRIST wisheth vs all to be in those torments with speed. Nicetas writing vpon Nazianzene, expoundeth the purging-fire hee speaketh of, to be loue, and faith towards God, which purge our soules from sinne, and ignorance, & diuide the godly, from the vngodly and vnbeleeuers. Another fire Nazianzene saith there is, which is not a purging, but a reuenging fire; whether it bee that Sodomiticall fire, which, mixed with brimstone & tempest, God powreth on the heads of sinners: or that which goeth before the face of the Lord, and burneth vp his enemies on euery side: or lastly, that which is more horrible then all these, which is ioyned with the restlesse worme, and which neuer goeth out. So that wee see neither Gregory, nor Nicetas, knew any thing of the Papists Purgatory-fire after this life, mentioning all the kindes of fire that are spoken of in Scripture, and omitting it cleane. To Basill Mr Higgons addeth, Hom. 3. de Epiph. Eusebius Emissenus, who was more auncient then hee. But his owne Sixtus Senensi •… Bibl. sanct. l. 4. Baron. tom. 3. 341. 11. friends will tell him, these Homilies which he citeth, that goe vnder his name, are none of his: but that they were collected out of the Latine Fathers by Beda or some other: the sentence doubtlesse which he citeth, is found word for word in Augustines Homilie vpon the Epiphanie. But howsoeuer the Author of these Homilies seemeth to speake of a trying fire, through which all must passe, & not of the Papists imagined Purgatory. The next testimony he bringeth, is out of Gregory Nyssen; but as the Graecians in their Apologie note, they are not well advised that alledge Gregory Nyssen to 〈◊〉 Serm. de defunctis. this purpose; seeing he speaketh not of a particular purging of some, but of a generall restoring of all: of which opinion also Didymus and Euagrius were. This his grosse errour they excuse: first, for that happily these things might be rois •… ed into his works by Heretickes: And secondly, for that hee wrote before the time of the Fifth Generall Councell, wherein the errour of Origen was condemned. From these Greeke Fathers, Master Higgons Pag. 11 •… proceedeth to the Latine: And first produceth Ruffinus vpon the Psalmes: and then Ambrose. That Ruffinus wrote vpon the Psalmes was neuer heard of, before that of late one Antonius de Albone Arch-Bishop of Lions, found out an vnknowne worke, in a certaine ruinated Abbey, and put it out vnder the name of Ruffinus, though as himselfe confesseth, it seemed strange to many that such a worke had lyen hid so long; and more strange, that so often the same sentences and periods should bee found in Augustine that are in this supposed Ruffinus; seeing hee could not take them from Augustine; & Augustine in all likelyhood would not borrow them from him, neuer vsing to bee beholding to any man in this kind: so that it may bee thought this worke had a latter Author then either of these: & surely, the words Mr Higgons citeth are the words of Augustine, and therefore ill alledged to shew that others before him thought as hee did touching the purging of men dying in an imperfit state of grace. Wherefore let vs come to Ambrose, out of whom he citeth two places: the first is vpon the hundred and eighteene Psalme, the second vpon the thirty sixe Psalme. Touching the first of these places Cardinall De Purga •… . l. 1. c. 4. Bellarmine will tell him, that it is not to bee vnderstood of the fire of Purgatory, but of the fire of Gods Iudgement: which is not a purging or an afflicting fire, but a trying and examining fire. I will set down the words at large, that the Reader may iudge of them. All must be proued by fire that desire to returne to Paradise, for it is not idlely written, that when Adam & Eue were cast out of Paradise, God set in the entrance into it, a fiery two-edged, or turning-sword: for all must passe by slaming fire, whether it bee Iohn the Evangelist whom the LORD so loued that he said of him to Peter: if I will haue him to abide, what is that to thee? follow thou me, (Of his death some haue doubted, of his passage through the fire we may not doubt, because he is in Paradise, & is not separated from CHRIST,) or Peter that receiued the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, & walked vpon the Sea, he must be forced to say, we haue passed by fire & water, and thou hast brought vs into a place of refreshing: but when Iohn commeth, the fiery sword shall soon be turned away, because iniquity is not found in him, whō equity loued. If there were any fault found in him, as a man, the loue of God wasted it away. For the wings thereof are as the wings of fire: he that heere hath the fire of charitie, shall not there feare the fire of the sword, Christ shal say vnto Peter, that so oftē offred to dy for him, passe & be at rest: but he shal say, he hath tried vs in the fire, as siluer is tried. &c, Hee shall be tried as siluer, but I shal be tried as lead. I shall burne till the lead melt away: if no siluer be found in me, woe is me, I shal be cast into the lowest hell, or wholly burnt vp as stubble: if any gold or siluer be found in me, not by mine own works, but by the mercy and grace of CHRIST, and by the ministery of my Priest-hood, happily I saye, They that trust in thee, shall not bee confounded. Therefore iniquitie shall bee burned out by the fiery sword, that fitteth vpon the talent of Lead. Hee alone could not feele that fire, who is the iustice of God euen Christ, who did no finne: for the fire found nothing in him, that it could burne; but concerning others, euen he that thinketh himselfe Gold, hath lead: and hee that thinketh himselfe to be a graine of corne, hath chaffe, that may be burned. Many here seeme to themselues to be gold, I do not enuie them, but euen the gold shall be tried: it shall burne in fire, that it may be proued: for so it is written, I will proue them as gold in the fire: therefore seeing we are to be tried, let vs so behaue our selues, that we may deserue to be approued by the iudgment of God; let vs, while wee are here, hold humility, that when euery of vs shall come to the iudgment of God, he may say, See my humility, and deliuer mee. And vpon the thirty sixt Psalme, he hath these words: We shall all be tried by fire: and Ezechiel sayth, Behold, the Lord Almighty commeth, and who shall abide the day of his comming? or who shall indure it, when he shall appeare vnto vs? for he shall come as purging fire, & as Fullers soape, & he shall sitte downe to trie and fine the gold and the siluer, he shall fine the sonnes of Leuie, and powre them out like gold and siluer, and they shall offer sacrifice to the Lord in righteousnesse. Therefore the sonnes of Leuie shall bee fined by fire: Ezechiel shall bee fined by the fire: and Daniel shall bee fined by the fire: but these, though they shall bee tried by the sire, yet they shall say: we haue passed by fire and water: others shall abide in the fire; to them the fire shall be as a moyst dewe, as it was to the Hebrew children, that were cast into the hotte burning furnace; but the reuenging fire shall burne vp the Ministers of iniquity. Woe is mee, if my worke shall burne, and I suffer losse of my labour! and if the Lord do saue his sernants, we shal be saued by faith, yet as by fire; & though we be not burned vp, yet wee shall bee burned: but how some remaine in the fire, and other passe thorough it, let the Scripture in another place teach vs. The people of Aegypt were drowned in the Red sea: the people of the Hebrewes passed through it: Moses passed, Pharaoh was ouer-whelmed because his grieuous sins did drowne him: in like sort sacrilegious persons shall be cast headlong into the lake of burning fire: &c. Here we see Ambrose speaketh of the tryall of Gods seuere and righteous judgment expressing the same by the name of fire: because euen our God is a consuming fire. And a fire shall go before him, when he commeth to judge the world: but of the Papists Purgatoryfire he hath no word. The fire he speaketh of, is the fiery tryall of Gods iudgement, through which he thinketh all must passe, though neuer so holy, and bee burned in it, though not burned vp, as the wicked shall. Of the same fire, not of Purgatory, but of the iudgement of God, doth Hillary speake vpon the same wordes of the 118. Psal. and vpon the second of Mathew, where expounding these words, Hee shall Baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire, he sayth, it remaineth, that they that haue bin Baptized with the Holy Ghost should be comsummate and made perfit in the fire of iudgment. And before these Lactantius, Lib. 4. cap. 21. inst. Chr. his words are these: therefore the Diuine fire by one and the same vertue and power shall burne the wicked &c. And also when the Lord shal iudge the righteous, hee shall try them by fire: Then they whose sins shall preuaile either in waight or number, shall bee burned vp in the fire: but they whom full and perfect righteousnesse and the maturity of vertue shall haue throughly seasoned, shall not feele that fire, because they haue something of God in them, to repell and reiect the force of the flame, and so great is the force of innocencie, that that harmlesse fire doth flye from it, hauing receiued power frō God to burne the vngodly, & to do seruice to the righteous. Many things are found in Basill vpon Esay, which (as Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 5. annot. 17 1. Sixtus Senensis saith) may seeme to tend to the same purpose, as In 4. Esaiae. whē vpon those words he shall purge Hierusalē in the spirit of iudgmēt & in the spirit of burning:: he sayth, this is to be referred to the triall and examination which shall be in fire in the world to come. Thus do none of those Fathers, that Maister Higgons alleadgeth, say any thing for the imagined Purgatory of Papists: but the same is clearely refuted by that which they say: and therefore the Reader may bee well assured, that it is most true, that I haue said: that Augustine was the first that euer spake any thing of that Purgatory, wherein men dying in an imperfect state of grace, are supposed to be purged after this life by fire. These things being so, I doubt not but all men of any indifferency will easily see that this idle Prater, which ranne away vpon discontentment, had little reason to say pag. 109, that hee grew to a detestation of his religion, because he found my dealing to be corrupt, and vncapable of defence. His vaine and childish Ibid. retorting of that I say of Bellarmines impudencie in another case and vpon another occasion, I little regard: seeing he gaue mee just cause to say that I sayd, and I had good aduantage against him; whereas this prating Fugitiue hath none against mee.

§. 3.

THe next Father, which he sayth I haue abused, is S. Hierome: the supposed abuse offered to him, is, that I say, he was of opinion, that howsoeuer deuils and impious ones shall neuer be saued; yet all right-beleeuing Christians, how wickedly soeuer they liue, shall, after punishments suffered and endured, be saued in the end. It was my hard happe to fall into the hands of this seuere censurer, that brandeth all that come in his way, with the note of ill dealing, and abuse of Fathers: and therefore I thinke I must be forced to appeale from him. And because Bellarmine is by him pronounced worthy of immortall honour, let vs heare what he wil pronounce: De purgatorio, lib. 2. cap. 1. There are, saith he, who thinke, that blessed Hierom was in this error: yet it seemeth he was not. Here is a more aduised, and temperate censure, then that of hot-spurre Higgons. Some thinke he was in this errour, but it seemeth he was not. So that it is not certaine that he erred not in this point, but doubtfull: and my dealing is not so bad, as Maister Higgons would make it to bee. But let vs appeale yet farther, and make Hierome himselfe, euen good Saint Hierome, as this smatterer is pleased to stile him, iudge betweene vs: If I make it not as cleare as the sunne at noone day, that hee was in this error, out of his owne indubitate writing, let Higgons insult vpon me at his pleasure: but if I doe, I would intreat his superiours to teach him better manners.

In his first booke against the Pelagians, he distinguisheth vnrighteous men, & sinners, frō vngodly, or impious: defining them to be vngodly, or impious, that either neuer knew God, or after they had the knowledge of God, corrupted and changed it; and then pronounceth, that the vnrighteous and sinners, that haue the right knowledge of God, shall not perish euerlastingly. His words are these. Who can endure that you haue in the Chapter following? that the vnrighteous and sinners shall not bee spared in the day of judgment, but be burned vp in those eternall fires? that you goe about to stop the course of Gods mercie, and to iudge of the sentence of the judge, before the day of judgement? so that although hee would, hee may not spare the vnrighteous and sinners, because you prescribe the contrary; for you say, it is written in the Psalme, Let the sinners faile from the earth, and the vnrighteous, that they bee noe more. And againe in Esay, The vnrighteous and sinners shall be burned together, & they that forsake God shall be destroyed, & do you not vnderstand that the threats of God haue sometimes a sound of mercy? for hee doth not say, they shall bee burned vp in euerlasting fire; but that they shall faile from the earth, and that the vnrighteous shall cease: for it is one thing for them to cease from sinne, and iniquity: and another thing for them to perish for euer, and to be burnt vp in euerlasting fire. To conclude, Esaias, whose testimony you bring, sayth, the sinners and vnrighteous shall bee burned together: and addeth not, for euer: And they that forsake God shall be vtterly destroyed. This he speaketh properly of heretiques, who vnlesse they conuert from their errors, shall perish: but what rashnesse is it to match and joyne together vnrighteous men & sinners, with such as are impious & vngodly? who are thus defined by vs. Euery impious & vngodly man is an vnrighteous man and a sinner, but there is no reciprocation: neither may we say euery sinner & vnrighteous man is also an impious & vngodly man: for impiety properly pertaineth to them, that haue not the knowledge of God, or hauing had the knowledge of God, haue corrupted and chaunged the same, &c. The Apostle to the Romanes sayth, who-soeuer haue sinned without the Law shall perish without the Lawe; and whosoeuer haue sinned in the Lawe, shall be iudged by the Law. He that is without the Lawe, is the godlesse or impious man, who shall perish euerlastingly: but he that is in the Law, is the sinner that beleeueth in God, who shall bee judged by the Law, and not perish. And afterwards hee addeth these words: If Origen doe say, that no reasonable Creature shall perish, and attribute repentance to the diuell; what is that to vs, who say that the Diuell and his Angels, & all impious men and prevaricators shall perish for euer, and that Christians if they shall be prevented & taken in sin, shall be saued after punishment? Here we see the difference made not betweene one degree of sinners, & another, but between sinners that professe rightly, & impious & vngodly men, that haue not the knowledge of God, or by heresie haue perverted the same: betweene men sinning without the Law, & so perishing, & men sinning in the Law, that is, hauing the true knowledge of the Law, and so judged by it, & yet not perishing euerlastingly. Whence it followeth necessarily, that he thinketh all right beleeuers shall be saued. Which is farther confirmed, in that, hauing excluded impious men, he speaketh generally of Christians, as in a state of salvation notwithstanding sin, though after grieuous punishments to be indured.

In his Commentaries vpon Esay, hauing spoken of their conceipt, who thinke, that all that haue sinned & offended God, shall in the end find mercy, and that no torments b In ultima verba Esaiae. shall be eternall, he concludeth in this sort: As we beleeue that the torments of the diuel, of such as deny God, and of impious men, which haue said in their hearts, there is no God, are eternall: so we thinke, that the sentence of the Iudge, that shall be pronounced vpon sinners & vngodly men, who yet are Christians, whose workes are to bee tryed and purged in the fire, shall be moderate and mixed with clemency. Where we see againe, he maketh not the difference betweene the degrees of sinne, as the Romanists doe, but betweene impious men, that say in their hearts there is no God, that deny God and his truth; and Christians that are vnrighteous and sinners. Neither are those words, whose workes are to be tryed and purged in the fire, to bee taken distinctiuely, to note forth vnto vs one certain degree of Christians, who shall suffer a temporall punishment in fire, as M. Higgons would haue them: but explicatiuely, to signifie the condition of all Christians. Which appeareth, because otherwise he would not haue said of sinners, & yet Christians; but of sinners, & yet such Christians, whose works are to be tryed in the fire. This explicatiō is added to put a difference between Christians, & such as are no Christians; because the works of Christians only, & of all Christians, shall come to be tryed in the fire of Gods judgment, others being judged already, as Hierome speaketh, & adjudged to eternall perdition. These circūstances of the words of Hierome considered, I thinke there is no indifferent reader, but wil cōceiue his opiniō to haue bin, as I haue deliuered it: & that I haue no way wronged him, but that Higgons hath causelesly wronged Me.

Some places there are in Hierome that are brought to proue, that he was of another opinion, but they proue nothing. The first is out of his Commentaries vpon Hosea, where he saith, In cap. 4. Hos. When heretickes see men offend against God, they say, God seeketh nothing of them but the verity of faith: for this cause the people are not humbled, but they reioyce in their sinnes; and goe forward with a stiffe necke: wherefore the People and Priest, Master and Schollers, are bound vp in the same judgment. This place is alledged to no purpose: For here Hierome sheweth onely, that Heretickes teaching falsely that God requireth not good works; and such as beleeuing them, shall rejoyce in euill doing, shall perish: which is no way contrary to the other conceipt, that right beleeuing Christians, liuing ill, shall in the end be saued. The next place they bring, is out of his Commentaries vpon Mathew: the words are these: In cap. 25 Math. Marke prudent Reader, that both punishments are eternall, and that euerlasting life hath no more feare of any fallings away: which no way contraryeth the opinion of Hierome beforementioned. For hee is resolued, that the punishments of the Diuell, his Angells and all impious ones, are eternall: but thinketh right beleeuers, though liuing wickedly, shall bee punished but for a time. That out of his Commentaries vpon the Galathians, In 5 ad Gal. That enmity, contention, wrath, brawling, dissention, drunkennesse, and other-like, which wee esteeme to bee but small euills, exclude vs from the Kingdome of GOD; If it bee vnderstood of right beleeuers, accorcording to Hieromes opinion, sheweth onely what these deserue, namely exclusion from the Kingdome of God, but preiudice not the riches of his mercy towardes them that doe such things. Heere by the way I would haue the reader to obserue a grosse ouersight in M. Higgons; who saith, Pag. 123. it may as well be inferred out of the writings of Hierome, that he thought all Christians shall in the end be saued, how damnably soeuer erring in matters of faith, as right beleeuers: Whereas, distinguishing the godlesse or impious man that neuer knew God, or corrupteth the knowledge hee had of God, as heretickes, from a sinner or vnrighteous man, he expresly pronounceth the one to perish euerlastingly and not the other. Hauing thus cleared my selfe from the suspition of wrong offered to Hierome, which M. Higgons would willingly fasten on me, I will perswade my selfe to contemne the wrongs he doth me: As namely, Pag. 121 122. & 12 •… . that I vse the testimonies of this Saint at my pleasure, that I vainely elude the truth, and vnconscionably intreat the Fathers; that I craftily conuay wordes into Saint Augustin: that I sort my termes wisely for my aduantage, and that I seeke to dazle the vnderstanding of my readers: If Master Higgons were a man of any worth, and should entreat mee thus ill without all cause as hee doth, I would lette him knowe more of my minde: but I haue resolued not to turne backe to euery Curre that barketh at mee.

SECT. 4.

WHerefore from Hierome I will passe to Ambrose, whom this prophane Esau (who hath sold his birth-right for a messe of pottage, for more I thinke hee will not haue for it) bringeth in as hee saith, Pag. 125. to make vp the messe. In this idle discourse touching Ambrose, the poore fellow is to bee pittied, or laughed at, accordingly as men are disposed: so ridiculously doth hee behaue himselfe. The circumstances of the matter are these. In the place cited by him, first, Third booke of the Church. cap. 17. I shew in what sort men prayed lawfully for the dead, without any conceit of Purgatory, namely respectiuely to their passage hence, and enterance into the other world, and for their resurrection, publicke acquitall in the day of iudgement, and perfit consummation & blisse. Secondly, I shew first, what erroneous conceits some particular men in former times had, touching the possibility of helping men dying in mortall sinne, whereupon they prayed for the dead, in such sort as the Romanistes dare not doe: as for the deliuerance of men out of hell, or at least the suspension or mitigation of their paines, & secondly, that they thought that there is no iudgement to passe vpon men, till the last day; that in the meane while, all men are holden either in some place vnder the earth, or else in some other place appointed for that purpose; so that they come not into heauen, nor receiue the reward of their labours till the generall iudgement; and that out of this conceit that prayer in Iames his Liturgie grew, that God would remember all the faithfull that are fallen asleepe in the sleepe of death, since Abell the iust till this present day: and that hee would place them in the land of the liuing, as also many other like. Of this opinion I report Iustine Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, Pope Iohn the two and twentith, and Ambrose to haue been, besides sundry other.

All that which I haue said touching the lawfull and vnlawfull formes of praying for the dead, vsed amongst the Auncient, no way importing any conceit in them of Purgatory, hee passeth ouer in silence, as no way able to refute any part of it; & likewise by his silence yeeldeth that Iustine Martyr, Tertullian, Clement Bishop of Rome, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, and Pope Iohn the two and twentith were of the opinion I speake of; to whom I might haue added Irenaeus, Bernard, Theophylact, and many more. That all these should be charged with this opinion, or with this folly, as hee will haue it, it neuer troubleth him: onely he is much moued that Ambrose should be charged with any such thing: It seemeth he is not of the Gregorian, but of the Ambrosian Church, in that hee is carelesse what becommeth of his Popes, Clement, and Iohn, so all bee well with Ambrose. Pag 1 •… . Hee was tormented (he saith) with a necessary suspicion rather of my vnfaithfulnesse in this report, then of Saint Ambrose his folly in this matter. Surely, if hee were as wise as hee is wilfull, hee would not passe his censures, as he doth; for it is no such folly, but that as wise a man, as S. Ambrose, might fall into it, to thinke as so many learned, worthy and renowned Diuines did; and therefore Lib. 3. aduersus Haereses. Alfonsus á Castro, hauing charged the Graecians and Armenians with this error, saith, that after these, Iohn the two and twentith rose vp, and embraced the same opinion: and least any man might giue lesse credit to his words, hee sayth hee will report the words of Pope Adrian, who writeth thus: Last of all it is reported of Iohn the 22, that he publikely taught, declared and commanded all to hold that soules though purged from sinne, haue not that stole, which is the cleare vision of God face to face, before the last iudgement, and it is sayd, that hee brought the vniuersity of Paris to that point, that no man could take any degree in Diuinitie there, vnlesse first he did sweare to defend this error, and to adhere to it for euer: thus far Pope Adrian. Besides these there are other Patrons of this errour, men of renowne and famous both for sanctity and science; to witte, the most blessed Martyr of Christ, Irenaeus, Theophylact Bishoppe of Bulgaria and blessed Bernard. Neither should any man maruaile that soe great men fell into so pestilent an errour; seeing as blessed Iames the Apostle sayth, Hee that offendeth not in words, is a perfit man. Notwithstanding the Reader is here to be admonished, that hee thinke not, that this error detracteth any thing from the holynesse or learning of so great men (so that it is no such imputation of folly to attribute this opinion to Ambrose as wise M Higgons maketh it:) for whereas at that time the Church had defined nothing touching that matter, neyther had it euer bin called in question, & the testimonies of Scripture for that which is now defined, were not soe expresse, but that they might bee wrested into another sence: they might teach the one, or the other, without note of heresie: especially seeing there wanted not testimonies of Scripture, that seemed in some sort to fauour them. Thus farre Alfonsus a Castro. But let vs see how Maister Higgons will conuince mee, that I haue wronged Ambrose, which in soe clamorous manner hee vndertaketh to doe: Surely this is the ground of his quarrell against mee: that hauing imputed this opinion to Iustine Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Victorinus, and Ambrose; in the margent I referre the reader to Sixtus Senensis, who yet excused Ambrose from this error. But the silly Nouice should know, that I doe not say Sixtus Senensis attributeth that opinion to Ambrose, and that I put not his name in the margent, as if I grounded my imputation vppon his authority: For if I would haue done soe, I could haue mustered together a farre greater number then I haue done. But because it had bin tedious to haue sette downe the words of all those I mention, wherein they expresse their opinion, in the margent I referre the reader to Sixtus Senensis, who reporteth their wordes at large; according to the course of times wherein they flourished, that the reader within the compasse of one page may see what they say, without turning ouer their large volumes: and among other, the wordes of Ambrose, which I thinke, will strongly perswade him, hee was of that opinion, which I impute vnto him, howsoeuer Sixtus Senensis by a fauourable construction labour to excuse him. Let vs see therefore if Ambrose will not witnesse for mee, that I haue done him no wrong, but truly reported his opinion.

The first thing I imputed vnto him is, that hee thinketh, as many other did before and after him, that there is no iudgement to passe vpon men till the last day; If this be not cleerely prooued out of Ambrose his owne wordes, lette the Reader thinke I haue wronged him. In his second booke of Caine and Abell, he hath these words. The Maister of a Shippe, when hee hath brought his Shippe into the hauen, scarce thinketh hee hath ended his labour, before hee beginne to seeke the beginning of a newe: Soluitur corpore anima & post finem vitae huius, adhuc tamen futu •… judicijambiguo sulpenditur. the soule is loosed from the body, and after the end of this life it is still holden in suspence, vpon the vncertainty and doubtfulnesse of the future iudgement; soe is there no end where there is thought to be an end.

The second thing I attribute to Ambrose, is, that hee thinketh the soules of men are kept in some place appointed for that purpose, soe that they come not into heauen till the generall iudgment. Let vs heare him speake him-selfe, and then lette the Reader iudge, whether hee say not all that I impute vnto him. In his booke Cap. 10. de bo •… mortis, he hath these words. In the bookes of Esdras wee read, that when the day of iudgement shall come, the earth shall restore the bodies of the dead, and the dust shall restore those reliques and remaines of the dead which rest in the graues, and the secret habitations shall restore the soules which haue beene committed to them, and the most High shall be revealed vpon the Seate of Iudgement. From hence hee saith, the Gentiles tooke those things which they admire in the bookes of Philosophers: and (blaming them that they mingled superfluous and vnprofitable things with those that are true, as the demigration of soules into bees, birds, and the like fancies) saith, it had been sufficient for them to haue said, that soules deliuered out of mortall bodies, petunt Haden, that is, goe into an invisible place: which place in Latine is called Infernus; and farther addeth, that the Scripture calleth these secret habitations of soules, Store-houses. Heere we see Ambrose saith, there are certaine secret habitations of soules, which though they be higher then the receptacles of dead bodies, yet are rightly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, & Infernus in Latin: & that these are Storehouses, keeping those soules that are committed to them till the Resurrection, and then restoring them. If M. Higgons doe thinke that Infernus is Heauen, then I haue no more to say to him: otherwise I thinke the evidence of this place cannot be avoyded.

The third thing I impute to Ambrose, is, that the soules of the Iust receiue not the reward of their labours till the Generall Iudgement. Touching which point hee hath these words, Vbi sup •… , The Scripture meeting with the complaints of men which they doc or may make, for that the Iust which went before, seeme to bee defrauded of the reward due vnto them for a long time, euen till the day of Iudgement, wonderfully saith, that the day of Iudgment is like vnto a ring or crowne, wherein as there is no slacknesse of the last, so is there no swiftnesse of the first: for the day of crowning is expected by all; that within it they that are ouercome may be ashamed, and they that are conquerours may attaine the palme of victory: and, after some other things inserted, he addeth, that so long as the fulnesse of time is expected, the soules expect their due reward: though neither the one sort be without all sence of euill, nor the other of good. Thus if it had pleased M. Higgons to look into Ambrose himselfe, & not to the opinion of Senensis (to which I referre not the Reader, as he vntruly saith I doe: but to the words of Ambrose cited by him) hee might haue found that I dealt faithfully and sincerely in this matter, and so haue spared a great number of reproachfull termes he now bestoweth very liberally on me.

Some man happily will say, that elsewhere Ambrose seemeth to place the soules of Iust men in Heauen before the Resurrection, and that this place de bono mortis, is to be interpreted by them. Wherevnto I answere, that places where things are but spoken of in passage, and not purposely, are rather to be interpreted by those, wherein they are purposely handled, then otherwise: and therefore this place de bono mortis; wherein he goeth about to describe at large the state of the dead, must bee a rule to interprete other places by. The most pregnant proofe that is brought to the contrary out of his indubitate workes, is out of his Ep. l. 7. ep. 55. Fpistle to the Thessalonians. where, speaking of Acholius, of whose death he had lately heard, he fayth, Hee is now an inhabitant of the higher world, a possessor of the eternall city of Hierusalem, that is in Heauen, that hee seeth there the vnmeasurable measure of that City the pure gold, the pretious stone, perpetuall light without any sunne; and these things truely were well knowne to him before, but now seeing face to face hee sayth as wee haue heard, so haue wee seene in the City of the Lord of hoastes, in the Citty of our God: and out of the last of his Epistles, where, speaking of certaine Martyrs, hee sayth, Lib. 10. ep. vl. their soules are in Heautn, their bodies on Earth: but the answere hereunto for the reconciling of the seeming contradictions of Ambrose, is easie; for in the former place Cap. 11. De bono mortis hee sheweth, that hee thinketh that the soules of the Iust, by seauen seuerall degrees, as it were by the space of seauen dayes, are ledde along to take a view of the things they shall enioy after the judgement: and that afterwardes they are gathered into their habitations, there to enioy the benefite of their quiet congregating, or gathering together: seauen dayes liberty they haue to see the former things, and then they are gathered into their habitations. The seuen degrees by which they are led those seuen dayes; are 1 the consideration of their victory, which they haue obtained ouer the flesh and other like enemies. 2 The quiet they find in themselues, from these perturbations, and tormentings of conscience, which the wicked are subiect vnto. Thirdly, the Diuine testimonie which they haue in themselues, that they haue kept the Law, making them not to feare the vncertaine euent of the future iudgement. Fourthly, their beginning to discerne their rest and future glory. Fifthly, triumphant ioy, in that they are come out of the prison of a corruptible body, into light and liberty, and to possesse the inheritance promised to them. 6. The brightnesse of their countenances, beginning to shine as the sunne. 7. Their confident hastning to see the face and countenance of God. Hauing beene thus led along, they are brought into their habitations, where they comfort themselues, in the fore-sight of that which shall be, and rest peaceably, guarded by the Angels, in a place, as he describeth it, aboue the earth and places of dead bodies, and yet below the highest heauen, the place of perfit happinesse. And so Acholius might be said by Ambrose to bee an inhabitant of the higher places, and to see the glory of the Hierusalem that is aboue, and yet not bee in the highest heauen. But, he saith, Acholius is a possessor of that eternall Citty, and that the Martyrs bodies are on earth, and their soules in heaven; therefore he thought the spirits of the iust, to be in the highest heauen, before the resurrection. This consequence, I feare, will hardly bee made good: for In festo omnium Sanctorum Serm 3. Bernard (who is confessed to haue holden the opinion which I impute to Ambrose) maketh three estates of soules: the first, in Tabernaculis, the second, in Atriis: and the third, in Domo interiori: That is, the first in Tents or Tabernacles, while they remaine in the corruptible bodies of men that are in the warfare of Christ in the world: the second, in the outward Courtes of the Lords house: and the third, in the inner roomes of the house of God: so sorting these thinges, that both the latter states of soules of men may bee said and thought to bee in a sort in heauen, and to haue possession of the eternall Ierusalem, that is in Heauen, and yet but one of them bee in the highest heauen, where the perfection of the happy vision of God is: to which purpose it is, that Saint Augustine saith: In Psal. 36. after this life thou shalt not be there where the Saintes shall be, to whom it shall bee said, come yee blessed of my father, receiue the Kingdome which was prepared for you from the beginning of the world; but thou maist bee where the proud rich man in the middest of torments saw a farre off the poore man, sometimes full of vlcers, resting: in that rest thou shalt securely expect the day of iudgement. Heere hee denyeth directly the soules of the iust to bee in heauen, where they shall bee after the resurrection, & generall iudgement. In his Lib. 9. cap. 3. Confessions he saith, Now Nebridius liueth in the bosome of Abraham, whatsoeuer that it is that is signifyed by that bosome; there liueth my Nebridius, my sweete friend. Heere wee see hee is doubtfull what the bosome of Abraham is. Vpon Genesis he doubteth, whether the soules of the iust bee in the third heauen, or n Li: 12, ca: 34. not: which peremptorily in the place before cited hee denyed. Neither doth hee speake thus doubtfully touching the place only, but touching the state of happinesse also: for in his Retractations thus he writeth: Retract. l. 1. c. 14. That maketh vs most happy, whereof the Apostle speaketh, saying, then shall I see him face to face; and then shall I know as I am knowne: they that haue found this, are to bee said to be in the possession of blessednesse; but who these most blessed ones are who are in that possession, it is a great question: that the holy Angells are, there is no question, but concerning holy men departed, whether they may be said to be now already in that possession, it is doubtfull, &c. Surely it is maruaile if Saint Augustine escape the censure of Master Higgons, who pronounceth it folly to doubt of these thinges. Lib. 6. Annotat. 345. Sixtus Senensis saith, wee must ciuilly interpret Saint Augustine in these his sayings; but De Sanctorū beatitud. lib. 1. cap. 5. Bellarmine saith directly, hee sometimes doubted of the place where the soules of the iust are after death: and that vpon the 36. Psalme he denyeth them to be there, where after the iudgement they shall bee: This is that Augustine, that Master Higgons, in his scurrill and ruffian-like phrase, saith, Pag. 121. was not so easily to bee iaded by me, as Ambrose; Thinking them all Iades as it seemeth, and vnfitte for such a horse-man as hee is to ride on, that haue beene doubtfull or found to erre in this point; if he doe, I would desire to know of him what he thinketh of Irenaus, Aduersu. he •… . 5. in fine. who saith, that the soules of men dying shall goe into an invisible place appointed for them by God, and shall abide there till the resurrection, attending and waiting for it; and that after, receiuing their bodies and perfitly rising againe, that is, corporally, as Christ rose, they shall come into the sight of God. Of Iustine Martyr, who saith, Lib. quaest. 〈◊〉 Gentib. propositarum. quaest. 76. no man receiueth the reward of the thinges he did in this life, till the resurrection: that the soule of the good theefe, that was crucified with Christ, entered into Paradise, and is kept there till the day of resurrection, & reward; that there the soules of good men doe see the humanity of Christ, themselues, the thinges that are vnder them, and besides, the Angels and Diuels. Of Tertullian who saith: Nulli patet coelum, terrâ adhuc salvâ, ne dixer im clausa: that is, heauen is open to none; while the earth remaineth safe and whole, that I say not shut vp: and u Aduersus Marcionem. l. 4 againe, Ibid. thou hast our booke of Paradise, wherein wee determine that euery soule is sequestred, apud inferos, with them that are in the lower dwellings, till the day of the Lord. Of Lactantius, Diuinar. Instit. li. 7. ca. 21. who will haue no man thinke that soules are iudged presently after death, but that they are all detayned and kept in one common custody, till the time come when the greatest iudge shall examine their workes. Of Victorinus Martyr, who vpon those wordes of Iohn in the Reuelation, I saw the soules of the slaine vnder the Altar of God, obserueth, that in the time of the Law, there were two Altars, one of Gold, within; another of brasse, without; that as heauen is vnderstood by that golden Altar, that was within, to which the Priests entered onely once in the yeare; so by the brasen Altar, the earth is vnderstood, vnder which is Infernus, a region remoued from paines and fire, and the resting place of the Saints; in which the iust are seene and heard of the vngodly, & yet they cannot passe one to another. Of Bernard, whose opinion Li. 3. Aduersu Hereses. Alphonsus á Castro confesseth to be, as I haue said; & Vbi suprà. Sixtus Senensis likewise; but thinketh that hee is to be excused with a benigne affection, because of the exceeding great number of renowned Fathers of the Church, which seemed to giue authority to this opinion by their testimony, amongst whom he reckoneth Ambrose for one. Lastly, of Pope Iohn the 22. who was violent in the maintenance of this opinion? These premises considered, let the Reader iudge, whether Master Higgons had any cause to complaine of want of faithfullnesse and exactnesse in me, in that I say, that many of the Fathers thought there is no iudgment to passe vpon men till the last day, that all men are holdē either in some place vnder the earth, or else in some other place appointed for that purpose, so that they come not into heauen, nor receiue the reward of their labours till the generall iudgement: and that many made prayers for the dead out of this conceipt, such as that is in Iames his Liturgy: that God would remember all the faithfull that are falne a sleepe in the sleepe of death since Abel the Iust till this present time. For I doe not make this the ground of the generall practise, and intention of the Church, in her prayers, as this shamelesse companion would make men beleeue.

SECT. 5.

FRom the foure Doctors of the Church, and the supposed wronges offered to them; he proceedeth to shew that I Pag. 134. calumniate a worthy person, to defend the inexcusable folly of our Geneuian Apostle; his meaning is that I wrong Bellarmine, to iustifie Calvine: but what is the wrong done to the Cardinall? Pag. 130. Doctour Field, saith hee, accuseth Bellarmine vniustly of trifeling and sencelesse foolery in the question of prayer for the dead: Let the reader take the paines to peruse the Third booke of the Church chap. 17. place cited by Master Higgons out of my booke, and he shall finde him to bee a very false, vnhonest, & trifeling fellow in so saying. For first, I doe not accuse Bellarmine of sencelesse foolery in the matter of prayer for the dead, (as hee vntruly reporteth against his owne knowledge,) but in that he seeketh to calumniate Master Caluine, worthy of eternall honor, in very childish sort, about the name of Merit. Caluine saith, the Fathers were farre from the Popish errour touching merit, and that yet they vsed the word, whence men haue since taken occasion of errour; therefore saith Bellarm: hee dissenteth from all antiquity, and acknowledgeth the Romane faith to be the auncient faith & religion. This is Bellarmines form of reasoning against Caluin, if he say any thing: which whether it be full of senceles foolery, or not, I wil refer it to the iudgment of any one that hath his sences. Yet notwithstanding M. Higgons goeth on, & maketh a consolatory conclusion, Pag. 130. that Bell: needeth not to be discontented, that I haue thus wronged him; seeing I haue likewise vniustly accused the Fathers. But if hee may be as justly charged with foolery in his manner of reasoning against Calvin, as the Fathers are truely reported to haue holden the opinion imputed to them by me, as there is no question but he may, I thinke this comfortable conclusion will not be very cordiall vnto him. Secondly, I doe not say that Bellarmine doth trifle in the question of prayer for the dead; as he likewise, adding one lye to another, sayth I doe; but in prouing the doctrine of the Romane Church that now is, to be the same with that which was of olde. And therefore silly Master Higgons knoweth not what he writeth. But that Bellarmine doth indeede (whatsoeuer this trifler sayth to the contrary) egregiously trifle, I will demonstrate to the Reader in such sort, that neither Higgons, nor any of his new masters shall be able to avoyde it. Thus therefore the case standeth. Bellarmine in his Lib. 4. de notis eccles. c. 9 discourse of the notes of the Church, (not in the particular question of prayer for the dead) vndertaketh to proue the conspiring of the present Romane Church with the true Catholique Church that was of olde: this he saith, may be proued by producing the sayings and sentences of the Fathers touching euery particular controversie, now on foote: but because this would be a tedious course, he saith there is another shorter and certainer way, by demonstrating out of the confession of Protestant Writers, first, that the points now defended by Papists, are the doctrines of all the Auncient: secondly, that the doctrine of the Protestants was condemned by the Auncient Church. Touching the first, hee goeth about to proue, that Protestants confesse the points of Popish doctrine to bee the doctrine of the Auncient, because Caluine in his Institutions, when hee oppugneth the assertions of Papists, confesseth, that in so doing he opposeth himselfe against all Antiquity. Amongst other particulars he giueth instance of prayer for the dead. So that the thing which the Cardinall is to proue, is this: that Caluine impugning the Popish manner of prayer for the dead, to deliuer men out of Purgatory, confesseth himselfe in so doing, to be opposite to all Antiquity; and consequently, that all Antiquity beleeued Purgatory, and admitted a necessity of praying for the deliuerance of men out of it. This he doth not but is forced to confesse, that Caluine affirmeth, that the doctrine of Purgatory, and prayer to deliuer men thence, was vnknowne to all Antiquity: whence it followeth vnavoydably, that the Cardinall doth nothing but trifle; for if to talke idlely, and not to conclude the thing intended be to trifle, he is found to do so most grossely. Neither doth it helpe the matter, that Caluine confesseth, that many of the Fathers were led into errour in the matter of prayer for the dead, as namely such as thought they might suspend, mitigate, or wholly take away the paines or punishments of men in hell; for these errors the Romanists condemne, & dislike as much as wee: but saith Master Higgons, Pag. 133: Master Caluine confesseth the action of praying for the dead was performed by the Auncient, howsoeuer he litigate about the intention. It is true, he doth so, but his confession maketh neither hot nor cold to any thing now in controuersie and question betweene Vs and the Papists. Whereforeto silence this pratler, that multiplyeth vaine wordes without all sense or reason: first wee say, that neither Calvine, or any of vs, did euer simply condemne all prayer for the dead: for wee all pray for the resurrection, publike acquitall in the day of CHRIST, and perfit consummation of them that are dead in the LORD; and therefore the generall practise and intention of the Ancient in praying for the dead, is not condemned by vs. Secondly, we say, that some of the Auncient prayed for the dead in such sort, as neither wee nor the Romanists dare allow, as for the suspension, mitigation, or releasing of the paines of such as are in hell, and so were carryed into errour as Calvine rightly noteth. Thirdly, we say, that neuer any man amongst the Auncients, knew any thing of Purgatory, or the Popish manner of praying to deliuer men thence. So that I trifle not in accusing Bellarmine, and defending Calvine, as hee is pleased to tell mee I doe, in the front and title of his next ensuing Chapter, but he talketh idlely as his manner is.

§. 6.

HIs next challenge is, that pag. 134. I make an vntrue construction of the Heresie of Aerius, condemning the commendations of the dead, vsed in the Church at that time. For the clearing whereof, wee must make a difference betweene the generall practise and intention of the Church, and the priuate opinion and conceipt of some particular men in the Church. The generall practice of the Church was, first, to name the names of the dead, and to keepe a commemoration of them, to signifie & expresse the assurance that resteth in the liuing, that they are not extinct, but that they are and liue with God, that their spirits and soules are immortall, and that their bodies shall rise againe. Secondly to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is, of praise and thanksgiuing for them, to desire of God the destroying of the last enemy, which is death, the raising of them vp againe in the last day, the publique remission of their sins in the iudgement of that great day, and their perfit consummation and blisse: which Aerius could not condemne without iust note of hereticall temerity and rashnesse: and all these things are excellently deliuered by Haeres. 75. Epiphanius, and rightly iustified by him as right and good. Some there were that extended these prayers farther, supposing that men dying in the state of sinne, may be relieued by the piety and deuotion of the liuing; whose erroneous conceipt Aerius hauing an eye vnto, rather then to the generall practise and intention of the Church, inferred, that if it bee soe, men may doe what euils they will, and be freed from the punishments of them, by the meanes of such friends as they think good to procure & assure to thē in the end, to make prayers for them after they are gone. To which obiection Epiphanius answereth, that though the prayers of the liuing cutte not off the whole punishment of sinne, yet some mercie is obtained for sinners by them, at the least for some mitigation or suspension of their punishments: of which opinion, as I haue shewed before, many other were as well as Epiphanius: and Enchirid. ad Laurentium. cap. 67. Saint Augustine seemeth not much to dislike it, saying; if the mercifull men of his time would haue contented themselues with an opinion of the onely mitigation or suspension of the punishment of the damned, he would not haue striued much with them about the matter: so that if Aerius his reprehension had reached onely to this erroneous conceipt, hee had neuer beene condemned for his censure: but, in that vppon the consideration of the error of some particular men, hee presumed to condemne a generall custome, that was lawfull and good, hee was iustly condemned himselfe, as rash and inconsiderate: which things considered, the Pag. 138. & 140. contradiction which this simple fellow would faine force vppon vs, is easilie auoided: for his reprehension of the particular erroneous conceipt, and sinister intention of some men, misvnderstanding the Churches prayers, is rightly iustified by Doctor Humphrey and the rest named by him: and his reprehension of the generall practise and intention of the Church is rightly condemned by mee and others: and the Church of that time defended against his rash and inconsiderate censure. Neither let this foolish Fugitiue thinke that he can blow vp all with the breath of his mouth, and put away this distinction by the sound of his bare word, and by only saying, I vainely excuse the folly of Protestants, which sheweth it selfe in the diuersity of their censures touching the heresie of Aerius: nor by sporting himselfe with the soueraigne plaister applied by me: for it will be found to haue vertue to heale a greater wound then he can cause.

§. 7.

BVt it is time for mee to looke about mee, for I heare a horrible outcry as if Hanniball were at the gates of the cittie. Theophilus Higgons causeth it to be proclaymed with sound of Trumpet, that Pag. 153. I haue shewed my selfe a notable trifler in the question of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, to the vtter confusion of my booke and the Protestanticall Church. When Moyses came downe from the Mount, and heard the noyse in the Campe, he sayd, Exod. 32. •… 8. It was not the noyse of them that ouercome in battel, nor of them that are ouercome but of singing. So is this hideous clamor, but the venting of the boyish vanity of a foolish youth, in sporting sort, calling companie to come and play with him; for all that he saith, will be found to be lesse then nothing. The occasion of this strange out-crie is this.

In the Appendix to the third booke, I shewe, that there was nothing constantly resolued on in the Romane Church in the dayes of our Fathers, before Luther beganne, touching that Purgatory that is denied by vs, and defended by the Papists: which I haue demonstrated in such sort, that this fellow hath nothing to oppose against it, but flourishes of his youthfull Rhetoricke. For the more cleare and perfit vnderstanding whereof, the Reader must obserue, that wee all acknowledge a purging out of sinne, in the dissolution of soule and bodie, and in the first enterance of the soule into the state of the other world: But all the question is of the nature, kinde, & qualitie of it. Luther (saith De purgatorio. li: 2: cap: 9. Bellarmine) admitteth, a kind of Purgatory, but of most short continuance: For hee supposeth that all sinnes are purged out by the dolours of death, or by the very separation of soule and body, wrought by death. Which opinion of Luther wee all follow; and the same was embraced by many in the Romane Church in the daies of our Fathers, before Luther was borne, who taught then, as wee doe now, that all veniall sinnes are done away and purged out in the moment of dissolution, and in the first entrance into the other world, as I haue shewed In Appendice. cap. 20. before. So that concerning Purgatorie, properly, as it serueth to purge out the impuritie of sinne, there was nothing resolued on in the daies of our Fathers, but that which wee willingly admitte. But the Papists at this day deny, that all veniall sinnes are purged out in the dissolution of soule and body, and the first enterance into the state of the other world. They imagine that they are long in purging out, that they are purged in materiall fire, and that the place of their purging out is below in the earth, nearely bordering vpon the Hell of the damned. This is the true difference betweene Protestants and Papists, and rightly deliuered by me, howsoeuer it please Master Higgons to say, Pag. 155. I yeeld not the true difference in this matter, nor propose the question as in learning and honesty it became me. It is true, that he saith, that wee must distinguish matter of substance from matter of circumstance, and that it is sufficient to haue fundamentall vnity in the first, howsoeuer there may be accidentall diversitie in the second. But it is a matter of substance whether all sinnefulnesse bee purged out in the moment of dissolution; they deny it; wee affirme it; and are well assured they canne neuer proue that all our fathers agreed with them in this matter of substance; and therefore Master Higgons may soone be answered, when hee asketh, Pag. 158. where that man is, who in the time of our fathers denied Purgatorie, or shewed any doubtfulnesse therein against the essentiall Doctrine in which the true difference betwixt Papists and Protestants doth stand most eminently at this day; seeing there were found very many, as I haue shewed before, who not onely doubted of the circumstances of materiall fire, place, and instruments of punishment, but taught as wee doe against the Papists, in the most substantiall point of all other, that all sinnefulnesse is purged out of the soules of men departing hence in the state of grace, not by materiall fire, in a place of Purgation, vnder the earth, or neare Hell: nor by being afflicted by the ministerie of Deuills, or otherwise; but by the completion of the state of grace, getting full dominion in the soule, vpon her diuiding from the body, in the moment of dissolution. Now if all impurity and staine of sinne bee purged out in the moment of dissolution by the taking away of impediments, and leauing grace to her selfe, that shee may fill all with her diuine effects, as many of our fore-fathers beleeued, and taught; there is no such Purgatorie, as the Papists at this day imagine. If it be said, that though all sinne be purged out by death, in respect of the staine or sinfull impurity, yet the punishment remaineth, and so there is a kinde of Purgatorie, wherein men are to suffer the punishments due to sinnes past, though now perfectly blotted out: It will easily be answered, that whatsoeuer is of force to doe away all impurity of sinne offending God, is likewise able to reconcile God vnto vs, so perfectly, as that no guilt of punishments shall remaine. For, seeing it is the nature of grace to expell sinne, offending God, and to make men acceptable to God, that stood in termes of disfauour before: where grace is so perfect, as that it expelleth all sinfulnesse, there it must needes worke and procure a perfect reconciliation; with which, guilt of punishment cannot stand. Besides, charity implieth a dislike of all that which is displeasing to God, whom we loue, and a sorrow that wee haue offended him: therefore charitie in such perfection as is able to purge out all impuritie of sinne, implieth dislike of that which in sinning was ill affected and desired before, and sorrow for the same, aequivalent to the pleasure and delight taken in sinning; and consequently doth satisfie God in such sort, as that no punishment shall come vpon him that so sorroweth. Thirdly, the punishments of men, pure and cleane from sinne, for such sinnes as they formerly committed: if any such be imagined, cannot be named Purgatory punishments, but satisfactory onely. So that if all sinfulnesse be purged our, there remaineth afterwards no Purgatory properly so named. Lastly, if it were doubtfull in the dayes of our Fathers, as Master Higgons Pag. 154 confesseth it was, whether the fire bee materiall, or not, in which men are to satisfie GODS displeasure: what kind of suffering it is that is to satisfie, whether of sorrow onely, or some thing inflicted from without, and likewise how long it doth continue: it is evident, that notwithstanding any thing resolued on in former times, God may be so satisfied by the first conversion of the soule vpon her separation, turning vnto him in mislike of her former misdeeds, as that all guilt of punishments may be vtterly taken away in the very moment of dissolution. Whence it will follow, that nothing was constantly, certainely, and genelally resolued on in the dayes of our Fathers, touching the condition of such as dyed in an imperfect state of grace, contrary to any thing holden by vs at this day. These premisses considered, and euery of these things being confessed by Master Higgons or proued abundantly by Mee, it seemeth the poore man is beside himselfe, and that his discontentments haue made him madde. For otherwise what should moue him, like a madde man, to crye out in such sort, as hee doth, Pag. 15 •… That I haue disabled my booke, and ouerthrowne the Protestanticall Church: that Papistes may triumph in the victory, which their chiefest enemies haue wrought in their behalfe, and ioyfully applaud the excellencie of their cause, which enforceth her greatest aduersaries to prostitute themselues to such base and dishonest courses.

Let the base Runnagate looke to himselfe, and his conscience will tell him that his courses haue beene base, dishonest, perfidious, & vnnaturall, (that I say not monstrous) but our cause is such as shall euer be able to vpholde it selfe against all opposers, without any such shifting devices as they of the adverse faction are forced to vse, for the staying of that from falling for a little while, that must fall and come to nothing, in despight of all that Diuels or diuellish men by lying, slaundering, murdering, and all hellish practises can doe to sustaine it.

§. 8.

THus haue I breefely runne thorough his two bookes: & answered whatsoeuer concerneth my selfe in the same, and so might passe presently to his Appendix: but that towards the end of the 2d part ofhis second booke, he once againe wrongeth that renowned Diuine Dr Humphrey, in such sort as is not to be endured For he chargeth him with vnfaithfulnesse in his relations, digressions from the matter, a generall imbecillity a Pag. 167. 168 169. 170. 171. 172. of his whole discourse, obscuritie, vncertainty, notorious deprauing of Saint Augustine, and other vnfaithfull practises against the same Father: and sayth, the detection of his falshood ministred the first occasion of his chaunge. If Master Higgons were not better knowne then trusted, some man happily would bee mooued to thinke that some very grosse and vnexcusable ouer-sights are found in Doctour Humphrey, against whom hee so clamorously inveigheth: but seeing all the world taketh notice what manner of man hee is, by that description of him which is found in a letter of a worthy Knight lately written to him, & another of his own father written to the same Knight, I think there is no man of any sence, that will regard his words any more then the braying of an Asse, or the bellowing of an Oxe when he lacketh fodder: yet to make it appeare, that he hath calumniated and wronged a worthy person without all cause or shew of cause, I will breefely set downe the summe of D. Humphrey his discourse. Whereas Rat. 3. Campian obiecteth to vs that we haue begged certaine fragments of opinions from Aerius, and others condemned as heretickes, first hee answereth, that we haue not receiued our faith from Heretickes, but from the Apostles and their successours. Secondly he sayth, that we condemne all the hereticall positions of Aerius, & yet admit whatsoeuer he held rightly, and agreably to the holy Scripture: in which saying, Maister Higgons telleth vs the Papists will concurre with him. Thirdly, he alloweth a commemoration of the Saints and holy ones departed, and consequently disliketh Aerius for condemning the same. Fourthly hee condemneth that abuse in praying for the dead which Aerius condemned, Fifthly, he sayth, the commemoration of the departed is not commanded in Scripture, but holden by custome of the Church. Sixtly, that if wee dye not in a true and liuely faith, all the prayers in the world cannot helpe vs, contrary to the error of those men, who thought that not onely a suspension or mitigation, but a totall release of the punishments of men dying in mortall sinnes, may be procured: which error De cura promortuis. Augustine refuteth by the euidence of the words of the Apostle, that vnlesse we here sowe vnto the spirit, we cannot reape immortality. And againe, that we must all stand before the Tribunall seate of Christ, that euery one may receiue according to the thinges hee did in this body, whether good or ill. Whence hee sayth is inferred, that vnlesse men depart hence in state of grace, all the world cannot releeue them afterwardes. These being the principall and most materiall partes and circumstances of D. Humphrey his discourse touching Aerius, let vs see what are the exceptions that Maister Higgons take against him. The first is, that he sayth there is no Scripture for that prayer for the dead that was ancienily vsed in the Church, and that Augustine seemeth to confesse as much, which hee Pag. 169. goeth about to improue, because Augustine alleageth the booke of Machabees for the practise of praying for the dead. But for answere here-vnto, 1. wee say that D. Humphrey denyeth, that there is any precept requiring vs to pray for the dead, found in Scripture, & speaketh nothing of exāples: And therefore the allegation of the book of Machabees is impertinent. 2. that the praier of Iudas Machabaeus mentioned in that booke, was not for the reliefe of the dead, but for the remission or not imputing of their sins to the liuing, least God should haue smitten them for the trespasse committed by those wicked ones that displeased God and perished in their sin, though the author of that book make another construction of it. 3. that the booke of Machabees is not Canonical; and though Augustine seeme to incline to an opinion that it is, yet Contra Gaudentij. Epist. li. 2 cap. 23. hee is not resolued that it is so: yea Caietan. some are of opinion that he thought it Canonicall only in respect of the Canon of manners and not of faith: but Mr Higgons will proue, that in the iudgement of Augustine, prayer for the dead is plainely expressed, or sufficiently deduced from the Scriptures of the new Testament; in that S. Augustine hauing alleadged the bookes of Machabees, to proue that prayer was made for the dead, sayth, if this were no where read in the old Scriptures, the authority of the Church were greatly to be regarded, which shineth in this custome: which is a very silly inferēce. For neither doth it follow, that if it be not in the old, it must be in the new: neither would Augustine haue presently vrged the authority of the Church, vpon the supposition of not finding it in the old Scriptures, but the bookes of the new Testament, if hee had thought it to be found in the new: seeing he seeketh first and principally to proue it by Scripture. His second exception is, that Augustine vrgeth the custome of the Vniuersall Church, for the commendation of the dead, and pronounceth, that without intollerable insolency and madnesse, this authority cannot be reiected: whence he inferreth that both these must ineuitably fall vppon D. Humphrey and his Church: but the poore fellow that chargeth other men with madnesse, if hee were in his right wittes, might easily haue found, that Doctor Humphrey doth not condemne the commemoration, and commendation of the dead: for he saith expresly: We retaine it in our Colledges. I obserued before that wee must carefully distinguish the generall practise and intention of the whole Church from priuate conceipts: the whole Church commemorated the dead, offered the sacrifice of praise for them, prayed for them in the passage, & for their resurrection and consummation: all which thinges we allow: so that neither Doctor Humphrey, nor we, condemne the Vniuersall Church, but thinke it were madnesse soe to doe: but the priuate fancies of such as extended their prayers farther, thinking they might ease, mitigate, suspend; or wholy take away the paines of men damned in hell (for of Purgatory no man thought in the Primitiue Church) wee reject. This erroneous conceipt and practise Aerius rightly condemned, and Doctor Humphrey and wee all agree with him in the same dislike: but he did ill to impute this errour to the whole Church, and to condemne that which was good and laudable vppon soe weake a ground. Of the difference which Maister Higgons would faine make betweene our commendation of the dead vsed in colledges, and that vsed anciently, whereof Saint Augustine speaketh, I haue spoken before: wherefore let vs come to his last exception against Doctor Humphrey, which is that hee handleth the matter artificially, to make a credulous reader beleeue that Saint Augustine himselfe doth conuell the vse of prayer for the dead by those sentences of the Apostle, that Gal. 6. 8. we cannot reape if wee sowe not here, and that 2. Cor. 5. 10. wee must all stand before the iudgement seate of Christ, that euery one may receiue according to the things hee hath done in his body, whether good or euill. This imputation is nothing else but a malitious and impudent charging of him with that he neuer thought of. For the onely thing he sayth Augustine held, proued by these sentences, is, that vnlesse we depart hence in a true faith, wee canot be relieued by any deuotion of other men after we are gone. Which is so vndoubtedly true, that I thinke Higgons him-selfe dareth not deny it. But that Augustine thought that men dying in the state of grace and faith of Christ may bee holpen by the prayers of the liuing, hee neither made question himselfe, nor euer sought to make his reader beleeue otherwise. Neither doe wee dissent from Augustine in this point, if the prayers hee speaketh of bee made respectiuely to the passage hence and entrance into the other world, as I haue shewed before. The onely thing that is questionable betweene Vs and our Aduersaries being, whether prayers may releeue men in a state of temporall affliction after this life, whereof Augustine neuer resolued any thing, what-soeuer this pratling Apostata say to the contrary. These things being soe, let the reader judge whether the detection of falshood and ill dealing in Doctor Humphrey could possibly occasion Maister Higgons his change, as hee would make the world beleeue: there being nothing found in his whole discourse, that is not most true and iustifiable, by all course of learning. But because hee is sufficiently chastised by others, and knoweth too well the true cause of his running away to bee things of a farre other nature then those he pretendeth, I will prosecute this matter no farther against him.

The Appendix.
§. 1.

NOw it remaineth that I come to the Appendix, which he addeth to his booke, which hee deuideth into two partes, whereof the first concerneth Mee, the second, D. Morton, which hee hath answered already. In that part which concerneth Me, he vndertaketh to proue, that I notoriously abuse the name and authority of Gerson, Grosthead, &c. to defend the reformation made by Princes & Prelats in our Churches. Wherefore that the reader may perceiue I haue not abused these reuerend & worthy men, but that he wrōgeth both Them & Me, I will take the paines to examine his whole discourse, though it will be very tedious soe to do, by reason of the cōfused & perplexed manner of handling of things in the same, without all order & method. In the 1. chapter he doth but lay the foūdatiō of his intēded building: & therefore gathereth together a great nūber of positiōs & sayings out of my book, miserably māgled, & torne one frō another, all which shall be defended whē he cōmeth to say any thing against them, in such sort, as that it shall evidently appeare, that there is no falshood or collusion in any part of my Discourse, as this false and treacherous Fugitiue is pleased to say there is. Onely one thing there is heere that may not bee passed ouer, because it hath no farther prosecution in that which followeth. His wordes are these. Pag. 2 Whereas Bellarmine doth object the intestine divisions, and conflicts of the pretensed Gospellers, this Doctor turneth him off with this answer, wee say that these diuersities are to bee imputed wholly to our Adversaries; for when there was a reformation to be made of abuses and disorders in matters of practise, and manyfold corruption in many points of Christian Doctrine, and in a Councell by a Generall consent it could not bee hoped for, as Gerson long before out of his experience saw and professed, by reason of the prevailing faction of Popes flatterers, it was not possible but that some diversity should grow, while one knew not, nor expected to know what another did. This he saith, is a very admirable devise.

For answere hereunto we must obserue, that the divisions of this part of Christendome are of two sorts: the first is, from the faction of the Pope; the second among them that haue abandoned the vsurped Authority of the Pope. That the Pope and his adherents were the cause of the former of these divisions, and the consequents of it, is affirmed by better men then Master Higgons. I will not deny, (saith In consult. artic. 7. Cassander, a man highly esteemed for piety & learning by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian) that many in the beginning were moued out of a Godly affection, more sharply to reprehend certaine manifest abuses, and that the chiefe cause of this calamitie and distraction, or rent of the Church, is to be attributed to them, who, puffed vp with the swelling conceipts of their Ecclesiasticall power, proudly & disdainfully contemned and repelled them that admonished them rightly of things amisse. And therefore I do not thinke that any firme peace is euer to be hoped for, vnlesse the beginning thereof be from them that gaue the cause of this diuision; that is, vnlesse they that haue the gouernment of the Church, remit, something of that their too great rigor, & listning to the desires of many godly ones, correct manifest abuses, according to the rule of sacred Scripture & the ancient Church, from which they are departed &c. Touching that, saith c Contarenus, which the Lutherans say in the first, d In consult. artic. Lutheri. & last place, of manifold and great abuses brought into the Church of Christ, against which they so exclaime, & concerning which they haue made so many complaints, to expresse their greiuances, I haue nothing to say; but first of all, to pray vnto almighty God, the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, & his only begotten Son, who continually maketh intercession for vs, & the holy Spirit, wherewith wee haue bin annoynted to be Christians by the grace of God, & the Sacrament of Baptisme, that he will respect his Church now tottering, & in great danger, and that he will moue the hearts of the Prelats of the Church, that at last for a little while putting away this most pernitions selfe loue, they may be perswaded to correct things manifestly amisse & to reforme themselues. There needeth no Councell, there need no sillogismes, there needeth no alledging of places of Scripture, for the quieting of these stirres of the Lutherans: but there is need of good minds of charity towards God & our neighbour, and of humility, &c. Touching the diuisions of thē that haue abandoned the tyrannical gouernment of the Bishoppe of Rome, and imbraced the sincere profession of the heauenly truth, whom this Lucian calleth pretensed Gospellers, they are neither such, nor so many as our Aduersaries would make the world beleeue, as I haue shewed at large in the Third booke of the Church. c. 42. place cited by Master Higgons. But be they what they may bee, I haue truly sayd that the Romanists are the causes of them, in that their obstinate resistance against all peaceable publicke proceeding in the worke of reformation in a Generall Councell, forced men to take another course, and to take this worke in hand seuerally, in the seuerall Kingdomes of the world. That there was no hope of reformation by a Generall Councell, and that seuerall Kingdomes were to take care for the redressing of things amisse, within their own compasse, I haue shewed out of Gerson: his words are these. Gers. 3. part. apologet. de Conc. Const. I see that the reformation of the Church will neuer bee brought to passe by a Councell, without the presidencie of a well affected guide, wise, and constant: let the members therefore prouide for themselues thorough all Kingdomes and Prouinces, when they shall be able, and know how to compasse this worke. Now that Idem de Concilio vnius obedientiae. this kinde of proceeding must needes bee accompanied with differences, though not of moment, nor reall, yet in shew greater then were to bee wished, euery man I thinke will confesse that hath the sence of a man. Against all this M. Hig. hath nothing to say; but, as if he had gone out of his country, & passed the Seas of purpose to become a jester amongst our melancholy countrey-men that are abroad, to make them merry, maketh a jest of it, as he doth of all other things, and so passeth from it.

The second part.
§ 1

BVT lette vs giue him leaue to sport himselfe a little: we shall haue him in earnest by and by. For in the next part of this chapter hee vndertaketh to proue, that Gerson, (whom I bring in as a worthy guide of Gods Church in the time wherein hee liued, and one that vvished the reformation of things amisse) vtterly detested the reformation that hath beene transacted by Luther, Zuinglius & the rest. But his proofes will be found too weake; for though it were granted that he erred in the matter of transubstantiation, inuocation of Saints, and some such like things, yet will it neuer be proued, that hee erred heretically, or that hee was not willing to yeelde to the trueth in these or any other thinges wherin hee was deceiued, when it should be made to appeare vnto him. Cyprian erred in the matter of rebaptization, Lactantius, and sundry other were carried into the errour of the Millenaries: many Catholickes in Augustines time thought that all Oxthodoxe and right-beleeuing Christians shall be saued in the end, how wickedly soeuer they liue here: yet were they of one communion with them that thought otherwise.

If Master Higgons thinke, that I produce Gerson as a man fully professing in euery point of Doctrine as wee doe, he wholly mistaketh me; for I was not so simple, either to thinke so, or to goe about to perswade others so, but this is that which I said, and still constantly affirme, that God preserued his true Church in the midst of all the errors and confusions of the Papacy; that the errours condemned by vs, neuer found generall & constant allowance in the daies of our Fathers; and that there were many, who held the foundation, & according to the light of knowledge which God vouchsafed them, wished the reformatiō of such things as were amisse, some of them discerning more of the errors & abuses that were then found in the Church, & other fewer: of which number I reckon Gerson to be one of eminent sort & ranke. For this worthy Diuine beleeued as we doe, De consolat: Theologiae. l. 4. prosa. 1. that all our inherent righteousnesse is imperfit, yea, that it is like the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman, that it cannot endure the triall of Gods seuere iudgement: that Ibid. lib. 1. prosa. 3. wee must trust in the only mercy and goodnesse of God, if we desire to be surely established against all assaults: Part. 3. tract. de vita. spiritual. anim. lect. 1. that all sinnes are by nature mortall: that Tract. de indulgentijs. indulgences reach not to the dead: that they are but remissions of enjoyned penance: that De potest. Ecclesiast. considerat. 12. the Pope hath no power to dispose of the Kingdomes of the world; that hee is like the Duke of Venice amongst the great Senators of that State, greater then each one, but inferiour to the whole companie of Bishoppes, that De auferibilitate Pap. hee is subiect to errour, and that in case of errour or other scandalous misdemeanour, hee may bee iudicially deposed: that De consilijs & Statu perfectionis. Christian perfection consisteth neither in pouerty nor riches, but in a mind resolued to regard these thinges, no farther then they stand with the loue of God, and serue for the aduancement of his glory and the good of men. So that sometimes it is a matter of more perfection to haue and possesse riches, then to cast them from vs; contrary to the false conceit of the Mendicantes, who made extreame pouerty to bee the height of all perfection, and thought that Christ himselfe did liue by begging, which hee reiecteth as an absurd errour: hee teacheth that the precept of Almighty GOD requireth all the actions of vertue in the best sort they canne bee performed, and that therefore they do not rightly discerne betweene the matter of precepts and counsailes, who imagine that the precept requireth the inferiour degrees of vertue, and the counsaile the more high and excellent: whereas counsailes vrge vs not to a higher degree of vertue, or morall goodnesse, but onely shew vs the meanes whereby most easily, if all things bee answerable in the parties, wee may attaine to the height of vertue the procept prescribeth: so ouer-throwing the opinion of workes of supererogation: hee Ibid. teacheth that there is no more merit of single life then of marriage vnlesse the parties liuing in these different estates, otherwise excell one another in the workes of vertue: that virginity, in that which it addeth aboue coniugal chastity, is no vertue, nor higher degree of vertue, but a splendour of vertue only: that the De vita Spiritual, anim Lect. 4. lawes of men binde not the conscience: that they that whip themselues, as some sectaries amongst the Papistes doe, are to bee condemned: and that the patient enduring of those crosses Part. 1. tract. contra sectam flagellantium se. which God layeth vpon vs, is more acceptable to God, then these voluntary chastisements. See the places cited in the third booke of the Church. Chap. 10. 11. Hee condemneth Monkes intermedling with Secular or Ecclesiasticall businesses: the superfluous pompe and Princely state of Cardinalls, and Bishops, making them forget that they are men; that one man holdeth two or three hundred Ecclesiasticall liuings; that the sword of excommunication is soe e •… ily drawne-out for trifles, and the Lords of the Cleargy vse it for the maintenance of their owne state: hee disliketh the Popes appointing of strangers to take cure of soules, the varietie of Pictures, and Images in Churches, occasioning idolatry in the simple: the number and variety of religious orders; the canonizing of new Saints, there being too many Canonized already: the Apocryphall Scriptures, Hymnes, and Prayers in processe of time brought into the Church, of purpose or ignorance, to the great hurt of the Christian faith: the diuersity of opinions in the Church, as about the conception of the blessed Virgin, and the like: the intollerable superstition in the worshiping of Saints; innumerable obseruations, without all ground of reason; vaine credulity in beleeuing things concerning the Saints reported in the vncertaine legends of their liues: superstitious opinions of obtaining pardon, and remission of sinnes, by saying a number of Paternosters in such a Church, before such an image; the vrging of humane deuises more then the lawes of God, and punishing more seuerely the breach of their owne lawes, then the lawes of God: the contempt of the holy Scripture, which is sufficient for the gouernement of the Church, and the following of humane inuentions, which made the state of the Church to be meerely brutish; the ambition, pride, and couetousnesse of Popes subiecting all vnto themselues, and suffering no man to say vnto them, Why do you soe? though they ouer-turne the course of Nature; their getting all into their owne hands by many crafty and ill meanes, to the ouer-throwe of that order that should bee in the Church: and therevppon sheweth that it was the opinion of men right wise and godly in his time, that there beeing a Schisme in the Church, and three seuerall pretenders challenging the Papall chaire, it were good to take the aduantage of that difference, and neuer to restore againe to any pope the vniuersall administration of the temporalities of the Church, and the swaying of the jurisdiction of the same; but that it were best that all things were brought backe to that state they were in, in the times of the Apostles, or at least in the times of Syluester and Gregory, when each Prelate within his owne jurisdiction was permitted to gouerne such as were committed to him, without soe many reseruations, and exactions, as haue been since brought in.

These things considered, I suppose it will not seeme soe strange as Maister Higgons would make it, that I bring in Iohn Gerson as a worthy guide of the Church in his •… me, and a man wishing the reformation of the same, as farre as it pleased God to enlighten him, though hee saw not all, which other did in the same times, or before, or since. Neither will it euer be proued that hee would haue disliked any part of the pre •… reformation, though hee condemned the inconsiderate positions of Wickliffe, and though he held some opinions contrary to that which wee now teach. For as Lib. 1. de Baptis. cap. 18. Augustine said of Cyprian, & his colleagues, erring in the matter of rebaptization, that if they •… d bin in his time, when vpon full & exact discussing of things, it was resolued otherwise, they would haue beene of another minde: so surely, if Gerson had liued in latter times, when Learning reviued, & all sorts of ancient authors were brought out of the couerts of darknesse, into the light and view of the world, he would haue condemned many things which he did not, as many other did both before Luther began to preach, and since, whom yet our Adversaries dare not traduce as Hereticks. Which we are induced to thinke, because himselfe professeth, that the rent of the Church by reason of the n De potest. eccl. consid. 10. three pretenders, challenging the Papal chaire, & the calamity that followed the same, brought many things to light that were not knowne before, and was the occasion of much good, and the finding out of many truthes fit and necessary to be knowne; and in his booke Consid. 15 & 19 De auferibilitate Papae, in which hee sheweth many cases wherein the Pope may be deposed, limited, restrained, o-haue obedience denyed vnto him; he professeth he hath laide downe sundry considerations touching this matter, to open the way to others to enter farther, & to find out more then he did, as indeed we see Conc. cath. l. 〈◊〉 . c. 13 Cusanus a Cardinall did; who resolueth wholly with vs, that the Pope is but onely prime Bishop amongst the Bishops of the world, and that he is but onely in order and honour aboue others.

Yet let vs heare what Master Higgons can say to the contrary. Gerson, q saith he, beleeued p Pag 4. Transubstantiation, approued the Masse, admitted Purgatory, invocation of Saints, indulgences, & cōmunion vnder one kind, therefore he could not wish the reformation that is now wrought by Luther, and the rest. Of Transubstantiation I haue spoken already, & shewed that many admitted the word that yet neuer beleeued the thing, which our adversaries now professe; as also what is to be thought of Gersons opiniō touching this point, being the Scholler of Cameracensis; who professeth, that for any thing he can see, Transubstantiation, properly so named, can neither bee prooued out of Scripture, nor any determination of the Vniversall Church. Touching the Masse, wee must know that the holy Eucharist, and blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ is named missa, misse, or masse, Cassand. in praef, ord Rom. à missis, id est, dimissis publica diaconi voce Catechumenis, iisque qui Sacramentorum participationiidonei non erant: that is, for that after the prayers and readings of the Scripture, before the consecration, the Catechumens, and all such as were not to communicate, were dismissed, and sent away, the Deacon crying aloude, Ite missa est: that is, Depart, you are dismissed. And euen in Gregories time the custome was, that the Deacon after the reading of the Gospell, pronounced those solemne wordes, Si quis non communicat, exeat: that is, If there be any that communicateth not, let him goe out. So that the Papistes haue no misse, or masse, if we speake properly, for with them none are dismissed, but all permitted to bee present, and yet none communicate but the Priest: whereas the name of masse was giuen to this Holy Sacrament, for that none were permitted to be present, but such as would communicate. But to let goe this advantage, there is no question, but that Gerson allowed of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and bloud: but I think it will hardly be proued, that hee approoued the alteration of the auncient custome of the peoples communicating with the Priest in the Sacrament into a priuate masse; which indeede, if wee will speake properly, is no masse: or that hee helde it to bee a new reall sacrificing of CHRIST, as the Iesuited Papistes doe at this day. A sacrifice wee confesse it to bee, of praise and thankes-giuing, and a commemoration of the bloudy sacrifice of CHRIST vpon the Altar of the Crosse: & say, that therefore it may bee named a sacrifice, because signes haue the names of the things whereof they are signes: as also for that there is in this Sacrament, an offering or presenting of CHRIST and his passion to GOD, by the faith of the Church, that by it wee may obtaine grace and remission of sinnes: but a new reall sacrificing of CHRIST wee denye, and thinke with Luther, that it is a hellish abomination so to doe. That Gerson thought that there is a Purgatory, doth no more prejudice his being a worthy guide of Gods Church, then the errour of Cyprian and other before-mentioned. Touching invocation of Saints, though hee did not absolutely condemne it, yet Gers. de direc. cordis consid. 16: & sequ. hee reprehended the abuses and superstitious observations then prevailing in the worshipping of Saints, very bitterly, as I shewed before, & sought to bring men to a truer sense of piety in that point, then was ordinarily found amongst men in those times. The like he did for In tract de indulgentiis. indulgences, restraining them more then was pleasing to the Popes faction; and for the communion vnder one kinde, howsoeuer hee thought the Church might lawfully prescribe the communicating in one kinde alone, which wee cannot excuse; yet hee Tract de communione sub vtraque specie. acknowledgeth that the communion in both kindes was aunciently vsed; and that when it may bee had, with the peace of the Church, it is to bee allowed. But to what purpose doth Master Higgons alledge these things? shall it bee lawfull for him and his to repute Iohn Gerson, a worthy and godly man, notwithstanding that he held that the Pope may erre, that he is subiect to Generall Councels, that he medleth with things no way pertayning to him, when hee taketh vpon him to dispose the Kingdomes of the world, that all our inherent righteousnesse is imperfit, and as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman, that all sins are by nature mortall, and the like: and may not wee take him to haue beene a member of the true Church, a good man, and one that desired the reformation of things amisse, notwithstanding his errour in some things, and his not discerning all that was amisse?

The insufficiencie of this allegation, it seemeth, Master Higgons himselfe perceived, and therefore saith, Pag. 4. hee will come to the supreame difference, to which all other points (as hee conceiueth) are subordinate, and inferiour: that is to say, the soueraigne primacy of the Romane Bishop; and bringeth two very effectuall testimonies, as hee thinketh, of Gerson, to proue the Popes soueraigne primacie. The First is out of his booke, Consid. 8. De auferibilitate papae: his words are these. The formes of ciuill government are subiect to mutability and alteration; but it is otherwise in the Church, for her gouerment is Monarchicall, and is so appointed by the institution of our Lord: if any man will violate this sacred ordinance, and persist obstinately in his contempt, hee is to bee iudged an Hereticke, as Marsilius of Padua, and some other consorting with his fancie. The second is out of his tract, Consid. 3. De vnitate Graecorum, where prescribing many directions for the composing of the differences betweene the Greeke and Latine Churches, hee layeth it downe as a foundation, that there must bee one head on earth, vnto which all men must bee vnited. Pag. 5. In these sayings, Master Higgons saith, Gerson shewed himselfe a worthy guide of Gods Church, and a singular enemy of the Protestanticall reformation, which violently impugneth the supremacie of the Pope, in so much that Luther affirmeth, that a man cannot be saued, vnlesse from his heart hee hate the Pope, and Papacie. These things truely, carrie a very faire shew, and may deceiue such as cannot or will not throughly looke into them. But whosoeuer knoweth what Gersons opinion of the Pope is, and what Luther hath written against the Papacie, will soone perceiue there is no contradiction betweene them, or at least not in any essentiall and materiall point. For Gerson was of opinion, that the Pope is subiect to a Generall Councell, and that hee is not free from daunger of erring; and this hee thought to bee a matter of faith defined in the Councell of Constance; and therefore would haue detested all claimes of infallible iudgement, and vncontrouleable power of Popes, as much as Luther did: and would haue accursed his words of blasphemie, if once hee should haue heard him say, as wee doe, and as before the holding of the Councell of Constance he did: All the world cannot iudge mee: though I ouerturne the whole course of nature, no man may say vnto mee, why doe you so? I onely haue power to make lawes, and to voide them againe: I haue authority to dispence with the Canons of all Councels, as seemeth good vnto mee, and, which is more, to dispose of all the kingdomes of the world: the assurance of finding out the trueth and not erring, is not partly in mee, and partly in the Councell, but wholy in mee: whatsoeuer all the world shall consent on, is of no force, if I allow it not. Hee would haue said doubtlesse, as I haue done, if hee had heard him thus speake, that wee are not bound to take the foame of his impure mouth, and froath of his words of blasphemie, as infallible Oracles. This is that Pope, and this is that Papacie, which Luther saith, euery one that will be saued, must hate from his heart: for otherwise if hee would onely claime to bee a Bishoppe in his precinct, a Metropolitane in a prouince, a Patriarch of the West, and of Patriarches the first and most honourable, to whom the rest are to resort in cases of greatest moment, as to the head and chiefe of their company, to whom it specially pertaineth to haue an eye to the preseruation of the Church in the vnity of faith and religion, and the actes and exercises of the same, and with the assistance and concurrence of the other by all due courses to effect that which pertaineth thereunto without clayming absolute and vncontrouleable power, infallibilitie of iudgement, and right to dispose the Kingdomes of the world, and to intermeddle in the administration of the temporalties of particular Churches, and the immediate swaying of the iurisdiction thereof, In libro contra Papatum. Luther himselfe professeth hee would neuer open his mouth against him. This kind of Primacie the Concil. Florenum Sess. vlt. Grecians likewise professed they would bee content to yeeld vnto him, if other differences betweene them might be composed. Consult. de Pont. Romano. Cassander saith, Hee is perswaded there had neuer beene any controuersies about the Popes power, if the Popes had not abused their authority in a Lordly and ouer-ruling manner, and through couetousnesse and ambition stretched it beyond the bounds and limits set and prescribed by Christ and the Church: and professeth that the abuse of the Papall power, which the flatterers of the Pope amplified, enlarged, and magnified beyond all measure, gaue men occasion to thinke ill of the Pope, and in the end to depart from him: With whom Gerson agreeth, saying, that the Popes intermedling e De vnitate Graecor, consid. 6. in some kindes and assuming more then was fit, gaue occasion to the Grecians to depart from the Church of Rome, writing to the Pope at their parting in this sort, wee know thy power, thy couetousnesse wee cannot satisfie, liue by thy selfe. So that I haue truely said (whatsoeuer Master Higgons blattereth out to the contrarie) that it was the pride of Antichrist, that made all the breaches in the Christian world.

But, saith Master Higgons, Gerson maketh the forme of the Churches gouernment to be Monarchicall, which thing is mainely opposite to the opinion of Protestants, who will not admit the Pope to bee a Monarch in the Church. It is true that Gerson maketh the gouernment of the Church to be Monarchicall, but no otherwise, but as the gouernment of the state of Venice is Monarchicall; wherein the Duke is greater then any one Senator, but subiect to the Senate, and hath neither absolute negatiue, nor affirmatiue; & therefore it is in truth and indeed, according to his opinion, rather Aristocratical, thē Monarchical: though he make it to be so, in that amongst all the Bs of the world, one is first, and in order and honour before all other. A head he maketh the Pope to bee, as a president of a company, not as an absolute commaunder. Whereas saith In Sent. prolog •… . qu: 10. art. 2. Iohn Bachon, the denying the Pope to haue an illimited power was condemned as hereticall in Marsilius of Padua, & Io. de Ianduno, some say they were condemned because they denied him to haue an illimited power, as head or chiefe of all Bishops, and with the colledge of them: and that it is not there defined that absolutely, in, and of himself, he hath illimited power of making lawes; and gouerning according to the same, without the concurrence of his brethren. But Gerson saith, it is schismatical not to acknowledg with aldue respect the true Pope vndoubtedly known g De vnitate Graec. consid. 3. to be soe: therefore he must needes be an enemie to the Protestanticall reformation. We say no, for, let the Pope as Gerson teacheth him to doe, disclaime the claime of absolute & vncontroulable power, infallibility of judgment, right to dispose the Kingdomes of the world, let him without particular intermedling suffer other Bishops to gouerne their owne diocesses, as they did in the Primitiue Church, without so many reseruations, preuentions, and appeales receiued from all parts of the world, and wee will thinke, as Gerson doth, that, as it is Schismaticall to impugne the gouernment of Bishoppes within their owne diocesses, the superiorities of Metropolitans in their Prouinces, and of Patriarches in their larger circuites; so it is Schismaticall to deny the Bishoppe of Rome, contenting himselfe therewith, a primacie of order & honour, and a speciall interest in swaying the gouernment of the whole Church, and managing the affaires thereof, as first amongst the Bishoppes of the world. Wherefore let vs hearken to Master Higgons his suite: hee beseecheth vs, Pag. 3. to consider the resemblance and similitude of these thinges: hee that reiecteth the Pope shall not be saued; and hee that 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 doth not hate him and the Popedome from his heart, shall not bee saued; the one of these sayings is Gersons, & the other Luthers: & thus, saith Higgons, they damne themselues mutually in a capitall point, and exclude each other from possibility of saluation. Wee haue according to Master Higgons his request, diligently considered these things, and doe finde that betweene these sayings in shew so opposite, there is in truth and indeed no contradictions; and that Luther and Gerson are farre from damning one another in this point, as he falsely saith they doe: for it is true, as Luther saith, that men are bound to hate the Papacie, that is, the claime of vncontrouleable and absolute power of infallible judgment, and interest to dispose of the Kingdomes of the world, euen in the judgement of Gerson himselfe; and they both agree, that for the preservation of order and peace, men are bound to acknowledge the Papacie, that is, to yeeld to the Bishop of Rome a Primacie of order and honour; if there be no other matter of difference, nor no father claime made by him. Neither is it communion with the Pope as prime Bishop, that maketh a man a formall Papist, as this formalist speaketh; but with the vnjust claimes of the Pope. So that Gersons communion with the Pope, proueth him not a formall Papist: and therefore though Master Powels judgement be of value, M •… Higgons may not vndoubtedly pronounce, that Gerson is damned to the nethermost hell, as he fondly saith he may: neither can hee shew any good reason. why wee may not truly say, that Luther hath accomplished that reformation which Gerson desired; c Pag. 〈◊〉 & therefore he might well haue spared his Risum teneatis amici? & insteed thereof intreated men to weepe for his pittifull ouer-sight, and folly, which he bewrayeth in the words immediatly following, Ibid. I will knit vp, saith he, this matter with the counsell of Gerson, which he giueth to the spouse of Christ, saying, the Church must intreate the Pope, the Vicegerent of Christ, with all honour, and call him Father, for hee is her Lord & head: that she must not expose him to detractions: &c.

Mr Higgons is wont to compare them to the Diuell, who alledge any sayings of Fathers, or Scriptures, in shew making for them, and leaue out that which followeth, e Pag. 33. making against them: if this course be right & good, as no doubt it is, I will soone make the Reader know to whom Master Higgons is like, in citing Gersons testimony against vs. For Gerson speaking of the respect that is due to CHRIST the Husband of the Church, and his Vicegerent, from her, as his Spouse & Wife, hath these words. De 〈◊〉 Christi & Eccl. I deliuer this first vnto thee, that for the honour of CHRIST her husband, the Church Synodally assembled, or not so assembled, ought to carrie herselfe towards the chiefe Bishoppe with reuerence and due respect in all louing sort, if hee behaue himselfe towards her laudably, nay, if his entreating of her bee tollerable; because in many thinges wee offend all: and the judiciall sentence of Diuorce is to bee expected before hee bee cast off, as hitherto the discretion of our Fore-fathers hath obserued towardes inferiour Bishoppes. In the next place I deliuer vnto thee, that the Church, for the reuerence of CHRIST her husband, ought to name his Vicegerent, and him whom hee hath appointed her keeper, Father; and both in her selfe and her children, to bee most ready to giue all honour, and to yeelde all obedience to him, as to her Lord and head: and likewise to shew all due respect to the Romane Church, as ioyned to her in a speciall degree of fellowshippe. Neither is it fitte to expose such a Father to detractions, and wrongs, but to hide his turpitude as much as may bee. Notwithstanding in the third place I deliuer vnto thee, that if this Vicegerent, thorough frigiditie, or other impediment, become vnfitte for the spirituall generation of children, hee may not bee esteemed a fitte husband for the Church, nor Vicegerent for her husband. Now the seede of this generation, is the holy word of God, and not the variable traditions of the sonnes of this world. Againe, I deliuer, that the Church, if this Vicegerent of her husband become a Fornicator, or Adulterer, marrying a widdow, a woman put away from her husband, a woman of vile and base condition, and a Harlotte, contrary to the commaundement of Almighty God in Leviticus: If hee hardly intreat the Church, if hee spoyle and robbe her of her Roabes by Dilapidation, or goe about to abuse her by Symonie, if hee smother her children either in the wombe, or after they are come out of the wombe by ill example, if hee slay them with the sword of scandalous Doctrine, and such as killeth the soule, or pestiferous wicked courses of life, or hurtfull dissembling and winking at faults, and heresies, that should be suppressed: that the Church, I say, in these cases, may giue him a bill of Diuorce, especially if hee adde incorrigibility to his fault, least the keeping of him still, turne to the disgrace and dishonour of her husband, and the hurt of her children.

If it had pleased Maister Higgons to suffer Iohn Gerson thus fully to vtter his minde, his Superiours I thinke would neuer haue permitted him to produce a witnesse, to depose soe directly against them in Print; for what could Luther say more then Gerson doth? if the Pope, who is the chiefe Bishop of the world, will doe his duty, hee is to be honoured, as chiefe of all Bishops: but if hee become scandalous, if he be vnable to performe the dutie of teaching the people of God, if hee teach false doctrine, or wilfully neglect to reforme things amisse, and shew himselfe incorrigible: he may, nay he must be reiected by the Church, and a bill of Diuorce must be giuen vnto him. This I thinke will be censured as hereticall by our Romanistes. But howsoeuer, Maister Higgons had no cause to exclaime as hee doth, Pag. 〈◊〉 . that Luther, whom hee calleth the Cham of Saxonie, did not demeane him-selfe towards the Pope as hee ought to haue done, and thereupon to compare him to furious Aerius, and to say, that I likewise approximate to them both, when I say, we haue not receiued the marke of the Antichrist, & childe of perdition in our fore-heads, nor sworne to take the foame of his impure mouth, and the froath of his wordes of blasphemy, for infallible Oracles of heauenly trueth. For Luther did hide the the turpitude and shame of this holy Father, as long as it was lawfull so to doe: but when the turpitude of this Noah, neither could nor would bee hidde any longer, when he became vnfit to beget sonnes vnto God, when he became a Fornicatour, and an adulterer, when he married a woman refused by her husband, a base woman, nay a harlotte: when hee choaked and smothered the children of the Church before, and after they came out of her wombe: when hee slew them with the sword of scandalous doctrine, and such as killeth the soule, when hee spoyled the Church, and stript her out of all her Roabes, when hee abused and wronged her in most shamefull and vile manner, to the dishonour of Christ her husband, what remained for Luther and such other sonnes of the Church, as had any care of their Mothers well-fare, to doe, but to cast him off with disgrace, that in so shamefull manner dishonoured the sonne of God their Father, and wronged the Church their Mother?

But if this testimonie of Gerson serue not the turne, Master Higgons produceth another, that will better satisfie vs touching the opinion hee held of the Pope: his wordes are these: Nolo de sanctissimo Domino nostro, & Christo Domini, velut os in coelum ponendo, loqui: that is, I will not speake of our most holy Lord, and the Lords anointed, as it were setting my face against heauen. These words follow not in the same place where the other are found. And Master Higgons directeth vs to no other pla •… , as if they were found there; who yet is wont to complaine against mee, for that I cite in thē same page, thinges found in diuerse parts of Gersons workes, and not all together: the Reader may finde them in the third part of his workes, in his Apologeticall Dialogue. The occasion of these his wordes is this: hee complaineth in that Apologie, of the partialities and sinister courses hee saw to be holden in the Councell of Constance, by reason whereofthe French King, and other Christian Princes, with their Bishops and Diuines, could not obtaine, nor procure the condemning of certaine wicked and scandalous assertions of Iohannes Paruus, and some other preiudiciall to the state of Princes, and more pestilent and dangerous, as he sayth, whether we respect the prosperity of the Kingdomes of the world, or the good manners and honest conuersation of men, then those of Wickliffe and the Bohemians, that were condemned in that Councell. After this complaint, one of the speakers in that Apologeticall Dialogue asketh, if things went not better in that Councell, after a Pope was chosen, and the Schisme ended, then before? whereunto the other speaker answereth in this sort: I I will not speake of our most holy Lord, and the Lords annointed, as it were setting my face against Heauen; not-withstanding hee had some sitting by his side, who; some say, proceeded not with that due care and diligence which they should haue vsed, in the matter concerning the state of Princes, and the things concerning the Lordsof Polonia: & these men feare not to say, that they were so backward, that they could not be stirred vp sufficiently to the zeale & fauouring of Catholike verity, nor bee moued either by words of exhortation or writing, to determine such things as were proposed vnto them. Thus doth hee in mannerly sort decline the direct taxing of the Pope, which might haue bin some-thing offensiue to some at that time; and yet spareth him not, but condemneth his negligence, and want of zeale, in suppressing heresie, and defending and maintaining Catholique veritie, and addeth, that hee would haue them that are zealous of Christian Religion, the honour of the Pope, and the holy Councell, to consider, whether if care be not had for the extirpation of heresies, especially in matters solemnely denounced, prosecuted, and handled, some will not impute it to negligence, other to ignorance, other to a direct refusall to doe right, other to the couetousnesse of Prelates seeking their own things, & not those of Christ, other to the contempt of the Princes and Vniversities, that sought the condemnation of such errours, others to the weakenesse of the Ecclesiasticall power, in rooting out heresies, and the notorious negligence of the Court of Rome, in omitting to doe that which is fitte, other to base corruption? and therevpon sheweth, that an appeale was put in on the behalfe of the Lords of Polonia, to the next Generall Councell, against which exception was taken, that it was not lawfull to appeale from the Pope in any case, or to decline his iudgement in matters of faith, contrarie to the lawes of God, and the decrees of the same Conncell, and to the vtter ouerthrowing of all those thinges that were done in the Councell of Pisa, and Constance, in reiecting the pretenders, and electing a new Pope, professing that hee is well assured there will neuer be any reformation of the Church by a Councell, without the presidency of a guide well affected, and prudent, stout, and constant, of which sort he insinuateth the Pope then beeing was not. Thus wee see Gerson thought it no impiety in modest sort to taxe the Popes negligence, and in most resolute manner to condemne as impious & against the Lawes of God and man, his pride in denying appeales from himselfe, as if no man might decline his iudgement in matters of faith: Which things being so, let the reader iudge, whether that one poore sentence of Gerson, mangled, and rent from that which went before, and followeth after, doe bring more aduantage to Master Higgons his cause, then it doth preiudice the same, when it is ioyned with the other parts of his discourse in the same place. But thus doe these Iudg. 7. 22. Madianites slay themselues with their owne swordes, and turne their weapons vpon themselues to the vtter ouerthrow of their bad cause.

From this particular of the Popes supremacy, wherein Master Higgons hath foyled himselfe, and hurt his cause, hee Pag. 9. proceedeth to some generall euidences, whence, as hee saith, it may be proued that Gerson neuer fauoured the Protestanticall reformation. The first is, for that speaking of the Romish Church, he saith: Part. 1. Serm. coram. Alex. Papa. 5. Wee must r •… ue the certainty of our faith from it: The second, for that hee Part. 3. Dialog. Apologet, de Concilio Constantiensi. preached zealously at Constance, against the articles of Wicklife and the Bohemians.

For answere to the first of these allegations, the reader must remember that Gerson doth clearely resolue, that the Pope may erre, not onely personally, but Episcopally and iudicially also; and consequently, that wee must not ground our faith vpon his resolutions, as certaine and vndoubted. The like may be said of the Romane Church, that is the Romane Diocesse, Prouince, or Patriarchship: for if it haue any more infallibility of iudgement then other particular Churches, it hath it from the Bishoppe, which it cannot haue, seeing he is not free from errour himselfe; the meaning therefore of Gerson is not, that wee may or must take whatsoeuer the Romane Diocesse, Prouince, or Patriarchship deliuereth vnto vs, to be vndoubtedly true; but speaking of the Indians, who are Christians, and yet doubting whether they hold the faith of Christians sincerely or not, hee saith, it may be feared least they doe not, seeing •… ey are diuided from the Roman Church, from which the certainty of faith is to •… e sought: to shew that the truth & certainty of faith is to be sought in the vnity of the vniuersal or Catholique Church, the beginning being taken frō that which of all others is the first and chiefest, and hathhitherto beene most free from damnable heresies. For otherwise, that he is no way resolued that the determinations of the particular Roman Church Diocesan, Provinciall, or Patriarchicall, doe absolutely binde all to receiue them, it is most cleare and euident; in that in his discourse of the meanes of procuring vnitie betweene the Greekes and Latines, (one speciall cause of the breach betweene them, being the determination passed by the Latines touching the proceeding of the Holy Ghost, without the consent of the Greekes) De vnitat •… Graecorum consid 6 he wisheth men to consider, whether, as we are wont to say of the Articles of Paris, that they binde none but such as are within the Diocesse of Paris, so it may not be saide that the determinations of the Latine Church binde none but those that are within the compasse of the same? which he could not, nor would not doe, if he thought the infallible direction of all the rest, to bee in the Romane Church alone; and that all euery-where were bound to receiue as vndoubtedly true, whatsoeuer it deliuereth, as the Romanists at this day doe thinke. Besides this, it is to be obserued, that by the name of the Romane Church, the person of the Pope, whom the Romanists name the Virtuall Church, is not meant, nor the Diocesse, or Prouince of Rome alone, but the whole Latine or West Church, subiect to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West, which wee are perswaded neuer yet erred from the Faith, but had alwayes in it many worthy men professing and maintaining the trueth of Religion, howsoeuer some erred damnably in the midst of it, and a separation be now growne betweene the true members of that Church, and such as were but a faction in the same. So that that which Gerson hath of fetching the certainty of our faith from the Church of Rome, proueth not that hee would haue beene an enemy to the Protestanticall reformation: for he speaketh not of our fetching the certaintie of our Faith from the Pope, or Court, or Diocesse of Rome, but of the Indians fetching the certainty of their Faith from the Roman, that is the Westerne Church. But that he neuer thought that all Christians, and Churches of the West, are to fetch the certainty of their Faith from the Pope, or Court of Rome, it is evident, In that Serm. in Paschate part. 4. he commendeth the French King, that condemned the heresie of Iohn the two and twentieth, touching the soules not seeing God till the Resurrection, with sound of trumpets (the Nobles and Prelats of France being present,) and beleeued rather the Vniuersitie of Paris then the Court of Rome.

Neither is the next proofe of Gersons preaching against the Articles of Wickliff, and the Bohemians, any better then this: for hee preached against such Articles as were brought to the Councell of Constance, by the English and Bohemians: now those Articles were many of them impious and hereticall, nay hellish and blasphemous, in such sort as they were proposed by them, that brought them; as Concil. Constant. Sess. 8. that God must obey the Diuel, that Kings or Bishops, if they be reprobates, or if they fall into mortall sinne, cease to be Kings or Bishops any longer, and that all they doe is meerely voide: whereas Wickliffe, neuer deliuered any such thing, nor had any such impious conceipt, as they sought to fasten on him: neither is it to be maruailed at, that impious things were falsly & slanderously imputed to him; seeing we are wronged in like sort at this day. For there are who shame not to write, 〈◊〉 letter of a Catholique to his Protestant friend: or certaine Articles or sorcible reasors printed at Antwerpe. that we affirme God to be the author of fin, that we teach, that God doth sin, that man sinneth not that God onely sinneth, and that God is worse then the diuell, with many other like hellish blasphemies, which we accurse to the pit of hell: many things no doubt were written by Wickliff in a good & godly sense, which as they were wrested by his Adversaries, were heretical & damnable. For example, it is a damnable heresie to think that Kings & Bishops cease to be that they were, if they fall into mortal sin: or that reprobats cānot be truly Kings or Bishops: neither did Wickliff euer hold any such opiniō; but as Iohn Hus shewed, he thought that godles persons, howsoeuer officio, in office & place, they be Kings & Bishops; yet merito; that is in merit, they are neither; because they are vnworthy to be either: and are of such quality, as that if GOD would take the forfeiture, they might iustly bee depriued, not of dignitie alone, but of life and beeing also. Now then this is the goodly Argument which Maister Higgons frameth: Gerson condemned such hereticall and impious Articles, as were presented to him and other assembled in the Councell of Constance, as taken out of the writings of Wickliffe, and disliked some other that were indeed his, and might haue a good sense, because they were deliuered in a dangerous forme of speech, as likewise such as rather bewrayed his too passionate dislike of things amisse, carrying him too farre into contrary extremities, then an aduised and wise consideration of the meanes, whereby they might bee amended: therefore hee would neuer haue allowed that reformation of religion, that now is. This Argument I thinke will not holde: because we also condemne many of the Articles attributed to Wickliffe, noe lesse then Gerson: and yet are no enimies to the Protestanticall reformation, as Maister Higgons calleth it. But Maister Higgons sayth, Pag. 19. I must needes be found contrary to my selfe, in that I acknowledge Wickliffe, Husse, Hierome of Prage, and the like, to haue beene the worthy seruants of Christ, and holy Martyrs, and confessours: and yet praise Gerson, as a worthy guide of Gods Church, and one that desired the present reformation, who consented to the condemnation of Wickliffes Articles. We are wont to say: Distinguish times, and the Scriptures will soone be accorded: so let Maister Higgons distinguish aright things that differ one from another; and this seeming contrariety will bee found to bee none at all. For Wickliffe & Husse might be worthy seruants of God, in that they reproued the intollerable abuses of those times which Gerson neuer approued: and yet Gerson, though as zealous and religious as eyther of them, might condemne, as impious, some positions falsely imputed to Wickliffe, not knowing but that they were his, and dislike other that indeede were his, as not deliuered in such sort, and such formes of words as was fitte, or sauouring of too much passion and violence, and therefore like a right wise and moderate man, he De potestate Ecclesiast. Consider. 12. interposed himselfe betweene Wickliffe, and such as he was opposite to, disliking the one sort, as attributing too much to the Cleargy, and the other as detracting too much from it. Touching Iohn Husse, and Hierome of Prage, I could neuer yet finde, in what point of faith they dissented from the Doctrine of the Church, then constantly resolued on, but they bitterly inueighed against the ambition, pride, couetousnesse, and negligence of the Cleargy; they vrged the necessity of oftner preaching then was vsuall in those times, and desired to haue the Communion in both kindes, according to the ancient custome of the Primitiue Church, and could not be induced simply and absolutely to condemne the articles of Wickliffe, but thought many of them might carry a good sence: and that the author of them was a man, that carried a good minde, how-soeuer hee might faile in some things: Neither was there any matter worthy of death proued against them, but they were vniustly charged with things they neuer thought of: so that In an Epistle to the Earle of Passun, prefixed before his booke against Henry the Eighth. Luther, said truly that they were Murderers and seauen times Heretickes, that condemned the innocent men, Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prague: For it is most euident to any one, that will consider the acts of that Councell, that things were carried in it, in a most violent and tumultuous manner, with clamours and out-cries, against those poore men standing in their iust defence, & clearing them-selues from any thing their Aduersaries themselues accounted to bee hereticall. And particularly concerning Hierome of Prage, it appeareth the Cardinalls that were cheefe Presidents of that Councell, sought all possible meanes to lette him goe free, as Pilate did to acquite Christ; but the crye of the multitude preuailed: And therefore I thinke it will not bee easily proued by Maister Higgons, that Gerson had any hand in the turbulent and furious proceeding against the persons of these men, howsoeuer he might mislike some things which they were charged with. So that hee is neither pronounced to be an Hereticke, nor a murderer by Luther, as Maister Higgons vntruly sayth hee is. What manner of proceeding there was in the Councell In Dialog. Apologet. de Concilio Constantiensi. Gerson himselfe reporteth, shewing his dislike of the courses holden in it, and confessing that many intollerable things were done there, which neither could nor would haue beene indured, if men had not beene content to endure any thing in hope of vnitie, and peace, after soe many calamities of the Church, most pittifully torne and rent in sunder by the former Schismes.

There is onely one thing more remaining in this chapter that toucheth Me: & that is, that speaking of the tyranny of the See of Rome, & such as withheld the truth of God in vnrighteousnesse, & being named Christians serued Antichrist, I adde, as Bernard complained of some in his time, in which addition Maister Higgons Pag. 11. chargeth Mee with fraudulency; saying, that I goe about to make the world beleeue, that they, against whome Iohn Husse, Hierome of Prage, and the rest opposed themselues, serued Antichrist euen by the verdit of Saint Bernard himselfe. If Bernard say not expresly, that many, euen exceeding many, so that they were without number, of the pretended friendes and louers of the Church of Rome, and such as possessed high places of rule and gouernement in the same, serued Antichrist, lette him charge Mee with ill dealing at his pleasure; but if hee doe, let Maister Higgons know he hath wronged Mee in a very high degree. Let vs heare therefore what Bernard will say, Woe Serm. 33. in Cantica. sayth he, to this generation because of the leauen of the Pharizees, which is hypocrisie: if yet it may be named hypocrisie, which in respect of the greatnesse of it, cannot; and in respect of the impudencie it is growne vnto, seeketh not to be hid. A filthy, rotten, running soare, secretly passeth along thorough all parts of the body of the Church; the more largely, the more desperately it spreadeth it selfe: and the more inwardly, the more dangerously: for if an open ene •… by professed heresie opposing himselfe, should rise vp, hee would be cast out: an •… •… iolent enemie should seeke to oppresse the Church, Men would hide themselues from him; but now whom should the Church cast out? or from whom should she flye? all are friendes, and all are enemies: all are tyed vnto her in a bond of amity, and yet all are her aduersaries: all are of her houshold, and yet none are at peace with her: all are neighbours, and yet all seeke their owne: they are the Ministers of Christ, and they serue Antichrist: soe that nothing remaineth, but that the diuell, that feareth not to walke at noone day, should be reuealed to seduce such as remaine in Christ, still abiding in their simplicity; for hee hath already swallowed vppe the riuers of the wise, and the floudes of the mighty, and hath hope to draw in Iordan into his mouth, that is the simple and lowly in heart, that are in the Church. What is therefore the frandulency Maister Higgons so much complaineth of? Surely hee sayth, it was onely wickednesse of life Bernard complayneth of, and I seeme to extend his complaint farther. For answere whereunto, first I say, that I no way extend the wordes of Bernard to any particular kind of euill of life, doctrine, or violation of discipline: but cite them in such generall sort, as they are found in him. Secondly, I say it is vntrue, that Higgons sayth, that Bernard complained onely of the euill liues of men in his time: for in his bookes of Consideration to Eugenius the Pope, hee blameth him for medling with thinges more properly pertaining to men of another ranke and sort, asking of him Lib. de consideratione ad Eugenium. Quid fines alienos inuaditis? quid falcem vestram ad alienam messem extenditis? that is why doe you incroach vppon the bounds of other men? and why doe you reach forth your sicle, and thrust it into the haruest of other men? adding, that, if the daies were not euill, hee would speake many other things. Likewise he complaineth of the confusion, and abuse of appeales to Rome in this sort: Lib. 3. de consideratione. Praeter fas & ius, praeter morem & ordinem fiunt: non locus, non modus, non tempus, non causa discernitur, aut persona. That is, appeales are made and admitted, besides law, and right, besides custome, and order: no difference is made of place, manner, time, or cause: so that the Bishoppes in all partes of the world are hindered that they cannot do their duties: as also of the spoyling of the guides and gouernours of the Church of their authority, by exemptions and priuiledges, freeing such as are vnder them from their subiection, Ibid. Murmur loquor, sayth hee & querimoniam ecclesiarum truncari se clamitant, & demembrari: vel nullae, vel paucae admodum sunt quae plagam istam aut non doleant, aut non timeant. Quaeris quam? Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis, Episcopi Archiepiscopis, Archiepiscopi Patriarchis siue Primatibus. That is: I vtter the murmuring & complaint of the Churches: they cry out, that they are mangled, and dismembred; there are eyther none, or very few, which either feele not, or feare not this plague: if you aske what plague? Abbots are exempted from the iurisdiction of their Bishoppes, Bishoppes of their Arch-bishoppes, they of their Primates. But hee dissented not from the Papistes in matter of doctrine. Surely this is no truer then the rest: for it will be found that Bernard hath written that which will not please our Adversaries very well, touching speciall faith, imperfection & impurity of inherent righteousnesse, merites, power of free-will, the conception of the blessed Virgin, and the keeping of the Feast of her Conception. For I would willingly learne of them whether they will graunt, that Bern. serm. 5. de verb. Esaiae. all our righteousnesse is as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman? that Serm 1. de annunc. Dom. wee must beleeue particularly that our sins are remitted to vs? that Trac. de gratiâ & lib. arb. in fine. our workes are via regni, not causa regnandi; that is, the way that leadeth to the Kingdome, but not the cause why we raigne? that Ep. 175. ad Canon. Lugd. the blessed Virgin was conceiued in sin, and that the feast of her conception ought not to be kept? In all these things doubtlesse Bernard dissented from the Papists at this day: neither did he know or vnderstand any thing of their transubstantiation, locall presence, priuate masses, halfe Communions, indulgences, & the like, which are matters of difference betweene vs & our Adversaries at this day: so that there might be good conformity in substance betweene Bernard and Wickliff, & his followers, though many Articles falsely attributed to him are damned & hereticall, & some things were vttered vnadvisedly by him: & therefore that which followeth, of Pag. 12 Falshood, Inflexions, Pretenses, and subtilties, is but the bewraying the distemper of Higgons h •… e braine; who hauing confounded himself in his owne intricate conceipts, woul •… •… ke men beleeue, other are like vnto him; how orderly, plainely, and sincerely soeuer they handle things.

The Third Part.
§. 1.

IN the third part of this Chapter, he reflecteth (to vse his owne wordes) vpon foure passages of mine; and professeth, Pag. 12. that he will detect sundry vntrueths, and vanities, wilfully committed in the same. Wherein the Reader shall finde him as false, and as vaine a man as euer he met with. The foure passages he speaketh of are these: the first, that Gerson reporteth, that sundry lewd assertions, preiudiciall to the states of Kings and Princes, were brought into the Councell of Constance, and that the Councell could not be induced to condemne them. Secondly, that they made no stay to condemne the positions of Wickliff and Hus. Thirdly, that they condemned the positions of Wickliff & Hus, seeming to derogate from the state of the Cleargy. Fourthly, that they condemned the said positions, though many of them might carry a good and Catholicke sense, if they might haue found a fauourable construction. In which of these passages is my falshood and vntruth? Doth not Dial. Apolog. Gerson report, that sundry lewd positions, prejudiciall to the state of Princes were brought to the Councell of Constance to bee condemned: and that by no exhortations, or entreaties, by word or writing, the Fathers assembled in it could be brought to condemne them? Doth hee not say, that they condemned the positions of Wickliff and Hus, that they imprisoned some for those errours in the beginning of the Councell, and burnt them afterwards? Doth he not say, the positions preiudiciall to the states of Princes, which hee speaketh of, were more pestiferous in the life and conversation of men, and in the state of Common-weales, then those they condemned? Doth he not complaine of partialitie & respect of persons, and the Cleargies seeking their owne, rather then that which is Christ Iesus? Doth he not say, Part. 1. serm. pro viagio Regis Roman. 2. part. principali. direct. 3. many of the positions of Wickliff might haue had a good sense, if they might haue beene fauourably construed? Doth hee not protest that he hath no hope of reformation by a Generall Councell, things standing as hee found them to doe? if there be any vntruth in any of these passages, let the Reader censure me as he pleaseth. But if all these things be most vndoubtedly true, let him accompt of Higgons, as of an impudent young man, that hath strangely hardened his fore-head, as if he had beene a scholler in the schoole of impudency, a farre longer time then yet he hath beene. But happily he may find vanity in these passages of mine, though no vntruth.

Let vs see therefore, what hee saith: Pag. 14. what aduantage, saith hee, can Doctour Field gaine from Gersons improbation of the afore-said lewd assertions, preiudiciall to the states of Kinges and Princes? why doth hee presse the authority of Gerson, whose medicine hee knoweth to bee very sharpe, against the disease of all such Princes, as by the infection of Heretickes are seduced from the integrity of the Catholicke faith: to wit, persecution by fire and sword. Surely heere Theomisus Higgons bewrayeth more then vanity: for, as if he meant presently to become a traytor against his Soueraigne, whom he & his consortes suppose to be seduced from the Catholicke verity, he beginneth at the very first to talke of sharpe medicines against such Princes; and those prescribed by Gerson, as he telleth vs, but hee will be found a lying and cogging mate: for Gerson, in the Part. 4. decem considerat. contra adulatores Principum. place cited by him, hath nothing for the Popes deposing Princes for heresie, or any thing else, which yet is that medicine he meaneth: nay wee are assured hee neuer held any such trayterous position; but; writing against the flatterers of Princes, hee wisheth Princes to take heed they listen not to such men, as will instill into them many false opinions, touching their power and absolutenesse, contrary to the faith and trueth of God; whereby, in the end, they may make themselues so odious as to bee pursued by fire and sword by their subiects, So that, whereas Gerson speaketh of errours in faith, concerning the state of Princes, bringing them to doe things so odious, as to bee persecuted with fire & sword; this good fellow turneth his words to another sence; as if he had meant, that for error in faith, the Pope were to depose Princes; and whereas, to meete with certaine false and foolish suggestions, made to some Princes, contrarie to the doctrine of faith, hee setteth downe certaine propositions, whereof the first is, that Princes must not iustifie themselues, and thinke they offend not, whatsoeuer they doe; and, that the Lawes Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill will auaile for the furtherance of this consideration; hee turneth the words into this sence, that these Lawes, are auailable for the deposing of Kinges: so treacherous and trayterous is this Fugitiue become already.

From this first obseruation he proceedeth to a second, saying, that Pag. 14. if the reformation wished for by Gerson, consisted onely, or principally, or at all, in the redresse of lewd assertions, preiudiciall to the states of Kings, the Protestants haue not effected that, which he desired, their positions being dangerous likewise; and therevpon breaketh out into a long and large discourse concerning the positions of Protestants, touching the state and power of Princes. But surely he is like a Spaniell not acquainted with his game, that runneth after euery bird that riseth before him; and is to bee taught better before there will be any great vse of him. For I bring not the report of Gerson touching hese assertions, so much to shew what he would haue reformed, as to make it appeare how strangely things were carried in former times, & how little hope he & other good men had of any reformation by a Councell, seeing these positions so dangerous & apparantly false could not be condemned in the Councell of Constance, by reason of a mighty faction prevayling in the same; & so all that he saith vpon this false ground, is nothing to the purpose: notwithstanding if the man were worth the medling with, or the matter required it, it were easie to shew, that Protestants are farre from holding any such trayterous opinions as Papists defend. But I haue resolued to confine my selfe to the defence of my selfe against his childish exceptions, and no way to follow him into any other of his idle discourses.

Touching Gersons condemning certaine-positions attributed to Wickliff and Hus; and Husses suffering in the cause of CHRIST, against Antichrist, and the idlenesse of Higgons, in charging Mee with contradiction, in that I graunt the one, and affirme the other, I haue spoken already. But so plentifull hee is in objections, that nine thinges more remaine in this chapter, not obiected before, which hee obiecteth to mee. The first is, the extenuation of the turbulent and impious positions of Wickliff, in that I say they seemed to derogate from the Cleargy. Secondly, that I conceale the impiety of Wickliff in other thinges. Thirdly, that I cite in one place, things found in diuers places. Fourthly, that I exaggerate the seuerity of the Councell of Constance against Wickliff, &c. and make as if Gerson had disliked it, whereas he did not. Fiftly, that I say Gerson desired a reformation, and thought that it was to be assayed seuerally in the particular Kingdomes of the world, there being little or no hope of doing any good by a Generall Councell. Sixtly, that the proceeding in this worke of reformation seuerally in diuerse parts of the world, without a common deliberation, was the cause of those differences, that now appeare in the reformed Churches, according as Gerson feared it would fall out. 7ly That I say Gerson, Grosthead, & others, were of the true Church, who yet were mēbers of the Church of Rome. Eigthly, that I misalleage a saying of Gerson. And the nineth, that whereas Gerson sayth the Popes sought to be adored as God, I say they sought to bee adored and worshipped as God. To euery one of these I will answere in a word.

To the first, that I extenuate not the impious positions falsely and maliciously gathered out of Wickliffes workes, as that, God must obey the Diuell, and if there be any other like, but accurse them to the pitte of hell: but, speaking of those which, in Gersons iudgement, were not so hurtfull, neither to the conuersation of men, nor the state of common-weales, as those against Princes, which the Councell of Constance could not bee induced to condemne: I say of them, they seemed to derogate from the Cleargy; because I know not certainely, vppon what ground, or in what sence, many of them, were vttered by him. To the second I answere that I concealed not the impiety of any articles where-with Wickliffe was charged, but hauing no occasion to speake of any other but such onely as were not so bad in Gersons iudgement, as some they in the coūcell could not be induced to condemn; I had no reason to censure thē any otherwise then I did: for had they beene so bad, as Maister Higgons would make them to be, the Pope and Councell were not very good, that could by no meanes bee induced to condemne such as were farre worse, as Gerson telleth vs. To the third I say, that it is lawfull for a man to cite in one place out of one author, thinges found in him in diuerse places: or else Maister Higgons is too blame Pag. 8 Hee alleageth two sayings of Gerson found in two seuerall places, as if they were in one: without specifying whence the latter of them is taken. who doth so. To the fourth I say, that I exaggerate not the seuerity of the Councell against VVickliffe simply, but in comparison: and so doth Gerson, and disliketh it as much as I doe, condemning it of partiality. To the fifth, and sixth, I say, that Gerson affirmed the one, to witte, that no good was to bee expected by a generall Councell; that the seuerall parts of the Christian world were to reforme them-selues: and feared the other, namely that too great diuersity would follow vppon such diuided reformations; as it will easily appeare, to any one that will take the paines to peruse the places cited by Mee. Neither was it hast and precipitation, as Maister Higgons is pleased to censure it, but necessity, that made our men to doe as they did, hauing no meanes to meete for common deliberation. To the seauenth I answere, that Gerson, Grosthead, and the rest, were members of the Church that was vnder the Papacie: but that they were not of the papall faction, nor vassals of the man of sin; but men of a better spirit. To the eighth I answere breefely, that I haue most sincerely and truly alleaged the testimony of Gerson, and noe way varied from his intention; which that the reader may the better be able to discerne, I will first set downe what my allegation is, and then what exceptions Higgons taketh to it. My words are these. Third booke of the Church. chap. 11. Touching the second cause of the Churches ruine, which is the ambition, pride, and couetousnesse of the Bishoppe, and Court of Rome, Gerson boldly affirmeth: that whereas the Bishoppes of Rome, challenging the greatest place in the Church should haue sought the good of Gods people, they contrarily sought onely to aduance themselues: his wordes are these: In imitation of Lucifer, they will bee adored and worshipped as Gods: neither doe they thinke themselues subiect to any, but are as the sonnes of Belial, that haue cast off the yoake, not enduring, whatsoeuer they do, that a man should aske them why they do soe: they neyther feare God nor reuerence men. This is my allegation: now let vs see what it is that Maister Higgons excepteth against in it: Are not these the wordes of Gerson? Hee cannot deny but that they are: but hee Pag. 28. & 29. sayth, Gerson vttered them, when there was a Schisme in the Church: It is true hee did soe; but what then? Did not the true Pope, whosoeuer hee was, amongst those pretenders, take as much on him as the rest: and is not this note of disgrace fastned vpon all? but that Maister Higgons may know, that Gerson spake as much of the Pope simply, as I haue cited out of him, without any reference to pretenders, (as hee would faine avoyde the evidence of his heavy sentence) let him consider what Gerson hath written in his Tract de potestate Ecclesiae: where hee goeth about to stop the mouth of flattery, giuing too much to the Cleargy: and vile Detraction, taking too much from it: and bringeth in flattery, speaking in this sort to them of the Cleargy, especially the Pope. De potest. Eccl. consid. 1 •… . O how great, how great is the height of thy Ecclesiasticall power? O sacred Cleargy! how is secular power nothing, if it be compared vnto thine! Seeing as all power both in Heauen & Earth was giuen to CHRIST, so CHRIST left it all to Peter, and his successors: so that Constantine gaue nothing to Pope Sylvester, that was not his before, but restored to him that which had bin vnjustly with-holden: and there is no power temporall, or Ecclesiastical, imperial or regall; but frō the Pope: in whose thigh CHRIST did write: King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: of whose power to dispute, it is sacrilegious: to whom no man may say, why doe you so? though he ouer-turne, teare in sunder, and ouer-throw all states, possessions and dominions, temporall and Ecclesiasticall: let Mee be reputed a lyar, saith hee, if these things bee not found written by them that are wise in their owne eyes: and if they bee not found to haue beene beleeued by some Popes: He addeth, notum est illud satyrici: —Nihil est, quod credere de se; Non possit, cum laudatur diis aequa potestas: That is, according to that knowne saying of the Satyricall Poet: what should not hee perswade himselfe of himselfe, that is magnified, as equall to God in power. For that of the Comicall Poet, is true of the flatterer: that he maketh fooles to be starke madde. These are the sayings of Gerson, which I haue laid downe at large, that the Reader may judge whether I haue depraued the intention of Gerson, or not: and whether Higgons had any cause to traduce Mee in such sort as he doth. It seemeth the poore fellow was hired to say something against Mee, or else he would neuer haue adventured to vent such fooleries: yet the last accusation against Mee is not to be passed ouer. Gerson saith, the Popes will be adored as God, and I feare not to adde, that the English Reader may vnderstand Mee, that they will be adored and worshipped as God out of these premises he maketh an excellent conclusion, Pag. 30. comparing Gerson to Dauid, that commaunded Ioab to saue the life of Absalom: and Luther to Ioab, that had no pitty on trayterous Absalom, in that the one would haue the Pope well dealt withall, though he disliked his faults: and the other sought to tread him vnder his feete. But let the Reader know, that as Gerson, so Luther was willing to giue all due honour to the Pope, contenting himselfe with that which of right pertaineth to him: but if hee dishonour God, wrong the Church, suffocate and kill her children, and heretically refuse to be subiect to the Church, and Councell: if he challenge infallibility of iudgement, from which no man may appeale; Gerson will tread him vnder feete, and reiect him as an Hereticke as well as Luther.

The Fourth Part.
§. 1.

IN the fourth part of this Chapter Master Higgons vndertaketh to proue that I haue abused the name and authority of Grosthead, to iustifie the Lutheran reformation: which he performeth full wisely in this sort: Pag. 32 Grosthead was iudged a Catholicke, and a good man by some Cardinals in Rome: therefore hee could not desire that reformation of things amisse, that now is wrought. If the consequence of this Argument be denyed, hee knoweth not how to proue it: but Pag. 33. willeth his reader to demaund of Mee, whether these Cardinals, which iudged Grosthead to bee a Catholicke, and of the same Religion with them-selues, were not reall members of the Antichristian Synagogue? proud Romanists? factious Papists? &c. which question is soone answered. For I haue distinguished, as he knoweth right well, the Church in which the Pope tyrannized, and the faction of Papists, that flattered him, and applied themselues to sette forward his proud and vniust claimes, till they lifted him vp into the throne and seate of Antichrist; the members of the Church, and of the faction: and though both these liued for a time in the same outward Communion, as did the right beleeuers and they that denied the resurrection of the dead, amongst the Corinthians: yet did they differ as much in iudgement, as wee doe from the Papists at this day: so that these Cardinals that opposed themselues against the furious purposes of the Pope, intending to proceed against Grosthead for resisting his tyrannicall vsurpations, and iustified Grosthead as a good man, and the thinges hee stood vpon, as right and iust, and told the Pope of a departure from him, which hee must looke for, and by these ill courses, intended by him, he might hasten, may be thought not to haue beene members of the Antichristian faction, but of the poore Church oppressed and wronged by the same: as Grosthead also was. Neither is it so strange, that Cardinalls, who are so neere the Pope, should bee auerse from his Antichristian courses: For Cameracensis, then whom that age had not a worthier man, either for life or learning, and Cusanus no way inferiour to him, howsoeuer they were not free from all errours of Papisme, yet wholly condemned the Papacie, as wee doe at this day; denying the Popes vniuersality of iurisdiction, vncontroulable power, infallible iudgement, and right to meddle with Princes states; making him nothing but the first Bishoppe in order, and honour, amongst the Bishops of the Christian Church. And De Praedestinatione. Contarenus, as all men know, condemned sundry errours of the Papisme, and seemed no lesse to dislike the Papistes wilfull and obstinate maintayning of grosse errours, abuses, and confusions, then the temerity of those that disorderedly, as he thought, sought to haue an alteration. Thus is Master Higgons his great demaund easily answered: Onely one great and vnexcusable fault I haue committed; in that I say these Cardinals opposed themselues against the Pope, when hee intended to proceede violently against Bishoppe Grosthead: whereas I should haue said, Pag. 34. they interposed themselues. The poore man it seemeth is very weake in his conceipt, and therefore saith hee knoweth not what: for did not the interposing of themselues, in such sort, as they did, imply a contrariety of iudgement in them, opposite to that of the Pope? and was not their hindering, crossing, and stopping of him by all the meanes it was fitte for them to vse, an opposing against his rash purpose and resolution? Surely Master Higgons in this passage sheweth himselfe as very a babe as euer suckt a bottle. For all men know, that one may oppose himselfe vnto another, as well by way of perswasion and entreaty, as of authority or violence.

But to leaue these trifleling fooleries, and to come to matter of substance, because he saith, Pag. 3 •… . I expresse not the matters of quarrell, and differences betweene the Pope & Bishop Grosthead particularly enough; and that I conceale the correspondence hee held with the Romane Church in matters of faith; I will relate the whole storie at large, of such things as fell out betweene the Pope and this worthy Bishop, whereby I doubt not but it will appeare, that if Grosthead were now aliue, he would detest such smattering companions as Higgons is, that labour so carefully to reconcile him to that Antichrist, with whom hee had warre both while he liued and after hee was dead.

The Popes in the time wherein Grosthead liued, not contenting themselues with the preheminence of being Patriarches of the West, which stood in confirming Metropolitanes, by imposition of handes, or by mission of the Pall, and in calling Patriarchicall Synodes, in certaine cases, to heare and determine matters of greater consequence, then could be ended in Prouinciall Synodes: but taking vpon them, as if the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction had rested in them alone, admitted appeales out of all partes of the West, not of Bishops only, but of Presbyters, inferiour Cleargy-men, and Lay-men also; reserued a great number of cases to their owne cognisance, debarring the Bishoppes and Metropolitanes from medling with them: exempted whom they pleased from the ordinary iurisdiction of their Bishoppes, and challenged the right to conferre all kinde of dignities Ecclesiasticall, whether presentatiue, or electiue, not onely when they were voyd, but before: whence came their expectatiue graces, and prouisions; and, which much offended and grieued all good men, bestowed the dignities of the Churches abroad in England and other places vpon strangers, that neuer came to those Churches they were intitled to; so that at one time, a survay beeing taken, it was found that strangers carried yearely more then threescore thousand Markes out of England, which was more then the bare reuenew of the Crowne at that time. Math. Paris. in Henrico. 3. Amongst others, Bishoppe Grosthead receiued the Popes letters for the placing of certaine strangers in his Church of Lincolne; which he refused to doe, and wrote backe to the Pope, to lette him know hee was opposite to Christ, a murtherer of soules, and an Hereticke in these his courses: Vpon the receipt of which letters; the Pope was halfe madde with anger, and calling his Cardinals together, sware by Peter and Paul, that if it were not that he were ouercome by the goodnesse of his nature, hee would cast downe this Bishoppe into the pitte of all confusion, which thing hee said hee could easily doe, for that the King of England was his Vassall and Slaue; and hee could commaund him, vnder paine of his high displeasure, to cast him into prison, or otherwise to proceede against him: but that howsoeuer hee would make him an example to all such as should dare in like sort to disobey his Mandates. Some of the Cardinals, more aduised then the Pope, sought to pacifie him what they could, and to stoppe these his intended violent courses: telling him; Bishoppe Grosthead was in faith a Catholicke, in life a most holy man, of great learning, and euery where much respected: that the thinges hee stood vpon, were iust and right; and that therefore it was not safe for him to proceede against him, least some tumult should follow: which they besought him the rather to thinke of, for that there must be a departure from the Church of Rome, which they would not haue him to hasten by this meanes. These perswasions prevailed so farre, that Grosthead was not accursed, nor deposed, but dyed Bishop of Lincolne; yet after his death, (it being easier to insult vpon a dead Lyon then a liuing dog) the Pope tooke heart, and was resolued to accurse him, and to commaund his dead body to bee taken vp, and to be buried in a dunghill. But the night before this vile act should haue bin done, Bishop Grosthead did appeare vnto him with his crosier staffe in his hand; and so rebuked the wicked Pope, for fauouring the wicked, and persecuting the righteous; and besides strooke him in such sort with his crosier staffe, that he neuer enjoyed his Papall dignity after it. This apparition happily was nothing else but the apprehension of his guilty conscience, representing to him the person of him whom hee intended to wrong, and terrifying him euen vnto the death. Howsoeuer it appeareth by Mathew Paris, that this worthy Bishop: (for so will I call him, not-with-standing any thing prating Higgons can say to the contrary) finding that the Pope sought to ouerthrow the order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, to encroach vpon all Bishoppes and guides of the Church, and to vsurpe such an illimited, vniversall, and absolute authority, as no way pertained to him, feared not to call him Antichrist: to compare him and his Courtiers to that Behemoth that putteth his mouth to the Riuer of Iordan, thinking he can drinke it vp; to pronounce that it is most true, that before his time, was said of him, and his execrable Court. Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis: Eius luxuria meretrix non sufficit omnis. That the Church was holden in Babylonicall captivity by this Antichrist, and that her deliuerance would neuer be wrought but by the edge of the sword, that must be bathed in blood.

This is the true report concerning Grosthead: in all which there are neither fictions, nor exaggerations, as Higgons pretendeth, by which it is evident that there was as little Communion between the Pope, challenging as he did then, and doth now, infallibility of judgement, vniversality of illimited and vncontrouleable power, & right to dispose the Kingdomes of the World, as there is betweene light, and darknesse, the Temple of God, and Idols, CHRIST and Antichrist. So that he was no Papist, seeing he ouer-threw the Papacie; and if in any thing he erred, as liuing in corrupttimes, it is not to be marvayled at; neither did his errour in some particular thing, so much prejudice his piety and sanctity, as that he may not bee called a worthy and renowned Bishop seeing hee held the foundation, and stroue for the truth, as farre as hee knew it, euen to death. And therefore the exceptions of the Author of the booke of the Three Conversions against Master Foxe, touching this Bishoppe, and some other mentioned by him, and recorded in the number of Martyrs and Confessors, are little to be regarded: for that men might be members of that true Church whereof we are, holding the foundation, and carefully seeking out and maintaining the truth, as farre as they knew it, though they were otherwise perswaded in some things, then either Master Foxe, or we are; which need not to seeme strange to Master Higgons, nor any other of that side: seeing they thinke many to haue beene members of their Church, and Catholiques that dissented from them in all the questions concerning the Pope, to which Pag. 4 all other, as Master Higgons telleth vs, are subordinate: and besides in the questions of originall sin, free-will, justification, merite, satisfaction, the number of the Sacraments, and sundry other like things.

Thus wee see how zealously Grosthead, the worthy & renowned Bishop of Lincolne, opposed himselfe against the tyrannicall vsurpations and incroachments of the Pope, and feared not to call him Antichrist for the same. Neither was he alone in this opposition, but we shall finde that the whole state of England after many complaints against the Popes incroachments, vsurpations, and tyrannicall intermedling in things no way pertaining to him to the ouerthrow of the Hierarchy of the Church; told him in the end, that if these courses were continued, they should bee forced to doe that which would make his heart to ake. Thus, faith Mathew Paris, at last the poore Church of England, that had bin long vsed as an Asse to carry the Popes burdens, in the end grew weary, & opened her mouth as Balaams Asse did, to reproue the folly of the Prophet: & that not without just cause, in the judgement of all the world: for howsoeuer the church of Rome challenged to be the Mother of all churches, and the Popeto be the Father of all Christians, yet the one proued a cruell stepmother, & the other an vnkind & vnnaturall Father: so that they both lost the hearts of all men. But what did the Pope vpon the complaints of so great a church & nation as this of England? did he ease her burthens, or any way listen to her most reasonable suits? no verily; but was so vnmercifull; as the same Paris testifieth, that hauing so sore beaten vs, he beate vs againe in more cruel sort then euer before, onely because we cryed & therefore let him not be angry with vs, because we haue kept our word with him, that neuer kept any with vs; & haue indeed done that which maketh his heart to ake, as our fore-fathers threatned him long before: these groanes of our wrōged Mother, & her often renewed bitter complaints, before any was found to worke her deliuerance, doe iustifie that which we haue done to be no more then in duty we stood bound to do: neither is there any better proofe of the goodnes of our cause, then that, that which we haue done in the reformation of the church, was long before wished for, expected, & fore-tolde by the best men that liued in former times in the corrupt state of the church.

But because Mr Higgons is pleased to tell vs, Lib. 1. pag. 84 that if there be no better proofe, the cause is bad, & the patrons worse: because these best men we speak of, will not speake for vs: I will take a litle paines to shevv the goodnes of this proof, vvhich I doubt not but the Reader vvill find to be better, then that Mr Higgons or any other of his Romanists shall euer be able to vveaken it. All that vvhich vve haue done in the reformation of the church, cōsisteth in 3 things; the first is, the condemning of certain erronious opiniōs in matters of doctrine: the 2d, the shaking off of the yoake of Papall tyranny: & the 3, the remouing of abuses & superstitious observatiōs. Novv then if it be proued that the best & best learned in former times, thought as vvee doe in matters doctrinall: that they complained of the heauie yoake vvhich the Pope laide on them, and desired the remoouing of such abuses as vvee haue remooued, I thinke this proofe vvill bee found very strong and good: I vvill therefore first beg •… vvith matters of doctrine; and so proceede to the other points, not intending to run through all the controversed points of doctrine, but some onely for example: and because the question is onely of the judgment of men liuing in latter times in the corrupt state of the Church vnder the Papacie, I will passe by the Fathers, and speake of such as liued since their time. Touching the Canon of Scripture, which is the rule of our faith: wee deny the bookes of Tobit, Iudith, Ecelesiasticus, Wisdome, Machabees, the song of the three Children, and the story of Bell and the Dragon, to bee Canonicall Scriptures: So did See the pla •… es cited in the 4. booke of the Church: chap. 23. Hugo de Sancto Victore, Richardus de Sancto Victore, Petrus Cluniacensis, Lyranus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas Aquinas, Waldensis, Richardus Armachanus, Picus Mirandula, Ockam, Caietan, and Driedo: to say nothing of Melito Bishop of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Hilarius, Nazianzen, Cyrill of Ierusalem, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, Hierome, Gregory and Damascen. Here wee see a cloud of witnesses, deposing for vs. And what better proofe of the goodnesse of our cause canne there be, then that so many worthies of the world, in so diuerse places, and at so diuerse times giue testimony to our opinion? Touching the creation, fall, and state of originall sinne, there were some, and they excellently learned, who thought as we doe, that man must either be lifted aboue himselfe by grace, or fall below himselfe by sinne, that there is no middle estate of pure nature, that originall righteousnesse was required to the integrity of nature, and consequently, that being lost; nature is corrupted, and depriued of all naturall and morall rectitude, so that a man, after the fall of Adam, till grace restore him, can do nothing morally good, or that is not sin. These men defined originall sin to be, a priuation of originall righteousnesse, that is, of that grace, without which a man can neither feare, loue, nor serue God aright. And consequently, do teach, that after Adams fall, without grace renewing vs, wee cannot keepe the commaundements of God, do the workes of morall vertue, or any way dispose our selues to a true conuersion and turning vnto God. This opinion is l •… rnedly defended by De causa Dei contra Pelagianos. Thomas Bradwardin, in his discourses against the Pelagians of his time, and confirmed by him out of the Scriptures, and Fathers: and likewise by 〈◊〉 2. Sentent. Dict. 26. quest. 1. art. 1. & dist. 30. quest. 3. Gregorius Ariminensis; as it was before them, by Augustine and Prosper. Many there were who thought otherwise; whom Cardinall In lib. de praedestinatione. Contaren blameth, as inclining too much to the Pelagian heresie; but the best men concurred in judgment with these. For proofe whereof Cassander citeth an excellent saying of Bonauentura: Hoc, inquit, piarum mentium est, vt nil sibi tribuant, sed totum gratiae Dei; vnde quantumcunque aliquis det gratiae dei, a pietate non recedit: etiamsi multa tribuendo gratiae Dei, aliquid subtrahit potestati naturae, vel liberi arbitrij: cum vero aliquid gratiae dei subtrahitur, & naturae tribuitur, quod gratiae est: ibi n Consultat, art. 18. potest periculum interuenire. That is, it is the property of pious and good mindes, to attribute nothing to themselues, but to ascribe all vnto the grace of God: for how much soeuer a man giueth to the grace of God, hee offendeth against no rule of piety, noe though by giuing much to the grace of God, he subtract something from the power of nature, or free-will: but when any thing that pertaineth to grace is denied vnto it, and giuen to nature, there may be some danger.

Concerning iustification, there is a very maine difference betweene the Papists, and vs: for though we deny not, but that there is a donation and giuing of the spirit to all them that are iustified: changing and altering them in such sort as that they beginne to do the workes of righteousnesse: yet we teach, that iustification consisteth in such sort in the remission of sinnes, and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, that the faithfull soule must trust to no other righteousnesse but that which is imputed: the other beeing imperfect, and not enduring the triall of GODS seuere judgement: Now that this was the faith of the best and worthiest men in the Church, in former times, it will easily appeare vnto vs. Epistola 190. The righteousnesse of another (sayth Bernard) is assigned to man, because he had none of his owne: and vppon the Canticles he sayth; serm. 61. in Cantica. I also will sing the mercies of the Lord for euer. Shall I sing of mine owne righteousnesse? noe Lord, I will remember thy righteousnesse onely: for that is mine seeing thou art made vnto mee of God righteousnesse. Is there any cause for mee to feare, least it should not suffice vs both? it is no short cloake, which according to the Prophet, cannot couer two. With Bernard all other good men agreed, who in respect of the imperfection of our inherent righteousnesse, pronounced it to be as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman. Lib. 4. de consolatione Theologiae prosa 1. Who is there, saith Gerson, that shall dare to boast that hee hath a cleane heart? and who shall say I am innocent? and I am cleane? who is hee that will not quake for feare, when he shall stand before God to bee iudged? who is fearefull in his counsels. Hence Iob in his affliction saith vnto God, I feared all my workes, knowing that thou sparest not the sinner: and again, if he will contend with me, I cannot answere him one of a thousand. Whereunto the prayer of the Prophet agreeth; enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord, for no liuing man shall bee iustified in thy sight: And againe, if thou shalt obserue iniquities, O Lord, Lord who shall endure it? Furthermore we reade, that Esay wrapping vp himselfe with other, and waxing vile in his owne eyes, in all humility professed, that all our righteousnesse is as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman. Who therefore in boasting sort shall dare to shew his righteousnesse to God, more then a woman dareth shew the ragges of her confusion and shame to her husband? There are two kindes of iustice, to which faith leadeth vs, saith De iustific. Cardinall Contarenus; the one inherent, the other imputed: it remaineth that wee enquire vpon which of them we are to stay our selues, and by which wee are to thinke that wee are iustified before God, that is, accounted iust and holy, as hauing that iustice that pleaseth God, and answereth to that his law requireth, I truely, saith hee, thinke that a man very piously & Christianly may say, that wee ought to stay, to stay I say, as vpon a firme and stable thing able vndoubtedly to sustaine vs, vpon the iustice of Christ giuen and imputed to vs, and not vpon the holinesse and grace that is inherent in vs. For this our righteousnesse is but imperfit, and such as cannot defend vs, seeing in many things we offend all, &c. But the iustice of Christ, which is giuen vnto vs is true and perfect iustice, which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offendeth God: Vpon this therefore as most certaine and stable wee must stay our selues, and beleeue that wee are iustified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians which whosoeuer findeth, selleth all that he hath to buy it. With Contarenus agree the Authors of the Enchiridion of Christian religion, published in the prouinciall Synod of Collen, in the yeare of our Lord 1536. Which, as Consult. art. 4. Cassander saith, the more learned diuines, in Italy and France approued: the authours of the booke called De iustific. Antididagma Coloniense, Contro. 2. de fide & iustif catione. Albertus Pighius, and sundry other; who if they were now a liue, and should thus teach, our Iesuited Papists would soone condemne them as Heretickes.

Touching merits; I haue shewed In appendice. cap. 12. else-where that Scotus, Cameracensis, Ariminensis, and Waldensis; doe thinke there is no merit properly so named. With whom agreeth. Adrian the Pope, vpon the fourth of the sentences, writing thus, like a y Citatus a Cassandro in Consult. art. 6. Protestant as I thinke. Our merits are as a staffe of reed, vpon which if a man stay himselfe, it will breake and pierce the hand of him that stayeth on it: and our righteousnesse is as the ragges of a menstruous woman, &c, Citat. à Cassandro. Ibid. Clicthouaeus vpon the Canon of the Masse, vpon these wordes, not waying our merits, but pardoning our offences, asketh, what merit we can plead with God; to whom wee owe all thinges? according to that, When yee haue done all, say that yee are vnprofitable seruants: and how wee can applaud our selues in our good workes, whereas all our righteousnesse is as the polluted ragges of a menstruous woman before the Lord? Whereunto Bernard agreeth. a Serm. 1. in festo omnium Sanctorum. There is extant an excellent Epistle of Cardinall Epist. ad Cardinalem Farne sium, de actis Ratisbon. Contarenus, wherein hee sheweth what reasons moued him, and the other of his side, to yeelde so farre to the Protestants, as to leaue out the name of merit, and to acknowledge that there is no meritte of workes properly so named. And as these Catholicke Diuines thought thus of iustification, by imputation of Christs righteousnesse, the imperfection of our inherent righteousnesse, and our not meriting any thing with the merit of condignity; so they taught likewise that Christs righteousnesse is to bee apprehended by a liuely faith, and defined a liuely faith to bee that motion of the spirit, whereby men truely repenting of their former life, are raised and lifted vp to God, and doe truely apprehend the mercy of God promised in Christ, so that they doe indeede feele in themselues that they haue receiued remission of sinnes and reconciliation by Gods goodnesse, and by the merit of CHRIST, and doe cry Abba, Father. Thus much was expresly deliuered in the Cit. à Cassan consult. art. 4 booke exhibited by the Emperour Charles to the Diuines of both sides, whom he appointed to conferre together for the composing of the controversies of Religion: and the Diuines agreed vnto it. Likewise in the Enchiridion d Ibid. of Christian Religion, so much approued by all the more learned Diuines of Italy & France, thus wee read. We confesse that it is true, that it is altogether required to the justification of a man, that hee certainly beleeue not onely in a generalitie, that for CHRISTS sake sinnes are remitted to such as truly repent, but that particularly they are remitted to himselfe by faith for Christs sake. With whom Contarenus agreeth in his Tract of Iustification, the most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colein, Authors of the booke called De duplicl fiducia. Antididagma, & sundry other. And before them all, Bernard deliuered the very same: his words are these. Serm. 1. de annunc. Dom. If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot be done away, but by him against whom only thou hast sinned, & who cannot sin, thou doest well: but adde this moreouer, to beleeue that thy sinnes are remitted thee: this is the testimony which the holy Spirit giueth in our hearts, saying: Thy sinnes are remitted thee. For so the Apostle supposeth, that a man is iustified freely by faith. That the Pope may erre not personally onely, but iudicially also, wee haue the opinion of Hi omnes citantur à Stapletono. Relect. contro. 〈◊〉 . q 4 & Bel. l. 4 de Pont. c. 2. Ockam, Michael Caesenas, Cameracensis, Cusanus, Almain, Gerson, Waldensis, Picus Mirandula, Pope Adria •… the 6. almost all the Parisians, all them that thinke the Councel to be aboue the Pope, the Fathers in the Councels of Constance & Basil, Alphonsus à Castro: and as some thinke, Durandus; Bell. ibid. c. 7. Cyprian, and his colleagues, who resisted against the determination of the Bishop of Rome, and all the Christians of the East at this day. This might seeme to be a good proofe: yet Vbi suprà. Stapleton is so farre from yeelding to it, that he condemneth them all that thus thought, as ignorant and rash, especially the latter of them. That the Pope is onely first amongst Bishops, equall with him in power, not of order onely, but of iurisdiction also, De concord. cath l. 2. c. 13 Cusanus proueth at large, as Dial. l. 4. primi tract. tertiae part. c. 2. Ockam, Ib. c. 3 Michael Caesenas, and their consorts did before: and with these in effect (though they expresse not the same so well,) Cameracensis, Gerson, Almaine, & all the rest agree, who thinke the Councell to be greater in authoritie, and in the power of iurisdiction, then the Pope: and make him to be amongst Bishops, as the Duke of Venice is amongst the great Senators of that state, greater then each one, but inferiour to the whole company of Bishops. Sup. sent. prolog. q. 10 art. 2. Iohn Bacon our Countrey-man noteth, that many in his time were of the same opinion, who thought the Pope, as Head or President of the Colledge and company of Bishops, and with them; to haue an illimited authority, reaching to all persons and causes Ecclesiasticall; but not as in, of, and by himselfe. This opinion, De sac. eccl. minist. & benef. l. 3 c. 2. Duarenus followeth, and sheweth, that anciently the Pope tooke no more on him. The same opinion doe all the Christians of the East hold: & the practise & resolution of antiquity confirmeth the same. Touching the vnlawfulnes of the Popes medling with Princes & their affaires, we haue the testimonies of In Chron. an. 1088. Sigebertus, De concord. cath. l. 3. c. 41. Cusanus, & many more, whom I would produce, but that M Blackwell the Arch-priest in his examination, hath already produced a world of witnesses, deposing against the Pope in this behalfe, to whom I referre the Reader.

The like might be shewed in other points; but because I will not be tedious, I will leaue these points of doctrine, and come to shew what complaints were euery-where heard in the Christian world, before wee were borne, against the pope and court of Rome. Of Bishop Grosthead, and our English, I haue spoken already: and haue sufficiently shewed how they multiplyed complaints against the pope: let vs therefore come to other: The popes, saith Nicholaus De corrupto Eccles. statu. Clemangis, as they saw themselues to bee greater then other prelates, so they lifted vp themselues aboue other in desire of ruling, and ouer-ruling all: and finding that Peters patrimonie, though exceeding any one Kingdome of the world, would not suffice to maintaine their state, which they would haue to be greater then that of Emperors, Kings and Princes: they entred into those sheepfolds of other men, which they found to abound vvith milke & vvooll: for they took to thē the povver to confer benefices & church-liuings, vvhich •… ould fal void in any part of the christian vvorld, ouerthrovving al those electiōs vvhich the ancient by so many Canons carefully sought to vphold: and hereby drew to them an infinite masse of money: neither did they soe stay, but tooke away from Bishops and patrons all right of collation & presentation; forbidding them to place any till such should bee prouided for, as they had giuen the expectatiue hope of benefices not voyd. Of these men there was an infinite number, not comming from the Vniuersities and schooles of learning, but from the plough or base trades, not knowing Alpha from Beta: who liued most wickedly, and dissolutely, and brought the holy Ministery into so great contempt, that whereas anciently nothing was more honourable, now nothing is more abiect, and contemptible. Besides these grieuances, vppon euery vacancy, they exacted the benefit of a whole yeare out of euery liuing, according to a taxation set by them, which sometimes three yeares profit would not answere: and yet not content herewith, they oftentimes imposed tenthes, and such like extraordinary taxes vppon the poore Cleargy: And as if nothing would suffice, ouerthrew all the iurisdiction of other Bishops: brought all matters of suite to the Court of Rome: and thereby also filled their coffers: and, that nothing might bee wanting to make the Church most miserable, the proud spirits of Cardinalls, the Popes Assessors, their swelling words, and their insolent gestures were such, that if a man would draw a perfit picture of pride, the best way to expresse the same were to paint a Cardinall. For though these men at the first were but of the inferiour Cleargy, yet in time they so enlarged their Phylacteries, that they do not onely despise Bishops, whom in contempt they call Episcopellos; but also Patriarches, Primates, and Arch-bishops as their inferiors: and almost suffer themselues to be adored of them. Yea they think themselues to be Kinges fellowes: neyther did they content them-selues thus proudly and insolently to aduance themselues aboue these, vnder whom they should haue bin, but to maintaine their state, the vnmeasurable and inextricable gulfe of their couetousnes was such, that no words can expresse it. For they got diuerse kindes of liuings, that do not well stand together: they became Monkes and Canons, Regulars and Seculars: and vnder one habit, possessed the liuings of all religious orders, and professions: not 2. or 3. 10. or 20. but a hundred, 2. hundred, yea sometimes 4. hundred or more: and those not small and poore, but the best and fattest that could be gotten. Gerson speaking of the incroaching of the Court of Rome, writeth in this sort: De Concilio vnius Obedientiae. In processe of time the Pope drew many things to himselfe: so that in the end, vppon occasion giuen and taken (which it is not needfull heere to rehearse) almost the whole collation of liuings and iurisdiction of the Church, rested in the Pope and his Court, in such sort, that scarce was there any Prelate found, that had power to giue any the least benefice. Together with these thinges concurred many fold exactions, to maintaine the state of the Pope and Cardinals: and whether there were not many fraudes, abuses, and symonies committed, I referre to the iudgment of such as are of experience. These things I haue therefore insisted vppon; because happily it may seeme to some more expedient for the Vniuersall Church, that all thinges should be brought backe to their auncient estate, wherein they were in that Church that was in the Apostles times, as much as conueniently might be, the greater part of these iurisdictions being reiected, which haue made the Church meerely brutish, and carnall, sauouring almost nothing of the things that concerne the saluation of soules, (not of them-selues but thorough the fault of such as abuse them) or at the least that things should be brought to the state they were in, in the time of Syluester or Gregory, when euery Prelate was left to him-selfe in his owne jurisdiction, and that part of the Church that was committed to his charge, and the Pope held that which was his owne, without soe many reseruations and so many great exactions, for the maintenance of that Court and Head, growing happily too great for the other states and parts of the body to beare. So that, as there were worthy men that, conspiring with vs in matter of faith, opposed themselues against errors, and false opinions, soe there wanted not, that disliked and reproued the Popes incroaching, tending to the dissoluing of the whole frame of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, and the ouerthrow of the forme of gouernment, setled by Christ, which is no lesse hurtfull, then the bringing in of heresie and false Doctrine. And this is that Babylonicall captiuity, of which Grosthead complained: and in respect of these confusions, and not onely in respect of ill life, as Maister Higgons vntruly telleth vs, Bernard and other complained, that the seruants of Christ serued Antichrist.

From the tyranny and vsurpations of the Pope, soe much complayned of in the dayes of our Fathers, let vs come to abuses and superstitious obseruations remoued by vs, and see whether they that went before vs, will not giue testimonie to that which wee haue done. And first to begin with the Sacrament of the Lords body and bloud: the first abuse in the celebration of that Sacrament, disliked by vs, is the mangling of it, and giuing it to the Lay people onely in one kinde. Touching the ministration of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is euident, sayth Consultat. art. 22. Cassander, that all other Churches of the World euen vnto this day, and that the Roman or West Church for more then a thousand yeares, in the solemne, publike, and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament, gaue both kindes to all the members of the Church. The same doth Annot. in lib. de Corona militis. Rhenanus proue at large, writing vppon Tertullian; and sheweth, that, for feare of shedding, the Challices, wherein the consecrated wine was, and out of which the people were to drinke the bloud of CHRIST, had certaine pipes of siluer. Afterwards in processe of time, the consecrated breade was dipped into the wine and soe giuen to the people that they might receiue the whole Sacrament. But this kinde of dipping De officio missae. cap. 19. Micrologus sayth, Ordo Romanus condemneth: and therefore prescribeth, that on Good fryday, when there is no consecrating, but a receiuing of the mysticall breade, that was consecrated the day before, they should by saying the Lords Prayer, and dipping the body of our Lord into Wine, not consecrated, consecrate the same: that soe the people might bee partakers of the whole Communion: which thinge were superfluous, if the body of our Lord, kept from the day before, and soe dipped, might suffice for a full and entire Communion: and he sheweth, that Iulius the Pope, writing to the Bishoppes of Aegypt, condemned this kind of dipping, and commaunded them to giue the bread and wine apart, as Christ did institute: yet in time they proceeded farther, and gaue the Sacrament onely in one kinde to the people: which custome when some condemned; the Councels of Constance and Basill, thought good to confirme and allow; yet so, that the Bohemians, vppon certaine agreements, were permitted to haue the communion in both kindes: and Lyndan. Panopliae Euangelicae lib. 4. cap. 56. it is reported of Pope Martin, chosen in the Councell of Constance, that hee went home from the Councell, and ministred the communion in both kindes, to diuerse, not of the Cleargy onely, but of the Laitie also. Doctrinal. Fidei tom. 2. de Sacramento Eucharistiae. cap. 94. VValdensis also testifieth, that heere in England, some deuout men of the Laitie were permitted to communicate in both kindes in his time: and Consultat. art. 22. Cassander assureth vs, that all the best men that professed them-selues to bee Catholiques, especially such as were conuersant in reading the ancient writers, and monuments of antiquity, vppon great reason desired to haue the Communion in both kindes.

The next abuse was that of priuate Masses. I haue shewed already that the name of Masse was giuen to the holy Sacrament, for that all non-communicants were dismissed, and all that staid were to communicate. And, as In prefat. O •… d. Romani. Cassander fitly noteth, the whole composition and forme of the sacred prayer, called the Canon, agreeth onely to a publike ministration: there being often mention made in it of the people standing round about, offering and communicating; so that some ancient expositors of the Roman order, thinke the Canon ought not to bee vsed, but in a publike ministration. To which purpose De officio Missae. cap. 19. Micrologus obserueth that the prayers vsed after the communion are appliable onely to such as haue communicated; and therefore willeth them not to neglect to communicate, that desire to enioy the blessing of these praiers. Citat. à Cas. in praefat. ord. Romani. Clichthoueus vppon the Canon of the Masse sayth, that which some note, that the Priest, soe often as hee celebrateth, should giue the Sacrament to all that stand by, is Auncient and agreeable to the custome of the Primitiue Church, when the faithfull did euery day receiue the Sacrament according to that Sanction of Calixtus the Pope; After the consecration let all communicate: and that of Anacletus, who willeth them to bee excommunicated, that beeing present at the consecration, communicate not: which Defens. fid. Trid. l. 2. fol. 239. Andradius will not haue to be restrained to the Ministers assisting, but extended to all the people, and that by the authority of Dionysius, and Iustine Martyr. Cit. á Cassandro ubi supra. Cochlaeus against Musculus de sacrificio missae hath these wordes: In olde time both Priest and people, as many as were present at the sacrifice of the Masse, after the oblation was ended, communicated with the Priest, as it is evident by the Canons of the Apostles, and the Epistles of the most ancient Doctors, &c. Afterwards the devotion of the people decayed, yet the Cleargy and Ministers communicated still; & when all they did not communicate, yet at least the Deacons, and Subdeacons communicated, as the Authour of the Romane Breviary testifieth. Whereupon, saith Cassander, some godly and learned men doe wish, that this ancient custome were restored, that at least the Ministers might communicate with him that celebrateth, as agreeable to the practise of the Primitiue Church, and making much for the dignity and gravitie of this Mystery. Damian. â Coes de morib. AEthiopum. In the Churches of Aethiopia all communicate in both kindes, twise euery weeke to this day. Cit. à Cassandro cons. art. 24. De solitariis Missis. Iohn Hofmeister, expounding certaine prayers of the Masse, hath these wordes: the thing it selfe proclaimeth it, that as well in the Greeke, as Latine Church, not the Priest that celebrateth onely, but the rest of the Presbyters and Deacons, & the whole people, or at least some part of the people, was wont to communicate: which custome how it ceased, and grew out of vse, may seeme strange; but it were greatly to be wished that it were restored againe: which thing might easily be effected, if the Pastors of the Churches would do their duty: for the Priests themselues are in fault, that few or none of the people are found to communicate, in that they doe not invite & stirre them vp to communicate more often: as appeareth by the writing of a certaine Diuine, not vnlearned, in the former age, in which he reprehendeth certaine Pastours of that age wherein hee liued, who tooke it ill, that some of their Parishioners, though liuing very laudably, desired to communicate euery Sunday. That the Sacrament was ministred in former times in loafe bread, as we minister it at this day, it is evident by the booke called Ordo Romanus, by In rational. Divinorum. l. 4 rub •… ic a d •… pacis osculo. p. 70 Durandus, & sundry other authorities. In auncient times the manner was to giue the holy Sacrament into the hands of the communicants, as wee doe, and not to put it into their mouthes, as the Papists doe. What shall I speak, saith Defens fid. Trid. l. 2. fol. 239 Andradius, of the vse of the holy Eucharist, which now no man may lawfully touch but the Priests, whereas it was wont to be carryed by the Deacons, to such as were absent, and to be giuen to Laymen into their hands: whence proceeded that exhortation of Cyrill of Hierusalem, full of piety and religion, that each communicant should fasten his eyes vpon those hands that receiued the holy Eucharist, and kisse them with the kisses of his mouth, that so he might communicate to the rest of the members the holynesse of the Eucharist. The custome of circumgestation, saith Consul. art. 22 Cassander, is contrary to the manner of the Auncient, and would neuer haue beene liked of them, who held this mysterie in so great respect, that they admitted none to the sight of it, but such as they thought worthy to be partakers of it: whereupon all such as might not communicate, were ejected before the consecration: and therefore it seemeth that this circumgestation might be omitted. Crantzius praiseth Cusanus, who being the Popes Legate in Germany, tooke it away, vnlesse it were within the Octaues of the feast of Corpus Christi, the Sacrament being instituted for vse, and not for ostentation. Touching the honour of Saints, De directione cordis consid. 16. & seqq. Gerson, In consut. art. Lutheri. Contarenus, and others reprehend sundry superstitious obseruations, & wish they were wisely abolished. Whether the Saints particularly know our estate, and heare our cryes & groanes, not onely De Cura pro mortuis. Augustine, & the In Esaiae 63. Author of the Interlineall Glosse, but Erud. Theol. de sacr. fid. l. 2. part. 16. c. 11 Hugo de sancto Victore also will tell vs, it is altogether vncertaine, & cannot be knowne: whence it followeth, that howsoeuer being assured they pray for vs in a generality, wee may safely desire to bee respected of God the rather for their sakes, yet it is not safe to pray to them. Neither is this a new conceipt of ours, but In 4. sent. l. 3. •… ract. 8. c. 5. q. 6. Guilielmus Altisiodorensis saith, it was a common opinion in his time, that neither we doe properly pray to Saints, nor they in particular pray for vs, but that improperly we are said to pray to thē, in that we pray vnto God that the rather for their sakes, & at their suite we may finde fauour and acceptation with him. Touching the abuse of Images, and how much it was disliked in former time, let the Reader see In Consult. artic. 21. de Imaginibus. Cassander. How great complaints were made long since against the forced single life of the Cleargy, and how many and great men desired the abrogation of the law, that forced men so to liue, I haue shewed at large 5. Booke of the Church Chap. 57. else-where. That in the Primitiue Church they had their prayers in the vulgar tongue, In 1. ad Corinth. 14. Lyra confesseth; and In Respons ad articulos Parisienses. Caietane professeth, that he thinketh it would be more for edification, if they were so now; and confirmeth his opinion out of the Apostle Saint Paul. Thus haue I giuen the Reader a taste of the iudgement of those that liued in former times, both concerning matters of doctrine now controuersed, the Popes incroachments now by vs restrained, and also such abuses as we haue remoued, by which I thinke it will appeare to be most true, that amongst many good proofes of the equitie of our cause, there can no better be desired, then that, what wee haue done in the reformation of thinges amisse, the worthiest men in the Church wished to be done, before wee were borne. And therefore Master Higgons hath little cause to say, Pag. 84. Our cause is bad, and the Patrons worse. That which hee addeth: (that Pag. 507. it is to bee maruailed at, that I distill the religion and profession of Protestants, out of Catholickes,) is to bee laughed at as most ridiculous: for out of whom else should I distill it? but if hee thinke they were all Papists, whom I cite for proofe of our cause, because they liued vnder the Papacie, hee is deceiued: for a great difference is to be put betweene the Church, and faction in the Church, wee deriuing our selues from the one, and they from the other.

The second Chapter.
§. 1.

WHerefore now let vs returne to see, what Master Higgons hath further to say; Pag. 36. hee will conuince Mee, he saith, of singular vanity, in that I say there is no materiall difference betweene those, whom hee and his consorts call Lutherans, and Zuinglians. That the reader may the better bee able to discerne, how ignorantly Higgons excepteth against Mee, I will set downe at large what I haue written touching this matter. Answering the calumniation of Papists, traducing vs for our diuisions, my wordes are these: Booke. 3. cap. 4 •… I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the Vbiquitary presence, or the like, between the Churches reformed by Luthers Ministery in Germany, and other places, and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries. And in my third booke, answering the obiection of Bellarmine, charging the Germane Diuines with the heresie of Eutiches, in that they say the humanity of Christ is euery where, Vbiquity being an incommunicable property of the Deity, that cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the Diuine and Humane natures, I haue these wordes: Ibid. c. 35. he should remember, that they, whom he thus odiously traduceth, are not so ignorant as to thinke, that the body of Christ, which is a finite & limited nature, is euery where by actuall position, or locall extension; but personally onely, in respect of the conjunction and vnion it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God, who is euery where. This is it then, which they teach, that the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite, limited and bounded; and is locally but in one place: but that there is no place, where it is not vnited personally to that God, that is euery where: In which sence they thinke it may truely be said to be euery where. This construction of their sayings, who defend the Vbiquitary presence, is no priuate or singular device of mine, as Master Higgons would make men beleeue; but Ecclesiasticall. policy, booke, 5. Master Hooker, a man so farre excelling Theophilus Higgons in learning & iudgment, that hee is not worthy to bee named the same day, hath the same precisely in the very same wordes, and alloweth it as Catholicke and good; and indeed, who but an ignorant Nouice that hath not learned the principles of the Catechisme would impugne it? Yet Maister Higgons sayth, Pag. 37. I haue fayled exceedingly in two poyntes: the first in saying, there is no place, where the body of Christ is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery where, and that it doth subsist euery where: the second, in saying the humane nature of Christ may rightly be sayd to be euery where, in as much as it is vnited personally to that which is euery where. This second saying is none of mine; for I haue no such words; as the reader will soone perceiue if he peruse the place; but my words are these: The body of Christ is not euery where by locall extension, but personally only in respect of the vnion it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no way seuered from God, who is euery where: and againe, there is noe place where it is not vnited personally to that God, that is euery where: in which sence the Germane Diuines thinke it may be sayd to be euery where.

Wherefore let vs see what Maister Higgons can say against any thing deliuered by Mee, touching this point: he sayth I haue fayled, for that, though the Diuine person wherein the humane nature subsisteth, bee euery where; yet the humane nature subsisteth therein finitely and in one determinate place, the Vnion it selfe being a created thing. For the better clearing of this point, and the vnderstanding of the Doctrine of the Church, resolued on by the best learned in the Schooles, wee must obserue, that there is a beeing of essence, and a beeing of existence, or subsistence: the beeing of essence, which the humane nature of Christ hath, is finite and limited, as is the essence of all other men: but beeing of existence it hath none of it owne, but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it, which is infinite and Diuine. In Apologia quast. 9. de accidentib. in Sacramento. Deus in incarnatione verbi (sayth Picus Mirandula) fecit essentiam humanitatis sine suo esse, vt dicitur á multis Doctoribus: That is, Almighty God in the incarnation of the eternall word, produced the essence of the humanity, without that finite and created actuall existence, which, left to it selfe, it would haue had, as many Doctours doe affirme; and Apologia quest. 5. the person of the Sonne of God, hauing in it the fulnesse of all beeing, drew the nature of man to the vnity of that infinite beeing it had in it selfe, and communicated the same vnto it: so that the humanity of Christ neuer had any other beeing of actuall existence or subsistence, but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it. And farther the same Apolog. quaest. 9. Picus sayth, Esse corporis Christi substantiale est increatum, Diuinum, quod est suppositi Diuini, cum in Christo non sit nisi vnum esse actualis existentiae substantialis. That is, the substantiall, actuall beeing of the body of CHRIST, is the increated beeing of the Sonne of GOD: seeing in CHRIST there is but one beeing of actuall existence. This which Picus Mirandula hath deliuered, is the resolution of Thomas Aquinas, Caietan, and all the best learned in the Romane Schooles: whence it followeth ineuitably, that the humanity of Christ, in the being of actuall existence, and subsistence, which it hath, is not limited or contained within any bounds of place, but is euery where; howsoeuer in respect of the being of essence, which is created & finite, it be shut vp within the straites of one place, at one time: and therefore it is noe better then Heresie, that Higgons hath, Pag. 37. that the humanity of Christ subsisteth finitely in the person of the Sonne of God: for if it subsist finitely, the subsistence it hath is finite: and if it haue a finite subsistence, then are there two subsistences in Christ, the one finite, the other infinite; and consequently, two persons: which is flat Nestorianisme. But, sayth Higgons, the vnion it selfe in Christ, is a created thing: therefore the beeing of actuall existence, or subsistence, which the humanity hath, is finite. Truely it had beene fitte the poore Nouice had beene set to Schoole for a time, before hee had beene permitted to write: for he bewrayeth grosse ignorance in those things, which euery one that hath saluted the Schooles doth know. The vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ, sayth Cardinall In 3. part. summae. quaest. 2. art. 6. Caietan, is to be considered, vel quantum ad relationem quam significat, vel quantū ad coniunctionem in personâ, ad quam consequitur: quoniam plus differunt haec duo quam caelum & terra; Vnio enim pro relatione, est ens reale creatum: Vnio antem pro coniunctione naturae humanae in personâ diuina, cum consistat in vnitate, que est inter naturam humanam & personam filij Dei, est in genere seu ordine Substantia; & non est aliquid Creatum, sed Creator; quod ex eo constat, quòd Vnum non addit supra Ens naturam aliquam, & vnumquodque per illudmet, per quod est Ens, est & Vnum, &c. Bc per hoc, natura humana in Christo, quia per esse substantiale subsistentia filii Dei est iuncta naturae divinae, oportet quod illud unum esse, in quo indivisae sunt natura diuina & humana in Christo, sit esse unum substantiale divinum; & verè sic est, quia esse subsistentiae filii Dei, in quo non distinguuntur ambae naturae, Substantia est; Deus est, quia verbum Dei est. Vnà & eâdem quippe Subsistentiâ subsistit filius Dei in natura Divina & in natura humana, & consequenter natura divina et humana in Christo sunt indivisae in illa subsistentiautrique communi, quamvis inter se valdè distinguantur. The summe of that he saith, is this: (for I will not stand exactly to English his wordes:) that the vnion betweene the nature of God and Man in CHRIST, in respect of that being, of actuall existence, and subsistence, wherein they are conioyned, (which is the same and common to them both, to wit, the subsistence of the Sonne of God, communicated to the nature of man, prevented that it should not haue any created or finite subsistence of it owne) is no finite or created thing, but infinite and diuine; but in respect of the attaining of the same, in time, and the relation of dependance the humane nature hath vpon the Eternall Word, it is finite: and therefore, whereas there are two kindes of grace in Christ, the one of vnion, the other habituall; the latter is absolutely a finite and created thing, but the former, in respect of the thing giuen, which is the personall subsistence of the Son of God, bestowed vpō the nature of man, is infinite, though the passiue mutatiō of the nature of man, lifted vp to the personal being of the Son of God, & the relation of dependance it hath on it, be finite, & in the number of created things. From that which hath beene said, it may be concluded vnavoydably, that the humanity of Christ in respect of personall vnion, and in that being of actuall existence or subsistence which it hath, which is infinite and diuine, is euery-where, as God himselfe is euery-where. But saith Higgons, there is an vnion Hypostatical betweene the soule & body, & all the parts of it: yet is not the foot or hand euery where, where the soule is, which is whole & intire in euery part, because it is not in the head. The poore fellow, I see, hath yet learned but a little Diuinity, and that maketh him thus to talke at randome. For howsoeuer the comparison of the soule and body be brought to expresse the personall vnion in Christ, yet it is very defectiue, as De incarn. l. 3. c. 8 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth. First because the body and soule are imperfit natures. Secondly, because they concurre to make one nature. Thirdly, because neither of them draweth the other into the subsistence it hath, but both depend on a third subsistence, which is that of the whole: but in the mysterie of the Incarnation, the Eternall Word subsisting perfitly in it selfe, draweth vnto it the nature of man; so that the humanity of Christ, hauing the same actuall existence that the Eternall Word hath, must needes bee, in respect of the same being, whore-soeuer the Word is: But there is no necessitie that each part of the body should be where-soeuer the soule is, which is intirely in the whole body, and intirely in euery part, because the body, and the parts of it, haue neither the same being of essence nor existence that the soule hath. But, saith Higgons, Pag. 38. the properties of the diuine nature are by vertue of the personal vnion, attributed to the persō in concreto, & not to the humane nature, in abstracto: so that though the Man Christ may be said to be euery-where, yet the humanity cannot. For answere to this obiection wee must note, that the communication of properties is of two sorts: the first is, the attributing of the properties of either nature to the person, from which nature soeuer it be denominated. The second, is the reall communication of the properties of the Deity to the nature of man, not formally and in it selfe, but in supposito, in the person of the Sonne of GOD, bestowed on it: in which sense De incarn. l. 3. c. 56. Bellarmine confesseth, that the glory of GOD, and all power both in Heauen and in earth, are giuen to the humane nature of CHRIST: Non in ipsa, sed in supposito, id est, per gratiam unionis, And so the Diuines of Germany doe say, the humanity of CHRIST is euery-where, in the being of subsistence cōmunicated to it, & the Man CHRIST properly and formally. By this which hath beene said, the intelligent reader, I doubt not, will easily perceiue the folly of silly Higgons, who being ignorant of the very principles and rudiments of Christian Doctrine, traduceth that as a pseudo-theologicall determination and heresie, which is the resolued determination of all the principall Schoole-men and best Diuines, that euer treated distinctly of the personall vnion of the two natures in Christ.

Yet as if all were cleare for him, and against Mee, encouraged by his good successe in this particular, hee proceedeth to the matter of the Sacrament, perswading himselfe, hee shall be able to find such and so many essentiall differences therein, as neither I, nor any man else shall euer be able to reconcile: whereas notwithstanding, if he had beene so much conuersant in the workes of Zanchius, as hee pretendeth, hee might haue found in him 'Iudicium de dissidio Caenae Dominicae in fine Miscellan. a most godly and learned discourse touching this point, wherein all that hee or any of his companions can say, is answered already, and the Diuines of Germany and those other, in shew opposite, in such sort reconciled, that our Aduersaries, if any thing would satisfie them, might lay their handes on their mouthes and be silent. In this discourse, first, hee sheweth that there is no question touching the preparation of them, that desire to bee worthy partakers of this heauenly banquet, neither concerning the vse of this blessed Sacrament. Secondly that it is agreed, that the very body and blood of Christ are to be receiued by such as desire to be made partakers of the life of grace, or being already partakers of it, to be strengthned, confirmed, and continued in the same. Thirdly, that the elements of bread and wine, presenting to our consideration the spirituall nourishing force, that is in the body & blood of Christ, are not a bolished in their substances, as the Patrons of Transubstantiation imagine, but onely changed in vse, in that they doe not onely signifie, but exhibite and communicate vnto vs the very body and blood of Christ, with all the gracious working of the same. Fourthly, that the meaning of Christs wordes, when hee said, this is my body, this is my blood, is, This, which outwardly and visibly I giue vnto you, is in substance, bread and wine, and in mysterie and exhibitiue signification my body and blood; but this which invisibly, together with the visible element, I giue vnto you, is, my very body that was crucified, and my blood that was shed for the remission of your sinnes. Fifthly, that the body and blood of Christ, which the Sacraments doe not signifie only, but exhibite also, and whereof the faithfull are to be partakers, are truely present in the blessed Sacrament; but the one part denieth that they are present, secundum suum esse naturale, that is, in the naturall beeing, or beeing of essence, because the body of Christ being finite, and hauing finite dimensions, cannot be in many places at one time; the other part on the contrary side answereth, that the body of Christ is finite indeed; but that, because it is personally ioyned to the Deity, it is wheresoeuer the Deity is; yet doe not they of this part say it is euery where, localitèr, but repletiuè & personalitèr; that is, not locally, but repletiuely and personally: which distinction Zanchius professeth hee doth not well vnderstand; but saith, if their meaning bee, that the body of Christ is present, secundum esse personale, that is, in that being of diuine subsistence communicated to it, whereof I haue spoken before, they say true, and contradict not the other, who speake of the naturall beeing of Christes body, or beeing of essence, and not of existence or subsistence, which is infinite and Diuine. And though Christs body be euery where in that personall being, as well as in the Sacrament, yet is it not any where else presented vnto vs in the nature of spirituall food. So that there is no difference between these men, touching the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament; neither will there bee any found touching the eating of it: for whereas in eating there is implied a chewing or mastication of that which is eaten, a traiection from the mouth into the stomacke, and a turning of the substance of the meate into the substance of the eater; a bodily eating of Christs body there cannot bee, seeing it is impassible, and admitteth no such diuision, as is made in chewing: and besides, if it should bee swallowed whole, it cannot bee turned into the substance of our bodies, but rather turneth vs into the substance of it selfe: so that there is onely a spirituall eating of Christ, consisting in that chewing, that is, by meditation vpon the seuerall and distinct thinges, that are found in his natures, powers, actions and sufferings; a traiection from the vnderstanding part to the heart, and an incorporation of the beleeuer into him. Yet it is not to be denyed, but that Luther and some other did teach, that euen the wicked doe in a sort eat the flesh of Christ, not as if they did corporally touch his sacred body, much lesse teare, rent, or diuide it with their teeth, or turne it into their substance; but for that they may bee said, in a sort, to eate the flesh of Christ, though vnprofitably, and to their condemnation, in that they truely receiue the body of Christ; eating that outward substance of bread, with which it is truely present, though not locally: and to this purpose the same Zanchius reporteth, that a man of no vulgar note amongst the followers of Luther, did not feare to tell him, that hee, and his, doe not say that we eate the body of Christ corporally, in such sort, as that our mouth and body should touch his sacred body, which is not locally present, but that the body of Christ is eaten bodily, only in respect of the Sacramentall vnion, attributing that to the body of Christ, that properly agreeth to the bread, with which the body is present. These things are found in a discourse of Zanchius intitled: Iudicium Hieronymi Zanchii de dissidio caenae dominicae: written by him for the satisfaction of a Bishop of Italy, at the request and entreaty of Paulus Vergerius, and Sturmius.

By that which hath beene said, we see there is no difference in iudgement between them, who out of humane frailty are too much diuided in affection: Luther vttered many thinges very passionately against Zuinglius, and others, conceauing that they made the Sacraments to be nothing, but onely notes distinctiue, seruing to put difference betweene Christians, and such as are no Christians, as a Monkes Cowle distinguisheth a Monke from him that is no Monke, or empty signes, without all presence of grace, and exhibition of the thinges they signifie. But if hee had fully vnderstood the meaning of them, hee was so violently opposite vnto, hee would not haue censured them so hardly as hee did. If Master Higgons had euer read this Tract of Zanchius, hee would not haue willed Mee to excogitate, or scanne out any reconciliation betwixt Lutherans, and Sacramentaries in the matter of the Sacrament.

The second part of the Chapter.
§. 1.

WHerefore let vs come to the next part of this Chapter; wherein Pag. 43. hee vndertaketh to demonstrate, that the thinges alledged by Mee, to take away the offence and scandall of the seeming differences amongst Protestants, are but false and empty pretenses. The first thing that Booke 3. chap. 52. I alledge is, that it is not to bee marvailed at, that the Tigurins, Gesnerus, and others disliked the distempered passions of Luther, or that some difference were amongst them, seeing the like were in former times betweene Epiphanius and Chrysostome, Hierome, Ruffinus, Augustine, and others. The second, that the Papistes haue their differences also, and those farre more materiall and vnreconcileable, then any are amongst vs. The third, that our differences, grow not out of the nature and quality of our doctrine, and that wee want not a certaine rule, by the direction whereof all controuersies may be ended.

Against the first of these my allegations, first hee opposeth a diuelish vntrueth, affirming, that Gesnerus, and the Tigurins, did not onely dislike the distempered passions of Luther, but hate him with mortall hatred, and accurse and execrate him, as possessed of a legion of Diuells; which neither Higgons, into whom a lying spirit is entred, nor any of those diuells hee is growne so familiar with, shall euer proue. So that there is no cause of trembling, but at the fearefull iudgement of God, against such as Master Higgons is, that forsake the loue of the Trueth, whom hee giueth vp into a reprobate sence. Secondly, in opposition to that which I alleadge, hee vndertaketh to proue there were no such differences betweene the Ancient, as those betweene the followers of Luther and Zuinglius: but demeaneth himselfe like a false gamester; for whereas I place the differences and conflictes betweene Epiphanius and Chrysostome in the front as hottest and most violent; the one of them refusing to pray with the other; the one challenging the other for manifold breaches of Canons, and the one professing, he hoped the other should neuer die a Bishop; the other, that he should neuer returne to his country aliue (both which things fell out according to their vncharitable wishes & desires, Epiphanius dying by the way, as he was returning home, and Chrysostome being cast out of his Bishopricke, and dying in banishment) he scarce taketh any notice hereof, but saith only, the differences betweene Luther and Zuinglius, exceeded the conflicts betweene Chrysostome, and Epiphanius: which yet I thinke hee will hardly proue. Touching Ruffinus and Hierome, it is certaine, the one of them charged the other with heresie, and vsed most bitter speaches one against another, to the great scandall of the world. The differences betweene Augustine and Hierome were carried more temperately: neither doe I say, they exceeded in passion, as Luther and Zuinglius did; yet did Augustine charge Hierome with taking on him the Patronage of lying, and affirming that the Authours of Canonicall Scriptures lyed in some passages of the same, the consequence whereof he thinketh to bee most dangerous and damnable. Besides this, they differed about the ceasing of the legall obseruations, so that their differences were greater then those of Luther and Zuinglius if they had rightly vnderstood one another. Yet will Master Higgons shew Pag. 34. 35. a great difference betweene the differences of the Auncient, and those of Luther, and Zuinglius: First, because Chrysostome and Epiphanius, Hierome and Ruffinus, had an ordinary vocation, whereas Luther and Zuinglius are supposed to haue beene raysed vppe extraordinarily. Secondly, for that they quarrelled onely about the bookes of Origen, and the improbation thereof; but the differences betweene Luther and Zuinglius, were founded originally in matters of faith, pertaining to the necssity of saluation. Thirdly in respect of extent; in that their differences were not the differences of whole Churches, as these are; and of duration, in that their divisions were soone extinguished, but these are propagated in succession, and increased with continuall addition. To euery of these pretended differences I will briefly answere; & first to the first; that we neuer thought that Luther and Zuinglius had an extraordinary calling as the Apostles, & other sent immediatly of God had, but that God stirred and moued them extraordinarily with Heroicall resolution, to vse that ordinary ministeriall power, which they had receiued in the corrupt state of the Church, for the reprehending and reforming abuses in the same; and therefore they might be subiect to errours, and infirmity, as Chrysostome and Epiphanius were, notwithstanding any thing wee say or conceiue of them. To the second wee say, Master Higgons sheweth himselfe in it, either faithlesse, or ignorant. For we know See these things at large in the 5. booke of the Church. chap. 35. Epiphanius was an Anthropomorphite, & that hee was willing for that cause to condemne the bookes of Origen, wherein this grosse errour is condemned, & besides took part with Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, who though hee were of another minde, yet fained himselfe to be an Anthropomorphite, & to condemne the bookes of Origen, as contrary to that conceipt, & deposed Chrysostome; for which his temerity hee was anathematized by the Church of Rome, if we may beleeue Nicephorus. Neither were these the priuate differences of particular men, but of the greatest Churches of the world, as Chrysostome confesseth in his Epistle to the Bishop of Rome, saying, that all the Churches euery-where by reason heereof were brought vpon their knees. Touching Ruffinus it is evident, that he was challenged for fauouring the heresies of Origen, whose workes he translated: so that it was no matter of circumstance, but of substance, in highest degree, about which Hierome & he calumniated one the other: & for proof heereof, Anastasius Bishop of Rome, writing to the Bishop of Hierusalem touching Ruffinus, saith he had so translated the books of Origen out of Greek into Latin, as that he approued the errors contained in them, & was like a man that consenteth to the vices & faults of other men. Yea Vide Apolog. Hier contra Ruffin. Hierome feared not directly to pronounce him to be an Hereticke, and more blinde then a Mole.

We reade, Vide Acta Conc. Ephes. that in the time of the first Councell of Ephesus, called for the suppressing of the heresie of Nestorius, there grew most bitter contentions betweene Cyrill of Alexandria, and Iohn of Antioch, so that the Churches subiect to them were deuided one from another, in such sort, that they Anathematised one the other, imputing heresie each to other: yet were they in truth and indeede of the same judgment, and in the end it was found, that these contentions grew out of dislikes, mistakings, and mis-constructions of things well meant, but not so taken. The like may be sayd of Theodoret, who notwithstanding all the conflicts betweene him and Cyrill, and the condemnation passed vppon him, as if hee had beene an Hereticke, was in the end found to be an Orthodox by Leo, and the Bishoppes of the West; and vppon a full and cleare declaration and profession of his faith, receiued as a Catholicke Bishoppe into the Councell of Actione 1. & 8. Chalcedon. Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration made in the praise of Athanasius, sheweth, that there was a maine diuision of the Christians of the East, and the Romanes, or those of the West: the one part suspecting the other of heresie, vpon a meere not vnderstanding one another: the Romans professed to beleeue, that there are three persons in the blessed Trinity, but could not bee induced to acknowledge three Hypostases; whence the Orientall Christians thought them to bee Sabellians, who thought that there is but one person in the Godhead, called by three names: on the otherside, the orientall Christians professed that they beleeued three Hypostases in the God-head, but would not admitte three persons; whence they of Rome thought them to bee Arrians, who beleeued, that there are three distinct substances in the God-heade: the word Hypostasis in the Schooles of secular learning, importing substance, as Hierome noteth: but Athanasius perceiuing that they differed not in iudgment, and that the Greekes meant the same by their Hypostases, that the Latines did by their name of Persons, left them free for the manner and forme of speech, and made a peace betweene them, by letting them know, they all meant one thing, though they expressed the same differently; whereas otherwise it was to bee feared, they would haue beene diuided with endlesse diuisions, about these fewe Syllables. About this matter Hierome liuing in the East parts, wrote to Damasus, Bishoppe of Rome: his wordes are these. Tomo 2. operum Hieronymi. They vrge vs to acknowledge three Hypostases: wee aske them what they meane by the Hypostases they speake of, and they tell vs three persons subsisting: wee answere, that wee beleeue so, but the sense satisfieth them not; they vrge vs to vse the word it selfe, some poyson lying hid in the very syllables, &c. Let it bee sufficient for vs to say, there is one substance in God, and three subsisting Persons, perfit, equall, and coeternall: if it seeme good vnto you, let vs speake no more of three Hypostases, but let vs acknowledge one only: there is some ill to be suspected, whē in one sense diuersity of words is found; let it suffice vs, to beleeue as I haue sayd: or, if you thinke it right, that wee admitte three Hypostases, with their interpretation we will not refuse soe to doe: but beleeue mee, there lyeth some poyson hid vnder their wordes: the Angell of Sathan hath transfigured himselfe into an Angell of light.

By this which hath been said, it is euident, that there haue bin as great and hot contentions in former times, amongst right beleeuers as are now between the professors of the reformed religion, and that those diuisions were not about matters of circumstance, or personall onely, as Higgons falsely pretendeth, but of whole Churches, disliking, condemning, and refusing to communicate one with another, vppon supposed differences in mattersof faith and religion. Wherefore to draw to a conclusion, we deny not, but that Luther, and some other adhering to him, vpon some misconstruction of the opinion of Zuinglius, and the rest, were carried too farre with the violence of their ill-guided zeale: but we say also, that there were as fiery conflicts in former times betweene Cyrill and Theodoret: betweene Cyrill and Iohn of Antioch: betweene Chrysostome and Epiphanius: who yet were Catholicke Christians all of them, as I take it, notwithstanding the vnkindnesses that passed betweene them; and as Iohn of Antioch, and Theodoret were reconciled to Cyrill, and those of that side, vpon a more ful explication of their positiōs formerly disliked; so it is See touching this report of Melanchthon, the Admonition of the Diuines of the County Palatine concerning the booke, intituled Liber Concordiae. reported by Melanchthon, that Luther a litle before his death, cōfessed vnto him, that he had exceeded & gone too far in the cōtrouersies between him & his opposits about the Sacramēt: & that thereupon being wished to publish some qualification of his former writings that were too violēt and bitter, he said hee had thought vpon that matter, and would so doe, but that hee feared the scandall that might grow vpon such his retractation, and that therefore he was resolued to referre all to God, and to leaue the matter to Melanchthon, who might doe something in it, after his death. This conference betweene Luther and him, Melanchthon made knowne to many, and euer constantly shewed himselfe a most godly, peaceable, and religious man, carefull to hold the vnity of the spirit, in the bond of peace; howsoeuer it pleaseth pratling Higgons to wrong him, and to compare him to the Pag. 45. Moone in mutability.

Wherefore leauing my first allegation, let vs come to the second; which is, that there are more, and more materiall differences amongst Papists, then amongst vs, which Higgons saith is a poore recrimination. For that Pag. 46. the eye being iudge, there is a comfortable Harmony in the Roman Church; the same Doctrine preached, the same Sacraments ministered, and the same Gouernment established: whereas Protestants are diuided in iudgement, touching matters of faith, and haue a distinct gouernment in England, Scotland, Heluetia, and Saxony. This exception consisteth of two parts: the first, clearing the Papistes from the differences and diuisions, they are charged with: The second, charging Protestants with diuisions and differences both in matters of faith and gouernment. For answere to the former part of this exception, first I say, if there be no contradiction betweene these assertions, the Pope is aboue Generall Councels; the Pope is not aboue Generall Councels: the Pope hath the vniuersality of all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in himselfe, the Pope is but onely prime Bishoppe in order and honour before other, equall in commission with him, and at the most, but as the Duke of Venice amongst the senators of that state: the Pope may erre iudicially; the Pope cannot erre iudicially: the Pope is temporall Lord of all the world; the Pope is not temporall Lord of all the world: the Pope, if not as temporall Lord of the world, yet, in ordine ad spiritualia may dispose the Kingdomes of the world: the Pope may not meddle with Princes states in any case; men are iustified by imputed righteousnesse; men are not iustified by imputed righteousnesse: men are iustified by speciall faith; men are not iustified by speciall faith: men may be certaine, by the certainety of faith, that they are in state of grace: men cannot bee so certaine; there is merit of condignity, properly so named; there is no merit of condignity: the blessed Virgine was conceiued in sinne; the blessed Virgine was not conceiued in sinne: then doubtlesse all the Pastours and Bishoppes of the Roman Church, preach the same Doctrine; otherwise let the reader assure himselfe, Master Higgons hath stretched his stile, to vse his owne wordes, till hee forced it to breake into a vast and notable vntrueth. Secondly, I say the forme of ministring the Sacraments, hath not beene alwayes the same in the Romane Church. For, (as Cassander noteth in his preface before the booke called Ordo Romanus, published by him) the auncient formes of diuine service were abolished & new imposed, and prescribed violently, so that all that resisted, were sent into banishment: and since that first alteration, as In vitâ Gregorij primi. Platina noteth, a number of Tautologies, and Barbarismes are crept in, making ingenuous men abhorre from the celebration of the holy mysteries. Thirdly, I thinke it will easily appeare, there was no such sweet harmony in the Romane Church touching matters of gouernment, as Master Higgons speaketh of, when the Pope was not onely resisted, but called Antichrist, in respect of his infinite reseruations, admittances of appeales, his prouisions, and graunting of expectatiue graces, and the like vsurpations, preiudiciall to the right of all other Bishoppes, and the liberty of the Church. For answere to the second part of his exception, first, I confidently affirme, and the proudest Papist vnder heauen shall neuer proue the contrary, that Protestants haue no reall and essentiall differences in matters of faith and doctrine. Secondly, I say, that their differences in the forme of gouernment, are not such as our Aduersaries pretend. For D. Bilson. of the perpetuall government of the Church. Pag. 307 they that admitte gouernment by Bishoppes, make their authority to bee fatherly, not princely, directing the rest, not excluding their aduise and assistance: subordinate to Prouinciall Synodes, wherein no one hath a negatiue voyce, but the maior part of the voyces of the Bishoppes and Presbyters determineth all doubtes, questions, and controuersies: and Bezade Ministrorum Evangelij gradibus. they that retaine not the name of Bishops, yet haue a president in each company of Presbyters, and thinke it a part of Gods ordinance, that there should bee such a one to goe before the rest, and to be in a sort ouer them; who, though they giue not the name of Bishops, nor so much authority to these Presidents, as Antiquity did, yet is not their errour in this point matchable with the errours that are amongst Papists, contradicting one another, touching the Pope and his gouernment, in things most essentially concerning the power and authority of that supposed Ministeriall head of the Church.

Wherefore, let vs come to my last allegation, excepted against by Master Higgons; which is, that we want not a most certaine rule to end all controversies by, which is the written word of God, interpreted according to the rule of faith, the practise of the Saints from the beginning, the conference of places, and all light of direction, that either knowledge of tongues, or any parts of good learning can yeeld. In excepting against this rule, Master Higgons sheweth the weakenesse of his braine: for what if Luther, Zuinglius, and other, complained against such as they thought to bee opposite to them in opinion, touching some particular points, that they had not due regard to this rule, or that they vsed it not aright? What if all bee not presently of one minde and judgement in all things? will that improue the rule of judging, which wee propose? and not rather argue the imperfection of such as should judge according to it? But hee Pag. 47. craueth leaue to except against the rule proposed by Mee, for three respects: first, because the principles of our religion exclude the meanes of reconciliation, to wit, the gravity of Councels, the dignity of Fathers, and the authority of the Church. For answer wherevnto wee say, that wee exclude not the gravity of Councels: for wee absolutely, without all restriction, receiue all the lawfull Generall Councells, that euer were holden touching matters of faith; and though wee make God, speaking in his word, to bee the onely judge authentically defining, and prescribing, what men shall beleeue, vnder paine of condemnation; yet wee thinke Councells haue a judgement of jurisdiction, and that they may subject all gaine-sayers to excommunication, and like censures. Neither doth it any way derogate from the authority of Bishoppes assembled in Councels, that we make them iudges to determine according to the word of God, & the resolutions of the Church from the beginning, & not the rule it selfe: for what man in his right wits, will attribute any more vnto them, and make them iudges at liberty, tied to the following of no rule of direction? or like God, that is a rule to himselfe in all his actions, and hath no Law prescribed to him by any other? Yet because Master Higgons willeth the reader to compare Campians fourth reason with my assertion, I will likewise intreat him to see a worthy Disputatio Nichol. Clemā gis habita per scriptum super materia concilii generalis, cum quodam Scholastico Parisierisi. discourse of Clemangis, wherein he proueth at large that Bishoppes assembled in Generall Councels must proue and confirme their determinations by other arguments, then by their own authority; and giueth many reasons, by which a man may reasonably perswade himselfe, that such Councels are not absolutely & generally free from danger of erring: whence it followeth, that they neither are the rule, that is to be followed in determining controuersies, nor after they are determined. Touching the dignity of Fathers, & authority of the Church, wee esteeme them both as beseemeth vs: for whatsoeuer the Fathers generally, & with one consent deliuer in matters of faith, we admit & receiue as true without father examination: as likewise, whatsoeuer the Church consisting of all Christians, not noted for heresie or singularity, that are and haue beene since the Apostles times: but of particular Fathers, & parts of the Church, we iudge according to the rule of Gods word, and the generall resolution of the Fathers, and the whole Church that hath beene since the Apostles times.

His next exception against our rule, is, Pag. 48. because wee admitte not the Pope to bee iudge of all controuersies in CHRISTS steed, which hee must frame in this sort: The Pope is supreame iudge of controuersies in religion: therefore the Word of GOD interpreted in sorte before expressed, is not the rule that is to bee followed in determining thinges doubtfull: and then the consequence will be naught and the antecedent false: for, though we should grant the Pope to be appointed judge of controuersies in Christs stead, yet I hope his Holinesse is bound to follow some rule of direction in iudging: and if any, what other then that mentioned by Mee, I cannot conceiue. But whatsoeuer become of the consequence, the antecedent is false: for he shall neuer proue, while his name is Higgons, that the Pope is supreame iudge of cōtrouersies. And the ignorance, or impudencie of the man deserueth iust reproofe, in that hee feareth not to abuse the authority of Cyprian to that purpose; who was so far frō taking the Pope for his iudge, that he Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 1. freely disséted frō him, and professed that Concil. Car thag. inter opera Cypriani. one Bishop is not to judge another, but that they are to be iudged of God onely, and the whole company of Bishoppes: neyther doth the place produced by him out of Cyprians Epistles, proue any such thing, as hee would enforce: for it is most euidēt, that Cyprian speaketh of one Bishop in each Diocesse, & not of one Bishop in the whole Christian Church, when he sayth, Lib. 1. Epist. 3. Heresies arise from no other cause, then that the Priest of God is not obeyed, and that men think not of one Priest & iudge in Christs steed: as it will easily appeare, to any one, that will take the paines to see the place. But saith Higgons, Pag. 48. the Lutherans seeke to predominate, and the Caluinistes will not obey: therefore, there must be an vmpier betweene them, and consequently, the Pope must end the quarell. Whereunto I answere in a word, that howsoeuer the violent humors of some men make a rent in the Church, yet there is no difference in iudgement amongst those whom he calleth Lutherans and Caluinists, in any matter of faith: and therefore the mediation of moderate men, interposing themselues, or the authority of Princes, professing the reformed Religion, may in that good time that God shall think fitte, easily make an end of these contentions, without seeking to the Romish Babilonicall Monarch.

His third exception is a meere begging of that which is in controuersie, which shal neuer be graunted him. For, I say confidently as before, that the matters wherein the followers of Luther, and the rest, professing the reformed religion, seeme to differ, are neyther many in number, reall in euidence, nor substantiall in waight: as he vainely Pag. 49. braggeth hee can proue out of Luther, Hunnius, and Conradus on the one part, and Zuinglius, Sturmius, Clebitius, &c. on the other part. And therefore here is noe reproofe of that I haue sayd of the reconciling of these differences, but a proofe of his vanity in bragging of that, which hee will neuer be able to performe. That which I haue written touching the reconciling of these men, in shew so opposite, in the matter of the Vbiquitary presence, and the Sacrament, which I am well assured this Fugitiue cannot improue, nor any of his great Maisters, who haue the schooling of him, will satisfie the Reader, I doubt not, touching the possibility of a generall reconciliation. The lyes, scoffes, and fooleries of Higgons, in these passages, touching my pretending, that the Sacramentaries subscribe to the Augustan confession, my art of reconciling, and the like, I passe by, as not worth the thinking of, and conclude this point, with this confident asseueration, that the differences betweene those whom the Papists malice, and other mens passion, calleth Lutherans, and Sacramentaries; are either not reall, or not so materiall but that they may be of one Church, Faith and Religion.

The Third Chapter.
§. I.

IN the next chapter he chargeth Me with falshood and inciuility, in traducing Bellarmine, and sayth I haue deuised three criminations against him. The first supposed crimination, ioyned with falshood; as he saith is this; Bellarmine saith: Bellat. de Notis Ecclesiae. lib. 4 cap. 10. Videmus omnes illas Ecclesias, quae ab isto Capite se diuiserunt, tanquam ramos praecisos à radice, continuò aruisse: and Booke 3. chap. 41. I say he affirmeth: that all Churches of the world, that euer diuided themselues from the fellowship of the Romane Church, like boughes broken from a tree, and depriued of the nourishment they formerly receiued from the roote, presently withered away and decayed. Surely it is a grieuous crime that I haue committed: yet I hope if I meete with mercifull men, it will be forgiuen Mee: for I thinke that boughes broken from a tree will wither away. But, saith M. Higgons, Cardinall Bellarmine meant nothing, but tha the diuided Churches lost their glory, and splendor, and so withered, but withered not away. This I think the poore fellow will not stand vnto; for these Churches, by the very act of their separation, in his iudgment, became, hereticall and schismaticall; and so lost, not only their glory and splendor, but their being also, and the life they formerly had, and consequently, like boughs broken from a tree, withered away; which yet, neither he, nor the Cardinall can euer proue. For there appeared still all signes of life in them, after their separation as before; and some of them hold a more sincere profession of Christian verity to this day, then the Romanists do: and we would rather ioine our selues to the Grecians then to them, as neither erring so dangerously, nor so pertinaciously, as they do. For that which he Pag. 52. bringeth out of Iustus Caluinus, concerning Hieremy the Patriarch of Constantinople his renouncing our society, and alleadging the Counsell of S. Paul for his warrant, where he sayth, reiect an Hereticke after the first or second admonition, is a lye; as many other sayings of the same Author are likewise.

The second crimination he speaketh of, he sayth, is contriued in this manner. 3. Booke chap. 41. Bellarmine sayth, that none of the Churches diuided from Rome, had euer any learned men after their separation: but here he sheweth plainly that his impudency is greater then his learning, for what will he say of Oecumenius, Theophylactus, Damascen, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Elias Cretensis, Nilus, Cabasilas and innumerable more liuing in the Greeke Churches, after their separation from the Church of Rome? Surely these were more then match-able with the greatest Rabbins of the Romish Synogogue. M. Higgons should put a difference betweene a crimination, and a iust defence of men wronged by the vnjust criminations of Bellarmine, from which I indeauour to cleare them. But let it be as he will haue it, what hath he to say vnto it? much surely, if he could proue what he sayth: for hee sayth, Pag. 53. there are 3. vntruthes found in it; the 1. is, that, whereas I charge Bellarmine to affirme, that none of the Churches diuided from Rome had any learned men after their separation, he sayth only, that none of the Churches of Asia or Africa had any. How great a vexation it is for a man to bee matched with such Triflers as this is, the reader may easily iudge by this particular. For if neuer any of the Churches of Asia, and Africa had any learned men, after their separation from Rome, neyther the Aethiopian, Armenian, Nestorian, nor Greeke Churches had any: The Aethiopian, and Nestorian Churches beeing wholy in those partes, and the greater part of the Greeke Church also: now if none of these had any, I thinke none had. But that these had, I shew by naming sundry particular men of great worth, in the Greeke Churches. This M. Higgons found to touch his Cardinall too neare, and therefore hee sayth, hee purposely declined the naming of the Greeke Church, by restraining himselfe to the Churches of Asia, and Affrica, whereas he should haue said he purposely inlarged himselfe to all the Churches of Asia and Africa, that he might draw into the generality of his speech, not the Graecians only, whose greatest number of Churches are in Asia, but the Armenians, Nestorians, and Aethiopians also. Now then, see what Mr Higgons hath done? hee hath confessed that the Greeke Churches, which all men know to be principally in Asia, & reckoned among the Churches of Asia, though some parts of them be in Europe, to haue had learned men since their separation; whence it followeth, that the Cardinall without shame denied that any of the Churches of Asia had any, so that in reason he should not be angry with Me, in that knowing his Cardinals learning to be very great, yet to magnifie his impudencie in this point, I preferre it before his learning. The 2. vntruth that M. Higgons would fasten vpon Me, is, that I say, Damascen liued after the separation of the Greeks from the Latins: which thing I still affirme to be most true, & Higgons himselfe in a sort cōfesseth as much: for Pag. 54. he saith out of Bellarmine that Damascen liued about the yeare of our Lord 740. & that the violent separation of the Greeks from the Latines was occasioned principally about the yeare 766. 26. yeares after. Now, as I thinke, in that he saith the violent separation was then, he insinuateth that there was a separation before: which thing if hee deny I will easily proue against him. For it appeareth that the separation betweene the Greeks and the Latins began not in the yeare 766, but before: in that in the yeare 766. a great Councell was called at Gentiliacum, to compose the differences betweene them, as we reade in Rhegino. Chron. l. 2. Rhegino, Sigebert. in chro. anni 766. Sigebertus, and others; and the matter came to a publike disputation betweene them, before Pipin the father of Charles the Great; but that Damascen liued after the separatiō between the Greeks & Latins, it is evident, in that the separation between thē, being occasioned specially by the different opinion which they held, concerning the proceeding of the Holy Ghost, as Higgons telleth vs, Damascen was opposite to the Latines in that point: in so much that he saith expresly, that Damas. l. 1. de fide orthod. c. 11. the spirit is by the sonne, but not from the sonne. The third imagined vntruth is, that I say Damascen, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and the rest, were more then matchable with the greatest Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue, wheras Bernard & some other were matchable with them. For answere whereunto, let the reader obserue, that I neuer call the whole Latin Church by the name of the Romish Synagogue, out the faction that prevailed in it; & therefore I meane not all the Doctours of the Latin Church, by the name of the Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue, but such onely as serued as vile instruments to advance Papall tyranny, superstition, & error. So that though Bernard, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura, Scotus, Lyranus, Gerson & some other should be granted to haue bin matchable with Damascen, Theophylact, & Oecumenius, yet will it not follow that I haue vttered any vntruth: for I deny that any of these were of the Papall faction.

The next supposed crimination, is a most iust reproofe of the grosse ouer-sight of Bellarmine, where he saith, none of the Churches separated from Rome, or none of the Churches of Asia and Africa, as Higgons restraineth his words, could euer hold any councell after their separation; which cannot be avoyded by Higgons, though it seemeth he would willingly doe the Cardinall some good seruice, that he might become fellow Chaplaine with Mathew Tortus. For, if the Cardinall meane Generall Councels, it is not to be marvailed at, seeing they are but a part: if Nationall, or Provinciall, it is too childish, and may be refuted by sundry instances. Whereunto Higgons hath nothing to say, but that if Bellarmines wordes be extended to the Greeke Church, his fault is vnexcusable: seeing that Church hath holden Provinciall Councels, since her separation, whereof, as Master Higgons thinketh, he speaketh, and not of Generall: but that his words are restrained to the Churches of Asia, and Africa, which could neuer hold any such after their separation. In this Apology of Master Higgons there are more absurdities, then words. For first, he can giue no reason why the supposed Schismaticall Churches of Asia and Africa should be lesse able to hold Nationall, or Provinciall Synodes then those of Europe. Secondly the Greeke Church is principally in Asia: so that if the Greeke Church had the power of convocating Provinciall Synodes, some of the Churches of Asia were not excluded from partaking in it. Thirdly, if this were not the common misery of all diuided Churches, this infelicity grew not from their separation, but from some other cause, and then it maketh nothing for proofe of the necessity of adhering to the Church of Rome, as to an head, to which purpose Bellarmine bringeth it. Fourthly, that other Churches may hold Provinciall Synodes, & namely those of Asia & Africa, it is most evident. For first touching the Aethiopian Christians, h Damianus à Goes, out of the report of a learned Bishop of those parts, sheweth, that they haue Councels, and that they make Lawes in them. Of 〈◊〉 D •… moribus A Ethiopum. a Synode holden by the Nestorians, wee reade in In addit. ad Platinam. Onuphrius in the life of Iulius the Third. In the Councell of Florence we reade of certaine Orators sent thither from the Armenians, in the name of the Patriarch of Armenia & his Cleargy; which could not be done without some Synodall meeting. Lastly, seeing many Councels were holden in auncient times, in shew Generall, by such as were Heretiks: what reason can Higgons giue, why these Churches hauing a subordination of inferiour Cleargy-men, Bishops, & Metropolitans, cannot so much as call a poore Provinciall Synod? If this be not childish trisling to say no more, let the reader iudge, how partial soeuer he be. And therfore, I say now againe, as at first, that if Bell. mean general coūcels when he saith, the diuided churches could hold none after their separatiō, it is not to be marvailed at, seeing they are but a part; if National or Provincial, it is childish; seeing it is most evidēt they might hold such Councels: neither can his yeares, dignity, or other ornaments, Master Higgons speaketh of, priuiledge him so farre, but that wee may and will taxe his wilfull ouersights, as they deserue, notwithstanding the boyish pratling of Theophilus Higgons. The conclusion of this chapter, touching our want of good manners towardes Bellarmines grace, and other such lights of the world, as shine in the darknesse of Popish blindnesse, and superstition, sorteth so well with the next part of this chapter, which is concerning my inciuility towardes the Cardinall, that one answere may suffice for both. That I haue not wronged him by imputation of false crimes, I hope the Reader will beare Mee witnesse, vpon view of that I haue answered in my owne defence.

The 2. part of the third Chapter.
§. 1.

WHerefore let vs see wherein my inciuility consisteth. It is forsooth in aggeration of base, odious, and vnworthy names, as Cardinall Heretike, Hereticall Romanist, Impious Idolater, Shamelesse Iesuite, Shamelesse Companion, with his idle braine, and sencelesse fooleries. This is Master Higgons proofe of my inciuility. If I make it not appeare to all men that haue their sences, that I haue reason to phrase the Iesuite, as Higgons speakes, so as I haue done, let Mee bee condemned of inciuility; But if I had just cause to vse him as I did, let this foolish flatterer hold his peace. Wherefore to begin with the first. Shall he Lib 4. de notis Ecclesiae. c, 9. charge vs with twenty execrable & damnable Heresies, all which he knowes we accurse to the bottomlesse pit of Hell, & may not I call him a Cardinall Hereticke, or Hereticall Romanist, without note of inciuility? Shall he at his pleasure, because he weareth a red Hat, Ibid. charge vs with Heresie & Impiety, for impugning the adoration of Images, forbidden by Almighty God; and may not I call him an impious Idolater? Shall it bee lawfull for him to say, Ibid. that Elizabeth, our late Queene of blessed memory, tooke vpon her, and was reputed to bee chiefe Priest in these her dominions; and shall it not bee lawfull for me, in reproofe of so impudent a slander, and defence of my late dread Soueraigne, the Lords annoynted, and the wonder of the world, to tell the Iesuiticall Friar, that he is a shamelesse Iesuite that durst so say? Shall he without conscience or feare of God, against his own knowledge, Ibid. charge vs with the hellish Heresies of the Maniches touching two originall causes of things, the one good, of thinges good, the other euill, of thinges euill; and shall it not be lawfull for me to aske the question, whether hee be not a shamelesse companion in so charging vs? Shall a Iesuiticall Frier be freely permitted in so vile sort to wrong so many mighty Monarches, States, & people of the world, as professe the reformed religion, & may a man say nothing to him without incurring the note of inciuility, and want of good manners? Shall he De notis Ecclesiae. li: 4. c. 11. charge vs with palpable, grosse & senselesse absurdities; & may not we tell him, the grosse absurdities which hee vntruly imputeth vnto vs, are but the fancies of his owne idle braine? Shall hee bee suffered to vtter senselesse fooleries in Ibid. ca: 9. wronging Caluine, & other men as good as himselfe; & may we not tell him, he doth so? Shall it be lawfull for Theoph Higgons to vse al words of disgrace that he can deuise against Luther & Caluin, men of as good worth as the Cardinall; & may no man say any thing to the Cardinall, because he is a Cardinall? How much soeuer he forget himselfe, truly I am not ignorant, that these ministers of Antichrist take very much vpon them. For as De corrupto Eccles. statu. Clemangis long since feared not to write, their spirits are so high & lofty, their words so swelling, & their behauiour so insolent, that if a Painter would paint pride, he could not do it better then by representing to the beholders the forme & figure of a Cardinall: which kind of men, though they were originally of the inferiour clergy, yet together with the increase of the pompe of the See of Rome, grew so great, & enlarged & spread out their Phylacteries in such sort, that they despise, as farre inferiour to them and much below them, not Bishops alone, whom in contempt they vse to call petit Bishops, but Patriarches, Primates, & Archbishops also; almost suffering themselues to be adored and worshipped of them: and yet not content therewith, See that which Bellarmine hath lately written to this purpose. seeke to be kings fellowes: for the maintenance of which their imagined and fained greatnesse, like wild Boares, they made hauocke of the Vineyards of the Lord of hoastes. Thus wrote he almost 200. yeares since: but Gods name be blessed for it, these wild Boares haue beene well hunted out of many parts of Christendome since that time. But Maister Higgons, as if he meant to make an oration in the praise of his Cardinall (to reproue as he saith, the temerity of such, as steepe theis pens in gall and wormewood, to vent malicious vntruths against this happy man) commendeth him for his intellectuall and morall parts, setting them out at large in the particulars, and (as his manner is to cast in things sodainly without all cause or reason that are no way pertinēnt) he telleth of a crime which I lay vnto him, and though I pardon him, yet so vncourteous he is, that hee sayth I do it in malice. The crime, as hee will haue it called, is this. I charge Bellarmine that hee forgetteth himselfe very strangely in his discourse touching the notes of the Church, in that in the former part of it, he Cap. 2. denieth truth of profession or Doctrine to be a note of the Church, and in the latter Cap. 11. maketh Sanctity of doctrine or profession, (which he defineth to be the not contayning of any vntruth in matter of faith, or vniust thing in matter of manners and conuersation) to be a note of the Church. Betweene which two assertions, as I thinke, there is a manifest contradiction. For if truth of doctrine and profession, and Sanctity of doctrine or profession bee all one, as I thinke they will be found to bee; then to say, truth of doctrine and profession is no note of the Church, and to say, Sanctity of doctrine or profession is a note of the Church, as Bellarmine doth, is to vtter manifest contradictions. This is the want of memory I find in Bellarmine: for which Maister Higgons (who amongst other good naturall parts Pag. 57. commendeth him highly for tenaciousnesse of memory) is offended with Me. But because he is become so jealous of his Cardinals Honour, I will shew him another Scape or two in this kind. In the former part of his discourse touching the notes of the Church, he Cap: 2. denieth Sanctity or purity of doctrine, free from error, to be a note of the Church, because it may be found in a false Church, for that Schismatickes, who are only Schismatickes, pertaine not to the true Church, whose profession notwithstanding is free from all error, as was the profession of the Donatists and Luciferians in the beginning: and yet in his latter part he maketh this Cap. 11. purity from error, a note of the Church. In the former part he denyeth it to be a note, because it agreeth not inseperably to the true Church, as notes should doe, seeing the Churches of the Corinthians had it not: and yet in the latter part he maketh this purity of doctrine to bee a note of the Church. In the former part hee will haue nothing to be a note of the Church, that may be claimed or pretended by any but the true Church, and thereby excludeth purity of profession, which is claymed by all mis-beleeuers: and yet in the later admitteth it, notwithstanding any challenge, Heretickes, or Mis-beleeuers make vnto it. By this which hath beene said, I hope it doth appeare that Maister Higgons had little reason to charge Mee with want of conscience in accusing Bellarmine: But for want of ciuilility of manners, and respectiue demeanor towards his person, whereof hee complaineth; let him know, that if he inuolue himselfe in infinite contradictions, as hee doth: if he wrong vs and the Princes, People, and States of our profession by hellish and diabolicall slanders, as he doth: if he basely abuse Luther, Caluine, Bucer, Melachthon, and others, his equalls in merit and esteeme: if he set his face against heauen, and open his mouth to the dishonour of our late Soueraigne of famous memory and his most excellent Maiesty now regnant, as he doth; we will be bold to cast this dirt into his face againe, if he were a better man then all Master Higgons his base and slauering commendation of him can make to be.

§. 2.

HEre Master Higgons leaueth me, and passeth to D. Morton: yet so good a will he hath to say something against Me, though neuer so idlely, that within two or three pages hee returneth to Mee againe, and Pag. 6 •… . & 64. chargeth Mee full wisely, with perplexing and involving my selfe in manifest contradictions. The first contradiction he would force vpon Me, is this. The Elect notwithstanding any degree of sinne which they runne into, retaine that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences: and yet: sometime •… there is nothing found in the Elect, that can or doth cry to God for pardon. It is strange truly, that such as Higgons is, should be permitted to play the fooles in print as they doe. But our Adversaries know it is good to keepe men busied in any sort; and that the greatest part of their Adherents will applaud any thing, though neuer so senselesly written against vs: For otherwise I know they cannot but laugh at the serious folly of this their Novice in this passage. For Ineuer say, the Elect haue alwayes in thē that grace that can and will procure them pardon for all their sinnes and offences, as hee chargeth Me, but that the Elect called according to purpose, haue that Grace that excludeth sin from raigning, and that this Grace once had by them, is neuer totally nor finally lost. Now what contradiction is there betweene these propositions? The Elect at sometimes (to wit before they be called) haue nothing in them that cryeth for pardon and remission of their sins: and the Elect after they are once called according to the purpose of Gods will, doe euer retaine that grace that can and will procure pardon and remission of all their sins. Surely euen as much as there is betweene these: Paul sometimes was an enemy to Christ and Christians, and a Persecutor; And Paul after his calling, was neuer an enemy to Christ nor Christians, nor neuer persecuted any of them, but suffered persecution himselfe together with them. The second supposed contradiction is this. All sins done with full consent exclude grace. Dauid, who was an elect and chosen seruant of God, sinned with full consent after his calling, and yet Dauid neuer fell totally from grace. Heere truly there is a reall and true contradiction, but one of these assertions is none of mine: for I deny that Dauid euer sinned with full consent after his calling, though his sinnes were very grieuous and highly displeasing to Almighty God. For the better clearing whereof we must obserue, that there are three degrees of sin. The first is of those motions to euill that arise in men, and sollicite them to the doing of that which is displeasing vnto God: yet so, that no consent is yeelded to them. The second is, when the violence & impo •… nity of those ill motions is such, that men chuse rather to giue way vnto them, then to be any longer disquieted and tormented by them, and yet wish they were free from such sollicitations and provocations. In those that thus sin, there is a deliberate consent, but it is not absolute and full, but mixt; Such was the sinne of Peter denying his Master, which proceeded from feare, & whereunto hee so consented, that he still retained the good opinion he formerly had of him, and loue towards him, and wished, no doubt from the depth of his Soule, there might neuer any such thing haue fallen out, that might draw him to doe that he did. And such was the sin of Dauid, who chose rather to cōmit that vile act with the wife of Vriah, then to be tormented any longer with the importunity of those burning & inflamed desires that violently seized on him, though he wished in his heart that neuer any such motiōs might in such violent sort haue arisen in him. The third degree of sin is in thē that absolutely and fully consent to the motions of euil, as making thē their cheef delights & contentments. In them who sin only in the first degree, grace not only remaineth, but keepeth her standing, resisting against euill, & entreating for pardon of that which it cannot avoid. In thē that sin in the 2d degree, it remaineth, but carried into captivity. In the 3d it hath no place at all. To the same purpose it is, that some worthy Diuines of our profession, make three kinds of the being of sin in vs: for first it is inhabiting only: 2dly, it is regnant, yet not as a king who ruleth & raigneth with the loue & liking of his subiects; but as a Tyrant, that they hate & would depose if they knew how: 3dly, it is regnant as a king, welcommed & joyfully receiued into al the powers & faculties of the soule. In the first sort it is in thē that giue no consent to the motions of euill that arise in them. In the second, in them that giue consent, but not free and absolute, but mixt. In the third, in them that giue it the whole heart. In the first, it neither excludeth grace, nor driueth it from the standing and commaund it should haue in the soule of a good man. In the second, though it exclude it not, yet i •… •… eth and hurteth it sore, scattering the forces of it, leauing it but disseuered desires, & no entire good affections: so that they are neuer able to recouer themselues againe without forraine helpe: But when such succour commeth, these remaines of good begin to recollect themselues againe, to take heart, and to joyne with the same; as we see in Dauid, reproued by Nathan.

The third contradiction, that Master Higgons would fasten on me, is, betweene that saying of mine; The elect and chosen Seruants of God doe carefully endeauour, that no sinnes may haue dominion ouer them; and therefore notwithstanding any degree of sinne they runne into, they retaine that grace, that can and will procure pardon: and that in the Articles of religion, agreed on in the beginning of her late Maiesties raigne, that Art. 16. after we haue receiued the holy Ghost, we may depart from grace giuen, and by the grace of God rise againe. Which is no contradiction in trueth and in deede, but in the misconstruction Master Higgons maketh of things well meant. For when the Article faith, we may depart from grace, the meaning of it is, that the elect of God, called according to purpose, may swerue from the directions of grace, in some particular things, and fall into grieuous sinnes, out of which they are to be raised by repentance, and not that they may totally fall from it. Neither doe I deny, but that the elect may commit sin, yea grieuous sinnes, and such as are in their owne nature mortall, though not mortall in that (not obtayning full consent) they cannot bring death vpon the doers of them. Wherefore to conclude this point, into which Master Higgons digresseth, after his idle manner, and to send him backe to the matter he hath in hand; I say, that there is no contradiction betweene any assertion of mine, and the Articles of Religion, agreed on in the conuocation: and farther adde, that there is no Papist of iudgment, and consideration, that can possibly dissent from vs in this point, touching the constant perseuerance of the elect and chosen seruants of God called according to purpose, and their neuer wholly falling from grace. For first, they all agree together with vs, that they cannot finally depart away. Secondly, Hugo de Sa. Victore de Sacrament. sidei l: 2. part. 13. c. 12. that some good motions and affections will euer remaine in them, after they haue beene once seasoned with the liquor ofrenuing and sanctifying grace. Thirdly, that they loose not their right to the rewardes which God in the couenant of mercy promised to their former vertuous and good endeauours, nor the benefit of their repenting from dead works formerly repented of, when they fall into sinne, though they can make no vse thereof, while they continue in such an estate of sinne. For, saith In quartum Sen. dist. 22. qu, 1. art. 2. Scotus, as a man that hath much owing vnto him vpon good assurances, and is possessed of things of good valew, being excommunicated or out-lawed, still retaineth the interest and right to all things that formerly he had, though he can make no vse thereof, nor by course of law force them to doe him right, that goe about to do him wrong, nor recouer that which is due vnto him, if it bee detained from him; but all prosecution of his right is suspended, till hee procure himselfe to bee freed from the sentence of excommunication or out-lawry: So the remission of originall sinne, the right to eternall life obtayned in Baptisme, the force and vertue of former repentance & conuersion from sins past, & the right to the rewards of actions of vertue formerly done, remaine still in the elect and chosen, called according to purpose, when they fall into grieuous sinnes tyrannizing ouer them, though during the time of their being in such grieuous sins, the actuall claime to the benefit of these things, and the enioying of them be suspended; which vpon their repentance for those particular sinnes that caused such suspension, is reuiued and set afoote againe, in such sort, that the repentance past sufficeth for remission of former sinnes, and the good actions past shall haue their rewards. So that a man elect and chosen of God, and called according to purpose, that hath done good & vertuous actions, though they be deaded in him, for the present, by some grieuous Sinne, yet still they remaine in diuine acceptation, and he still retaineth the right & title he had to the reward of eternall life, promised to those workes of vertue done by him, though he can make no actuall claime to the same, while he remaineth in such an estate of sinne: but after that such sinne shall cease and bee repented of, hee recouereth not a n •… w right or title, but a new claime by vertue of the old title. Wherefore if it bee demaunded whether Dauid and 〈◊〉 •… hen they fell into those grieuous sinnes of vncleanesse, and abnegation of Christ, continued in a state of iustification? We answer, that they did in respect of the remission of their sinnes, and the title they go •… to eternall life in their first conuersion, which they lost not by those their sinnes committed afterwardes: For the remission of all their former sinnes, whereof before they had repented, remained still, and Gods acceptation of them to eternall life, notwithstanding these sinnes, vpon the condition of leauing them, together with his purpose of rewarding their well-doings: but in respect of the actuall claime to eternall good things they were not, as men once iustified are, notwithstanding lesser sinnes, w •… h though they cause a dislike, yet neither extinguish the right, nor suspend the claime to eternall life. Thus, hauing runne through all those passages of Master Higgons his booke, that any way concerne Mee, I leaue him to be-thinke hims •… fe. whether hee had any reason to traduc •… Mee in such sort as hee hath done; and remitte the wrongs he hath done Mee without cause, to the righteous iudgement of God, to whom hee must stand or fall.

The end of the first part.
THE SECOND PART, Concerning the Authour of the Treatise of the grounds of the Olde and Nevv Religion, and such exceptions as haue beene taken by him against the former Bookes.

HAuing answered the frivolous objections of Master Higgons, I will leaue him; and passe from him to his friend and collegue, the Author of the Treatise of the grounds of the Olde and New Religion; who also is pleased in his idle discourses, to take some exceptiōs against that which I haue writtē. But because hee is a very obscure Author, & such a one as the world taketh little notice of, I will not much trouble my selfe about him, nor take so much pains in discouering his weaknesse, as I haue done in dismasking the new convert, a man, as it seemeth, of more esteeme. Yet that the world may see what goodly stuffe it is, that these namelesse and Apocryphall Booke-makers dayly vent amongst our seduced countrymen, I will briefly and cursorily take a view of all such passages ofhis Treatise as any way concerne me. Among •… which, the first that offereth it selfe to our view, is in his Preface to the Reader, Pag. 〈◊〉 where hee citeth with great allowance and approbation, that which I haue in my Epistle Dedicatory: That all men must carefully seeke out which is the true Church, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement: but Pag. 5. presently chargeth Mee, that in my fourth Booke following, I bereaue her of almost all such prerogatiues as I formerly yeelded vnto her; so that men may not safely follow her directions, nor rest in her judgement, in that I say, that Generall Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence, and free the Church her selfe from errour, onely in certaine principall points and Articles of Christian Religion, and not generally in all. This is a bad beginning, being a most shamelesse vntruth. For in the places cited by him, I lay downe these propositions: First, that the Church including in it all faithfull ones since CHRIST appeared in the flesh, is absolutely free from all errour and ignorance of diuine things. Secondly, that the Church including all those beleeuers that are, & hauebeene since the Apostles times, is simply free from all errour, though happily not from all ignorance. Thirdly, that the Church including onely the beleeuers liuing at one time in the world, is free not onely frō error in such things as men are precisely bound expressely to know & beleeue, but frō pertinaciously erring in any thing that any way pertaineth to Christian faith and religion. Fourthly, that wee must simply and absolutely, without all doubt or question follow the directions, and rest in the iudgment of the Church, in eyther of the two former senses. Fifthly, that we must listen to the determinations of the present Church, as to the instructions of our Elders, and fatherly admonitions and directions: but not so as to the things contained in Scripture, or beleeued by the whole Vniuersal Church that hath bin euer since the Apostles times. Because, as Waldensis noteth, the Church, whose faith neuer faileth, is not any particular Church, as that of Africa, or Rome, but the Vniuersall Church: neyther that Vniuersall Church, which may bee gathered together in a generall Councell, which is found sometimes to haue erred, but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptisme of Iohn continueth to our times. Sixtly, that in the iudgment of Doctrinal. fid. lib. 2. art. 2. cap. 19. Waldensis, the fathers successiuely are more certaine iudges in matters of faith, then a generall Councell of Bishops, though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church, as the Treatiser sayth. All these propositions are foūd in Waldensis, who wrote with good allowance of Pope Martin the Fift, and the whole consistory of Cardinals; so that the Treatiser cannot charge Me with any wrong offered to the Church, in bereauing her of her due prerogatiues, but he must condemn him also, and blame the Pope and his Cardinals for commending the writings of such a man to the world as good, profitable, and containing nothing contrary to the Catholike verity, that forgotte himselfe so farre as to bereaue the Church of almost all her prerogatiues: which he cannot doe, but he must condemne Vincentius Lyrinensts likewise, a man beyond all exception, who absolutely concurreth in iudgement with Waldensis touching these points: Contra H •… , nouat. cap. 6. assuring vs, that the state of the present Church, at sometimes may be such, as that we must be forced to flye to the iudgment of Antiquity, if we desire to find any certaiue direction. A iudgement of right discerning, sayth Dialog. lib. 5. part. 1. cap. 28. Ockā, there is euer foūd in the Church, seeing there are alwaies some right-beleeuers; but a right iudgment of men, by their power of iurisdiction maintaining truth, & suppressing error, may be wanting. Nay, that somtimes there was no such iudgmēt in the Church, it is most euident. For Vincentius Lyrinensis sayth, the Arian heresie infected not some part onely, but almost the whole Christian world, soe that almost all the Bishoppes of the Latine Church were misled by force or fraud. Yea Athanas. in Epist. ad solitar. vit. agent. Hier. in Catal. script. Ecclesiast. in Fortunatiano. Athanasius and Hierome report, that Liberius Bishoppe of ROME was carryed away in that tempestuous whirlewinde, and subscribed to heresie: soe that there was noe sette Tribunall on earth in those dayes, to the determinations whereof it was safe to stand.

§. 2.

IN the next place, the Treatiler chargeth Mee, that whereas Luther defendeth that infants in Baptisme actually beleeue, I endeauour to wrest his words to habituall faith; which sence, he sayth Luthers discourses will not admit; and for proofe hereof referreth the reader to certaine places in Luther, and to the positions of his followers: but as Festus sayd vnto Paul, Act. 25. 1 •… . thou hast appealed to Caesar, to Caesar shalt thou goe; so seeing this Treatiser referreth the Reader to Luthers discourses, and the doctrine of his Disciples, to these I will send him, which will turne greatly to the Treatisers disaduantage. For the reader cannot but finde by Luthers discourses, and the doctrine of his Schollers, that I haue rightly deliuered his opinion to bee, that infants are filled with habituall fayth when they are regenerate, and not that they haue any such acts of faith, or knowledge of God, as men of yeares haue. Let vs therefore heare what Luther himselfe will say: some men, saith De captiuit. Bab. cap. de baptismo. hee, will obiect against that which I haue said touching the necessity of faith in such as are to receiue the Sacramērs with profit, that infants haue no faith, nor apprehension of Gods mercies, & that therefore either faith is not so necessarily required to the due receiuing of the sacramēt, or that infants are Baptised in vaine. Here I say, that which all say, that other mens faith, euen the faith of such as present thē to Baptisme, steedeth litle children. For as the word of God is mightie when the sound therof is heard, euen to the changing of the heart of a wicked man, which is no lesse vnapt to heare the voyce of God, & to listen vnto it, thē any litle babe; so by the prayer of the Church, which out of faith (to which all thinges are possible) presenteth it to baptisme, the child is changed, cleansed and renued by the infusion of faith, or by faith, which is infused and powred into it. Thus doth Luther expresse his owne meaning touching this poynt. Now let vs heare what his followers will say. It was agreed vpon, saith Chem: in exam: Conc: Trident: de Baptis. can: 13: Chemnitius, amongst the Form: concord: inter Theolog. Sax: & superior. German. followers of Luther, that when we say infants beleeue or haue faith, wee must not imagine that they do vnderstand or feele the motions of faith. But their errour is rejected, who suppose that infants baptized please God, and are saued without any operation or working of the holy spirit in them; whereas Christ pronounceth, that vnlesse a man bee borne a new of water and of the spirit, hee cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen. So that this is all that Luther and the rest meant, that children cannot be made partakers of those benefits that God offereth to men in Baptisme, nor inherit eternall life, by vertue of the faith of the Church, without some change wrought in them by the spirit, fitting them to be joyned to God, which change or alteration in them they call faith: not meaning to attribute vnto them an actuall apprehension of Gods mercies; for they constantly deny, that they feele any such motions of faith; but a kinde of habituall faith onely, there being nothing in faith, but such an act of beleeuing, as they deny; or the seede, roote, and habit, whence actual motions in due time do flow. With whom Instit: li: 4: cap: 16: sect: 17: & 19: Calvine agreeth; for whereas the Anabaptists obiect against him, defending that infants are capable of regeneration, that the Scripture mentioneth no regeneration but by the incorruptible seed of the word of God, which infants cannot heare: he answereth, that God by his diuine power may renue and change them by some other meanes. Secondly hee addeth, that it is not absurde to thinke, that God doth shine into the hearts of those infants, which in infancie hee calleth out of this world to himselfe, and that hee doth make himselfe knowne vnto them in some sorte; seeing they are presently after to be receiued and admitted to the cleare and open view, and sight of his glorious face and countenance, and yet saith, he will not rashly affirme that they are indued with the same faith, which wee finde in our selues, or that they haue knowledge like vnto that of faith. And in the next section, speaking more generally, and not restraining himselfe to such as die in infancy, hee saith, that they are Baptized into future repentance, and faith: which vertues though they bee not presently formed in them, yet a seede of either of them lieth hid in them. The Papists are distracted into contrary opinions touching this point: For some thinke that grace the roote of faith, and other vertues, is infused into children in Baptisme, but not faith; other, that not onely grace, but the habit of faith, hope, and charity is powred into them likewise; which opinion as more probable was admitted in the Councell of Vienna, and is embraced by vs as true. Wherefore let the Reader judge whether I haue wrested the words of Luther, or the Treatiser wronged Mee.

SECT. 3.

IN the third place, hee laboureth to demonstrate and proue, that there is a contradiction Pag: 22: 23: betweene the reuerend Bishop of Lincolne, and Doctour Morton, & my selfe, touching the power of ordination, which that learned Bishoppe appropriateth vnto Bishops, and we communicate in some cases to Presbyters. But this silly obiection is easily answered, for his meaning is, that none but Bishoppes regularly may ordaine, which we confesse to be true; as likewise none but they onely may confirme the baptized by imposition of hands; and yet thinke, that in case of necessity, Presbyters may performe both these things, though of ordinary right belonging to Bishops only.

Part. 1.
Sect. 1.

LEt vs passe therefore from the preface to the booke it selfe, the first thing that he objecteth in the booke it selfe, is, that I giue Apostolicke power to the present Pag: 50: 51: Church; whence he thinketh it may be inferred, that the Church cannot erre in matters of faith or ceremonies. That I giue Apostolique power to the present church, he endeavoureth to proue, because I say, She hath authority to dispense with some constitutions of the Apostles, touching order and comelinesse; which he thinketh She might not doe if she had not the same Authority, by force whereof they were made: but he could not but know that this proofe is too weake, if he were not very weake in vnderstanding. For the Apostles made these constitutions not precisely in that they were Apostles, as they reported the precepts of CHRIST, & deliuered the Doctrine of faith; but by vertue of their pastorall power in generall, common to them with other Pastors of the Church: though in that they were no ordinarie Pastors but Apostles, they had absolute infallibilitie, & could make no lawes or constitutions but good & profitable, in which respect no other are equall to them. So that the Pastors of the Church now haue that power by which the Apostles made their Ecclesiasticall constitutions touching order & comelinesse, but not with like assurance of not erring, in making or reversing such lawes: & therefore the Treatiser cannot from hence inferre, that the present Church, & the guides of it, haue infallible iudgement touching matters of faith or ceremonies.

§. 2,

IN the next place, first he produceth my distinction of the Church, considered as it comprehendeth all the faithfull that are & haue beene since Christ appeared in the Pag 52. flesh, or onelie such as are & haue beene since the Apostles times, or such alone as are at one time in the world. Secondly an assertion, that the present Church may be said at all times to be the pillar of truth, & not to erre, because it euer retaineth a sauing profession of heauenlie truth, that is true doctrine, concerning all such principall points as are of the substance of Faith, and needfull to bee knowne and beleeued expresly by euery man. Thirdly, he addeth, that we deny so much as the virtuall beleefe of other things to be necessary; which he pronounceth to be an absurd opinion. For the confutation of my distinction of the Church considered in those three different sorts, hee asketh if there be now presently any Church in the world including in it all the faithfull that are and haue beene since CHRIST appeared in the flesh, or at least since the Apostles times; which is a most childish & senselesse demaund. For it will easily bee answered, that the Church that includeth in it all these faithfull ones, is now extant in the world, as he is pleased to speake, in that some of her parts, betweene which and the rest there is a connexion, are now in the world, though all be not; as time, whereof the parts are present, past, & to come, is now, though all parts of it be not now. But his inference vpon supposall of our answer is more strange then the question. For if it bee granted, that the Church including in it all these holy ones, hath not all her parts in the world at one time, he inferreth from thence, that the promises of Christ cannot be verified of it. As if Christs promises were verified of the church, only in respect of those parts that it hath in the world at one time: whereas Bell. Tom. 〈◊〉 . contro. 4. l. 4 c. 7. Bellarmine himself teacheth, that the promise of the churches being in all parts of the world, is not verified of it at one time, but successiuely: in that though it be not in all parts & Provinces of the world at one time, yet at one time or other it spreadeth it selfe into euery part of it. And Relect. contro. 1. de Eccl. in se q. 4. art. 5. Stapleton defineth the church according to the state of the New Testament, to be a collectiue multitude of men, professing the name of Christ, beginning at Hierusalem, & frō thence dispersed throughout the world, increasing & spreading it self through all nations, alwaies visible & manifest, mixt of good & bad, elect & reprobate, in respect of faith & Sacraments holy, in respect of origin & successiō Apostolique, in extent catholique, in cōnexion & order of parts one, in duratiō & continuance perpetuall, expressing vnto vs that church that includeth all faithful ones since Christ till now, nay till the end of the world. Which is no doubt a reall body, & hath many excellent promises made vnto it, though all the parts of it be not in the world at one time. But let vs goe forward, and wee shall see how this silly Treatiser forgetteth himselfe. For first hee confesseth, that the diuerse considerations of the church proposed by mee, Pag. 53. 54. may bee in our vnderstanding, and yet presently addeth, that wee cannot distinguish them really one from another: which hee goeth about to proue, because the Church in the first consideration includeth in it the same Church as it is taken in the second and third: but the proofe is to weake; for euery child will tell him, that these considerations may be really distinguished one from another, because though the former includeth the latter, yet the latter includeth not the former. For as euery man is a liuing thing, but euery liuing thing is not a man; soe the Church consisting of all faithfull ones, that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh, includeth in it all those that now presently are in the world: but the Church consisting of those onely that are at one time, includeth not the other, but is included in it as a part in the whole, and consequently cannot challenge all the priuiledges belonging to it, more then the part of a thing may challenge all that pertaineth to the whole: soe that the Church in the former consideration may bee free from error, though not in the latter. But the Treatiser will proue it cannot: seeing if the Church including in it all faithfull ones, that are or haue beene since Christ, be free from error; euery part of it must Pag. 54. 55. be free, and consequently the present Church; as a man cannot be sayd to bee free from sicknesse, vnlesse euery part of him be free. For answere where-vnto wee say that the Church being a collectiue body, may be sayd to be free from error in another sort then a man is said to be free from sicknesse, for a man cannot be sayd to be free from sicknesse vnlesse euery part be free; but the Church may rightly be sayd to be free from error, if all her parts erre not, though some doe: for otherwise I would aske of this Treatiser, whether the Church were free frō error in the daies of Athanasius, when, as Aduersus Prophanas here seon nouation •… . cap. 6. Vincentius Lyrinensis sayth, almost all the Bishops of the Latine Church were misled by force or fraud, and when Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed to heresie, as Epist: ad solitariam vitam agentes. Athanasius and Catal. script. Eccles. in Fortunatiano. Hierome testifie, If the Church were not free from errour at that time, where is the priuiledge of neuer erring? If it were, it was but in respect of some few partes: whence it will follow, that the Church may be sayd to bee free from errour, though many partes bee not, if any continue sound; for here the greater and more principall partes did erre. But that the Church may be sayd to be free from errour, though all parts be not, it is euident, in that they who most stifly maintaine the not erring of the present Church, yet confesse, that some parts of it do erre. For Relect. con. 3. quaest. 4. Stapleton and Bellarmine, who both thinke the present Roman Church to be free from error, yet deny that she is free in all her parts, and tell vs, there are some who are parts of this Church and Catholiques, that thinke the Pope may iudicially erre, vnlesse a generall Councell concurre with him, which in their opinion is an error and neare to heresie. Yea the same De Roman. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 4. Bellarmine sayth, that the particular Romane Church, that is, the cleargy and people of Rome, subiect to the Pope, cannot erre, because though some of them may, yet all cannot. It is true therefore which I haue deliuered, not withstanding any thinge the Treatiser can say to the contrary, that the Church including all the faithfull that are and haue beene since the Apostles, may be sayd to bee free from error, because in respect of her totall vniuersality she is so: it being impossible, that any errour should bee found in all her parts, at all times, though in respect of her seuerall parts shee be not. For sometimes and in some parts she hath erred, and in this sense can no more be sayd to be free from error, then a man may be sayd to bee free from sicknesse, that in some parts is ill affected. But as a man that hath not beene alwaies, nor in all parts ill, may bee said to be free from perpetuall and vniuersall sicknesse; so the Church is free from perpetuall and vniuersall error. This the Treatiser saith is a weake priuiledge, and not answerable to the great and ample promises made by Christ: whereas the Fathers knew no other, whatsoeuer, this good man imagineth. For Contr. haeres. cap. 6. Vincentius Lyrinensis confesseth, that error may infect some parts of the Church, yea that it may sometimes infect almost the whole Church: so that he freeth it only from vniuersall & perpetuall error. But, sayth the Treatiser, what are poore Christians the nearer for this priuiledge? how shall such a Church be the director of their faith? and how shall they know what faith was preached by the Apostles, what parts taught true doctrine, and when and which erred in subsequent ages? Surely this question is easily answered. For they may know what the Apostles taught by their writings: and they may know what parts of the Church teach true doctrine, by comparing the doctrine each part teacheth, with the written word of God, and by obseruing who they are that bring in priuate and strange opinions, contrary to the resolution of the rest. But if happily some new contagion, endeauour to commaculate the whole Church together, they must looke vp into Antiquity; and if in Antiquity they finde that some followed priuate and strange opinions, they must carefully obserue what all, not noted for singularity or heresie in diuerse places and times, constantly deliuered, as vndoubtedly true, and receiued from such as went before them. This course Vincentius Lyrinensis prescribeth. But the Treatiser disclaimeth it, not liking that all should be brought Part 1. 56. to the letter of holy Scripture, and the workes of Antiquity; which setting aside the authority of the present Church, he thinketh, yeeld no certaine and diuine argument. So that, according to his conceipt, wee must rest on the bare censure and iudgement of the Pope: for he is the present Church, & Antiquity is to be contēued as little or nothing worth. Hauing iustified the distinctiō of the diuerse cōsiderations of the Church impugned by the Treatiser, that which he hath touching the two assertions annexed to it, will easily bee answered For the one of them is most true, his addition of not erring, being taken away: and the other is but his idle imagination, for wee neuer deliuered any such thing.

§. 3.

IN the third place he excepteth against Mee, because I say the words of the Apostle in the Epistle to Timothy, touching the house and Church of God, are originally vnderstood Pag. •… 6. of the Church of Ephesus, wherein Paul directeth Tymothy how to demeane and behaue himselfe: but because I haue cleared this exception in my answere to Higgons, I will say nothing to him in this place, but referre him thither.

§. 4.

FRom the Apostle, the Treatiser passeth to Saint Augustine, and chargeth Me th I wrest his words, when he sayth, he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authority of the Church did not moue him, to a sense neuer meant by him. These words of S. Augustin Pag. 6 •… . are vsually alleadged by the Papists, to proue that the authority of the Church is the ground of our faith, & reason of beleeuing: in answere whereunto I shew that the Diuines giue two explications of them. For Ockam and some other, vnderstand them not of the multitude of beleeuers, that now are in the world, but of the whole number of them that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh, so including the Apostles; and in this sense they confesse that the Church, because it includeth the writers of the bookes of the new Testament, is of greater authority then the books themselues. Other vnderstand by the name of the Church, onely the multitude of beleeuers liuing in the world at one time: and thinke the meaning of Augustine is, that the authority of this Church was an introduction vnto him, but not the ground of his faith, and principall or sole reason of beleeuing. The former of these explications, this graue censurer pronounceth to be friuolous. First, because if wee may beleeue him, Saint Augustine neuer vsed these words, Catholique Church, after this sort in Pag. 66. that sense. Secondly, because he speaketh of that Church, which commanded him not to beleeue Manicheus, which vndoubtedly was the present Church. Thirdly, because, as he supposeth, I can alleadge no Diuine, that so interpreted the words of Augustine; that which I cite out of Ockam being impertinent. To euery of these reasons I will briefly answere. And first that Augustine doth vse the words, Catholique Church, in the sense specified by Me, it is euident. For writing against Manicheus, he hath these words. Palám est quantū in re dubia ad fidem & certitudinem valent Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorū, vs que ad hodiernū diem succedētibus a Contra Faustum Ma •… chaeum. lib. 11. ca. 2. sibimet Episcopis, & tot populorū cōsensione firmatur; that is, it is apparant, what great force the authority of that Church hath, to settle the perswasion of faith, & cause certainty in things doubtfull, that from the most surely established seats of the Apostles, by succession of Bishops euen till this present, & cōsent of people is most firmely setled. To the second reason wee answere, that the Church including the Apostles, and all faithfull ones that haue beene since, comprehendeth in it the present Church, and so might commaund Augustine not to listen to Manicheus. So that this commaunding proueth not that he speaketh precisely of the present Church. To the third I say, that the Treatiser is either strangely ignorant, or strangely impudent, when hee affirmeth, that I can alledge no Diuine that vnderstandeth the words of Augustine of the Church, including in it the Apostles, & such as liued in their times. For first Durandus vnderstandeth them of the Primitiue Church, including the Apostles. Secondly Part. 3. lect. 〈◊〉 . de vita spirituali animae. corol. 7. Gerson will tell him, that when Augustine saith, he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him, hee vnderstandeth by the name of the Church, the Primitiue congregation of those Faithful ones which saw & heard Christ, and were his witnesses. Thirdly De dogmatibus extra canonem Scripturae constit l. 4. c. 4. Driedo writeth thus: when Augustine saith, hee would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him, hee vnderstandeth that Church which hath beene euer since the beginning of the Christian Faith, hauing her Bishops in orderly sort succeeding one another, and growing and increasing till our times, which Church truly comprehendeth in it the blessed company of the Holy Apostles, who hauing seene Christ & his miracles, and learned from his mouth the Doctrine of Faith, deliuered vnto vs the Evangelicall Scriptures. And againe the same Driedo saith, that the authority of the Scripture is greater then the d De via investigandae verae intelligentiae sacrae scripturae l. 2. c. 7. authoritie of the Church that now is in the world, in it selfe considered. But if wee speake of the vniversal Church, including all Faithfull ones that are and haue beene, the authority of the Church is in a sort greater then the Scripture, and in a sort equall. For explication whereof he addeth, that as touching things that cannot bee seené, nor knowne by vs, we beleeue the sayings & writings of men, not, as if they had in them, in themselues considered a sufficient force to moue vs to beleeue; but because by some reasons we are perswaded of them who deliuer such things vnto vs, & thinke them worthie to be beleeued. So S. Augustine might rightly say, hee would not beleeue the bookes of the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not moue him, vnderstanding the vniuersal Church; of which he speaketh against Manicheus, which, including the Apostles, hath had in it an orderly course of succession of Bishops till our time. For the faithfulnes, trueth, & credit of this Church was more evident, then the Trueth of the books of the New Testament, which are therefore receiued as sacred & true, because written by those Apostles to whō Christ so many waies gaue testimony both by word and worke: and the Scriptures are to be proued by the authority of that Church which included the Apostles; but in the Church that now is, or that includeth only such as are now liuing, God doth not so manifest himselfe as hee formerly did: so that this Church must demōstrat herself to be Orthodox, by prouing her faith out of the Scripture. With Driedo Dial. l. 1. part. 2. c. 4. Ockam cōcurreth, his words are these: sometimes the name of the Church cōprehendeth not only the whole cōgregation of Catholiques liuing, but the Faithful departed also; & in this sense blessed Augustine vseth the name of the Church in his book against the Manichees, cited in the Decrees, 2. dist. c. palàm: where the Catholique Church importeth the Bishops that haue succeeded one another frō the Apostles times, & the people subiect to thē. And in the same sense Augustine vseth the name of the Church, when he saith, he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him: for this Church comprehendeth in it the Writers of the bookes of the Gospell, and all the Apostles: so that from the authoritie of Augustine, rightly vnderstood, it cannot be inferred, that the Pope the maker of the Canons, is rather & more to be beleeued then the Gospel: yet it may be granted, that wee must more & rather beleeue the Church which hath beene from the times of the Prophets & Apostles till now, then the Gospel: not for that men may any way doubt of the Gospell, but because the whole is greater then the part. So that the Church which is of greater authoritie then the Gospel, is, that whereof the Writer of the Gospel is a part. Neither is it strange, that the whole should bee of more authority then the parts. These are the words of Ockam in the place cited by me. Wherfore let the Reader judge whether that I cite out of Ockam be impertinent, as the Treatiser saith, or not. To Durandus, Gerson, Driedo, & Ockam, we may adde Doctrin fid. l. 2. art. 2. c. 21 Waldensis, who fully agrees with thē, shewing at large, that it pertayned to the Church onely in her first, best, and primitiue state & age, to deliuer a perfect direction touching the Canon of the Scripture; so that shee hath no power or authority now, to adde any more bookes to the Canon already receiued, as out of her owne immediate knowledge. But it sufficeth to the magnifying of her authority in her present estate, that euen now, no other bookes may bee receiued, but such only as in her first and best estate shee proposed. Farther adding, that the saying of Augustine, that hee would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authority of the Church did not moue him, is to bee vnderstood of the Church, including the primitiue Fathers and Pastors, the Apostles Scholers. By this which hath bin sayd, it is euident, as I thinke, that the former of those two constructions which I make of Augustines words, hath bin approued by far better men then this Treatiser. And that therefore he sheweth himself more bold then wise; when he pronounceth it to be frivolous. And surely, if we consider well the discourse of Contra epist. Manichei ca: 4. S. Augustine, I thinke it may be proued vnanswerably, out of the circumstances of the fame, that hee speaketh not precisely of the present Church. For it is that authority of the catholicke church hee vrgeth, that was begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, & confirmed & strengthned by long continuance. And of that Church he speaketh, wherin there had bin a succession of Bishops from Peter till that present time. So that he must needs meane the Church, including not onely such faythfull ones as were then liuing when hee wrote, but all that either then were, or had bin from the Apostles times. Wherefore let vs passe to the other construction of Augustines words, which is, that the authority of the present church, was the ground & reason of an acquisit fayth, & an introduction leading him to a more sure stay, but not the reason or ground of that faith, whereby principally he did beleeue. This constructiō the Treatiser sayth, cannot stand, because Aug: saith, if the authority he speaketh of be weakned, hee will beleeue no longer. Whence it seemeth to be consequent, that it was the cause of all thē perswasion of fayth that he had, then when he wrote, & not only of an acquisit fayth, preparing & fitting him to a stronger, more excellent, & farther degree or kind of faith. For the clearing of this poynt, we must note, that there are 3. Hugo de sancto victore in sententiis. sorts of such mē as beleeue: for there are some that beleeue out of piety onely, not discerning by reason, whether the things they beleeue, be to be beleeued as true or not: the 2d. haue a light of diuine reason shining in them, & causing an approbation of that they beleeue: the 3d. sort, hauing a pure heart & conscience, begin already inwardly to taste, that which hereafter more fully shall be enioyed. Resting in the first degree, as the authority of the Church moueth vs to beleeue, so if it be weakned, that kind & degree of faith, that stayeth on it, falleth to the ground, hauing no other sufficient stay: But if we speake of fayth in respect of her two other degrees, shee hath a more sure and firme ground & stay to rest vpon. And therefore Vbi supra. August: affirmeth, that the truth, clearly manifesting it selfe vnto vs, is to be preferred before all those things that commend vnto vs the authority of the church; & that there are certaine spiritually minded men, who in this life attaine to the knowledge of heauenly truth, & sincere wisdome, without all doubt discerning it, though but in part & weakly, in that they are men. Of which number there is no question, but that Aug: was one; so that the authority of the Church, could not be the sole or principall motiue or reason, at that time, when hee wrote of his present perswasion of the truth of heauenly mysteries, contayned in the Gospell of Christ, as the Treatiser would make vs beleeue: but hauing to do with the Manichees, who promised the evident and cleere knowledge of trueth; but fayling to performe that they promised, vrged him to beleeue that, which they could not make him know to bee true; he professeth, that if he must beleeue without discerning the truth of that he beleeueth, he must rest on the authority of the catholicke church: For the Manichees had no authority sufficient to moue a man to beleeue in this sort. Now the Catholicke Church commanded him not to listen to Manicheus, in which behalfe, if they would & could weaken the authority thereof, he professeth hee neither can, nor will beleeue any more, with such a kind of faith as they vrged him to; which is, without all discerning of the truth of the things that are to be beleeued. Thus we see the discourse of S. Augustine no way proueth, that the authority of the Church was the fole or principall ground of the highest degree, or kind of faith, he had; but it is most euident out of the same, that it serued onely as an introduction to lead to a more sure perswasion then it selfe could cause.

§. 5. & 6.

THe next thing the Treatiser hath, that concerneth Mee, is, that I acknowledge in Pag. 78. the Church a rule of faith, descending by tradition from the Apostles, according to which the Scriptures are to be expounded. Whereunto I briefly answere; that indeede I admit such a rule so descending vnto vs; but that the rule I speake of, is nothing else but a summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine, euery part whereof is found in Scripture, and from them easily to bee collected and proued, deliuered vnto vs by the guides of the Church, from hand to hand as from the Apostles. So that my words make nothing for proofe of the papists supposed vnwritten traditions: wherefore let vs passe to that which followeth, which is the Sophisticall circulation, which I say Papists runne into, in that they beleeue that the Church is infallibly lead into all truth, because it is soe contained in the Scripture; and that the Scripture is the word of God, because the Church infallibly led into all truth, telleth them it is. In this passage he sayth I wrong Stapleton, in that I charge him, that in his triplication against Whitaker, he affirmeth other matters to be beleeued, because they are contained in Scripture, and the Scripture, because it is the word of God: and Pag. 81. that it is the word of God, because the Church deliuereth it to be so: and the Church, because it is lead by the spirit: and that it is lead by the spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed. For that, as he saith, Stapleton in the last place maketh no mention of the Scripture, but of the Creed only. Wherefore let vs heare Stapleton himselfe speake. Whereas D. Whitaker obiecteth, that Papists according to Stapletons opiniō, beleeue whatsoeuer they beleeue, not only by, but for the Church: & that ingenuously he had cōfessed so much: he Triplication. pag. 188. answereth, that indeed he had so professed, & that he euer would so professe: and in Pag. 179. another place, whereas D. Whitaker saith: Papistes beleeue the Church, because God commaundeth them to do soe: and that God doth so commaund them, because the Church, whose authority is sacred, telleth them so: he answereth, that they doe not beleeue that God commaundeth them to beleeue the Church, either properly, or onely, because the Church telleth them soe: but partly, because of the most manifest authorities of Scriptures, sending men to the Church to bee taught by it: partly moued so to doe by the Creede of the Apostles, wherein we professe, that wee beleeue the Catholique Church: that is, not only that there is such a Church, but that we are members of it; and that God doth teach vs by it. Is here noe mention of the Scripture, but of the Creed onely? Doubtlesse the Treatiser hath a very hard fore-head, for otherwise he could not but blush, and acknowledge that hee wrongeth Mee, and not I Stapleton. But to make good that which I haue written: that Papists either fall into a Sophisticall circulation, or resolue the perswasion of their faith finally into humane motiues, and inducements; first, it is to be obserued, that noe man perswadeth himselfe of the truth of any thing, but because it is euident unto him in it selfe, to be as he perswadeth himselfe, either in abstractiue knowledge, or intuitiue, intellectuall or experimentall, or of affection; or else because it is soe deliuered to bee, by some such as hee is well perswaded of, both in respect of their vnderstanding discerning aright, and will to deliuer nothing, but that they apprehend to be true. In the former kind, the inducement, motiue, or formall cause of mens assent to such propositions as they assent vnto, is the euidence of them in themselues, which either they haue originally as the first principles, or by necessary deduction from things so euident, as conclusions thence inferred; In the latter, the authority and credit of the reporter. The former kind of assent, is named assensus euidens, the latter ineuidens, of which latter sort faith is, which is named a firme assent without euidence, because many of the things which we are to beleeue, are not, nor cannot be euident vnto vs originally in themselues, as the first principles of humane knowledge, nor by deduction, from, and out of things so evident, in such sort as conclusions in sciences are. Yet is not this assent without all evidence. For though the things beleeued be not euident in themselues, yet the medium, by vertue whereof we beleeue them, must be evident: & the proofe of them by vertue of that medium. Now the medium, by vertue whereof we beleeue things no way evident vnto vs in themselues, can be nothing else but the report of another: neither is euery report of another a sufficient medium or inducement to make vs beleeue things we know not, but it must be the report of such an one as we know cannot be deceiued, nor will not deceiue. It must therefore be evident to euery one, that firmely and without doubting beleeueth things not knowne vnto him vpon the report of another, that he that reporteth them vnto him, neither is deceiued, nor can deceiue. Whence it followeth necessarily, that things are as he reporteth. These things presupposed, I demaund of this Treatiser, whether he and his consorts assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith, induced so to doe by the evidence of the things in thēselues, or by the report of another. That they assent not vnto thē, induced so to do by the evidence of the things in thēselues they all professe, but by the report of another. I demand therefore, who that other is? whether God, or man? if man, then haue they nothing but anhumane perswasion, very weakly grounded, & wherein they may be deceiued, for euery man is a lyar. If God, let them tel me whether it be evident in it self, that God deliuereth these things vnto thē, & pronounceth them to be as they beleeue, or not: If not, but beleeued only, then, as before, by reasō of authority: & that either of God, or man. Not of God, for it is not evident in it self, that God deliuereth any thing vnto thē, not of men, for their report is not of such credit asthat we may certainly & vndoubtedly stay vpon it: seeing they may be deceiued, & deceiue other. They answere therefore, that it is no way evident vnto them in it selfe, that God deliuereth the things they beleeue: but that they perswade themselues, hee deliuered such things vpōthe report of men; but such men as are infallibly led into all truth. See then if they doe not runne round in a circle, finding no stay. They beleeue the resurrection of the dead, and the like things, because God revealed it; they beleeue that God revealed it, because it is so contained in the Scripture: and the Scripture, because it is the Word of God: and that it is the Word of God, because the Church so delivereth: and the Church because it is a multitude of men, infallibly led into all truth: and that there is a Church infallibly led into all truth, because it is so contained in Scripture: and the Scripture because it is the word of God: and so round without euer finding any end. Out of this circle they cannot get, vnles they either groūd their Faith vpon the meere report of men, as men, & humane probabilities: or confesse that it is evident vnto them, in it selfe, that God speaketh in the Scripture, and revealeth those things which they beleeue: which if they doe, it must bee in respect either of the manner, matter there vttered, or consequent effects. In respect of the manner, there being a certaine diuine vertue, force, and majesty, in the very forme of the words of him that speaketh, in the Scripture: in respect of the matter, which being suggested and proposed to vs, findeth approbation of reason, inlightned by the light of grace: in respect of the consequent effects, in that we finde a strange and wonderful change wrought in vs, assuring vs the doctrine is of God that hath such effects, which is that we say, & which they condemne in vs. The Treatiser would make vs beleeue that there are two opinions amongst them touching this point: whereof the one is, as he telleth vs, that wee beleeue the Church, because the Scripture teacheth vs, that shee is to be beleeued: & the Scripture, because the Church deliuereth it to vs to be the word of God. And the other, that by the assistance of God together with the concurrence of our naturall vnderstanding, we produce an act of supernaturall Faith; by which wee firmely beleeue the Articles of Christian Faith, not for any humane inducements, but for that they are revealed by Almighty God, without seeking any further: which if it be so, it must be evident in it self to thē that follow this opiniō: that God hath revealed & deliuered the things they beleeue, & that by one of the 3 waies before mētioned, & thē they fal into our opiniō: for if it be not evidēt to thē in it self, that God speakes in the scriptures, & reveales the things they are to beleeue, they must go further, to be assured that he doth so speake and reueale the things that are to bee beleeued, either to proofe of reason, or authority. For no man perswadeth himselfe of any thing, but vpon some inducements. Proofe of reason demonstratiue, I thinke they will not seeke; and probable inducements they may not rest in; therefore they must proceede to some proofeby authority, which can bee no other but that of the Church, and then they ioyne with them that follow the other opinion, and beleeue the articles of Christian faith, conteyned in Scripture, because God hath reuealed them; and that God hath reuealed them, because the Church telleth them so; and the Church, because the Scripture testifieth of it that it is led into all trueth, which is a very grosse sophisticall circulation. This the Treatiser did well perceiue, and therefore to helpe the matter, he distinguisheth the cause of beleeuing, and the condition necessarily requisite, that the cause may haue her working, in shew, making the Diuine Reuelation, the reason or cause that we beleeue, and the Churches proposing to vs the things to be beleeued, a condition only, and not a cause: in sort, as the fire alone is the cause of the burning of the wood, but the putting of one of them to another, is a necessary condition, without which that cause can produce no such effect: but this shift will not serue the turne. For it is the fire onely that burneth the wood, though it cannot burne vnlesse it be put vnto it: so that in like sort, if the comparison hold, the Diuine Reuelation must, of and by it selfe alone, moue, induce, and incline vs to beleeue the things proposed by the Church, as being euident vnto vs, to be a Deuine Reuelation, though without the Churches proposing, we could take no notice of it. Euen as in naturall knowledge, it is the euidence of trueth, appearing vnto vs, originally found in the first principles, and secondarily in the conclusions from thence deduced, that is the sole and onely cause or reason of our assent to such principles and conclusions, though without the helpe of some men of knowledge, proposing them to vs, and leading vs from the apprehension of one of them to another, happily we should not at all attaine such knowledge. But this euidence of the Diuine Reuelation in it selfe, the Treatiser will not admit. For it is no way euident in it selfe, to him, that God hath reuealed any of the things he beleeueth; but the onely proofe, besides humane motiues or reasons, (which are too weake to bee the ground of Fayth) that he hath, is the authority of the Church. So that the Ministery of the Church, is not onely a condition, but a cause of that perswasion of fayth which they haue: yea the authority of the Church is the formall cause of all that faith, seduced Papists haue. And therefore the distinction of a cause and condition helpeth them not: It is true indeed that the Ministerie of the Church, proposing to men thinges to bee beleeued, is onely a condition requisite to the producing of a supernaturall act of fayth, in respect of them that haue some other thing to perswade them, that that is true which the Church proposeth, besides the authority of the Church; but in respect of such as haue no other proofe of the trueth thereof it is a formall cause. Now this is the condition of all Papists: For let them tell Mee whether they beleeue the Scripture to be the Word of God, without any motiue at all or not? and if they doe not, as it is most certaine they doe not, whether besides such as are humane they haue any other then the authority of the Church? if they haue not, as doubtlesse they haue not, they make the authority of the Church the formall cause of their faith, and fall into that sophisticall circulation they are charged with. For they beleeue the articles of religion, because reuealed; and that they were reuealed, because it is so contayned in the Scripture; and the Scripture, because it is the Word of God; & that it is the Word of God, because the Church telleth them it is; and the Church, because it is guided by the spirit; and that it is so guided, because it is so contayned in the Scripture: this is such a maze as no wise man will willingly enter into: and yet the Treatiser commendeth the treading of these intricate pathes, and telleth vs that two causes may bee causes one of another. That the cause may bee proued by the effect, and the effect by the cause; and that such a kinde of argumentation, is not a circulation, but a demonstratiue regresse: that two causes may be causes either of other, in diuerse respects we make no question. For the end of each thing, as it is desired, setteth the efficient cause a worke, and the efficient causeth the same to bee actually enjoyed. Likewise, we doubt not, but that the cause may be proued by the effect, and the effect by the cause in a demonstratiue regresse. For the effect, as better known vnto vs then the cause, may make vs know the cause; and the cause being found out by vs, may make vs more perfitly, and in a better sort to knowe the effect, then before; not onely that, and what it is, but why it is also. So the death of little infants proueth them sinners, and their being sinners proueth them mortall. The bignesse of the footstep in the dust or sand, sheweth the bignesse of his foote that made that impression: And the bignesse of his foote will shew how bigge the impression is that he maketh: but this maketh nothing for the justifying of the Romish circulations. For heere the effect being knowne in a sort in itselfe, maketh vs know the cause; and the cause being found out and knowne, maketh vs more perfectly to knowe the effect then at first wee did; but the case is otherwise with the Papists; for with them the Scripture, which in it selfe hath no credit with them, but such onely as it is to receiue from the Church, giueth the Church credit; and the Church, which hath no credit but such as it is to receiue from the Scripture, giueth the Scripture credit by her testimony. And they endeauour to proue the infallibility of the Churches judgment out of the Scripture, and the trueth of the Scripture out of the determination and judgement of the Church. Much like, as if when question is made touching the quality & condition of two men, vtterly vnknowne, a man to commend them to such as doubt of them, should bring no other testimony of their good and honest disposition, but the testimony of each of them of the other. It is true then which I haue said, that to a man admitting the Old Testament, and doubting of the New, a man may vrge the authority of the Old; and to a man doubting of the Old, and admitting the New, the authority of the New; but to him that doubteth of both, a man must alledge neither of them, but must bring some other authority or proofe: so likewise, to him that admitteth the Scripture, and doubteth of the Church, a man may vrge the authority of the Scripture; but to him that doubteth of both, as all doe when they begin to beleeue, a man must alledge some other proofe; or else hee shall cause him to runne round in a Circle for euer, and neuer to finde any way out. Wherefore to conclude this poynt, let our Aduersaries know, that wee admitte and require humane motiues and inducements, and amongst them a good opinion of them that teach vs, as preparing & fitting vs to fayth. Secondly, that wee require a supernaturall ayde, light, and habit, for the producing of an act of faith. Thirdly, that we require some diuine motiue & inducement. Fourthly, that this cannot be the authority of the Church, seeing the authority of the Church is one of the things wee are to bee induced to beleeue. Fiftly, that wee require the ministery of the Church, as a propounder of all heauenly trueth; though her authority can be no proofe in generall, of all such truth. Sixtly, that the Church, though not as it includeth onely the beleeuers that are in the world, at one time, yet as it comprehendeth all that are, or haue beene, is an infallible propounder of heauenly truth, and so acknowledged to bee, by such as are assured of the trueth of the doctrine of Christianity in generall. Seauenthly, that the authority of this Church is a sufficient proofe of the trueth of particular things, proposed by her to such as already are by other diuine motiues assured of her infallibility.

§. 7.

FRom the authority of the Scripture, which he would faine make to bee wholy dependant Pag. 88. & 89. on the Church, the Treatiser passeth to the fulnesse and sufficiency of it; seeking amongst other his discourses, to weaken those proofes which are brought by Mee, for confirmation thereof. Affirming, that though I make shew, as if it were a plaine matter, that the Euangelists in their Gospels, Saint Luke in the Actes of the Apostles, and Saint Iohn in the Apocalyps, meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine, and direction of faith, yet I bring no reason of any moment to proue it. Whereas yet in the place cited by him, I haue these wordes, contayning in them, as I suppose, a strong proofe of the thing questioned. Who seeth not that the Evangelists, writing the history of CHRISTS life and death, St Luke in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles; describing the comming of the Holy Ghost, the admirable gifts and graces powred vpon the Apostles and the churches founded and ordered by them, and Saint Iohn writing the Revelations which he had concerning the future state of things to the end of the world, meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine? if the proof contained in these words be not sufficiēt, for my part I know not what may be, for what can be necessary to bee knowne of Christians, ouer and aboue that which is found in the olde Testament, besides the Incarnation of Christ, his words, actions, & sufferings; the manner of the establishment of churches in the faith of Christ: and the ordaining and appointing of fit guides to take care of the government of the same, and the future state of things to the end of the world? But he saith, no one of the Evangelists intended to set downe all that Christ did and suffered, as it appeareth in that no one of them hath so done; & that it cannot be said that all jointly haue so done, seeing that could not proceed but from some common deliberation, or the disposition and inspiration of the holy Ghost, mouing them to write: neither of which can be said. For that there was no such deliberation, he saith it is evident, in that no man mentioneth any such thing, & in that it is knowne they wrote in diuers countries at diuers times, vpon diuers occasions; & that the inspiration of the holy spirit did not direct them to the writing of all things necessary, hee saith it is likewise most cleare, in that I confesse there are some things wanting in their bookes, which the church beleeueth: which could not be if the spirit had moued them to write all. This obiection will soone be answered. For first it is certain that some one of the Evangelists intended to write all things which Christ did and spake: Act. 1. Luke 2. S. Luke professing that he had so done, Which yet is not to be vnderstood of all things simply, but such onely as he did & spake in that time, within the compasse whereof he confined his narration. Neither doth this prejudice the fulnesse of the Evangelicall history. For as Baronius b Annal. tom. 1. 34. 223. noteth, the later Evangelists taking a view of that the former had written, for the most part added what things they found omitted by them: So Marke & Luke write of the ascension of Christ, not mentioned by S. Mathew, because he ended his story before he came to it. And Iohn finding as Catal. scriptor. in Iohanne Baron. Annal. tom. 〈◊〉 . 99. 5. Hierome saith, that the other three had written onely the history of one yeare, after Iohn the Baptist was cast into prison, wherein Christ suffered; approued that which they had written as true, & omitting that yeare, because the things that fell out in it were reported by thē, recorded such things as fell out before the imprisonment of the Baptist, which they had not written, as not fetching the beginning of their narration so farre off. If it be said by this Treatiser, that many things that Christ did are so omitted, that they are found in none of the Evangelists: for that Cap. 20. 30. 31. Iohn who wrote last of all, & knew well what the rest had written, hath these words: Many other signes also Iesus wrought in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this booke, but these things are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that beleeuing you may haue euerlasting life through his Name. Cap. 24. 25 And againe, there are also many other things which Iesus did, which if they should be written euery one, I suppose the world would not be able to containe the Bookes which should be written. Annal. tom. 1. 34. 223. Baronius will tell him that the Evangelists when they tooke in hand the writing of the sacred stories, intended not to write all the things generally that Christ did: but such & so many only, as might serue to confirme the Faith, and to demonstrate that IESVS is the Son of GOD: & that the things which they haue written are sufficient to saluation, that men beleeuing may haue eternall life. So that though there were no commō deliberation or consultation amongst the Evangelists, & though they wrote at diuers times & in diuers places, yet by the sweet disposition of the holy Spirit that moued them to write, it might, and did so fall out, in that one saw what another had written, that the later added such things as they foūd omitted by the former, & so left vnto vs a perfect & full narration concerning Christ his incarnation, life, death, resurrectiō, & ascension, as also the things he did and spake during the time of his conversing amōgst men. So that the Treatiser is not able to proue that the Evangelicall historie is imperfect: but there is one thing wherein hee gloryeth, as if hee had gotten some great aduantage, which is, that I confesse, that there are somethings found in the Epistles of the Apostles, occasionally writtē & beleeued by the Church, that are not found in the history of the Euangelists, the book of all the Acts of the Apostles, nor the Reuelation of Saint Iohn: whence hee thinketh hee may inferre, that eyther the Authors of th •… se books, meant not to deliuer a perfect summe & directiō of Christian faith as I affirme; or that they missed of their purpose: which may not bee graunted. But lette him know, that there is no consequence of any such absurdity as hee imagineth, from any thing I haue written. For the things beleeued by the Church, and not found in the former bookes, but in the Epistles of the Apostles, are nothing else but distinct and cleare determinations of doubts arising touching matters of faith or manners, out of, and according to the summe of Christian Doctrine, found in the former bookes or historicall narrations of such thinges as passed betweene the Apostles themselues or between them and the Churches founded by them, or some particular persons in them, not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles: or lastly, Apostolicall prescriptions of things pertaining to decencie, order and comelinesse in the performance of the acts of Gods worship and seruice. Now I thinke it will not follow, that if there be found in the Apostolicall Epistles some more distinct & cleere resolutiōs & determinations of doubtes out of the forme and direction of Christian Doctrine, found in the former bookes, then are there found, or a prescription of some outward obseruations, that the former bookes containe not a perfect summe and direction of Christian faith: much lesse will it be consequent that these bookes containe not a perfect direction of Christian faith, because some historicall narrations, not found in them, are beleeued in the Church: as that Paul left his cloake at Troas, that hee mediated for Onesimus, and sought to reconcile him to his Maister, and the like. The Treatiser therefore passeth from this exception, and asketh how I will proue, that all thinges beleeued by the Church, & not contained in the former books are found in the Epistles of the Apostles; to whom I answere, that when hee shall giue any instance of things beleeued by the Church, & not foūd in the former books, either it shal be proued that they are not beleiued by the Church, or they shal be shewed him in those Epistles. Wherfore, let vs see what he hath more to say. One of the Apostolicall Epistles he saith is lost, namely that which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans, in which there might be something necessarily to Pag. 89. be beleeued that is not foūd in any other book of the New Testament. Therefore it may be thought that there is some want & imperfection in the books of the New Testament. This truly is a very idle and and silly obiection: for though there was a certaine Epistle to the Laodiceans carried about and read by some in auncient times, yet, as Hierome testifieth it was exploded by all: and In Epist. ad Colos. Homil. 12. Chrysostome, and In Epist. ad. Colos. in princ. citat. à Baro •… : Annal. Tom. 1. 60. 13. Theodoret are of opinion, that Paul neuer wrote any Epistle to the Laodiceans: but that the Epistle hee g Catal. script. Ecclesiast. in Paulo. speaketh of, was written from Laodicea, or by the Laodiceans, to informe him of the state of things amongst themselues, or amongst the Colossians, by whom hee would haue it read. And Ibid. Pag. 94. Cardinall Baronius himselfe approueth their opinion, rather then the other. That which he hath, of my admitting traditions, I will answere when I come to examine his next section.

§. 8.

IN his next section he hath these words. Barlow and Field, two famous English Protestants, admitte certaine Apostolicall traditions. And farther hee addeth, that I allow of certaine rules for the discerning of Apostolicke traditions, from such as are not such. Whereunto wee answere, that wee admit sundry kindes of tradition, and yet deny, that any thing concerning fayth, or the necessary direction and information of mens manners is to bee beleeued and receiued, that is not written. For we say, nothing was deliuered by tradition, but the bookes of Scripture, thinges in some sort therein contayned, and thence deduced; and certaine dispensable obseruations, not at all, or hardly to be discerned from Ecclesiasticall constitutions. Neither is it new, or strange, that wee should admit some kinds of traditions, For In examin Concili •… Tridentini decrer. pri •… : se •… 4. Kemnitiu •… acknowledgeth all those kinds that I mētion; which will no way help the Papists, For the question between thē & vs, is not whether there be any traditions or not. For it is most certaine that the bookes of Scripture are deliuered by tradition. But it beeing •… upposed, that the holy men of God, taught immediately by Christ his Sonne, •… ded certaine bookes to posterities, and agreed on, which those bookes are; wh •… her they containe all thinges necessary to bee knowne, and practised by Christian •… en for the attayning of euerlasting life and saluation, Wee say they doe, they deny it Yet will the Treatiser proue from hence, contrary to my assertions, that according to my owne grounds, tradition is the very foundation of my faith. For if Protestantes receiue the number, names of the Authours, and integrity of the parts of bookes, divine, and canonicall, as deliuered by tradition, as I say they doe: and if without tradition wee cannot know such diuine bookes, hee thinketh it consequent that tradition is the ground of our faith. But indeede there is no such consequence as hee imagineth. For it is one thing to require the tradition of the church, as a necessary mea •… s, whereby the bookes of Scripture may be deliuered vnto vs, and made known; & another to make the same tradition the ground of our faith; seeing in the judgment of the Treatiser himselfe, euery thing is not the ground of our saith, builded vpon Scripture, without which we cannot know the Canonicall bookes of Scripture from such as are not of that ranke. As it is euident, in that he distinguisheth the gro •… d of our faith, & Part. 1. pag. 83. & seqq. reason of our beleeuing, from the condition required to the producing of such an act of fayth; denying the churches proposing of things to bee beleeued to be the ground of our faith, and yet requiring it, as a necessary condition, without which ordinarily men cannot beleeue. So that though we know the names of the writers of the books of holy Scripture by tradition, and that there were no more bookes, nor no more partes of bookes, of this kinde left to posterities, by the Apostles, but such as the church deliuereth to vs; yet it is not consequent, that wee haue no other ground of our perswasion, that the bookes deliuered to vs, and the parts thereof are canonicall, but tradition: for the euidence of diuine power, and majesty, shewing it selfe in them more then in all humane compōsitions whatsoeuer, proueth them to haue proceeded from the immediate inspiration of the holy Ghost, breathing in them nothing but heauenly grace. The words of holy Scripture, sayth Epist ad Nepotem. Picus Mirandula, are rude and plaine, but full of life and soule; they haue their sting; they pierce and enter in, euen to the most secret spirit, and strangely transforme him that with due respect readeth them and meditateth on them. And besides, there are sundry diuine and conuincing reasons; that the summe of Christian doctrine contayned in these bookes, is nothing else but heauenly truth; and being without the compasse of that wee naturally vnderstand, reuealed trueth. So that the Treatiser doth greatly forget himselfe, when hee pronounceth it to bee false, that I say, that the Scriptures winne credit of Pag. 96. themselues, and yeelde sufficient satisfaction to all men of their diuine truth. This is the summe of all that hee hath of traditions. For where hee saith, I affirme that without the Creed of the Apostles, wee cannot know the Scriptures to bee of God; hee sheweth himselfe to care little whether that hee writeth bee true or false. For I no where haue any such thing; but where hee saith, I affirme that Papists make traditions Ecclesiasticall, equall with the written word of God, and that this is one of my ordinary vntruths, hee deserueth a sharper censure: For if the Reader be pleased to peruse the place cited by him, hee shall finde that I say no such thing, nor any thing that the Pope himselfe can possibly dislike. For, deliuering the opinion of Papists Booke 4 cap. 20. touching traditions, their diuerse kindes, and the credit that is to bee giuen vnto them, I shew; that they make diuine traditions equall with the words, precepts and doctrines of Christ, left vnto vs in writing, apostolicall, with the written precepts of the Apostles; and ecclesiasticall, with the written precepts of the Pastours of the Church; confessing, that there is no reason why they should not so doe, if they could proue any such vnwritten traditions. Is this to say that Papists make Ecclesiasticall traditions equall with the written Word of God? Is this one of my ordinary vntruthes? or rather is not this a bewraying of an extraordinary impudency in him that so saith? Surely I feare the Reader will haue a very ill conceipt of him, vpon the Pag. 96. discerning of this his bad dealing. Yet hee goeth forward, charging Mee, that I make the baptisme of Infants to be an vnwritten tradition; whereas yet he knoweth right well, that howsoeuer I grant it may be named a tradition, in that there is no expresse precept or example of it in Scripture; yet I affirme that it is no vnwritten tradition, in that the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of it, are there contained, & the benefites that follow it. Neither doth the place alledged by him out of Augustine c De Genesi ad literam. l. 10. c. 23. proue the contrary: the words of Augustine as commonly we reade them, are these: the custome of the Church in baptizing infants; which is not to be despised or lightly regarded, were not to be beleeued, were it not an Apostolique tradition. But, whosoeuer shall consider the place, will soone perceiue that Augustines meaning is, that the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants, which he saith, is not to be despised, or lightly regarded, is to be beleeued to be no other but an Apostolical tradition; & not that it were not to be beleeued if it were not an Apostolicall tradition; howsoeuer, as it seemeth esset in stead of esse is crept into the text. For it is something harsh to say, the custome of the Church in baptizing infants is not to be beleeued, vnlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition. Seeing such a custome might be beleeued, though it were not an Apostolicall Tradition. And besides, the drift of Augustine in that place, is to vrge the necessitie of this custome, and to haue it beleeued to be Apostolicall; and not to weaken it, as if it had no support, but bare tradition: which can neither stand with the opinion of Augustine, the truth of the thing it selfe, nor the iudgement and resolution of our Adversaries themselues, who Bell. de sacr; bapt. l. 1. c. 8. thinke that the Baptisme of Infants may be proued vnanswerably out of Scripture, in that CHRIST saith, the Kingdome of Heauen belongeth to litle children, and yet pronounceth, that except a man bee borne a new of water, & of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen. Wherein yet they contradict themselues, as they doe likewise in some other things, which they produce as instances of vnwritten traditions, and yet goe about to proue them by Scripture. Neither will the Treatisers evasion serue the turne, that they goe not about to proue any thing necessarily out of Scripture, that they pretend to be holden by vnwritten tradition, but probably only; for we know they bring Paedobaptisme as an instance of vnwritten traditions: and yet say, it may bee vnavoydably proued out of Scripture, as they propose the testimonies of it. The like may be said of the consubstantiality of the Sonne of God with the Father, and the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from them both, brought by them as instances of vnwritten verities, and yet prooued as strongly by them out of Scripture, as any other point of Faith. For if they shall say, an Heretique will not yeeld himselfe convinced by such proofes: it will bee answered, that no more he will by any other in any other point; nor by the tradition of the Church neither; which yet I suppose they will not make to be a weake proofe in that respect.

§. 9.

THe next exception taken against Me is, that I haue not well said, that a man may still doubt and refuse to beleeue a thing defined in a Generall Councell, without Pag. 9 •… . Hereticall pertinacie, and that Generall Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence. What I haue written, I will make good against the Treatiser. For it is not so strange a thing, as he would make vs beleeue, to thinke, that Generall Councels may erre, & that a man may doubt of things defined in thē, without heretical pertinacie, seeing not onely our Diuines generally so thinke, but sundry of the best learned in the Romane Church informer times, were of the same opinion, as I haue else-where shewed at large. Neither were it hard to answere the authorities hee bringeth to prooue, that Generall Councels cannot erre; if a man would insist vpon the particular examination of them. But this may suffice in a generalitie, that the Fathers produced by him, blame and condemne in particular, the calling of things in question, that had beene determined in the Councell of Nice, and some other of that sort: and not generallie the doubting of any thing determined in any Councell, how disorderly soeuer it proceeded, Leo ep. 2 •… . In the second Councell of Ephesus, there wanted not a sufficient number of worthy Bishops, yet because hee that tooke on him the Presidentship, vsed not accustomed moderation, neither permitted each man, freely to deliuer his opinion, it was not accepted, nor the Decrees of it receiued. From the not erring of Councels, the Treatiser passeth to the question concerning pag. 106. the Churches authority, in making new Articles of faith: and seeketh to cleare the Romane Church from the imputation of challēging any such authority by my confession: my words alleadged by him to this purpose are these. Our aduersaries confesse, that the approbation and determination of the Church, cannot make that a truth which was not: nor that a Diuine or Catholique truth, that was not so before. But the good man hath vsed this poore sentence of mine, 2. Sam. 10. 4. as Hanun vsed the messengers of Dauid, whose garments he cut off in the middle: a wrong afterwards seuerely, and yet most iustly, reuenged by Dauid. For it followeth in the same sentence, that Papists do thinke, that the Church, by her sole and bare determination may make that veritie to be in such sort Catholique, that euery one must expressely beleeue it, that was not soe, and in such degree Catholique before. Whereby it appeareth, that they attribute a power to the Church, in a sort, to make new Articles of faith, in that shee may make things formerly beleeued, onely implicite, to bee necessary to bee expressely beleeued; not by euidence of proofe, or apparant deduction, from thinges expressely beleeued, but by her bare and sole authority; which not onely wee, but sundry right learned, godly, and wise, in the middest of the Church of Rome euer denied. Wherefore, let vs passe from this imagined aduantage, to consider the rest of his exceptions.

§. 10.

IN my third booke, and first Chapter, speaking of the Patriarche of Constantinople, I haue these words: In the second generall Councell holden at Constantinople, he was preferred before the other Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishoppe of Rome; in the great Councell of Chalcedon, hee was made equall with him, and to haue all equall rights, priuiledges, and prerogatiues: because hee was Bishoppe of new Rome, as the other was of old. Hereupon the Treatiser breaketh out into these wordes: I cannot doe otherwise, but maruaile, that a man of his place and learning, doth not blush to committe such a notorious Pag. 73 •… . vntrueth, to the Print and view of the world. For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his affirmation, because it is in some sort impertinent, that which hee saith of the Councell of Chalcedon, is most vntrue, repugnant to all antiquity, and not onely contrary to all proceedings, and the history of the sayd Councell, but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged. Who would not thinke that there were some grosse ouersights committed by Mee, in these passages, vppon such an outcrie? Wherefore, lette vs consider the seuerall parts of this his exception against Mee.

First, hee sayth, the Bishoppe of Constantinople was not preferred before the other two Patriarches, of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome, in the first Councell of Constantinople, as I haue sayd; and that I say vntruly, when I say hee was. Let vs therefore, heare the wordes of the Canon it selfe, and then let the Reader iudge betweene vs. The words of the third Canon of that Councell are these; Constantinopolitanus Episcopus obtineat praecipuum honorem ac dignitatem, secundum ac post Episcopum Romanum, ideo quòd Constantinopolis noua Roma est, that is: Let the Bishop of Constantinople, haue the chiefest honour and dignity after the Bishoppe of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome. If the words of the Canon suffice not to iustifie my assertion, let vs heare the Treatiser himselfe; in the same page hee citeth these words of the Bishoppes assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon, in their Synodall Epistle to Leo Bishoppe of Rome: Wee haue confirmed the rule of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers, which were gathered together at Constantinople, vnder Theodosius of happie memory, which commaunded, that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second, and to haue second honour after your most holy and Apostolique See, &c. Is not here as much sayd as I haue written? Did not the holy Fathers, assembled at Constantinople, decree, that the Bishoppe of Constantinople, shall bee preferred before the Bishoppes of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishoppe of Rome? and doe not the Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon say they decreed soe? Haue all these holy Fathers committed notorious vntrueths to the Print and view of the world? It is well the Treatiser concealed his name, for otherwise hee must haue heard further from Mee.

But happily I mis-reported the Councell of Chalcedon when I sayd that in that Councell, the Bishoppe of Constantinople, was made equall with the Bishoppe of Rome, and to haue equall rights, priuiledges, and prerogatiues, because hee was Bishoppe of new Rome, as the other of old. Let vs therefore heare the words of the Bishoppes assembled in that Councell. The Synodus Chalcedon. actio. 16. Fathers, say the Bishops of that Councell, did rightly giue preeminences, and priuiledges, to the Throne of old Rome, because that •… ittie was Lady and mistresse of the world, and the hundred and fifty Bishops, most dee •… ely beloued of God, moued with the same respect, gaue equall preeminences, and priuiledges to the most holy throne of New Rome, thinking it reasonable that that Cittie honoured with the inperiall seate, and Senate, and enioying equall preeminences, and priuiledges, with the elder Princely city, should bee made great as the other, in ecclesiasticall affaires, being second after it. Out of this decree, De primatu Papae. lib. 2. Nilus, in his booke of the Primacie of the Pope, obserueth first, that in the iudgement of these holy Bishoppes, the Pope hath the primacie from the Fathers, and not from the Apostles. Secondly, that he hath it in respect of the greatnesse of his Citty, beeing the seate of the Empire, and not by reason of his succeding Peter, which vtterly ouerthroweth the Papacie. And therefore this good man, after all this outery raised against Mee, as if I had Pag. 123. mis-reported the Councell, is forced to deny the authority of the Canon, as not beeing confirmed by the Bishoppe of Rome. See then how hee demeaneth himselfe. First, hee vrgeth, that the Bishoppe of new Rome, or Constantinople, could not haue equall priuiledges with the Bishoppe of old Rome; because hee was to bee second, and next after him; where-unto Nilus answereth, that if that reason did hold, the Bishoppe of Alexandria, could not bee equall to the Bishoppe of Constantinople in power and authority: nor the Bishoppe of Antioch vnto him: one of these beeing after another in order and honour: and thence concludeth, that if the Bishop of Antioch, might bee equall to the Bishoppe of Alexandria, and the Bishoppe of Alexandria to the Bishoppe of Constantinople, notwithstanding the placing of one of them, in order and honour, before another, the Bishoppe of Constantinople might bee equall to the Bishoppe of Rome, though he were the second and next after him. Soe that, that which this Treatiser alleageth, that by the confession of these Fathers, the Bishoppe of Rome had alwaies the Primacy, is to no purpose; seeing the Primacie hee had was but of order and honour, which may bee yeelded to one amongst them that are equall in power; in which sense the Bishoppes assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon, in their relation to Pope Leo, call him their head. Secondly, hee confesseth, it may be gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councell (hee might haue sayd, out of all copies, Greeke and Latine) that by this Canon, the Bishop of new Rome, or Constantinople, was soe made second, after the Bishop of old Rome, that equall priuiledges were giuen vnto him. But addeth, that they were onely concerning iurisdiction, to ordaine certaine Metropolitans of the East Church, as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the West: which euasion serueth not the turne. For the Bishops in this Councell, supposing that the reason why the Fathers gaue the preeminence to the Bishoppe of Rome, was the greatnesse of the Citty, doe the •… pon giue him the like preheminences. Soe that they meant to make him equall generally, and not in some particular thinges onely. Besides, if they did equall him in iurisdiction, and in the ordination and confirmation of Metropolitans, it will follow, that they equalled him simply, and absolutely. For in the power of Order, there canne bee noe inequalitie betweene him and any other Bishoppe. Thirdly, hee sayth, That the Canon of this Councellis of no authority: and the like he must say of the Canons of the first Councell of Constantinople, and that in Trulto, and so beare downe all that standeth in his way, as In notis in conc. Chalced. Binnius, and other of his fellowes do, who feare not to charge these holy Fathers and Bishops, with lying & falshood. But how doth he proue that this Canon is of no authority? Surely, the onely reason he bringeth, is, because the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, resisted against it, and the Bishop himselfe neuer confirmed it, which is of litle force. For we know, that notwithstanding the long continued resistance of the Romane Bishops, yet in the end they were forced to giue way to this constitution. So that after the time of Novella 100. Iustinian the Emperour, who confirmed the same, they neuer made any word about it any more. The words of Iustinians confirmation are these. Wee ordaine, according to the decrees of the holy Councels, that the most holy Bishop of olde Rome, shall be the first of all Bishops: And the most blessed Bishop of Constantinople, which is new Rome, shall haue the second place after the See of olde Rome, and shall be before all the rest in order and honour. Neither did Martian the Emperour, as the Treatiser most vntruely avoucheth, voide the Canons of these Councels, which in this sort were confirmed afterwards by Iustinian. Wherefore seeing it is evident, that almost the whole Christian world, in diuerse Generall Councels, feared not to make another Bishop, the Bishop of Romes Peere: I hope the Reader will easily discerne, that I haue not passed the bounds of modestie, nor fallen into any vnseemely scoffing and railing vaine, as the Treatiser chargeth M •… , when I taxe the Antichristian and Lucifer-like pride of the Romish Antichrist, who, not-with-standing the contradiction of the greatest part of the Christian world, sought to subject all the members of Christ to himselfe; and pronounced them all to be in the state of damnation, that bowe not downe before him as Vice-God, and supreame commaunder on earth. But, it seemeth, hee had a great desire, at the least to seeme to say some-thing against Me. For other-wise hee would not so shamelesly be-lye Me, as he doth, when hee saith: I would deriue the beginning of the Pag. 1 •… 9 Popes superioritie from Phocas, whereas in the place cited by him, I haue no such thing, but the contrary. For I affirme, that in the first Councell of Constantinople, the Bishop of that citty was set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome, and before the other two Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioche, thereby confessing. that the Bishop of Rome had the first place at that time: Which when the Constantinopolitan Bishop sought to haue, Phocas so concluded matters betweene these two Bishops, that the Bishop of Rome should haue the first and chief place in the church of GOD, and Constantinople the second; so that the praeeminence & chieftie which the Pope claimeth lawfully, was ancient, and not deriued from Phocas, howsoeuer he might, and happily did enlarge and extend it farther then was fit, giuing him a kinde of vniversalitie of jurisdiction.

§. 11.

FRom the Primacie of the Bishop of Rome, the Treatiser passeth to the infallibilitie of his judgment, and affirmeth that his Decrees, though he define without a Generall Pag 1 •… 9 Councell, are that firme Rocke, and sure ground, vpon which our Faith is to bee builded; and that a man may well admit his definitions, as a ground of supernaturall Faith; and prudently builde an act of such supernaturall Faith vpon it. And yet in the same place confesseth, it is not yet authentically defined, that the Pope, in this sort, cannot erre. Which thing also De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. Bellarmine, and Relect. contr. 〈◊〉 . q. 4. Stapleton acknowledge, professing expressely, that it is no matter of faith, to beleeue that the Pope cannot erre, if hee define without a Generall Councell: In which passages there is, as I suppose, a most grosse contradiction. For how can the infallibilitie of the Popes iudgement bee to them a Rocke to builde an act of supernaturall Faith vpon, who neither know nor beleeue, that his iudgement is infallible, but thinke so onely. Can a man certainely and vndoubtedly builde his perswasion of any thing vpon his sayings, whome hee neither knoweth, nor beleeueth to bee free from errour. Wherefore, for the cleering of this poynt: First the Treatiser saith; Though the Church haue not authentically defined, that the Pope cannot erre, yet the Scriptures, and other arguments, brought to proue it, are so plaine, and there are so many that thinke so, that a man may very well admitte his definitions to be a ground of fayth. Whence it will follow, that a man may build his fayth vpon the Scriptures, and other arguments and reasons, without expecting the resolution of the Church, for the vnderstanding of the one, and discerning of the force and validity of the other. Whereas else-where hee professeth, that without the resolution of the present Church, the letter of holy Scripture, and the workes of Antiquity, yeeld no certaine Part. 1. 56. and diuine argument. Secondly, hee contradicteth himselfe, and denieth the supposed infallibility of the Popes judgement, to bee the Rocke, on which the Church is builded, and maketh that rocke to be onely the consenting iudgement of the Pope, & other Bishoppes in a Generall Councell; contrary to the opinion of almost all learned & pious men, as he telleth vs himselfe, who thinke that that infallibility of judgment, and assurance of trueth, vpon which our faith is to be builded, is not partly in the Pope, and partly in other Bishops, but altogether in the Pope. Thus seeking to avoyd one contradiction, hee runneth into many.

The second Part.
§. 1.

HAuing surueyed the first part of the Treatise, and examined such objections as the Authour of it maketh against Mee, I will passe to the second; wherein first he goeth about to proue out of that which I haue, that Bishops assembled in Generall Pag. 35. Councels may interpret the Scriptures, and by their authority, suppresse them that gaine-say such interpretations, as they consent vpon, subjecting them to excommunication, & censures of like nature; that according to the prouidence and wisdome of Almighty God, Generall Councels should not be subject to errour, in such matters; for that otherwise men might be forced according to Gods ordinance, to obey Generall Councels, erring & propounding false Doctrine. Which is a very silly kinde of reasoning; for in the very same sort, a man may proue that particular Bishops are free from erring in their proceedings, & that they can impose & prescribe nothing vniustly, vnder paine of excommunication, for that otherwise men might bee forced, and that according to Gods ordinance, to obey such Bishops, erring in their proceedings, and commanding vnjust things, whereas there is no question to bee made, but that they haue power to excommunicate, who may abuse the same; and that sometimes it is a thing most pleasing vnto God, by refusing to obey them that haue power to excommunicate, but abuse the same, to run into the vttermost extremities of their censures; yea De vera religione, cap: 6. S. Augustine pronounceth, that the patient enduring of wrongs, in this kinde, shall be highly rewarded by almighty God.

Secondly, in the same chapter labouring to proue, that Protestants contemne & reject the Fathers, & to that purpose wresting some sayings of Doctour Humfry and others, Pag. 40. he objecteth, that I haply may seem to some one, that doth not throughly looke into my words, to approue the authority of the ancient Fathers, as farre forth as any Catholicke; but sayth, that in truth I doe not. For proofe whereof hee setteth downe, what I haue written touching this poynt: Namely, first, that wee must receiue as true, whatsoeuer hath beene deliuered by all the Saintes with one consent, which haue left their opinion and judgement in writing; it not being possible, that they should all haue written of any thing, but that which was generally receiued in their times, and toucheth the very life of Christian fayth. Secondly, whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformely deliuered, as a matter of fayth, no man contradicting them, though many bee found to haue sayd nothing of it. Thirdly, whatsoeuer the most famous in euery age haue constantly delivered, as matter of faith, & receiued from them that went before them, in such sort that the gain-sayers were in their beginnings noted for singularity, nouelty, and diuision, and in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction, charged with heresie: which is as much as any Papist doth say. And then insteed of shewing, that I attribute not soe much to the Fathers as I should do, or as Papists doe; hee turneth himselfe to shew, that such consent of Fathers, as I speake of, is no sure direction for the finding out of the trueth. Soe ouer-throwing all that which his owne Diuines haue deliuered touching this point. But yet that he may seeme to say something to the purpose, he goeth about to proue, that I bereaue the Fathers almost of all authority. First, in that I reiect their testimonies touching all other matters, but onely certaine principall and substantiall points. Secondly, in that I require such a generall consent, as can hardly be found, touching such principall points. Thirdly, in that I make the whole Church subiect to error. For answere vnto these Allegations, I say; The first is a shamelesse vntruth. For I do not limitte, or restraine, the consent of the Fathers, to certaine principall or substantiall points, as hee mis-reporteth Mee: but make the same to bee a direction in all thinges that may be cleerely deduced from the rule of faith, and word of diuine and heauenly trueth, answerably to that of Contra prophanas haereseon. nouationes cap. 39. Vincentius Lyrinensis, that the consent of holy Fathers is with great studie and care to be sought out, and followed by vs, not in all petite questions, that may bee moued, concerning the Diuine law, but onely, or at the least specially, in thinges pertaining to the rule of Faith; with whom In Genes. lib. 7. quaest. 7. Pererius agreeth. To the second I say, that I require no other consent of Fathers then Vincentius Lyrinensis doth: who will haue vs onely to followe that doctrine of the Fathers, as certaine, which all with one consent haue holden, written, and taught, that haue written of such thinges. Neither doth this worthy Treatiser, admitte any other consent then I require, for in this same chapter, hee hath these wordes. They will obiect that euery one of the Fathers was subiect to errour. I confesse it: but yet God according to his promise, as I haue aboue declared, was so to direct and gouerne them, that they should not all erre. This consent of the Fathers wee make to be a Rule of direction: but yet not so generally and absolutely, as if truth could not at any time be found out without it, but so that wee must not neglect the knowledge of it, nor goe against it when wee know it. Neither is it necessary for the knowledge hereof, as the Treatiser obiecteth, to read ouer all the Fathers: for the constant concurrence of the principall in all ages, without noted contradiction, doth suffice to assure vs of such consent. The third allegation is partly vntrue, and partly inconsequent: it is vntrue, in that hee sayth, I thinke all the Pastours of the present Church may erre in matters of greatest momēt. It is incōsequēt, because though the whole presēt Church may erre in some things, not pertaining to the rule of faith, and Generall Councels, in matters of greatest consequence; yet it followeth not, that the Fathers of all times and places may be thought to haue erred, seeing this succession of Fathers is of greater authority then the company of Pastors that now are. Neither is it consequent, that if error may possesse the greatest part, or almost all the present Church, that it may bee Catholike also, and so found euery where, and euer. The former, Cap. 6. Vincentius Lyrinensis yeeldeth to bee possible, but disclaimeth the latter: and therefore prescribeth, that if error creepe into one part of the Church, wee should looke vnto other; that if it endeauour to staine and defile all, we should looke vp higher vnto antiquity; and that if some haue erred amongst the Auncient, we should looke what all not no •… d for singularity, did teach.

§. 2.

WHerefore let vs proceed to that which followeth in the next place: first hee reporteth what I haue written touching the ground of that perswasion, which we haue of the trueth of thinges contayned in Scripture, and then taketh exceptions to it. In the report, first he sayth, that I make the principall cause of our beleefe of thinges contained in the bookes of holy Scripture, to be the habit or light of faith. Secondly, that besides the habit or light of faith, I require reasons or motiues, by force whereof the spirit of God may settle the mind of a man in the perswasion of the trueth of things contained in Scripture, that might otherwise be doubted of. Thirdly, that I make this motiue or reason in some things to bee the evidence of the things themselues in the light of grace: in other not so evident vnto vs, the authority of God himselfe, whom we doe most certainely discerne to speake in the word of Faith preached vnto vs. These things I confesse are deliuered by Mee, and rightly collected by him out of that which I haue written. Yet doth hee wrong some other of the same iudgment with Me, touching this point, in that he saith vntruly, they reject all supernaturall habits, & so goeth about to make a difference betweene them and Mee, in this respect, whereas in truth and in deede there is none. But what is that the good man doth or can dislike in this my discourse? First, hee vndertaketh to proue, that neither the evidence of the things contained in Scriptures in themselues, presupposing the Pag. 54. light of grace, nor the authoritie of God himselfe, discerned to speake, can be sufficient motiues whereby the spirit of God may settle vs in the perswasiō of the truth of such things as are therein cōtained. Whereas yet I think, if he were asked what the motiues are, by force whereof the spirit doth effect this work, if these be not, he would not easily giue any answer: but how doth he demōstrate the insufficiencie of these motiues? Surely very weakly, & insufficiently. For first, thus he reasoneth against them: if these motiues were of sufficiencie, euery one enlightned by the light of grace, should by vertue of them bee perswaded of the Heauenly Trueth of all such things as are contained in the books of God: which is a very bad inference. For by the like kinde of reasoning it may bee prooued, that the evidence of things in the light of nature, is not the motiue or inducement that causeth our perswasion touching such things as are knowne in naturall knowledge, because all that haue the light of naturall reason, are not rightly perswaded concerning all such things: which no wise man will allow. So that as it is not to be imputed to the defect of evidence in the things that are to be knowne in naturall knowledge, which should settle the perswasion, that all men are not rightly perswaded of thē; but to the defect of the light of naturall reasō foūd in thē, or the want of due consideratiō & right proceeding in the searching out of such things as are so to be known: so likewise it is not to be imputed to the want of evidence of the truth of the things, or at least of Gods speaking in the word of Heauenly Truth, that all men beleeue not all the bookes that are diuine & canonical, & the things contained in thē, but to thedefect of spirituall light in thē that should discerne such things, or the want of due cōsideratiō & right proceeding in the searching out of such things. Secondly, he laboureth to proue, that none of the articles Pag. 5 of faith, or things beleeued by vs, are evident vnto vs in the light offaith, whereas yet notwithstanding In sententii •… . Hugo de sancto Victore sayth expresly, that in some the light of diuine reason causeth approbation of that they beleeue: & that in other the purity of the heart & conscience causeth a fore-tasting of those things which hereafter more fully shall be enioyed. And Summae theol. memb. 4. art. 2. Alexander of Ales pronounceth, that the things apprehended by vs in diuine knowledge, are more certainly discerned by such as are spirituall in the certainty of experience, in the certainty, which is in respect of affection, & by way of spirituall taste & feeling, then any thing is discerned in the light of naturall vnderstanding, according to that of the Prophet, Psalm. 11 •… . How sweet are thy wordes O Lord vnto my mouth, they are sweeter then the hony and the hony combe. Wherefore, that wee may the more distinctly conceiue these things, wee must obserue, that there are some things which though without revelation we could not know, yet, after they are revealed are evident vnto vs in the light of grace. As first, that the defects & euils that are found in the nature of man, the blindnes of his vnderstanding, the way wardnes of his affections, and perverse inclination of his will, were not from the beginning; that hauing beene in all the sonnes of men, the first parents of mankind fell from their originall & primitiue estate; and that seeing these euils are found in all, euen in litle infants new borne, the propagation of them is naturall, and not by imitation. Secondly, that the very inclinations of our hearts, beeing naturally euill, in this corrupt state of nature, nothing can change them to good, but GOD by a speciall worke, aboue, and beyond the course of Nature, which therefore may rightly be named grace. Other thinges there are, which are discerned by spirituall taste and feeling, as the remission of sinnes, the joy and exultation of heart that is there found where God is present in grace. And a third sort of thinges there are, which being not discerned to bee true, eyther of these two wayes, are beleeued notwithstanding because deliuered vnto vs by God, whom wee discerne to speake in the word of heavenly trueth. So that the two former sortes of thinges are euident in themselues to them that are spirituall, the latter in respect of that Medium, by force whereof they are beleeued, which is Diuine authority deliuering them vnto vs; which thing Erudit. theolog. de sacramentis. fidei. li: 1. part. 3. ca. 1. 2. Hugo de Sancto Victore, excellently expresseth. Credit fides (saith he) quod non vidit, & non vidit quod credit; vidit tamen aliquid per quod admonita est, & excitata credere quod non vidit. Deus sic ab initio notitiam sui ab homine temperauit, vt sicut nunquam quid esset totum poterat comprehendi, sic quod esset, nunquam prorsus posset ignorari. Oportuit vt proderet se occultum Deus ne totus celaretur, & propsus nesciretur, & rursum ad aliquid proditum se & agnitum occultaret ne totus manifestaretur, vt aliquid esset quod cor hominis enutriret cognitum, & rursus aliquid quod absconditum prouocaret: That is, Faith beleeveth that it neuer saw, and it neuer saw that which it doth beleeue, yet it saw something, by which it was admonished and stirred vppe to beleeue that which it saw not. God from the beginning did so temper the revealing of himselfe to bee knowne of men, that as it could never bee wholly comprehended what he was, so it might neuer be altogether vnknowne that he was. It was fitte therefore that God should manifest himselfe formerly hid, that hee might not bee wholly hidden, and no knowledge had of him: and againe, that having in some sort reuealed and made himselfe knowne, hee should so hide himselfe, as not wholly to bee manifested; that there might bee something which being knowne, might nourish the heart of man; and againe something, which being hid, might prouoke and stirre men vp to a desire of attayning some farther thing.

These things, it seemeth the Treatiser thought not of, and therefore denyeth that there is any motiue, sufficient to make a man beleeue the articles of the fayth, setting Pag. 55. aside the meane supernaturall, by which they are propounded: and therevpon asketh Pag. 56. Mee, what maketh Me beleeue the articles of the Trinity, the two distinct natures in Christ in the Vnity of the same person, and the resurrection of the dead? Wherevnto I answere that the thing that moueth mee so to beleeue, is the authority of the Scripture, which is the Word of God, and that I beleeue it to bee the Word of God, because I doe most certainely discerne him to speake in the same; and a certaine diuine force and Majesty to present it selfe vnto Mee, though the prophane Treatiser professeth Pag. 56. hee knoweth not what that authority and Majesty of God is, which is discerned in the sacred Scriptures, nor how wee discerne it, which is not to bee marvayled at, seeing blind men cannot discerne the difference of colours; but that there is something more then humane discernable in the Scripture, all deuout and religious men will acknowledge with vs. Beleeue Mee, sayth Picus Mirandula, there lyeth hidde in the Scripture a secret vertue, strangely altering and changing them, that in due sort are conversant in the same. So that the reason that all doe not discerne the Majesty of God, in all bookes that are diuine, and that some doubt of such as other admitte, is not because such a diuine power is not discernable in them, but because there is some defect in the parties not discerning the same.

To the former most weake reasons, brought to proue the insufficiency of those inducements, or reasons, by which wee thinke the Spirit of GOD setleth vs in a perswasion of the truth of thinges contayned in the Scripture. First, hee addeth an vntruth, to witte, that I deny those parts of Scripture, which rehearse matters of fact to bee knowne to be divine by the authority of God himselfe, discerned to speake in the Word of faith. And secondly, an objection that men cannot know the Scripture to be diuine, by discerning the Majesty of God, speaking in them, vnlesse they reade, or heare euery part of them read ouer, which is very hard to bee done by euery one. Wherevnto we answere according to their owne groundes, that those partes of divine and canonicall Scripture which particularly wee haue not read, or considered, are onely implicitè and vertually beleeued of vs, as likewise, the thinges that are contayned in them: neither should this seeme strange to the Romanists; for they thinke it pertayneth to the faith of each Christian man to beleeue all the bookes of holy Scripture to bee vndoubtedly true, and indited by the Spirit of God. Yet are there many amongst them, that neyther know how many, nor which these bookes are; but beleeue them vertually onely; as it appertayneth to the fayth, to beleeue that Iesus, Mary, & Ioseph fledde into Aegypt, and that Paul mediated for the reconciling of Onesimus to Philemon; but it is sufficient, for men that neuer read or considered these particulars, to beleeue them vertually. Thirdly, he chargeth vs with contrariety in our sayings, in that we make the Scripture to bee the ground, and rule of our fayth, and yet make the light of faith a meane whereby we come to the knowledge of Scripture: because, as hee thinketh, the Scripture cannot bee a rule of our fayth, vnlesse it bee certainely knowne to bee diuine, before we beleeue. But the good man should knowe that the Scripture may bee the rule of our fayth, directing vs touching such particular things as wee are to beleeue, though it be not knowne to bee diuine before we beleeue. For first, God giueth vs the eyes of fayth, and openeth our vnderstandings, that wee may see and discerne in generall, heauenly trueth to bee contayned in Scripture; & then it becommeth a rule of direction in all particular poynts of faith. Fourthly, he imputeth to vs, that wee relie vpon illuminations and inspirations in the things Pag. 61. wee beleeue, as if wee beleeued them without any other proofe or demonstration, vpon bare imagined inspirations; whereas wee beleeue nothing without such proofes, and motiues as all men may take notice of; and yet knowe right well, that none doe make right vse thereof, but such as haue their vnderstandings enlightned. So that his reasoning against the certainty of this illumination is idle, seeing we doe not make illumination or inspiration the ground of our perswasion touching things to be beleeved; but a disposition of the mind making vs capable of the apprehension of thinges that are diuine and heauenly. This illumination is in some more, and in some lesse; but in all the chosen seruants of God, such as sufficeth for the discerning of all sauing trueth, necessary to bee knowne of each man according to his estate and condition. Fiftly, besides idle repetition of thinges going before, to which hee referreth himself; and some vntruths mingled with the same. First, he chargeth Me, that I am contrary to my selfe, in deliuering the opinions of Papists. The first supposed contradiction is, in that I affirme, that it is the ordinary opinion of Papists, that the articles of faith are beleeued, because God reuealeth them, and yet say in another place, that they make the authority of the Church the rule of our fayth, and reason why we beleeue. The second, in that I charge the Papistes in one place that they giue authority to the Church to make new articles of faith, and in another place free them from the same. This latter supposed contrariety I shewed before to bee none at all but in the Treatisers imagination onely, and touching the first, if hee were a man of any common vnderstanding, or knew what contrariety is, hee vvould not charge Mee with any such thing. For it is true, that all Papists thinke the articles of faith are to be beleeued, because reuealed; but they thinke also that wee knowe not that they are reuealed, but beleeue so onely, and that not by reason of any diuine reuelation, testimony, or authority, but because the Church so telleth vs, and wee haue many humane inducements mouing vs so to perswade our selues. So that they make the authority of the Church and humane inducements the last and finall reason of beleeuing whatsoeuer they beleeue. This the Treatiser knew well enough, and therefore hee requireth Mee to Pag. 65. shew how I know that God reuealeth the things beleeued by Christians; If I will not fall into the same fault for which I blame them. Whereunto I answere, that I know the Scriptures to bee inspired of God by the diuine force and majesty that sheweth it selfe in them; in which sence I say the bookes of Scripture win credit of themselues; and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to all men of their diuine truth. For as the colour in each thing maketh it visible and to be seene; so the diuine power & vertue that sheweth it selfe in the Scripture maketh vs to beleeue that it is of God. But the Treatiser will not thus leaue Mee, but still goeth on, adding one vniust imputation to another. For whereas we say only, the Scriptures are not discerned to be diuine and inspired of Pag. 66 God, vnlesse we be inlightned by grace, and not that they are proued to bee diuine by the certaintie of that illumination: he maketh vs whether we wil, or not, to proue the Scriptures by our inspirations, and that we are inspired by the Scriptures: whereas we proue neither the one nor the other of these things in any such sort. For touching the Scripture, I haue sufficiently shewed before, how we know it to be diuine; and for the other, the Treatiser should know, that we doe not proue by Scripture, that we are divinely inlightned and inspired, but that as naturall reason hath a direct act whereby she apprehendeth things without, & a reflexed act, whereby taking a view of the former direct acts she findeth out her selfe: so the light of Faith first discouereth Heauenly verities in the Scripture, such as naturall reason could neuer find out, & then by reflexion findeth it selfe to be of another nature & kind then that rationall vnderstanding that was before. Wherefore let vs goe forward. Did not mine eyes see, and my hands handle the palpable absurdities of this Treatiser, I would not beleeue any mans report, that one so voide of all sense & reason as he euery way sheweth himselfe to be, should be permitted to write. For whereas I bring a most cleare sentence out of Augustine to proue, that howsoeuer the authoritie of the Church serue as an introduction to bring vs to the spirituall discerning of diuine things, yet men rest not in it: hee answereth, that Augustine in the chapter cited by Me, affirmeth onely, that because all men are not capable at first to vnderstād the sincere wisdome & truth taught in the church, God hath ordained in it a motiue which may first moue them to seeke it; to wit the Pag. 66. authority of the Church, which partly through miracles, partly through multitudes is of force to moue: which no way taketh any thing from, but rather addeth strength to my proofes: for if these motiues be necessary onely at the first before men bee purged & made pure in heart, that they may discerne & see the light of heauenly truth, it is evident that in Augustines judgment the authority of the Church serueth but as an introduction, & that the thing which right beleeuers rest vpon, is of a higher nature, to wit the discerning of heauenly truth. Wherefore finding himselfe too weak to giue any substantiall answer, he betaketh himselfe to a most silly exception, pretending that I haue not truly translated these words of Augustin: praesto est authoritas, quā partim miraculis, partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit; authoritie is ready at handwhich standeth vpō 2 things, the one the greatnes of miracles done, the other multitude. Is this a false translatiō, hath the authority of the church that force which it hath, to moue mē to beleeue, partly by reasō of miracles, & partly by reasō of multitude, & may it not be truly said, that it standeth partly vpon the greatnes of miracles wrought, & partly vpō multitudes? but valere doth not signifie to stād vpō: it is true, it doth not: yet what boy in the Grāmer School will not laugh at him for thus childishly demeaning himself: for what man of vnderstāding would cal men to cōster euery word precisely, as it importeth, by it selfe, without consideration of the coherence it hath with other in the same sentence. Besides this place of Aug. there is another cited by Me out of Hugo, where he maketh 3 sorts of beleeuers, whereof the first are such as are moued out of piety to beleeue, which yet discerne not by reason whether the things they beleeue are to bee beleeued or not. The second, such, who by reason approue that which by faith they beleeue. The third sort are such as by reason of the purity of their heart & conscience, begin inwardly to taste what by faith they beleeue. This place maketh strongly for the confirmation of that I say, that the evidence of sundry things in the light of faith and grace, is that formall reason which assureth vs of the truth of them. For heere Hugo affirmeth, that the best sort of beleeuers doe approue by reason, or by taste invvardly discerne the things they beleeue to be true. So that such approbation, or spiritual taste, is the reason of their perswasion of the truth of these things. To this authoritie the Treatiser hath nothing to say, but that it maketh nothing to the purpose, and that if I Pag. 67 meant to translate the vvords of Hugo, I haue not exactly translated thē. Whether the saying of Hugo be to the purpose or not, I vvill leaue it to the iudgment of the Reader: but as for his other exception, I vvould haue him knovv, and any sensible Reader vvill very easilie discerne, that I meant not exactlie to translate his vvordes, but at large to set downe the intent & driftes of them, which I haue most truely performed: and therefore hee doth Me wrong when hee saith, I deale corruptly & vntruly. In the third place hee endeauoureth to make his Reader beleeue there is a contrariety betweene Me and Luther & Brentius; in that Luther, with whom Brentius seemeth to agree, maketh the Scripture to be of it self a most certaine, most easie, and most manifest interpreter of it selfe, prouing, judging, and enlightning all things; & I acknowledge many difficulties in it. But if the Treatiser had beene pleased to haue taken thinges aright, he could not but haue seene that Luther also acknowledgeth manifold difficulties in the Scripture (yea hee doth see it and acknowledge it, and yet will not see it) and therefore that he bee not contrary to himselfe, when he affirmeth that the Scriptures are easie, interpret themselues, and judge, and enlighten all thinges, he must bee vnderstood to meane, that notwithstanding some difficulties, they are not so obscure and hard as that Heretiques may wrest and abuse them at their pleasure, and noe man bee able to conuince them, out of the euidence of those sacred writings, as the Romanistes imagine, but that wee may bee so assured out of the Scripture it selfe, and the nature of the thinges therein contained, that wee haue the true meaning of it, that wee neede not altogether to rest in the authority of Church: which explication of Luthers words, the Treatiser might haue found in the place cited by him, if hee had Luth. praefat. in dissert. art. a Leone. 10. damnatorum. beene pleased, and so haue omitted the vrging of this imagined contradiction.

§. 3.

The 4. thing that he proposeth which cōcerneth me, is that I mentiō a rule of faith according Pag. 82. to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted, which if we neglect, al other considerations are insufficient, & the like he alleageth out of the Harmony of confessions, whence he inferreth that we admit another guide in interpreting the Scripture, besides the letter of the Scripture. But hee should knowe, that the rule of faith mentioned by me, deliuered to vs from hand to hand by the guides of Gods Church, containeth nothing in it but that which is found in Scripture, either expressely or by necessary implication, so that though wee admitte another guide in the interpretation of of Scripture, besides the bare letter, yet wee admitte noe other but that forme of Christian doctrine, which all right beleeuing Christians taught by the Apostles, and Apostolique men, haue euer receiued as contained in the Scripture, and thence collected. To this hee addeth an excellent obseruation, which is, that I seeme to confesse, pag. 109. that Saint Paul sometimes by the workes of the Law vnderstandeth the workes of the Law of Moses, in that I say, that that Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched, and that if they still persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the Law with Christ, they were fallen from grace, and Christ could profit them nothing. But hee needed not thus to mince the matter, for I willingly confesse, that Paul not sometimes onely, but euer vnderstandeth by the workes of the Lawe, the workes of Moses Law. Neither can there any thing be inferred thence for the Papists, or against vs. For whereas by the workes of the Lawe some vnderstand those workes which the ceremoniall Lawe prescribed: other such as the morall Lawe requireth: and and a third sort, such as by terror it worketh in men, or causeth them to worke, without any chaunge of the heart (which cannot be wrought but only by grace:) & the Papists think that whē the Apostle sayth we are iustified by faith without workes, he excludeth not such works as the Morall Law requireth, but such as the ceremoniall Law prescribeth, and the morall Law worketh in men: we teach, that he excludeth all these. So that a man repenting and beleeuing, may bee saued, though hauing neuer done any good worke, he be taken out of this world before he can do any. It is true indeede, that good workes do necessarily follow iustification, if time do serue, and opportunity bee offered: yet are they no meritorious causes of saluation.

But the Treatiser will proue out of that which I haue written, that they are meritorious, & that faith only doth not iustifie: that good works are meritorious, he endeauoureth Pag. 110. to proue, because I confesse, that men iustified freely by grace, are crowned in the world to come, for that new obediēce that is foūd in thē after iustificatiō. But this cō sequence I suppose wil not be thought good, seeing, as Consult •… i. art. 6. Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer, God in respect of good works, or hauing an eye to thē, or for good works, giueth not onely temporall but eternall rewardes; not for the worthinesse of the workes in themselues, but out of his owne grace for the merit of Christ, first working such good workes in them that are his, and then crowning his owne workes in them, as Augustine long since aptly obserued. Let vs see therefore if he can proue any better, that fayth onely doth not justifie; this hee vndertaketh to doe out of that which I haue written, that justification implieth in it faith, hope, and charity. But for the clearing of this poynt, let him be pleased to obserue, that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant, but an adiudging of eternall life vnto vs: sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sinne and wrath, into a state of righteousnesse and acceptation with God, which implyeth in it sundry things concurring in Vide Antididag. Col •… n. de iustificatione & causis per quas iustificamur. very different sort, without any preiudice to the singular prerogatiue of fayth. For first, it implyeth in it a worke of almighty God, as the supreame and highest cause. Secondly, the merits of Christ, as the meanes whereby God is reconciled, and induced to take vs into his fauour. Thirdly, in him that is to be justified, a certaine perswasion of the trueth of such thinges as are contayned in the holy word of God. Fourthly, motions of feare, contrition, hope of mercy, and the like workes of preparing grace, as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified, that hee may be capable of Gods fauour. Fifthly, as the susceptiue cause, an act of faith, by which a man truely repenting of former euils, and seeking deliuerance, without all doubting firmely beleeueth, that all his sinnes are remitted him for Christs sake. Lastly, an infusion of the habite of diuine and heauenly vertues, as a beginning of that life of God, to which he doth adiudge them whom he receiueth to fauour. So that my saying, that justification thus taken, implyeth in it, Faith, Hope, and Charitie, contrarieth not our position, Pag. 113. that fayth onely justifieth, in sort before expressed: which the Treatiser knowing right well, insisteth no longer vpon this cauill, but passeth to an vntruth, charging Mee that I say of S. Augustine (whom yet I pronounce to haue been the greatest of all the Fathers, and the worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times) that his manner of deliuering the Article of Iustification, is not full, perfect, & exact; as if I imputed some fault to him in not deliuering the poynt of justification as it became him: whereas I haue no such thing, but say onely, that his manner of deliuering that Article was not so full, perfect, and exact, as we are forced to require in these times against the errours of the Romanists; in which saying, I no way blame that worthy Father, but shew that new errours require a more exact manner of handling of thinges then was necessary before such errours sprung vppe; which I thinke, no wise man will deny, and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny, vnlesse hee will bee contrary to himselfe. For hee sayth expressely, that Saint Augustine, before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church, Pag. 8 •… . as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies, spake not so aptly and properly as was needfull in succeeding times, and therefore retracted some things which hee had formerly vttered. So that the Reader will easily finde, that in this passage hee hath sayd lesse then nothing; neither will his next discourse be found any better, wherein he laboreth to shew a contrariety between Me, & Luther, Caluine, & others, in that I make Pag. 114. that acte of fayth, which obtayneth and procureth our justification, to bee an acte by way of petition, humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour; and not of comfortable assurance, consisting in a full perswasion, that through Christs merits wee are the children of God; Whereas Luther, Caluine, and the rest, make iustifying faith to be an assured perswasion, that through Christs merits wee are the sonnes of God. But the Treatiser might easily know if hee were disposed, that according to our opinion iustifying faith hath some actes, as a cause disposing, preparing, and fitting vs to the receipt of that gracious fauour, whereby God doth iustifie vs; and other, as a susceptiue cause, receiuing, embracing and enioying the same; in the former respect neyther they nor I make faith to consist in a perswasion that wee are the sonnes of God; in the latter wee both do, and so agree well enough, though the Treatiser, it seemeth, could wish it were otherwise.

§. 4.

WHerefore let vs goe forward, and take a view of that which followeth. The next thing which hee hath that concerneth Mee, is, that it may bee gathered out of my assertions in my Third Booke of the Church, that I thinke (as hee saith, some other also do) that it is no fundamentall point of doctrine, but a thing indifferent to beleeue, or not to beleeue the reall, that is, the locall presence of CHRISTS Body in the Sacrament. But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him, vnlesse it be lawfull for him to reason à baculo ad angulum, as often as he doth. For in the pages 120, and 121, of his second part, because I confesse, that in the Primitiue Church the manner of some was to receiue the Sacrament in the publique assembly, and not bee partakers of it presently, but to carry it home, that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sicke, that in places where they communicated euery day, there was a reseruation of some parts of the sanctified Elements, and that the sanctified Elements thus reserued in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them, were the bodie of Christ, to wit, in mysterie and exhibitiue signification: hee goeth about to conclude, that I must needes confesse the reall, that is, the locall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament: which consequence is no better then if a man should goe about to conclude, that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable booke, because hee hath troubled the world with one, such as it is, full of vaine, idle, and emptie discourses: whereof if any man make doubt, let him consider but the very next words. For, whereas I confessed Calvines dislike of the reseruation aunciently vsed, and yet saide, it cannot bee proued that hee denied the Sacramentall elements, consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them, to bee Sacramentally the body of Christ; hee saith, I labour in vaine; because Caluine doth expressely condemne these reseruations, which I confessed before; but no way goeth about to make good the consequence which I denied, to wit, that therefore hee thought the sanctified elements so reserued, not to bee Sacramentally the Body of Christ. For that which hee hath, that Caluine, Bucer, Melanchthon, and almost all Protestants holde the Eucharist to bee no permanent thing, but to bee the Sacrament onely when it is receiued, hath no more force of proofe then the rest of his frivolous discourses; seeing it is most evident that the Protestants named by him haue no such meaning, that the sanctified elements in the Holy Eucharist, are no Sacrament, but precisely in the very receiuing of them, for then they should bee no Sacrament in the hand of the Minister, and on the Holy Table, but onely in the hand or mouth of the communicant, but that they are no Sacrament but in reference to the vse to which they were appointed by Almightie God, as I haue shewed at large in the place against which this Treatiser quarrelleth.

§. 5.

LEt vs therefore proceed to see what hee hath more to say. In my Fourth booke, writing of the things required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of the Chap. 19 Scripture, I say, some things are required, as making vs capable of such vnderstanding; and other as meanes whereby we attaine vnto it. Amongst the things required, as making vs capable of the right vnderstanding of Scripture, I reckon the illumination of the vnderstanding, and a minde free from the thought of other things, depending on God as the Fountaine of illumination, & desirous to finde out the Truth, with resolution to embrace it, although contrary to the conceipts of naturall men. The meanes whereby we attaine to the right vnderstanding of Holy Scripture, I make to be of two sorts, some disposing and preparing onely, as often reading, meditating, and praying, some guiding vs in the search it selfe, and these I make to bee fi •… e. Whereof the first is the knowledge of the rule of faith, and the practise of the Saints according to the same. The second, a due consideration what will follow vpon our interpretation agreeing with, or contrary to the things receiued amongst Christians. In which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture is necessary. The third, the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted, the occasion of the words, the things going before, and following after. The fourth, the knowledge of all those histories, arts, and sciences, which may helpe vs. The fifth, the knowledge of the originall tongues, and the phrases, and idiotismes of the same. In all these passages, as I thinke, there is nothing that the Diuell himselfe dareth gaine-say; yet as if I had vttered some strange paradoxes, and things neuer heard of before, the Treatiser sayth, my doctrine is commonly singular, in so much that hee professeth hee Pag. 149. thinketh, hee may very well in some sort liken the platforme, or order and Faith of a Church sette downe in my bookes of that argument, to Sir Thomas Moores Vtopia, and that there neither is, nor euer was any such Church in the world, as I describe, and therevpon maketh shew as if hee would confute euery word that I haue in the place cited by him. Verily I thinke it will not bee safe for mee to write or say that there is a GOD, that GOD made heauen and earth, or that hee sent his sonne into the world; for he impugneth thinges as cleare as any of these, as that an illumination of the mind is necessary to the vnderstanding of the Scripture inspired of God, & the thinges contained in it; seeing the naturall man perceiueth not the thinges of GOD which are spiritually discerned; whereas yet wee shall finde that hee canne say nothing against the necessity of such diuine illumination for the vnderstanding of the Scripture, but hee might say as much against the necessity of the light of naturall reason for the vnderstanding of things naturally discernable. For hee might aske, as now hee doth, touching this illumination, how a man knoweth hee hath reason, or the vse of reason, and is not mad or drunke, seeing such men as are soe distempered, thinke they haue the vse of reason as well as any other: and one kinde of answere will serue for both these doubtes. For as men know they haue reason by the discerning of such things as are not discernable by the senses or sensitiue faculties, which are organicall: soe faithfull and beleeuing men that haue their mindes enlightned, knowe they haue receiued such a new illumination, in that they discerne thinges which before by the dimme sight of nature they could not, and as men that are sober and in their right wittes, doe certainely know they are soe, though such as are madde or drunke, thinke they are when they are not, and soe deceiue themselues. Soe men that haue true illumination of grace may certainely knowe they haue it, though some franticke and braine-sicke men thinke they haue it, when they haue it not. The weaknesse of this assault, it seemeth the Treatiser did perceiue, and therefore hee assayleth vs another way, and vndertaketh to proue that it is not necessary a man should be spirituall before hee vnderstandeth the Scriptures, because then it would be consequent that our faith could not be builded vpon Scriptures as we thinke it is. But I doubt hee will haue as bad successe as before. For as there must bee a naturall light of reason shining in men, before any thing naturally discernable canne euidently appeare vnto them to bee that it is; and yet the perswasion men haue touching the beeing of such things, buildeth it selfe vppon such euidence: soe likewise there must be a light of grace shining in the vnderstanding of men, before they can vnderstand the Scripture, and yet the perswasion they haue of the trueth of diuine thinges, may, and doth build it selfe vppon the Scriptures, vnderstood through such light.

Wherefore let vs see what hee hath yet more to say. Whereas besides an illumination, I require in him that will vnderstand the Scriptures, a minde free from the thought of other things, depending vpon God as the fountaine of illumination, and desirous of trueth, with resolution to embrace it, though contrary to the conceipt of naturall men; besides his former exception already answered, he addeth these words. I dislike these wordes, desirous of truth with resolution to embrace it. The like wherevnto, I protest, I neuer read, nor heard to come from any man. For is it possible there should any such man be found, that should dislike it in vs, that wee require in him that will vnderstand the Scripture, a minde desirous of trueth, with resolution to embrace it? Surely, it is; for we haue met with such an one, but he hath taken order by concealing his name, that noe man shall make him blush by looking on him. This doubtlesse is one of the sons of Belial, that haue cast off the yoake, that neither feare God, nor reuerence men. But what reason doth he giue of his dislike? these words, hee saith, seeme to pretend a kind of doubting, or staggering, which must not be allowed, especially in such men as are spirituall. As if a spirituall man might doubt of nothing, nor be ignorant of nothing, whereas yet all men know S. Augustine S. Hierome, and other holy Fathers, who as wee thinke were spirituall, doubted of the meaning of sundry passages of holy scriptures, and left many questions vnresolued. If happily he say, men may not doubt of matters of faith, and that therefore they must not be said to haue mindes desirous of truth, with resolution to embrace it: it will be answered, that noe man professing himselfe to be a Christian ought to doubt of such things as all Christians are bound expressely to beleeue: yet are there many matters of faith, that is, such as must be beleeued at least implicite, that faithfull men may doubt of and enquire after. Yea at first when a man beginneth to beleeue, hee doubteth of all points of faith, and must be setled in the same by the Scriptures interpreted vnto him, the diuine illumination of grace making him vnderstand them.

Thirdly, whereas I reckon the knowledge of the rule of faith; and the practise of the Saints according to the same, amongst the meanes which are necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scripture, and define that rule; First, to bee the summary comprehension of such principall articles of diuine knowledge, as are contained in the Creede of the Apostles, and are the principles whence all other things are deriued. Secondly, all such things as all Christians are bound to beleeue expressely, & which haue bin euer constantly beleeued by all such as haue not beene noted for singularity, and nouelty. Hee sayth, most men will dislike my doctrine, and pronounceth this rule to bee verie Pag. 151. Ibidem. vncertaine: and yet presently forgetting himselfe, addeth, that hee hath proued in the first part of this Treatise, that in very deede the Scriptures ought to bee interpreted according to the rule of faith, that is, the summe of Christian Religion, preserued as a depositum in the Church. But some man happily will say, that howsoeuer he forgetteth Pag. 152. himselfe, yet hee hath good aduantage against vs. For first he argueth, that if the Scripture, be to bee interpreted according to the rule of faith; the rule of faith it selfe is not knowne and beleeued through the authority of the Scripture. Secondly, hee sayth, the practise of the Saints from the beginning, to which I require men to haue an eye in interpreting Scripture, canne very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of Antiquity, according to my grounds. For answere to which obiections; First, I say, that the particular and seuerall parts of Scripture must bee interpreted according to the rule of fath, that is, the summe of Christian Doctrine receiued in the Church: and that yet the same summe of Christian doctrine is no otherwise to bee receiued by vs, but because it hath beene deliuered by the Church, as gathered out of the due comparing of one part of Scripture with another, and from thence confirmed and proued. Neither must wee firmely rest in the direction of it, till the Church make vs see and discerne how it is gathered out of seuerall places of Scripture layd together. Secondly, that the practise of the saints may bee knowne out of the monuments of antiquity, soe farre forth, as is necessary for the helping of vs to vnderstand the Scriptures, without any such difficultie as the Treatiser imagineth. For example, when Saint Augustine was to interpret certaine places of Scripture, touching the deriuation of sinne from Adam, and to cleare the point, whether it were by naturall propagation, or by imitation onely, as the Pelagians thought; it was not hard for him to know, that the Church did euer most carefully present her new borne infants to Baptisme, before they could bee mis-led and drawne away to euill by following the example of Adams disobedience; & thence to infer, that she euer beleeued, that infants are conceiued and borne in sinne, and consequently, that the propagation of sinne from Adam is naturall, and not by imitation onely,

The fourth thing that I require in him that will take vpon him to interprete the Scripture, is a due consideration what will follow vpon his interpretation, agreeing with, or contrary to the things generally receiued & beleeued amongst Christians; against which he hath nothing to say, yet that hee might bee thought to say something, first hee challengeth Luther for not obseruing this rule. And secondly, affirmeth, Pag. 152. that it is insufficient if at any time almost all Christians may erre, as I teach. But first concerning Luther, the good man should know, that hee cannot iustly be charged with the breach of this rule, seeing he broached no new doctrine in the Church, as the Treatiser vntruly affirmeth, but such as had the testimony of Antiquity, and the allowance of innumerable Christians in his time, as well in the West, as in the East. And secondly, that the possibilitie of the erring of the greatest part of the Church, prejudiceth not this rule, he might if hee pleased, learne out of Vincentius Lirinensis, who Contra proph. haeres. novationes. c. 6. acknowledgeth, that sometimes error may ouer-spread almost all the present church, & prescribeth that in such a case men should looke vp higher into antiquity.

The two other ensuing rules, to wit, consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted, the occasion of the words, the things going before, & following after, & the knowledge of all such histories, arts, & sciences, as may helpe vs in interpreting the Scripture, he passeth ouer as necessary, though not sufficient of themselues alone. The knowledge of the originall tongues, he acknowledgeth to bee profitable, but Pag. 152. will not admit it to be necessary, especially according to the conceipt of the Romanists. First, because they are sure they haue the Scriptures rightly translated. Secondly, because they make not the Scripture the propounder of their beleefe, but expound it according to the rule of Faith deliuered & receiued. In which passages he bewrayeth grosse ignorance. For first, the Romanists are not sure that they haue the Scripture truly translated, as it appeareth by that which Andradius hath written: who proueth at large, that though the vulgar translation were allowed of by the Councell of Trent, Lib. 4. desens. rid. as containing nothing in it whence any heresie or errour in faith may be inferred, yet is it not without many & great mistakings. And secondly, if they were sure, yet as Melchior 1 〈◊〉 theol. l 2 Canus sheweth, the knowledge of tongues is needfull for the finding out of the meaning of sundry particular places of Scripture, by reason of some ambiguity or obscurity in the translation. Thirdly, for that though the rule of Faith serue for direction in generality, so that following the same, we may bee sure not to decline from the truth of doctrine: yet will not that rule secure vs from all erring and swaruing from the meaning of each place in particular, so that in this respect, the knowledge of the tongues may be, and is most necessary.

After all these exceptions taken against the helpes and rules proposed by me, for the finding out of the true meaning of Scripture, the Treatiser setteth on mee a fresh in fiercer manner then before, and requireth me to bring some diuine testimony, proofe, Pag. 153 or argument, or some particular reason of the necessity and sufficiency of these helpes, and rules. Whereunto I briefly answer, that if any Papist vnder Heauen, can take any exception against any of these helpes and rules proposed by mee, or deuise any other, I will iustifie the necessity and sufficiencie of them: but otherwise, I thinke it altogether needlesse, to proue that the Sunne shineth at noone, 〈◊〉 to shew by reason or authority, that spirituall things cannot bee discerned but by spirituall men. The Treatiser therefore returneth and taketh new exceptions against the helpes and rules proposed by mee: first affirming, but most vntruely, that the greater part of my brethren will not allow them: and secondly, labouring to improue them by reason.

For first, that an illumination of the minde is not necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scripture, hee goeth about to shew, because if such illumination bee necessarie, no man can be assured of the truth of another mans interpretation, seeing no man can tell whether hee haue an illumination of the vnderstanding, and a minde disposed in such sort as is required or not. Whereunto I answer, that it is true, that no man can assure himselfe that another mans interpretation is true & good, out of any knowledge of such personall things in the interpreter: yet may hee know it to bee true out of the nature of the thing it selfe, and thence inferre, that either hee that so interpreteth, or they from whom hee receiued such interpretation, had a diuine illumination. For even as to discourse of the nature of colours, presupposeth that the man that so discourseth, hath, or had sight; if hee speake thereof with any apprehension of that hee speaketh, (though a blinde man hauing heard the discourses of other, may vse like wordes without all sense and apprehension of that hee speaketh) So no man can interprete the Scriptures, and discourse of the thinges therein contayned, with sence and feeling, but such a one whose minde is enlightned, though prophane persons, and such as bee voyde of all diuine illumination, may as from others, interprete the Scripture, and discourse of such diuine thinges as are therein. And as a man may assure himselfe that another mans discourse of colours is good, out of the nature of the thing it selfe, though hee know not whether hee haue, or euer had, such sence of seeing, as is requisite in him that will speake of colours with any apprehension; so a man may know that another mans interpretation is true, though hee know not whether he haue such an illumination of mind, as is necessary for the vnderstanding of the things contayned in the Scripture.

Secondly, hee vndertaketh to shew, that no man can eyther assure himselfe that he hath the true meaning of Scripture, or conuince the gaine-sayers by following the direction Pag. 153. 154. of the former rules, because, as hee supposeth, a man cannot certainely know, that hee hath an illumination of minde; that hee hath obserued those rules; that hee is disposed as hee should bee, and furnished with learning in such sort as is requisite. Whereunto first I answere briefly, that it is as possible for a man to know whether he haue an illumination of the mind or not, as it is whether he haue the light of naturall reason. Secondly, that the obseruation of the rules formerly mentioned, and the disposition of a mans mind resolued to embrace the trueth, may as easily be knowen, as any other motions, purposes, and resolutions. Neither is it more hard for a man that is spirituall to know whether hee bee sufficiently furnished with learning requisite for the vnderstanding of the Scripture, then for a naturall man to knowe whether hee haue learning enough to vnderstand Aristotle, or any other prophane authour.

Thirdly, in confutation of the former rules, hee alledgeth that they may not be admitted as necessary, because if they bee, all such as haue no illumination of minde, nor willing disposition to embrace the truth when it shal be manifested to thē, must be excluded out of the number of faithfull ones. Which if he thinke to be an absurdity, it is no great matter what he saith; but he addeth, that they that are vnlearned haue not the knowledge of all those arts and sciences, that are necessary for the vnderstanding of sundry parts of Scripture, nor of those originall tongues wherein they were written, without the knowledge whereof they cannot be vnderstood; whereas yet they are to build their fayth vpon the Scripture rightly vnderstood; whence it will follow, that all such must be excluded out of the number of the faythfull. This indeed is such a consequence as must not be admitted, neither is there any such thing consequent vpon that which we say. For though all men haue not that knowledge of arts, sciences, and tongues, that is necessary for the exact vnderstanding of all parts & passages of Scripture, yet may they vnderstand so much of the same as is necessary to saluation, without the knowledge of arts & sciences: the things that are so precisely necessary, being deliuered in very plaine, easie, and familiar termes. Neither is it necessary that if a man will build his faith vpon the Scripture, that he must vnderstand euery part of it. Onely one scruple remayneth, which is, that an ignorant man can haue no certaine ground of his faith, if he build the same vpon the Scripture, because lacking the knowledge of tongues he cannot know whether it be truely translated or not; but this scruple may easily be remoued, seeing an ignorant man, out of the Scripture it selfe duely proposed, explayned, and interpreted vnto him, may know it to be diuine, heauenly, & inspired of God; and consequently, that in what tongue soeuer it was written, it is truely translated touching the substance, howsoeuer happily, there may be some accidentall aberrations whereof he cannot judge.

After these exceptions taken against the helpes & rules proposed by me, as necessary for the finding out of the sence and meaning of the Scripture, the Treatiser obseruing no order in his writings, addresseth himselfe to proue that we haue no certaine meanes whereby to know that the Scriptures are of God, or which they bee; and then returneth againe to proue, that we haue no certaine rule whereby to be assured we haue the sence of them. But all that hee sayth to this purpose, may easily bee answered. For first, the truth of Christian doctrine is diuinely proued vnto vs by the satisfaction wee finde in the same, touching things wherein naturall reason left vs vnresolued, and the effects wee finde to follow vppon the receiuing of it. Secondly, that Christian doctrine is reuealed, it is euident, because staying within the confines of the light of naturall reason, wee can discerne no such thinges as in this heauenly doctrine are manifested to vs. Thirdly, the reuelation that is now, being mediate, and depending on a former, it must of necessity be graunted, that there was a first, and immediate reuelation of the things that are beleeued. Fourthly, that that immediate reuelation was without mixture of error, there being no imperfection found in any of Gods immediate workings. Fifthly, that whatsoeuer bookes they wrote, to whom that immediate reuelation of heauenly truth was graunted, are diuine, without mixture of error, and Canonicall. Sixtly, that all such books as are recommended to vs by the consenting testimony of all Christians, not noted for singularity, nouelty, or heresie, as written by those who first learned the doctrine of heauenly truth from God himselfe, must be acknowledged to haue bin written by them. Which perswasion is confirmed, in that when wee reade and meditate vpon the bookes soe commended to vs, wee finde a maiesty, vertue, and power appearing in them more then in all humane compositions, captiuating vs to the the obedience of faith, and making vs to receiue them as vndoubtedly diuine.

These are the grounds which wee build vpon. Wherefore let the Reader judge whether the Treatiser had any cause to write as hee doth, that hee cannot sufficiently Pag. 155. maruel, that I, or any man of iudgement or learning, should runne these courses, and impugne their doctrine concerning these points, as absurd, which indeede is most prudent and diuine, and yet fall into most grosse absurdities and inconueniences. How prudent and diuine their doctrine is touching the ground of their faith, I haue shewed before, making it most cleare, that if they did shew no more prudence in any thing else, their part would soone bee ouerthrowne. But touching the absurdities into which hee supposeth wee runne, they will bee found to bee none at all. For as I haue shewed at large, wee ground our faith in generall vppon the euidence of heauenly trueth, and the authority of Almighty God, whom wee discerne to speake in the holy Scriptures, and yet in such sort listen to the Church, as a Mistresse of heauenly truth in all particular points, that wee do not broach any new and strange doctrine vnheard of in the Church, nor impugne any thing that was alwaies constantly deliuered and receiued in the same. Soe that it is vntrue that the Treatiser sayth, that I reiect all Pag. 156. generall authority, and leaue euery man to follow his owne priuate conceipt: hee returneth therefore to proue, that supposing wee know the letter of Scripture, yet haue wee no certaine rule to finde out the sence of it: and mustereth some obiections to this purpose, which I haue sufficiently answered already in the defence of the rules proposed by mee, and impugned by him. Neyther is it soe strange as hee would make it, that we confesse euery one though neuer so much enlightned, to bee subiect to errour, and yet each of vs assureth himselfe hee doth not erre from the Christian verity, one hauing no more assurance of not erring then another. For is it not soe that in respect of things that may bee knowne by the light of naturall reason, each one confesseth himselfe to be subiect to error, and yet euery one assureth himselfe he doth not erre in sundry particular things. Wherefore hee leaueth this point, and proceedeth to Pag. 166. another, where he bewrayeth the weaknesse of his braine, labouring seriously to proue, that he, who buildeth his faith vppon the English Parliament, cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue, nor haue any true fath: because I say, wee can neuer be so well perswaded of any man or multitude of men, but that we may iustly feare, they are deceiued, or will deceiue. Truly it had beene well that hee had applyed himselfe to some other thing, rather then booke-making vnlesse hee had any greater facility and felicity in it then he hath; for who was euer so senselesse as to build his Faith vpon the English Parliament? or why doth the Treatiser thus fight with his owne shadow? But haply he will be better towards the end.

§. 6.

IN the last place speaking of the supposed divisions and dissentions amongst Protestants, he sayth, some amongst vs are so bolde as to deny, that there is any great or Pag. 181 materiall dissention in our Churches, & that I amongst others write, that it so fell out by the happy providence of God, when there was a reformation made, that there was no materiall or essentiall difference amongst them that were actors in it, but such as vpon equall scanning will bee found rather to consist in the diuers manner of expressing one thing, & to be but verball vpon mistaking, through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men, then any thing else. And that further I adde, that I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the vbiquitary presence, or the like, betweene the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany, and other places, and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries: that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus, except about certaine ceremonies, were reall: that Hosiander held no priuate opinion touching iustification, howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking, gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue: and that this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all: this my assertion he saith, all the world knoweth to be vntrue, and endeavoureth to proue it to be so, First, by mine owne sayings else-where, and then by some other proofes. Pag. 182 By mine owne sayings, in that I complaine of vnhappie divisions in the Christian world, and of infinite distractions of mens mindes, not knowing in so great varietie of opinions what to thinke, or to whom to ioyne themselues: & that the controversies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many, & in nature so intricate, that few haue time & leasure, fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them. But this proofe will be found too weake. For there are many & very materiall divisions in the Christian world, infinitely distracting the mindes of men, as those of the Greekes & Latines; those of the Romish Faction, & such as embrace the reformed Religion: and the controversies that are betweene these, are in number many, and in nature intricate: in respect whereof my complaint might bee most iust, though neuer any one Protestant had opened his mouth against an other. And besides, supposing my complaint of diuisions in the Christian World, to reach to the breaches that are & haue beene amongst the Professours of the Reformed Religion, nothing can bee inferred from thence contrary to any thing that I haue written touching the agreeing of these men in iudgement & opinion. For there may bee great breaches betweene such men as are of one iudgement & opinion vpon mistaking one another: & therefore Gregory Nazianzene in his Oration made in the praise of Athanasius, sheweth, that the whole world in a sort was diuided vpon a meere mistaking, and that Athanasius by making either part rightly to vnderstand the other, procured a reconciliation. Neither neede this to seeme strange; for oftentimes controversies are multiplied, and by ill handling made intricate, that in trueth & indeede are no controversies, and might easily bee cleared, if there were a due proceeding in the discussing of the same. So that the Treatiser had no reason to say, that an indifferent reader will hardly excuse me frō error in this behalfe.

Wherefore let vs goe forward, and see what other proofes hee bringeth to proue that my assertiō cannot be true. First, whereas I say there is no difference touching the Sacramēt, the vbiquitary presence, & the like, between the Lutherans & Sacramētaries, as he maketh me to speak, he saith, I may easily be cōvinced of vntruth; because Instir. l. 4. c. 17 16. & 17 Caluin avoucheth, that by the vbiquitary presence, Marcion an anciēt heretick is raised vp out of hell, & a thousand bookes are written about the same point, shewing how great dissentions there haue beene in the world touching the same. But this proofe is easily disproued: for though it bee true that Caluine hath, that to imagine that the body of Christ hath no finite dimensions, but such as are extended as farre as heauen & earth, and that it is euery where by actuall position, or locall extension, is to make it a fantasticall body, and to raise vppe the old hereticke Marcion out of hell; yet to thinke that Christs body is personally euery where, in respect of the conjunction and vnion it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God, who is euery where, neither Calvine nor any other Oxthodoxall Diuine euer condemned. So that the Diuines of Germany condemning that kinde of vbiquitary presence that Caluine doth, and Caluine allowing that other whereof they speake, they must of necessity agree together, notwithstanding any thing the Treatiser can say to the contrary: but because I haue largely handled this matter touching the vbiquitary presence and the Sacrament in my fifth Booke of the Church, and in my answere to Higgons, I will no longer infist vpon it, but referre the Reader to the former places.

Secondly, whereas I affirme, that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illyricus, except about certaine ceremonies, were reall, hee sayth, whosoeuer readeth the actes of the Synode holden by the Lutherans at Altenberge, and the writings of the Flaccians against the Synergists, and Adiaphorists, shall finde dissentions touching greater matters. For the cleering of this objection it must bee obserued, that the supposed differences betweene those whom the Treatiser calleth Flaccians, and the other whom he nameth Synergists, were touching the co-operation of the wil of man with the grace of God, in her first conuersion vnto GOD, and the necessity of good workes to saluation.

Vide disput. Vinaraehabitam inter Illyricum & Victorinum. Concerning the former of these two poynts, it was euer agreed on between both these sorts of men, that after the first conuersion there is a co-operation of the will of man altered & renewed by the worke of Gods Spirit, with grace, in all ensuing actions of piety and vertue: and in this sence both of them as defending a Synergy, or co-operation of mans wil with Gods grace, might rightly bee named Synergists. 2ly, It was likewise agreed on by both sorts, that man by the fall of Adam, and in the state of sinne, is not onely wounded in the powers of his soule, in respect of things naturall, externall, and politicall, so that hee cannot performe any action so well in any of these kindes of thinges as before hee could; but that hee is vtterly spoyled of all power, strength, and ability to doe any spirituall and supernaturall actions of true vertue and piety, and is not onely halfe dead, but wholly dead, hauing no more power of himselfe to doe any thing that is good, then a dead man hath to performe the workes of life. Thirdly, it was agreed on, that there is not left in men corrupted by Adams fall, the least sparke of morall or spirituall good desire, or inclination, which being blowed vpon, and stirred, may concurre with Gods grace for the bringing forth of any good worke. So that neither of them were Synergists in this sense, though Illyricus, Museus, and other, supposed that Victorinus, and some other, did thinke so. Fourthly, it was with like vnanimous consent agreed on, that there remaineth still in man after the fal, a desire of good, and of that good, wherein there is no defect of good, no mixture of euill, no mutability, nor feare of being lost, though such be the infelicity of sinfull man, that hauing his vnderstanding darkned, and his will peruersly inclined, he seeketh and supposeth he may finde this good where it is not to be found. So that when God commeth to conuert and turne a sinfull man to himselfe, he needeth not newly to put a desire of good into him, for that is naturally found in him, but by inlightning the vnderstanding that it may discerne, and see what true good is, and where it is to bee found, and by turning the will from desiring that as good which is not, or not in such degree as is supposed, he maketh him a good and happie man, that was euill and miserable before. Neither doth he create a will in man, but changeth the will he findeth in him, that it may affect that which it did not, and so createth a new will and heart in him, that is, frameth him to the desire of that from which hee was most averse before. There is then no spirituall nor morall good in man, when he is to bee conuerted vnto God; no knowledge of true and spirituall good, nor no desire of the same, which being stirred vp may concurre with the grace of God, and therefore no synergy or co-operation of any such good, knowledge, or desire of good with the grace of God in our first conuersion; but that confused knowledge of good, and naturall inclination to desire it, that is found in man before his conuersion, when good desires are to be raised in him, concurreth with the grace of God, directing the vnderstanding to seeke that good where it is to bee found, and turning, bending, and bowing the heart to the loue and liking of it. For, that man desireth that which seemeth good vnto him, he hath of nature; that he desireth that which seemeth and is not, hee hath from the corruption of nature, and it argueth sinfull defect: and that hee desireth the true good and rightly, it is of grace, directing the vnderstanding, and turning the will from affecting that which before peruersly it did desire, to seeke that which it should, and in such sort as it should. And so; in that hee doth desire, and pursue that which he thinketh to be good, out of the naturall inclination of his will; but that which indeede is, and he should thinke to be good, out of the motions of the spirit; there is a kinde of Synergy, or co-operation of the naturall powers of man, and Gods grace euen in his first conuersion.

Wherefore let vs passe from the question touching the co-operation of mans will with Gods grace, to the other concerning the necessity of good workes to saluation. Where first it is Illyricus de voce & re fidei part. 3. pag. 61. & 62. agreed on, that there is necessarily required in all that will be saued, a dislike of former euils wherewith God was offended. Secondly, a ceasing to doe euill. Thirdly, a desire of grace that may preserue and keepe vs from the like. Fourthly, a desire to doe things pleasing vnto God in that time that remaineth. Decr. synod. Isnatensis anno 1556. celebrat. Epist. Menii ad Melancthonem de absurditate Maiorismi. Fiftly, it is acknowledged by all, that in them that are justified, and haue title to eternall saluation, good workes are so farre forth necessary to saluation, if they haue time, that the not doing of them is sinne, which, without repentance and remission, excludeth from saluation. Sixthly, that good works are necessary as fruites of faith, which all they that are justified and looke for saluation are bound in duty to bring forth. Seauenthly, that they are not so absolutely necessary, that no man can be saued without them; for a man may be saued that in the last moment disliketh sinne, and desireth pardon for it, and grace that he may not fall into it again, without the actuall doing of any good workes. So that I protest I cannot see wherein there could bee any reall difference betweene these men; neither will the Treatiser, I thinke, be able to shew me any such difference, either out of the acts of the Synode of Altenberge, or by any other meanes. For that men are bound in duty to doe good workes, that they necessarily follow faith, & that no man can be saued without dislike of sinne, desire of avoyding it, and purpose of doing that which is pleasing vnto God, Illyricus made no question; and so disliked not the saying of his opposites, that good workes are necessary to saluation, as thinking them in no sort necessary; but because he thought their words did import, that no man in any case can bee saued without the actuall doing of good workes, no, though hee haue them in desire: and that no man may assure himselfe farther of the fauour and mercy of God towards him, then hee findeth the presence of the workes of vertue in him; which thinges vndoubtedly they neuer meant.

Treatis. part. 2. cap. 1. pag. 10. Another opinion there is that is attributed to Illyricus touching the nature of originall sinne, which is greatly condemned by many. For first, hee is charged to haue taught, that the substance of mans soule was changed and corrupted by Adams fall whence it will follow, that it is mortall. Secondly, that sinne is a substance, & sundry other like thinges, whence the impious positions of the Manichees may be inferred. For the clearing of Illyricus from these impieties, first wee must obserue, that hee Quarundam impiarum sententiarum resutatio. pag. 133. De essentia imaginis Dei & diaboli, pag. 313. & 318. distinguisheth two sorts of corruption, naming the one naturall, and the other spirituall; the one consisting in the abolition of the thing corrupted, the other in a transformation of it. Secondly, that this transformation of the soule is not in respect of her essence and being simply, but of her essentiall and substantiall powers & faculties. Thirdly, that this transformation of the soule in her faculties, is not in respect of all her faculties, but the best and principall only, to wit, reason and the will Fourthly, that there is not any transformation or transuersion of these faculties simply in respect of all obiects: for the soule by the light of naturall reason iudgeth rightly of many things still, though with some imperfections; but in respect of her principall object, to wit, God, his worship, and Law. So that this is all that Illyricus sayth, that the soule of man since Adams fall is so transformed and changed in the best and principall of her essentiall and substantiall faculties, that they are not onely turned away from their principall obiect, and from tending to the right end whither they should looke, but converted also to the desiring of such things as they should not, or in such sort as they should not; but of the extinguishing or abolishing of any of the essentiall and naturall faculties of the soule, much lesse of the essence and being of it simply, he hath no word. Wherefore let vs come to the other part of the accusation framed against him, which is, that he maketh sinne to be a substance, and let vs heare what he will say vnto it himselfe. There are, saith Quorundam thematum originalem iustitiam & iniustitiam, simul & beneficia Christi extenuantium, refutatio p. 99 Illyricus, certaine absurd sayings maliciously attributed vnto me; as that sin is a substance, that it is in the predicament of substance; that it is the reasonable soule of man, and that on the contrary side, the soule is sin: but I neuer vsed any such speeches, neither did I euer say any more, but that some part of originall sin is the soules essentiall facultie of reason & the will corrupted, in that they are averted & turned away from their right obiect & end. But for the more full clearing of him from that impious opinion which is imputed to him, wee must take notice of certaine good obseruations found in him. As first, that we may speake of sinne concretiuely or abstractiuely. Secondly, that if we speake of sin abstractiuely, that is, sinfulnesse it is nothing but an inconformitie with the Law of GOD. Thirdly, that that to which such inconformitie immediatly cleaueth, and wherein want of conformitie with Gods Law is found, may rightly be named sin concretiuely. So that if such inconformitie be found in any action, we may safely pronounce it to be sin; if in any habite, we may pronounce, that that habite is sin: if in any inclination or desire, that that is sinne also: if in any the essentiall & substantiall faculties of the soule, as being turned from the right object & end, and converted to such obiect and end as they should not, wee may safely pronounce that these faculties disordered & put out of course, are sin, euen that originall & birth sin, which is the fountaine whence all other doe flow. So that to conclude this point, according to the opinion of Illyricus, if wee speake formally, & abstractiuely, originall sin is the disordering of the essentiall & substantiall Faculties of the soule, consisting in an aversion from the principall obiect, and a conversion to other in stead of it. But if wee speake concretiuely, & materially, originall sin is the substantiall facultie of the soule, which wee call Free-will, turned from seeking God, to oppose it selfe against him: in which passages, there is no impiety, nothing vnsound, or that doeth not stand with the trueth which wee professe; but his manner of speaking was such as might giue occasion of dislike, & therefore himselfe confesseth, that hee qualified some formes of wordes which hee had formerly vsed, vpon the advice of Simon Museus, that his meaning might bee the better knowne, & no misconstruction made of that hee meant well. So that it will bee found, that there was no reall difference betweene Melancthon & Illyricus about originall sin, or any other matter of faith: & therefore I may be as good as my word, & iustifie it against the proudest Papist liuing, that none of the differences between Melancthon & Illyricus, except about certaine ceremonies were reall.

Wherefore the Treatiser leaueth Illyricus, & commeth to Hosiander, whom hee will proue to haue holden a priuate opinion touching iustification, because Calvine in his Institutions spendeth almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of his conceipt touching the same Article, which in the very entrance hee calleth hee wores not what monster of essentiall righteousnesse: & Conradus Schlusselburge placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of heretickes. But this obiection will easily be answered, For it is not to be doubted, but Caluine & the rest iustly disliked that which they apprehended to bee his opinion, and condemned it as a monster. For they conceiued that he •… made Iustification to bee nothing else, but a transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs, and a mixture and confusion of it with vs. But Smidelinus sheweth at large, that he neuer had any such conceipt, but that, distinguishing three kinds of righteousnesse in Christ, whereof we are made partakers, to wit, actiue, passiue, and essentiall, in that hee was the Sonne of God; he taught that justification is not onely an acceptation and receiuing of vs to fauour vpon the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnesse of Christ; but an admission of vs also to the right of the participation of the diuine nature, as Peter speaketh, and of that essentiall righteousnesse that was in him, in that he was the sonne of God; that so receiuing of his fulnesse, we may be filled with all diuine qualities and graces. The reason why hee thus vrged the implying of the communication of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ in our iustification, was not as the same Smidelinus telleth vs, for that he thought iustification to consist wholy therein, or for that hee meant to exclude the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ from being causes of our iustification, or receiuing fauour with God: but because he saw many mistooke and abused the doctrine of free justification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, to the carelesse neglecting of al righteousnesse in themselues; therefore he taught, there is no remission of sin, no receiuing of any man to fauour, by vertue of the imputation of the actiue and passiue righteousnes of Christ, vnlesse out of dislike of sin, & desire of grace to auoid it, he be admitted to the right of the participation of that essentiall righteousnes that dwelt in him in all fulnesse, that so it may dwell in him that is to be iustified also, in some degree & sort. Neither is this construction of Hosianders words made by Smidelinus onely, but by sundry other. For Stapleton sayth, the followers of Brentius defended the opinion of Hosiander: whereas yet neither Brentius, nor any of his followers euer dreamed of any transfusion of the essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs, any mixture or confusion of it with vs, or any other communication of it to vs, or in any other sort, then is before expressed. So that the Treatiser had no reason to write as he doth, that my proceedings are rare and singular, and that I feare not to affirme things apparantly false, and confessed vntrue by all my brethren: much lesse to say, that euery man may easily perceiue by these my proceedinges, that I had a good opinion of mine owne wit and learning. For what haue I done that sauoureth of pride? or, wherein haue I bewrayed such vanitie as he speaketh of? Is it a matter of pride not to condemne hastily other opinions, to make the fairest and best construction of other mens words, especially such as are of the same profession with vs? Wherefore if the Treatiser be able to say any thing against this my defence of Illyricus and Hosiander, I will heare him; otherwise let him not tell me of my schoole distinctions, for I am not ashamed of them. Neither doe I vse them as the Romane sophisters do, to auoid the euidence of that truth that is too mighty for them to encounter: but to cleare that which the Romanistes desire to haue wrapped vp in perplexed and intricate disputes.

But, it seemeth, the Treatiser will not accept of this condition, and therefore hee passeth from the supposed diuisions of our Churches, and differences of our Diuines, & proceedeth to shew their inconstancie instancing particularly in Luther. And wheras in my former books I haue answered the obiections of Papistes touching this supposed inconstancie, he goeth about to refute that my answer, which consisteth of two parts. Whereof the first is, that in sundry points of greatest moment, as of the power of nature, of free-will, iustification, the difference of the Law and the Gospell, faith and workes, Christian liberty and the like, Luther was euer constant. The second, that it is not so strange as our Aduersaries would make it, that Luther proceeded by degrees in discerning sundry Popish errours; seeing Augustine and their Angelicall Doctour altered their iudgment in diuerse things, and, vpon better consideration, disliked what they had formerly approued. The former part of this my answere he pronounceth to containe a manifest vntruth; for, that amongst other things mentioned by me, Luther was not euer constant, & of one iudgment touching freewil, hee endeauoureth to proue, because in the defence of his Articles condemned by the Pope, he saith; Freewil is a forged or fained thing, & a title without a substance, it being Article 36. Luther in visit Saxon. in no mans power to think any thing good or euill, but all things falling out of absolute necessity: and else-where hee saith, men of their owne proper strength haue free-will to doe, or not to doe externall workes, so that they may attaine to secular and ciuill honesty. But M. Treatiser should know, that between these sayings of Luther, there is no contradiction in truth and in deed, but in his fancy onely; for in the former place two things are deliuered by Luther. The first, that no man by nature hath power to turne himselfe to God without grace, or so much as to prepare himself to the receipt of grace, which in the latter place, speaking onely of externall workes and ciuill or secular honesty, hee doth not contradict. The second, that though men in outward things, and things that are below, haue a kinde of freedome of will, and choyce, and power to doe, or not to doe them; yet not so free, but that they are subject to the providence, & disposition of Almighty God, bowing, bending, & turning them whither he pleaseth, and hauing them in such sort in his hand, as that they can will nothing, vnlesse he permit them, which no way preiudiceth that liberty which else-where he attributeth to the will. For the will of man is sayd to be free, because it doth nothing but on liking and choice, and because God permitting, it hath power to doe what pleaseth it best; and not because it is free and not subiect to diuine disposition and ordering, or as if it could doe any thing without Gods permission & concurrence. And this is all that Luther hath in the former or latter of the two places, alleadged by the Treatiser: for hee hath no word of absolute necessity, but of Gods most wise & prouident direction of our wils, in all their choices, desires and actions. And though else-where hee approue the saying of Wickliffe, that all things fall out by a kinde of absolute necessitie, yet he interpreteth himselfe to meane neither naturall necessity, nor coaction, but infallibility of event, in that all things fall out most certainly, as God thinketh good to dispose and order them. Wherefore seeing the Treatiser can fasten no contradiction vpon Luther, touching free-will, let vs proceede to see what exceptions hee taketh to that defence I make of his altering of his judgement in some other thinges. My defence is, that it was not strange for him, to alter his judgement in some poynts of good moment, seeing Saint Augustine, the greatest of all the Fathers, and the Angelicall Doctour did so before him. His exception against this my defence Pag. 186. 187. consisteth of two parts; vvhereof the first is, that Luthers changing of his opinion, argueth, hee was not extraordinarily and immediatly taught of God, (which vvee easily graunt) and that hee built his fayth vpon his owne vnconstant reason, which the Treatiser vvill neuer proue to bee consequent vpon the alteration of his judgement in some poynts of religion; for that otherwise Augustine might be conuinced to haue so builded his fayth likewise, who altered his judgement touching as great matters as euer Luther did. For whereas formerly hee attributed the election of such as were chosen to eternall life, to the foresight of their future fayth; after hee entred into the conflict with the Pelagians, he disclaymed it as a meere Pelagian conceipt. The second, that Saint Augustine vvriting, vvhen he vvas yet a nouice in Christian religion, and not fully instructed, erred in some poynts, vvhich errours, hauing receiued better instruction, hee disclaimed; and that before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed & defined in the Church, as afterwards vpon the rising of new heresies, he spake not so aptly & properly as was needfull in succeeding times, and therefore retracted what he had vttered; but that it was not therefore lawfull for Luther to leape vp and downe, hither & thither, and to change his faith accordingly as his fancie ledde him. For answere vvherevnto, I say, that Luther changed not his faith according to fancie, nor altered his judgement in any poynt of Christian doctrine generally & constantly agreed on in that Church vvherein hee liued. For, as I haue else-where proued at large, none of the thinges vvherein vvee at this day dissent from the present Church of Rome, vvere generally & constantly beleeued and receiued as articles of fayth in the dayes of our Fathers, in that Church vvherein they liued & died; so that in this respect there will bee no difference betweene the case of Luther & Augustine, or Aquinas, who, as the Treatiser confesseth, altered & corrected their former opinions touching sundry points of doctrine not determined by the Church, without any note of inconstancy, or building their faith vpon their owne vnconstant reason. And thus haue I runne through both parts of the Treatise of the grounds of the olde & new Religion, so that I might here end; but that the Authour thereof addeth in the end an Appendix in confutation of a booke written by M. Crashaw, concerning Romish Pag. 22 •… forgeries & falsifications; wherein among other things bee endeauoureth to proue, there could be no such corruption of the Fathers Writings in former times, as M. Crashaw conceiueth, because I say, the Papists were onely a faction in the Church, and that there were euer diverse in the middest of all the confusions of the Papacie, agreeing with vs, who alwayes opposed themselues against such as sought to advance Papall tyranny & Popish superstition, who, he thinketh, if there were any such, were carefull to preserue the Fathers Workes from corruption. For answer whereunto, wee must note, that the corruptions of the Fathers Writings are of three sorts; either by putting out base & counterfeit stuffe vnder their honourable names; or by putting in some things into their true & indubitate Workes, not well sorting with the same; or by taking something out of them. That many absurd things haue beene published vnder the names of holy Fathers, no man can make any doubt that looketh into the Workes of Augustine, Hicrome, & others, with which, many things censured & iudged to bee Apocryphall by our Adversaries themselues, are mingled. Now if in their iudgement this first kinde of corruption of the Fathers Workes might be in former times, notwithstanding such good men, as they thinke, were euer in the Church; who willingly and wittingly would giue no consent to any such corruption; why may not wee say, that some things might bee added or detracted from the indubitate writings of the Fathers, notwithstanding any thing they could doe to the contrary, whom wee suppose in the middest of Papall confusions to haue opposed themselues against errour, idolatry, and superstition then by some brought into the Church, and to haue giuen testimony to that truth which we now maintaine? so that this obiection is easily answered. What he hath against others, I doubt not but they will take notice of, and that he shall heare from them in due time, to whom I leaue him.

The end of the second part.
THE THIRD PART, CONTAINING A BRIEFE EXAMINATION OF SVCH PRETENDED PROOFES for Romish Religion and Recusancie, as are produced and violently wrested by a late Pamphleter out of the former bookes.

IN the Epistle to the Lords of the Councell, hee first complaineth of the In that Watson, Clerke, and the hellish contriuers of the powder treason, with some few of their adherents haue suffered death, and others haue not beene permitted to warme themselues at the fires in Smithfield, as they were wont to doe. long, and manifold supposed miseries of English Pseudo-Catholiques. Secondly, hee imputeth the same to the Puritanes, as if they had beene procured principally by them, and for their cause. Thirdly, hee proueth, that not onely those Puritanes, that refuse externall conformity, but such also as for a fashion follow it, are guilty of the proceedings against the Romanists; because the greatest number of Protestant Writers doe teach that there is noe such essentiall and substantiall difference betweene Protestants and Puritanes, but that they are of one Church, Faith and Religion. A strange kind of proofe; yet these are his words: The pennes and pulpits of Puritanes, and their Printers will sufficiently write, preach, and publish to the world, by whom, and to what purpose, no small part of these afflictions haue beene vrged and incited against vs, not onely by those few which refuse your externall conformity, but such as for a fashion follow it, to retaine themselues in authority. For proofe whereof, the greatest number of the present Protestant Writers, D. Sutcliffe, D. Doue, D. Field, M. Willet, Wootton, Middleton, &c. do teach, there is no substantiall, essentiall, or materiall point of difference in religion betweene Protestants and Puritanes, but they are of one Church, Faith and Religion. His meaning, it seemeth, is, that all Protestantes acknowledging Puritanes to bee of one Church with them, are Puritanes: and therefore hee would haue all to know, that howsoeuer hee make shew of blaming Puritanes onely, or principally; yet in truth hee equally condemneth all; and that therefore hee doth but dissemble, or say hee knoweth not what. But do all these Protestant writers named by him, teach, that there is no materiall difference betweene protestants and Puritanes? Surely no. For touching my selfe, I neuer wrote any such thing, neither in the place cited by him, nor any where else; so that hee beginneth with a manifest and shamelesse vntruth. But I doe the more willingly pardon him this fault, for that it seemeth hee doth not consider what he writeth. For in the title of his booke hee professeth that hee will take the proofes of his Catholique religion and Recusancy, onely from the writings of such Protestant Diuines, as haue beene published since the raigne of his Maiesty ouer this kingdome: for that, as hee sayth, they often change their opinions, at the least, at the comming of euery new Prince. And yet page 30. hee citeth the Bishop of Winchesters The difference, &c. edit. anno 1 •… 86. booke written many yeares agoe, and Doctor Couell his booke in defence of Master Hooker, as often as any other; which yet was written in her late Maiesties time. But what if I had written, that howsoeuer there are some materiall differences betweene Protestants and Puritanes, as it pleaseth him to stile them, yet not so essentiall or substantiall, but that they may bee of one Church, faith, and religion? What absurdity would haue followed? Would it be consequent from hence, as he inferreth, that it is not materiall with vs, whether men be of a true or false religion, of any or none at all? Haue there not beene, nay are there not greater differences betwixt Papists, who yet will be angry, if they be not esteemed to be all of one Church, faith, and religion? Did not Gerson Serm. in festo Paschae. Pope Iohn the two and twentith thinke, that the soules of the just shall not see God till the generall resurrection? and did not the French King that then was, with the whole vniuersity of Paris condemne the same opinion as hereticall, with sound of trumpet? Did not Soto contra Ambros. Ambrosius Catharinus teach, that a man may be certaine with the certainty of faith, that he is in state of grace; and Soto the contrary? Did not Pighius de iustificat. Pighius, Contaren. de iustificatione. Contarenus, and the Authors of the booke called Antididagma Coloniense, defend imputatiue justice; and other Papists reiect it? Did not some amongst them teach the merit of condignity? doe not Answer to Bell his downefall. &c. Vega. quaest. 5. de meritis gloriae ex cōdigno. others moued with a sober moderation, thinke there is no such merit? Doe not some thinke the Pope is vniuersall Bishop? Cusan. concord. Cathol. li. 2. c. 13. others that he is not, but prime Bishop onely? Bellar. lib. 4. de Roman. Pontif. ca. 22. Doe not some teach, that all Bishops receiue their jurisdiction from the Pope, others the contrary? Stapleton. relect. controu. 3. de prim. subiect. pot. Eccles. q. 4. Doe not some thinke the Pope may papally erre, and others that he cannot? Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. Doe not some of them thinke he is temporall Lord of all the world, and others the contrary? Doe not so 〈◊〉 them thinke he may depose Princes, and Walden. doct. fid. li: 2. art. 3. quaest. 78. Gerson. de Pot. Eccles. consid. 12. Sigebert. in Chronic. anno 1088. others, that he may not? is there not a very materiall point of difference amongst Papists touching predestination? Let them shew vs, if they can, so many and materiall differences betweene Protestants and Puritanes. And yet these were all of one Church in their judgement; yea Idem. in Chrō. Pope Stephen, who reuersed all the actes of Formosus his predecessour, pronounced the ordinations of all those to bee voide whom he had ordained, brought his dead body out of the graue into the Councell, stript it out of the Papall vesture, put vpon it a lay habit, and cutting off two fingers of his right hand, cast it into Tyber: Pope Iohn his successour, who called a Councell of 74. Bishops to confirme the ordinations of Formosus, the Arch-bishoppes of France, and the King being present at Rauenna, & burned the acts of the Synod which Stephen had called to condemne Formosus: and Sergius, who againe condemned Formosus, and pronounced all his ordinations to be voide, reuersing the acts of Pope Iohn and his Synode, were all of one Church, of one communion, faith and religion. Nay which is more strange, when there were three Anti-popes sitting in diuerse places, accursing one another with all their Adherents, and that for many yeares, yet still they were of one Church, of one communion, faith, and religion. Yet may not wee inferre from hence against them, as they doe against vs, that it is not materiall with them, whether men be of a true or false religion, of any or none at all. Surely they are more priuiledged then other men; for Example of Blackvvell. some of them may take the Oath of Allegeance, & disclaime the Popes power and right to intermeddle with Princes states; and other refuse it, and yet still be Catholicke brethren in the communion of the same Church: Yea a D •… y. Priest may like of this Oath, and perswade others to take it, and afterwards goe ouer the Sea, and alter his iudgement, and returning, choose rather to suffer death, then to take it againe, yet no man must take notice of it. But if a Minister subscribe, and afterwards vpon ill aduice refuse to doe the same againe, then all the courses of our Religion are such, that by no outward signes, communion, profession, protestation, or subscription, a man can tell who is of what religion amongst vs. But let vs passe from the Epistle to the booke it selfe.

CHAP. I.

IN the first chapter, which is of the supreame, and most preeminent authority of the true church, and how necessary it is to finde it, follow the directions, and rest in the iudgement of it, he hath these words. Doctor Field a late Protestant writer, beginneth his Dedicatory Epistle to the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie, before his Bookes of the church in this manner: There is no part of heauenly doctrine more necessary in these dayes of so many intricate controversies of Religion, then diligently to search out, which, amongst all the societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that household of Faith, that spouse of Christ, and church of the liuing God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so we may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her iudgement. And after some other things cited out of others, he addeth, the ioyning with the true church is so needfull a thing, that D. Field concludeth: There is no saluation, remission of sinnes, or hope of eternall life out of the church. To what purpose this allegation serueth, I cannot conceiue: for there is nothing in any of these speeches of mine that euer any protestant doubted of, or from which any thing may bee concluded against vs, or for the papists. Calv. instit. l. 4. c. 1. sect. 4 The church of God (saith Master Caluine) is named the Mother of the Faithfull: neither is there any entrance into eternall life, vnlesse shee conceiue vs in her wombe, vnlesse shee bring vs forth, vnlesse her pappes doe giue vs sucke, and vnlesse shee keepe vs vnder her custodie and gouernement, till hauing put off this mor •… flesh, we become like the Angels in Heauen. Adde hereunto (saith he) that ou •… •… r lappe and bosome there is no remission of sinnes, nor saluation to be looked for, as both Esaias and Ioel testifie to whom Ezekiel subscribeth, when hee denounceth, they shall not bee reckoned amongst the people of God, whom he excludeth from eternall life. The onely thing that is any way doubtfull, is, how far we are bound to rest in the iudgment of the church. For the clearing whereof, the Author of these proofes hauing taken so much paines to reade ouer my bookes of the church, to take some advantage by them against the truth of Religion professed amongst vs, might haue beene pleased to remember those different degrees of obedience, which wee are to yeeld to them that commaund & teach vs in the church of God: Which I haue noted in the Fourth Booke, and fifth chapter, out of Waldensis, excellently described and set down by him in this sort, Wald. doct. fid. l. 2. art. 2. c. 27. We must (saith he) reuerence and respect the authority of all Catholique Doctors, whose doctrine and writings the church alloweth. We must more regard the authority of Catholique Bishops; more then these, the authority of Apostolique churches; amongst them, more specially the church of Rome; of a generall councell, more then all these: yet must wee not so listen to the determinations of any of these, nor so certainely assent vnto them, as to the things contained in Scripture, or beleeued and taught by the whole vniuersall church, that hath beene euer since the Apostles times; but as, to the instructions of our elders, and fatherly admonitions, and directions, wee must obey without scrupulous questioning, with all modesty of minde, with all good allowance, acceptation, and repose in the words of them that teach vs, vnlesse they teach any thing which the higher and superiour controlleth. And yet if they doe, the humble and obedient children of the church, must not insolently insult vpon them, from whom they are forced to dissent; but they must dissent with a reverent child-like, and respectfull shamefastnesse. And else-where hee saith: The church whose Faith neuer faileth, according to the promise made to Peter (who bare the figure of the church, when CHRIST saide vnto him, I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not) is not any particular church, as the church of Africa, within the bounds whereof Donatus did include the whole, nor the particular Romane church, but the vniuersall church, not gathered together in a generall councell, which hath sometimes erred, as that at Ariminum vnder Taurus the gouernour, and that at Constantinople vnder Iustinian the yonger: but it is the catholique church dispersed through the whole world, from the baptisme of CHRIST vnto our times; which doeth vndoubtedly holde the true faith, and faithfull testimony of Iesus. Yea the same authour is of opinion, that though it argue great contumacy for a man to dissent from a generall Councell without conuincing reason, yet not perfidious impiety, vnlesse he know or might know, if the fault were not in himselfe, that in so dissenting, hee dissenteth from the Scripture, or the determination of the vniuersall Church, that hath beene since the Apostles times, which onely is absolutely priuiledged from erring. Thus then I hope the indifferent Reader will easily discerne, that hitherto the authour of Protestant proofes hath found no proofe for Romish religion in any thing that I haue written; let vs come therefore to the second chapter.

CHAP. 2.

IN the second chapter, wherein he endeauoureth to proue by the testimonies of Protestants, that the Romane Church euer was, and still is the true Church of Christ, he citeth foure things as written by mee. The first is touching the supreme binding & commanding authority that is in the Church. His words are these. Doctour Field writeth, that the supreame, binding & commanding authority is onely in Bishops in a generall Councell. The second, is touching the definition of the church set downe in the Articles of religion, Art. 19. that it is the congregation of faithfull ones, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duely administred, according to Christs institution in all those thinges that of necessity are requisite to the same, whereunto he saith I agree. The third is, that the true Church of God is subiect vnto errours of doctrine, which are not fundamentall. The fourth, that the Romane Church is the true Church of God. His words are these. I thinke no man will deny the Church of Rome to be the same it was at the comming of Luther, and long before; and Doctor Field writeth, that the Romane and Latine Church continued the true Church of God euen till our time. And again, We doubt not but the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome exalted himselfe with more then Lucifer-like pride, was notwithstanding the true Church of God, that it held a sauing profession of the trueth in Christ, and by force thereof conuerted many countries from error to the way of truth: and he farther acknowledgeth with Doctor Couel & others, that Luther and the rest of his religion were baptized, receiued their Christianity, ordination and power of ministery, in that Church, as the true visible and apparant Church of Christ. Hee telleth farther, that divers of the Romane Church, not only of the ignorant, but of the best learned, were saued, and are Saints in heauen.

These are his allegations. Now let vs see what is to be said vnto them. Touching the first, it is most vndoubtedly true, that the supreame, and highest externall binding & commanding authority is onely in Bishops and others assembled in a generall Councell; but what will he inferre from hence? All men, saith he, doe know, & Doctor Sutcliffe with others acknowledge, that the Protestants haue had no such councell: and what then? therefore they are not the Churches of God. O impious and wicked conclusion! For hereby all the churches of the world 300. yeares after Christ; are proued not to haue beene the true churches of Christ; seeing, as it is euident, there was no generall Councell all that while; so that Christianity was rent into factions for want of this remedy, as Ibid. praefat Concil. Isidorus testifieth. But, saith hee, the Protestant Relatour of religion teacheth, that this preheminence, meanes, and remedy, is onely in the Church of Rome. This is most false; for howsoeuer he thinketh it not impossible for the Romanists to haue a generall Councel of those of their own faction; yet he knoweth it lieth not in them to procure a Councell absolutely generall or Oecumenicall: Nay we see that for many hundred yeares there hath not beene any generall Councell of all Christians, wherin a perfect consent and agreement might be setled; but the greatest parts of the Christian world haue remained diuided from the Romane Church for the space of 6. or 7. hundred yeares. If the Author of these proofes shall say, they haue all been heretickes, and schismatickes, and that they haue liued and died in state of damnation, that haue liued & died in those churches euer since their separation; & that therfore a generall Councel of the Christians of the West, adhering to the Pope, is absolutely general and Oecumenicall, representing the whole vniuersall Church; wee detest so vnchristian and diuellish a censure: and therefore wee willingly confesse, that the Protestants being but a part of the Christian church, cannot haue any Councell absolutely generall, but in a sort onely in respect of those of their owne profession. Such a generall Councell of Protestants to settle and compose their differences, the Protestant Relator of religion wisheth for: neither doth he euer deny the possibility thereof, as this Pamphleter mis-reporteth him, but saith only that as things now stand, there being no better correspondence among Christian Princes, nor greater desire of making vp the breaches of the Christian Church, there is little hope of any such generall meeting of those of the reformed religion.

Out of the two next allegations nothing can be concluded; for the errours of the present Romane Church are fundamentall; neither doth it preach the pure word of God, & duely administer the Sacraments, according to Christs institutiō, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. But he saith, he hopeth no man wil deny the Church of Rome to be the same now, it was when Luther began, & long before; and that I confesse, the Latin Church continued the true Church of God euen till our times. Because some man perhaps will thinke, that we yeeld more vnto our Aduersaries now, then formerly we did, in that we acknowledge the Latine or Western Churches subiect to Romish tyranny before God raised vp Luther, to haue bin the true Churches of God, in which a sauing profession of the truth in Christ was found, & wherein Luther himself receiued his christianity, ordination, & power of ministery; I will first shew, that all our best & most renowned Diuines did euer acknowledge as much as I haue written. 2ly, That the Romane church is not the same now, it was when Luther began. And 3l, that we haue not departed from the church wherein our Fathers liued & died, but only from the faction that was in it. Touching the first, Lib. contra Anabaptist. M. Luther confesseth, that much good, nay that all good, and the very marrow & kernell of faith, piety, and christian beliefe, was by the happy prouidence of God, preserued euen in the middest of all the confusions of the Papacy. Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 2. sect. 11. M. Caluine in like sort, sheweth, that the true Church remained vnder the Papacie, Cum Dominus foedus suum (saith he) in Gallia, Italiâ, Germaniâ, Hispania, & Angliâ deposuerit, vbi illae prouinciae Antichristi tyrannide oppressae sunt; quò tamen foedus suum inuiolabile maneret, Baptismum primò illic conseruauit, qui eius ore consecratus inuita humana impietate, vim suāretinet. deinde suâ prouidentiâ effecit, vt aliae quo que reliquiae extarent, ne Ecclesia prorsus interiret: ac quemadmod •… ita saepe diruuntur aedificia, vt fundamēta & ruinae maneant; ita non passus est Ecclesiā suam ab Antichristo vel á fundamēto subuerti, vel solo aequari, vtcun que ad puniendā hominū ingratitudinem, horribilē quassationem ac disjectionē fieri permiserit; sed ab ipsa quo que vastatione semirutum aedificiū superesse voluit: That is, the Lord hauing made his couenāt with the people of France, Italy, Germany, Spaine, & Englād, whē these prouinces were oppressed by the tyrāny of Antichrist, that yet still his couenant might remaine muiolable, first he preserued the Sacrament of Baptisme amongst thē, which being consecrated by his own mouth, retaineth his force in despight of mans impiety; & besides carefully prouided, that there should be found some other remainders also, that the Church might not altogether perish. And euen as oftentimes buildings are so thrown down that the foundations & some ruines do remaine; so God suffered not his church to be subuerted & ouerthrown by Antichrist frō the very foundation, or be laid euen with the ground, but howsoeuer to punish the ingratitude of men, he suffered it to be horribly shaken, torne and rent, yet his pleasure was, that the building should remaine after all this waste and decay, though halfe throwne downe. Of the same opinion is Bucer, Melancthon, and Beza, who saith: Bez. quaest. The Church was vnder the Papacy, but the Papacy was not the Church. Morn. of the Church. c. 9. We say, (saith Philip Mornay) that among that poore people, that was so long time deceiued vnder the darknesse of Antichrist, there was a part of the body of the visible Church; but that the Pope, and his maintayners were the bane of it, who stifled and choaked this poore people, as much as lay in them. Wee say, that this was the Church of Christ, but that Antichrist held it by the throat, to the end that the saluation and life that floweth from Christ might not passe vnto it. To be short (saith he) we say, that the people were of the Christian commō-wealth, but the Pope with his faction, was a proud seditious Catiline, seeking to destroy it, & set all on fire; & so euer he most aptly putteth a difference between thē that were vnder the Papacie, and the vpholders of the Papacie, the Christian Church, and the faction that was in it. M. Deering in his Lectures, speaking of the orders of the Popish Church, hath these words. Lect. 23. in 5. ad Heb. If any man will heere obiect, that notwithstanding all the abuses, yet the Priest had that which was principall, libertie to preach and minister Sacraments, and that therefore their ministery ought not to be neglected. I answer; In this was the great goodnesse of God, that in time to come his children might assuredly know, he reserued to himselfe a Church euen in the midst of all desolation, and that he called them by his word, and confirmed them by his Sacraments euen as at this day. For seeing there can be no sin so great, but faith in Iesus Christ scattereth it all away, it was impossible that the man of sinne should so much adulterate, either the Word of God, but that it should be to the faithfull a Gospell of saluation; or the Sacraments of God, but that they should bee pledges of eternall life to those that did beleeue: and he addeth, that notwithstanding all the prophanations in those times, in respect whereof we haue iustly separated our selues from the pertinacious maintainers of such confusions, yet God of his infinite goodnesse, who calleth things that are not, as though they were, euen in that ministery gaue grace vnto his Saints. Thus doe these Worthies write, touching the state of the Christian Church in former times, tyrannically oppressed by Antichrist, neither is there any of our Diuines of worth and learning, for ought I know, that dissenteth from them.

Wherefore I will now proceede to shew, that the Romane Church is not the same now that it was when Luther began. Here first that wee be not deceiued, wee must obserue, that by the name of the Romane Church, sometimes we vnderstand the Pope, y Cameracens. quaest. vesperiarum. his Cleargy, and other Christians of the Romane Diocesse: sometimes all Churches subiect to the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome. In this latter sense we speake of the Romane Church at this time, & will make it most cleare and evident, that it is not the same now that it was when Luther began. For first the Romane Church that then was, was the whole number of Christians subiect to Papal tyranny, whereof Illyr. in Catal. testium veritatis. Carolus Miltitius being sent from Pope Leo to Fredericke, prosessed, that all the way as he came, hauing sounded mens affections, he found three to fauour Luther for one that fauoured the Pope, and Luther professeth, that the applause of the world did support him much, all men being weary of the frauds, extorti •… ns, and wicked practises of the Romanists. Praefat. oper. Lutheri. a great part desired nothing more then to shake off that yoake, which as soone as he began to oppose himselfe, they presently did, accounting those that attributed that to the Pope, which is now attributed vnto him, to bee but flatterers: but the Romane Church that now is, is the multitude of such onely as thus magnifie, admire, and adore the plenitude of Papall power, or at least are contented to bee vnder the yoake of it still. Secondly, the Church of Rome that then was consisted of men not hauing meanes of instruction and information, like vnto those which haue beene since; and therefore not erring pertiuaciously in things wherein they were deceiued: But the Church that now is, consisteth of such onely as pertinaciously resist against the cleare manifestation of the truth, and with all fury and madnesse pursue vnto death those that defend and maintaine the same, or at least of such as consent in outward communion with them that so doe. So that they that liued heeretofore might in their simplicitie be saued, and yet these that now are, perish in their contradiction & wilfull resistance against the truth. Neither need this to seeme strange, seeing Vincentius Lirinensis saith (speaking of the errour of rebaptization) that the authors, devisers, and beginners of it, are crowned in Heauen, that is, Cyprian and the African Bishops of his time: for that notwithanding this errour they held the vnity of the Church, and condemned not, but communicated with them that were otherwise minded; and the followers of the same errour, that is, the Donatists for their schisme & pertinacy were condemned into hell. Thirdly, the Romane Church that then was, had in it all the abuses and superstitious a Contra prof. haeres. novitat. obseruations it now hath, and such as erred in all the points of doctrine, wherein b See the Appendix to the third Booke of the Church, and the 12 Chapter of the same booke. they of the Romane church now erre, in which respect it may seeme to haue beene the same, as the Author of these pretended proofes vrgeth; but it had also others that disliked and desired the remouing of all those abuses, & superstitious obseruations which we haue remoued & thought right in al those points of doctrin wherin the rest erred; in which respect it was not the same, but very different from that faction of Romanists that resisteth that reformation of religion which so many famous states of Christendome haue willingly embraced. So that the Romane Church that then was, consisted of two sorts of men: of the one as true liuing members: of the other, as pertayning to her vnity in respect of Baptisme, power of Ministery, and profession of some parts of heauenly trueth; though not partaking in that degree of vnity which the principall parts thereof had amongst themselues, but diuided from them, being a dangerous faction in the midst of her, seeking her destruction, which shee could neither flie from, nor driue from her; as Bernard somewhere speaketh: Serm. 33. in Cantica. Omnes amici, omnes inimici, omnes domestici, nulli pacifici, serui Christi, seruiunt Antichristo: All these were in some generall sort the Church, in respect of Baptisme, the profession of some parts of heauenly trueth, and the power of ministery; but principally, and in speciall sort, they only that beleeued rightly touching the most materiall poynts of Christian religion, and wished for the reformation of superstitious abuses. In respect of the former of these, the Romane Church was verè Ecclesia, truely a Church, that is, a multitude of men professing Christ, and baptized; but not vera Ecclesia, a true Church, that is, a multitude of men holding a sauing profession of the truth in Christ, as Morn of the Church, cap. 2. Mornay fitly noteth, for which Stapleton vnjustly reprehendeth him: but in respect of the latter, it was vera Ecclesia, a true Church, that is, a multitude of men holding a sauing profession of the trueth in Christ. The Church of the Iewes at the comming of Christ, had in it the Scribes, Pharisees, and Saduces, as well as Zachary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna; in respect of the former it was verè Ecclesia, but not vera Ecclesia; in respect of the later, it was vera Ecclesia. Neither should this seeme strange to any man, that the same society of Christian men should in respect of some parts, whereof it consisteth, bee the true Church of Christ, and in respect of some other, not so; seeing all men confesse, that the same visible church and society of Christians may bee named a garden inclosed, an orchard of pome granates, a well sealed vp, a fountaine of liuing waters, a paradise with all precious and desireable fruite, a holy nation, a peculiar people, a roy all Priest-hood, the spouse of Christ, and wife of the Lambe, the loue of Christ, all faire, vndefiled, and without spot, in respect of herbest and principall parts, though not in respect of other. The former ofthese two sorts of men that were found in the Romane Church, wee name a faction. First, because they had no part in that degree of vnity, which the best parts thereof had amongst themselues, but wandred into by-paths of errour, to their owne destruction, and sought the ruine of that mother, which by baptisme had sacramentally regenerated them to bee the sonnes of God. Secondly, for that they brought in new and strange errours, and a new kinde of tyrannicall gouernment, preiudiciall to the purity of the faith once deliuered, and the ancient liberty of the people of God. For hereby we are to judge who are of the faction in the Church, and who not; and not by multitude or paucity, as some fondly imagine. The disguised Arrians, and others mis-led by them to the condemning of Athanasius, were but a faction in the Church at that time, yet were they many, so that Hierome sayth, the whole world was become an Arrian; and they that adhered to Athanasius were few in number, and contemptible in respect of the rest. And all they that hold and defend errours in matters of doctrine, and obseruations in matters of practise and lawes, prejudiciall to the ancient liberties in the society of the Christian Church, are rightly said to be a faction in the same, whether they bee many, or few; & they that retaine the fayth once deliuered, are most properly the Church. Lastly, the errours that wee condemne, were taught in the Romane Church that was when Luther began, but they were not the doctrines of that Church; but these errours are of the doctrines of the present Romane Church. For the clearing of the former part, to wit, that the errours condemned by vs, were not the doctrines of that auncient Roman church, wherein our Fathers liued & died, we must obserue, that the doctrines taught in that Church, were of three sorts. The first, such as were deliuered with so full consent of all that liued in the same, that whosoeuer offered to teach otherwise, was rejected as a damnable hereticke; such was the doctrine of the Triuity, the creation, fall, originall sinne, incarnation of the Sonne of God, the vnity of his person, & diuersity of the natures subsisting in the same. The second, such errours as were taught by many, in the midst of the same Church, as, that the Pope cannot erre, and the like. The third, such contrary true assertions as were by other opposed against those errours. The first, were absolutely the doctrines of that Church. The third, may bee sayd to haue beene the doctrines of the Church, though al receiued them not; because they were the doctrines of such as were so in the church that they were the Church, according to that of Augustine: Aug. de Baptism. li: 7. c. 51. Some are in such sort in the house of God, that they also are the house of GOD; and some are so in the house, that they pertaine not to the frame and fabricke of it, nor to the society and fellowship of fruitfull and peaceable righteousnesse. The second kinde of doctrines, were not at all the doctrines of that church, because they neither were taught with full consent of all that liued in it, nor by them that were so in the church and house of God, that they were the church and house of God; but by such as though they pertained to the church in respect of the profession of some parts of heauenly truth, yet in respect of many other wherein they were departed from the same, seeking to subuert the faith once deliuered, were but a faction in it.

Hence it followeth (which is the third thing I promised to shew) that howsoeuer wee haue forsaken the communion of the Romane Diocesse, yet wee haue not departed from the Romane Church in the later sense before expressed, wherein our Fathers liued & died, but onely from the faction that was in it. First, because See the Appendix to the third booke of the Church. wee haue brought in no doctrine, then generally and constantly condemned, nor reiected any thing, then generally and constantly consented on. Secondly, because wee haue done nothing in that alteration of thinges that now appeareth, but remoued abuses then disliked, and shaken off the yoake of tyranny, which that Church in her best parts did euer desire to bee freed from, howsoeuer shee had brought forth and nourished other children that conspired against her, that taught otherwise then we now doe, & would willingly for their aduantage haue retayned many things which wee haue remoued. Thus then (I hope) it doth appeare, that howsoeuer I confesse, that the Latine or West Churches oppressed with Romish tyrāny, cōtinued the true Churches of God, held a sauing profession of heauenly truth, turned many to God, and had many Saints that died in their communion euen till the time that Luther began; yet I neither dissent from Luther, Caluine, Beza, or any other Protestant of iudgement, nor any way acknowledge the present Romish Church to be that true Church of God, whose communion wee must embrace, whose directions wee must follow, and in whose judgement we must rest. But will some man say, is the Romane Church at this day no part of the Church of God? Surely, as Aug. de Baptism. contra Donatist. li: 1. ca: 8: & 10. Augustine noteth, that the societies of heretickes, in that they retaine the profession of many parts of heauenly truth, and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptisme, are so farre forth still conjoyned with the Catholicke Church of God, and the Catholick Church in and by them, bringeth forth children vnto God: so the present Romane church, is still in some sort a part of the visible Church of God, but no otherwise then other societies of heretickes are, in that it retayneth the profession of some parts of heauenly trueth, and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptisme to the saluation of the soules of many thousand infants that die after they are baptized, before shee haue poysoned them with her errours. Thus having spoken sufficiently for the cleering of my selfe touching this point, I will passe from this chapter to the next.

CHAP. 3.

IN the third chapter he endeauoureth to shew, that the Protestants doe now teach the necessity of one supreame Spirituall head, and commaunder in the Church of Christ. His words are these. Whereas heretofore some vnchristian Sermons and Bookes haue termed the Bishop of Rome to bee the great Antichrist, wee shall now receiue a better doctrine and more religious answere. That there euer was and must bee, one chiefe and supreame spirituall Head and Commander of the Church of Christ on earth, &c. D Field citeth and approueth this as a generall and infallible rule: Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, &c. The health of the Church dependeth on the dignity of the high Priest, whose eminent authority if it be denyed, there will be as many schismes in the Church as there be Priests. Then of necessity one chiefe supreme and high Priest must be assigned in his iudgement. These are his words. The place he meaneth is not page one hundred thirty eight, as he quoteth it, but page 80. Let the Reader how partiall soeuer peruse it, and if he finde that I haue written any thing whence it may be concluded, that I acknowledge there euer was and must bee one chiefe and supreme spirituall Head and Commaunder of the whole Church of Christ in earth, I will fall prostrate at the Popes feete, and be of the Romish religion for euer. But if it appeare vnto him that the author of these pretended proofes hath cited this place to proue that which in his conscience he knew it did not, let him beware of such false & cozening companions. My words are: The vnity of each particvlar Church, depends on the vnity of the Pastor, who is one, to whom an eminent and particular power is giuen, and whom all must obey. Heere is no word of one chiefe Pastor of the whole vniuersall church of Christ vpon earth, but of one chiefe Pastor in each particular Church. VVho would not detest the impudencie & false dealing of these Romish writers. But he saith, I approue the saying of Hierome before mentioned, therefore I must assigne one chiefe Pastour of the whole Church of Christ on earth. How will he make good this consequence? Doth Hierome speake in that place cited & approued by mee, of one supreame Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on earth? Surely this Pamphletter knoweth he doth not, but of the Bishop of each particular Church or Diocesse. Hier. contra Luciferianos. If (saith Hierome) thou shalt aske why he that is baptized in the church doth not receiue the Holy Ghost, but by the hands of the Bishop, which we say, is giuen in baptisme: know that this obseruation commeth from that authority, that the Spirit descended vpon the Apostles: and in many places we finde the same to haue beene done rather for the honour of Priest-hood, then the necessity of any Law otherwise if the Spirit descend not, but onely at the prayer of the Bishop, they are to be lamented, who in villages, castles, and remote places, baptized by Priests or Deacons, dye before they are visited by the Bishop: and then follovve these words: The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chiefe Priest, to whom if an eminent power be not giuen, there will bee as many schismes in the Church as there are Priests. So that this is that which he saith, that it is rather for the honour of the Bishop or chiefe Priest of each Church, that the imposition of hands vpon the baptized is reserued vnto him alone, then the necessity of any law; because if he had no such preeminences & things peculiarly reserued vnto him, in respect whereof he might be greater then the rest of the Priests & Ministers in the Church, there would be as many schismes as Priests: and hence he saith, it commeth, that without the command of the Bishop or chiefe Priest, neither Priest nor Deacon haue right to baptize. So that it is manifest, the chiefe Priest he speaketh of, whose power is eminent & peerelesse, is so named in respect of other Priests in the same church, that may not so much as baptize without his mandate, & not in respect of the pastors of the whole vniuersall church. Wherefore if this pamphleter would haue dealt truly & honestly, he should haue said: VVhereas heretofore some vnchristian Sermons & books termed the Bishop of Rome the great Antichrist, we shal now receiue a better doctrine, & more religious answer, that there must be one chiefe Priest or Bishop in euery Diocesse, hauing a more eminent authority then the rest; & then whereas men now detest his falshood, they would but onely haue laughed at his folly: But let vs come to his second allegation, and see if there be any more truth in that, then in this. His wordes are these. Doctor Field telleth vs from Scripture, that Christ promised to build his Church vpon Saint Peter, then no Christian will doubt, vnlesse he will doubt of Christs, truth and promises, but it was so performed. Let the reader peruse the Page 344 place, and hee shal find that I doe not tell them from Scripture., that CHRIST promised to builde his Church vpon Peter, as this man adding one falshood to another, most vntruely sayth I doe, but onely cite a place of Tertullian, to proue that nothing was hid from the Apostles, that was to be reuealed to after-commers, where hee hath these words: What was hidden and concealed from Peter, vpon whom Christ promised to build his Church? from Iohn the Disciple hee so dearely loued? that leaned on his breast at the mysticall supper? and the rest of that blessed company, that should be after manifested to succeeding generations? But he will say that I approue the saying of Tertullian, and therefore thinke the Church was built vpon Peter. Truly so I doe; but I thinke also as Hierome doth, that it was built no more vpon him, then vpon all the rest, and therefore the supremacy of Peters pretended successour, will not bee concluded from thence. Dicis (saith Hierome) super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia, licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat: Super omnes ex aequo Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur: that is, Thou wilt say, the Church was built vpon Peter; It is true, it was so, but we shall find k Hier. li. 1. contra Iouinian. in another place, that it was builded vpon all the Apostles. Surely the firmenesse of the Church doth equally stay and settle it selfe vpon them all. This is so cleare and evident, that Lib. 1. de Pont Rom. c. 11. Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that all the Apostles may be said to haue beene foundations of the Church, and that the Church may bee truely said to haue beene built vpon them all. First, because they preached Christ to such as had not heard of him before, and were the first that founded Christian Churches. Secondly, in respect of their doctrine which they learned by immediate reuelation from the Sonne of God, in which the Church is to rest as in the ground and rule of her faith. Thirdly, in respect of gouernmēt, in that they were all heads & rulers of the vniuersal Church. Thus wee see, if I had told them out of Scripture, that Christ promised to build his Church on Peter, our Aduersaries could not from thence haue inferred the supremacie of the Pope, his pretended Successour..

Wherefore let vs come to his next allegation. His words are: Doctor Field, and the rest, doe ordinarily yeelde, that the Romane Church continued the true Church of God till the yeare of Christ sixe hundreth and seauen, when Bonifacius the Pope there claimed, as they say, supremacie first in the Church. This is a meere imagination of his own; for I no where speake of the Churchcōtinuing till the time of Bonifacius the Pope, or till the yeare sixe hundred and seauen, as if it had then ceased, and therefore hee doth not here cite any page of my booke, as in other places, but citeth it at large. But (saith hee) Doctor Field plainly acknowledgeth, that the supremacy belonged to the Popes of Rome before the first Nicene Councell, and then by the rules which hee giueth to knowe true traditions (custome of the Church, consent of Fathers, or an Apostolicall Churches testimony) this must needes bee of that first kinde, and then of equall authority with Scripture, as hee acknowledgeth of such traditions. Such is the intollerable impudency of this man, that I protest I canne scarce beleeue mine owne eyes, or perswade my selfe that hee writeth that which I see hee doth. For, doe I any where acknowledge, the supremacy belonged to the Popes of Rome before the Nicene Councell? Nay, doe I not in the Lib. 3. cap. 1 place cited by him, say, that before the Nicene Councell, there were three principall Bishoppes or Patriarches of the Christian Church, to witte, the Bishoppes of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioche, as appeareth by the actes of the Councell limiting their bounds? Had these their bounds limited and set vnto them, and was there one of them an vniuersall commander? If hee say I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome was in order and honour the first amongst the Patriarches, before the Nicene Councell, and thereupon inferre, that I acknowledge his supremacie and commaunding power ouer the rest, hee may as well inferre, that I giue to the Bishop of Alexandria a commanding authority ouer the Bishoppe of Antioche, because before the Nicene Councell he was before him in order and honour. That which hee addeth as a Corollary, that by the rules I giue to know true traditions, this must bee of that kinde, and cōsequently of equall authority with Scripture, argueth in him a greater desire of saying something, then care what he saith. For first, it no way appeareth out of any thing that I haue said touching the primacy of the Pope, before the time of the Nicene Coū cell, that either custome of the Church, consent of Fathers, or the testimony of an Apostolical Church, giue the supremacie to the Popes. 2ly, It is false that hee saith, that I make custome of the Church, or the testimony of an Apostolicall Church, rules whereby to finde out which are true traditions, and which are not. For first, I doe not say, that custome of the church obseruing a thing, is a proofe that that thing which is so obserued, was deliuered frō the Apostles, but such a custome, whereby a thing hath beene obserued from the beginning. So that though the Popes had beene supreame in power and commaund before the Nicene Councell, which all the Papists and diuells in hell shall neuer proue, yet would it not follow, that this their supremacy were by tradition from the Apostles. Secondly, I doe not make the testimony of an Apostolicall church to be a rule whereby to know true traditions from false, as hee is pleased to bely me, but I disclaime it in the very place cited by him. My words are these. The third rule whereby true traditions may bee knowne from false, is the constant testimony of the Pastours of an Apostolicall church successiuely deliuered; to which some adde the present testimonie of any Apostolicall Church; but this none of the Fathers admit, neither doe I: The Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, are Apostolicall Churches, & whatsoeuer their Pastors haue successiuely deliuered, as receiued from the Apostles, is vndoubtedly Apostolicall; but not euery thing, that the Pastours of those Churches that now presently are shall so deliuer, seeing they are contrary the one to the other in things of great importance. Thirdly, whereas he saith, I acknowledge vnwritten traditions to bee of equall authority with the Scriptures, he is like himselfe: For I neuer acknowledge, that there is any matter of faith, of which nature the Popes supremacy is supposed to be, deliuered by bare tradition, and not written; but say onely, if any thing may be proued to haue beene deliuered by liuely voyce by them that wrot the Scriptures, there is no reason but it should be of as great authority, as if it had beene written.

Two more allegations there are yet behind in this chapter that concerne mee. The first, that I say, and Protestants generally agree with mee, that the Regiment of the West Churches (among which this nation is,) belonged to the Pope of Rome. It seemeth this man hath a great desire I should say so, and some hope I will say so. But I protest as yet I neuer wrote any such thing, and therefore here againe, hee referreth his Reader to no page of my Booke, as in other places, but citeth it at large, wherein he sheweth more wit then honesty; for it is good to put a man to seeke farre for that, which can no where be found. But what if I had said the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the West? would that proue an vniuersall power ouer the whole Church, or such a kind of absolute authority ouer the Churches of the West, as in latter times by vsurpation hee exercised ouer them? Surely I thinke not. But (saith hee) Doctour Downame saith, before the grant of Phocas, the Church of Rome had the superioritie, and preeminence ouer all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople; and Doctour Field telleth him absolutely that the title of Constantinople was but intruded and vsurped, and when the first Nicene Councell gaue such honour to the Romane Church, there was not so much as the name of Constantinople. This is the last allegation that concerneth mee in this chapter. The place that hee citeth is neither to bee found in the first booke of the Church quoted by him, nor any where else. For I no where euer say that the councell of Nice gaue supreame commaunding authority ouer all the Churches to the Bishop of Rome, but only that it confirmed the distinct iurisdictions of the three Patriarches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioche. And touching the title of Constantinople, where of he speaketh; if hee meane the title of being vniuersall Bishop, it is most true that it was intruded and vsurped, as also the like is at this day, by the Bishops of Rome, which Greg. l. 4. Epi. 38. Gregorie their predecessour disclaimed, thinking it intollerable that one man should subiect to himselfe all the members of the body of Christ, which is his Church. But if hee meane the title of being a Patriarch in order the second, hauing equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome, farre be it from me to thinke it was intruded or vsurped, or to condemne the acts of the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon (two of those foure which Saint Greg. li. 1. epist. 24. Gregorie receiued as the foure Gospels) as the Romanists doe, because they Concil. Chalced. act. 16. gaue priuiledges to the Bishop of Constantinople, equall to those of the Bishop of Rome. Nay, hereby it appeareth to be true that S. Hierome was wont to say, Hieromy. ad Enagrium. Orbis maior est vrbe. For after that Constantinople, before named Byzantium; was enlarged by Constantine, named after his name, and made the seate of the Emperours, though the very name of it was not at all heard of in the time of the Nicene Councell, yet in the second generall Councell holden at Constantinople, the Bishop thereof was made a Patriarch, and set in order and degree of honour before the other two of Alexandria and Antioche; and in the great Councell of Chalcedon, where there were more then 600 Bishops assembled, he was again confirmed in the dignity of a Patriarch, and to haue equall priviledges with the Bishop of Rome. Against this decree they that supplyed the place of Leo in the councell, resisted; and Leo ep. 53. & 54. Leo himselfe would by no meanes admit, that the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioche claiming from Peter, the one because Marke was there placed by him, the other for that in person he abode there for a time, should be put lower, and the Bishop of Constantinople who had not like pretence, to sit aboue them. Yet the Fathers of the councell, not so much respecting the claime from Peter, as the greatnesse of the city, and thinking it was the greatnesse of the city of Rome during the Emperours presence there that caused the Fathers formerly to giue honour to the Bishop of that city, supposed they might now for the same cause giue like honour to the Bishop of Constantinople, being become equall in state and magnificence to olde Rome, and named new Rome, as euery way matching it: and howsoeuer the succeeding Bishops of Rome stroue a long while about this matter; Onuph. annot. in vit. Bonif. 3. apud Platinam. yet in the end they were forced to yeeld, and to take the Bishops of Constantinople for Patriarches in degree of honour set before the other two.

CHAP. 4.

IN this chapter hee endeavoureth to proue by testimonies of Protestants, that all bookes receiued for Scripture by the Romane church, are canonicall: and herein are two things that concerne me: The first, that the Romane church being the spouse of Christ, his true church and pillar of truth, whose communion we must embrace, follow her directions, rest in her iudgement, liuing and dying therein to haue eternall life, men might here by my censure and advice confine themselues, and wade no further in so many intricate controversies of religion: the second, that I am or must bee of opinion, that all those bookes which the church of Rome receiued for canonicall, are indeede canonicall. For answere to the former of these allegations. First, I professe before God, men, and Angels, that I neither do, nor euer did thinke the present Romane church to be the true church, whose communion wee are bound to embrace: but an hereticall church, with which we may not communicate. Secondly, I professe in like sort, that though I did and doe acknowledge the church wherein our Fathers liued before Luthers time, to haue beene the true church of God in respect of the best, and indeede the principall parts thereof, which held a sauing profession of the truth in Christ (howsoeuer many, and they greatly prevailing, erred damnably:) yet I neuer thought it to be that church, in whose iudgement we are to rest without any farther doubt or question: nor that it was safe to follow the greater part of the guides and rulers of it: but the church in whose iudgement wee must absolutely and finally rest, is that whole and entire societie of Holy ones, which beginning at Hierusalem, and filling the world, continueth vnto this day. To refuse the iudgement of this church, or to resist against any thing deliuered ab omnibus, ubique, semper, in all places, at all times, by all Christian pastors and people not noted for heresie or singularitie, were extreame folly and madnesse: so that, as I noted in answer to the first chapter out of Waldensis, it is not any particular church, as the church of Africa, nor the particular Romane church, but the vniuersall church, not gathered together in a generall councell, which hath sometimes erred: but the whole catholique church dispersed through the world from the baptisme of Christ vnto our times, which doth vndoubtedly holde the true faith, and faithfull testimony of IESVS, and in whose iudgement we must absolutely rest without any farther question o •… doubting; and hereunto agreeth t Vincentius Lirinensis, prescribing this course to bee followed in 〈◊〉 Contra prof. haeret. novitat matters questioned, touching faith and religion. If errour creepe into one part of the Church, we must looke vnto other that still are sound and pure; if into almost the whole present church, we must looke vp higher into former times, and the resolutions of them that haue beene since the Apostles times. Thus I hope the Reader will easily perceiue that this first allegation is friuolous: For I doe not thinke the present Church of Rome to be the true church of God, whose communion we must embrace, nor that the particular Romane church, when it was at the best, was that church in the judgement whereof we are absolutely to rest: and therefore let no man confine himselfe here without farther wading into particular controuersies, but let euery man as he tendreth the saluation of his owne soule, looke to the judgement of other churches also, and to the resolutions of former times.

Now let vs proceede to his second allegation concerning canonicall and apocryphall bookes of Scripture. His words are; The Protestant surueyor of the Communionbooke affirmeth plainely, that the Protestants of England must approue for Canonicall all those bookes which the Romane Church doth: and Doctour Field is of the same opinion, or must be; for thus he writeth: The ancient and true-beleeuing Iewes before the comming of Christ (especially such as liued in Greece and nations out of Iury, commonly called Hellenists) receiued those bookes for canonicall Scripture. It is well hee saith not absolutely that I am of that opinion, but that I am, or must be; for he is well assured I am not; but he knoweth how to force me to bee, whether I will or not, by falsly reporting my wordes, and making me say that I neuer thought nor said. For doe I any where say, the ancient, and true •… euing Iewes before the comming of Christ receiued those bookes for canonicall, especially such as were dispersed among the Gentiles? No surely; but the contrary: namely, that the ancient church of the Iewes did receiue those only as diuine and canonicall which we doe, and not those other in question. I am verily perswaded these men thinke lying to be no sinne; for otherwise, it were not likely that bragging so much of their good workes, and trusting to the merit thereof, they would wittingly runne so often into such a sinne, as we silly men thinke it to be, and as the spirit of God assureth vs it is, being of the number of those that shut men out of the kingdome of God and Christ, according to that in the Reuelation, Reuel. 22. 15. Without shall be dogges and inchanters, and whore-mongers, and murtherers, & idolaters, and whosoeuer loueth or maketh lies. But let vs see if hee deale not better in that which followeth: Surely no, hee is constant and euer like himselfe; for hee saith, Doctour Field writeth thus. The ancient and true-beleeuing Iewes before the comming of Christ (especially such as liued in Greece and nations out of Iury, commonly called Hellenists) receiued those bookes for canonicall Scripture; and to vse his owne wordes, Hence it came that the Iewes deliuered a double canon of Scripture to the Christian Churches. Surely this is not to vse, but to abuse my words: For I was not so senselesse, as to say, the auncient and true-beleeuing Iewes receiued the bookes in question for Canonicall, and that thence it came that they deliuered a double Canon of Scripture to the Christian Churches. For if the Iewes generally had receiued all these bookes for canonicall, but especially the Hellenists; then they could not haue deliuered a double canon of Scripture, but one onely. Wherefore my words are not as hee reporteth them, but hauing spoken of the 22 bookes of the old Testament, I adde, Page. 380. These onely did the auncient Church of the Iewes receiue as diuine & Canonicall; and that other bookes were added vnto these, whose authoritie not being certaine and knowne, are named Apocryphall, fèll out in this sort. The Iewes in their latter times, before, and at the comming of Christ, were of two sorts; some properly named Hebrewes commorant at Hierusalem & in the holy land; other named Hellenists, Iewes of the dispersion, mingled with the Grecians: these had written sundry bookes in Greeke, which they made vse of together with other parts of the old Testament, which they had of the translation of the Septuagint; but the Hebrewes receiued onely the 22 bookes before mentioned: Hence it came that the Iewes deliuered a double Canon of the Scripture to the Christian Church; the one pure, indubitate & diuine, which is the Hebrew Canon; the other in Greeke inriched with, or rather adulterated by the addition of certaine other bookes written in those dayes, when God raised vp no more Prophets among his people. So that the Iewes being of two sorts, Hebrewes and Hellenistes: The Hebrewes deliuered to the Christian church onely the 22 bookes of the old Testament, whereof there is no question, to bee the absolute rule and Canon of our faith, and tooke no notice of the bookes now in question: But the Hellenists deliuered with them these also that are questioned, if not to be the canon of our faith, yet to be a canon and rule of direction for matters of conuersation and manners, and to bee read at least ad aedificationem plebis, for the edification of the people, though not for confirmation of matters of doctrine. And truely I am perswaded, it cannot bee proued that the Hellenists euer receiued these bookes in question, as any part of the canon of faith, or absolutely canonicall, but in a sort only, in that they containe a good direction of mens manners: But, saith hee, D. Field speaking of this volume of the Hellenists, addeth. These bookes which are doubted of, ioyned in one volume with those 22, whereof there is no question, were translated out of Greeke into Latine, and read by the Latine Church in that translation; and intreating of Saint Augustine and the Latine Fathers, especially in Africa, and the third Carthaginian Councell, writeth thus. They reckon the bookes of Scripture according as they found them in vse in the Latine Church: then Doctour Field hath absolutely granted that in the Latine Church (vnder which England is) these Scriptures were euer esteemed as Canonicall. They seeme greatly to desire to end the controuersies betweene them and vs by publicke disputation, and challenge vs in such sort, as if we durst not shew our selues where they should appeare: but surely if they performe no more when they come to disputing then they doe when they write, nor bring no better arguments when they oppose in our schooles, then they publish in their bookes, the very boyes in our Vniuersities will hisse them out. For how will this consequence euer be made good. Augustine and the Africanes in the third Councell of Carthage reckon the bookes of Scripture as they found them joyned in one volume translated out of Greeke into Latine, not exactly noting the difference that is betweene them, and so seeme to admitte into the canon those bookes which wee reiect: therefore the bookes which wee reiect were euer esteemed to bee canonicall in the Latine church? seeing Hierome at the same time translating the Scriptures out of Hebrew, & exactly learning which bookes pertained to the Hebrew canon, reiected all besides the 22 Hebrew bookes, as the Grecians did before him, and as after him almost all men of note in the Latine church did. But hee will say, Augustine and the Africanes found the bookes reiected by vs in vse in the Latine church, as well as the other which wee admit to be canonicall; therefore they were euer esteemed to be canonicall in the Latine Church, vnder which England is. This proofe is too weake; for as I haue noted in the place cited by him, the prayer of Manasses confessed by our Aduersaries to bee Apocryphall, the third and fourth of Esdras, and the booke called Pastor, were likewise in vse in the Latine Church, that is, read by them of the Latine church, cited by them in their writings, and many things translated out of them into the publicke prayers & liturgie of the church; yet will it not follow that these bookes were euer esteemed as canonicall in the Latine church, vnder which England was. It is true indeede that Augustine when hee was blamed for citing some testimonies out of the bookes reiected by. vs, defended his so doing by the practise of the church which had anciently read the same in her publicke assemblies, but not much pressing the authoritie of them, saith, hee can proue the things, for proofe whereof he alleaged those bookes, out of other that are not doubted of. So that Caietanes opinion is not improbable, that Augustine did not thinke these bookes to be absolutely canonicall, but in a sort onely, in that they containe many godly instructions, and a good direction for mens manners. That which hee addeth in the last place, that these controuersed bookes being translated out of Greeke into Latine, with the other originally written in Hebrew, were in likelihood first deliuered by the Hellenists, or Iewes of the dispersion, to the Greeke Churches, as being in Greeke amongst them, is to no purpose: For though we should graunt they were so deliuered all together, yet they of the Greeke Church hauing an eye to the Canon of the Hebrewes, put a difference betweene the one and the other; and neuer accounted these to bee canonicall, as Pag. 3 •… . I haue largely proued out of the testimonies of Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Cyrill, Epiphanius, and Damascene. Thus haue we examined the allegations of this chapter, and found them very weake and frivolous.

CHAP. 5.

IN the fifth chapter, hee vndertaketh to proue, that Protestants confesse the vulgar translation to bee the best, and their own the worst. But because he alleageth nothing to this purpose out of any thing that I haue written, I will passe from this to the next, not doubting but they who are wronged by him, will make him know that he vndertaketh much, and proueth little.

CHAP. 6.

IN the sixth chapter, wherein he vndertaketh to proue by the confession of Protestants, that the true, lawfull, and iuridicall exposition of Scriptures is in the Romane Church, & not with the Protestants, he endeauoureth to shew that I confesse so much: His words are these. D. Field confesseth, that Pag. 372. neither conference of places, nor consideration of the Antecedentia & Consequentia, nor looking into the originals, are of any force, vnlesse we finde the things which we conceiue to be vnderstood & meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of faith: therefore hee confesseth, that the warranted exposition of Scripture belongeth to the Romane church. This consequence I deny as strange & absurd: wherefore let vs see if he make any shew of prouing it. He addeth, that I teach, the rule of faith must be tryed either by the generall practise of the Church, the renowned of all ages, or the Pastors of an Apostolicall Church, which, as the world can witnesse, no Protestant can make claime vnto: as if from hence it would follow (which is the thing he goeth about to proue, or else he doth nothing) that all warranted exposition of Scripture belongeth to the Romane Church. Whatsoeuer become of the consequence of this argument, there are many exceptions to be taken to the antecedent of it. For first, I doe not giue these three rules whereof he speaketh, whereby to know the rule of faith, but to know true traditions from false. Secondly, I do not say, the generall practise of the Church, the renowned of all ages, & the Pastors of an Apostolicall church, are the rules whereby true traditions may be knowne from false; but the generall practise of the church frō the beginning, the report, & testimony of the most renowned & famous in all ages, & the testimony of the Pastors of an Apostolique church, successiuely deliuered frō the beginning, not the present testimony of an Apostolicall church. Thirdly, we will neuer admit any pretended traditions, vnlesse they may be confirmed vnto vs by one of these rules: & if our Adversaries can proue any of their supposed traditions by these rules, wee will willingly acknowledge them, and therefore I know no reason why we may not make claime vnto them.

He addeth, that I condemne priuate interpretations; as if euer any Protestant had allowed any priuate interpretation in that sense that I dislike it, or as if our Religion were grounded vpon priuate interpretations. But the good man might haue beene pleased to remember, that in the Pag. 566 place cited by him, I distinguish three kindes of private interpretations: whereof one is named priuate, for that they that so interprete, neglect the common rules of direction, rely vpon secret revelations knowne to none but themselues, and despise the iudgment of other men. Another, because the person so interpreting is priuate, and yet presumptuously taketh vpon him to force all others to embrace the same, hauing no authority so to do. The 3d is, whē, as the person is of private conditiō, so he seeketh only to satisfie himself in it, & no way presumeth to prescribe to others to follow that he resolueth on, farther then by reason & higher authority he can inforce the same. The first kind of private interpretations we detest & accurse. The 2. we condemne as presumptuous. The 3d we approue, & so do our Adversaries, for ought I know: and therefore I know not to what purpose hee citeth this saying of mine, that priuate men may not so propose their interpretations, as if they would bind all other men to embrace and receiue them.

That which followeth, that I make three kindes of interpretation, and affirme, that none haue authority so to interprete Scripture, as that they may subject all that dissent from the same to excommunication and censures of like nature, but Bishops assembled in a generall Councell, is so true, that neither hee, nor any other in his right wits will euer deny it. For who hath authority so to interprete Scripture, as to subiect them to excommunication that dissent, but the gouernors of the church? and who so, as to subject all that dissent, but they that are the gouernors of the whole, as are the Bishops of the whole Christian church, assembled in a generall Councel? But, saith he, Protestants haue neuer had any generall Councell; therefore they haue no warranted interpretations of Scripture. If this consequence be good, the Christians for the space of 300 yeares after Christ had no warranted interpretations of Scripture, for till the reigne of Constantine there was no generall councell. But the Protestants can haue no generall councell, therefore they haue not amongst them the highest & supreme binding authority & judgment. Surely wee confesse, that being but a part of the Christian church, they cannot haue a Councell absolutely generall out of themselues alone; and therefore not hauing the highest binding authority amongst them, it being found only in the whole vniuersall church, they do not take vpon thē so to interprete Scriptures, as to subiect all to excommunication that refuse their interpretations, but such particular churches & persons only as are vnder their jurisdiction. The Papists indeede in the heigth of their pride being but a part, contemning all other interessed in the supreame binding judgement as well as themselues, assume and appropriate it to themselues alone, in which claime we may rather see the height of their pride, thē the cleernesse of their right: and therefore the Orat. de caus. dissens. Eccles. apud Nilum. Grecians impute all the diuisions and breaches of the Christian world vnto them, in that they presumed of themselues without them to interprete the Scriptures, and to define certain questions touching the faith, in such sort that they subjected them to Anathema & excommunication, so casting them all into hell as much as lay in them. These inconsiderate proceedings, and rash censures did such harme, that the Gerson. part. 4 serm. de pace & vnitate Graecorum. wisest, most religious, & moderate in the Latine Church, wished they had neuer beene passed, or that they were reuersed & called backe again. But, saith he, let any man enter into a serious consideration of Protestant doctrine in this point; that vnder paine of damnation we are bound to find and follow the truth; that generall Councels as before, may subiect euery man disobeying their determinations to excommunication and censures of like nature, the most terrible and fearefull punishment of this world; and all iudgments Ecclesiasticall, euen generall Councels may erre & haue erred even in things pertayning to God, as is defined in their Articles, and is commonly taught & beleeued with them: this consideration is able to put men not regardlesse of saluation, into more then a quaking palsey. What the meaning of the good man is in this passage, I doe not well conceiue: For I see not but all these considerations may well stand together; that the trueth is to be found out & followed vpon paine of damnation, that Councels may erre, and yet haue power to subiect such as disobey their determinations to excommunication, the most terrible and fearefull punishment of this world, without any danger of causing men to fall into a quaking palsey. For are they all in state of damnation that are excommunicated, whether iustly or vniusty? or may no man subiect men to excommunication but hee that cannot erre? Surely all men knowe Turecrem. lib. 2. de eccles. c. 93. Bellar. de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 11. that not onely Popes and particular Bishops, but euen generall Councels may erre in matters of fact, and excommunicate a man vniustly for resisting their determinations. And doth not Saint Augustine shew that by the meanes of preuailing factions, men may be vniustly excommunicated, and neuer restored to the outward communion of the e August. de vera Relig. c. 6 church againe, and yet die in state of saluation? nay, bee rewarded for the patient enduring of the wrongs offered them, by them by whom they were excommunicate? It is no such absurd thing then, that they may erre, who haue authority to excōmunicate. But perhaps his meaning is, that if Coūcels may erre, there is no certaine way to find out the truth, which yet euery man is bound vpon perill of damnation to find and follow: and that it is the consideration hereof, that is able to put a man into a quaking palsey. Surely this man seemeth to feare where there is no feare: for are there no other meanes to find out the truth, when questions and doubts trouble the church, and distract the mindes of men, but generall Councels? How did the Fathers in the Primitiue Church, during the time of the first three hundred yeares, satisfie themselues, and such as depended of them, in the midst of so many, so horrible and damnable heresies as then rose vp? Doth not Lib. 1. de concil. c. 10. Bellarmine from hence inferre, that though generall Councells be a very fit and good meanes to end controversies, and settle the differences that may arise in the church, and so much to be desired, yet if they cannot bee had, the truth may be found out by other meanes? yea haue not the Fathers in factious times complained, that they neuer saw good end of any councell? and yet were resolued in matters of the faith, and able to settle others also.

CHAP. 7.

IN this chapter, wherein he indeauoureth to shew that traditions are of equall authoritie with Scripture, and yet proue the Romane Religion, he hath these wordes. The dignity and authority of vnwritten and Apostolicall traditions being lawfully proued, was euer esteemed such, that M. Wootton affirmeth, out of all question we are bound to keep them, and telleth, that M. Perkins was of the same minde. This is an ill beginning, for whereas he should proue, that the Apostles deliuered some matters of faith by bare tradition without writing, hee bringeth forth some that say, if it could be proued that any thing was so deliuered, it were to bee receiued with no lesse regard then if it had beene written; which is, as if a man should vndertake to proue out of Paules Epistles, that the Angels in Heauen, and the Apostles of CHRIST are to bee anathematized and accursed, because hee saith, Gal. 1. If wee, or an Angell from heauen preach any other doctrine then that yee haue receiued, holde him accursed. Wherefore to helpe the matter, and to make some shew at the least: whereas wee say, If any thing could bee proued to haue beene deliuered by the Apostles, by tradition, it were no lesse to be esteemed then things of the same nature written by them; hee citeth our words as if we confessed there were certaine vnwritten Apostolicall traditions, which were euer esteemed equall with the Scripture, but not before they were proued to bee such. D. Field, saith he, speaketh of such traditions in these words; There is no reason but these should be equall with Scripture: for it is not the writing that giueth these things their authoritie; but the worth and credite of him that deliuereth thē, though but by word, and liuely voice onely. In this allegation he wrongeth me no lesse, then in other before; for these are not my words, as he vntruely affirmeth against his owne knowledge, but speaking of the diuerse kindes of vnwritten traditions imagined by the Papists, I say. Pag 3. 75. All these in their seuerall kindes they make equal with the words, precepts & doctrines of Christ, the Apostles, and Pastors of the Church, left vnto vs in writing; neither is there any reason why they should not doe so, if they could proue any such vnwritten verities: for it is not the writing that giueth things their authoritie, but the worth and credite of him that deliuereth them. The onely doubt is, whether there be any such traditions or not? Is this to acknowledge that there are vnwritten traditions of equall authoritie with the Scriptures? If one of his fellowes should tell him, if he were Pope he could not erre, would he inferre, his fellow were so mad to thinke he could not erre, that doth nothing else but erre, and mistake all that he citeth? But he saith, I adde, that the perpetuall virginity of our Lady was a tradition, & only receiued by such authority; & so do other Protestants: & that both they & I acknowledge Heluidius was condemned of heresie, & iustly for denyall thereof: which could not be, except to deny the doctrine of true traditions were to deny the word of God in their iudgements. This is an other notable and shamelesse falsification. For, I neither say, the perpetuall virginity of our Lady was a tradition, nor that Heluidius was condemned, and that iustly for the deniall thereof, but my wordes are. Pag. 376. The Canon of Scripture being admitted as deliuered by tradition, though the Diuine trueth of it bee in it selfe cleare, not depending of the Churches authority, there is no matter of Faith deliuered by bare and onely tradition, as the Romanists imagine. The onely cleare instance they seeme to giue, is touching the perpetuall virginity of Mary, which they say cannot be proued by Scripture, and yet is necessary to bee beleeued. But they should knowe that this is no poynt of Christian faith. That shee was a virgine before, in, and after the birth of Christ, wee are bound to beleeue as an article of our faith, and so much is deliuered in Scripture, and in the Apostles Creede; but that shee continued so euer after is a seemely trueth, fitting the sanctitie of the blessed virgine, and is de pietate, but not de necessitate fidei. Neither was Heluidius condemned of heresie for the deniall hereof; but by such as thought it might bee proued out of Scripture, or by such as detested and condemned his madnesse and desperate singularity, in pertinaciously vrging the deniall of it vpon mis-construction of Scripture, as if the deniall of it had beene a matter of faith. And surely, whatsoeuer this man thinke to the contrary, Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. fol. 445. Melchior Canus is of opinion that the perpetuall virginity of Marie the mother of our Lord, is not beleeued onely or principally as deliuered by tradition, but that the very consideration of the respect that was due to so sanctified a vessell of the incarnation of the Sonne of God, as was her body, would make vs perswade our selues shee neuer knew man after she was so much honoured as to be the mother of God. This consideration, no doubt, moued the Fathers to be of this opinion, rather then any tradition.

In the next place hee setteth downe my discourse and diuision of traditions approued by Protestants in the twentieth chapter of my fourth booke of the Church, leaving out diuerse thinges in setting downe the same for his most aduantage, as the Reader will easily perceiue, if hee peruse the place. But to what purpose hee produceth this discourse & diuision of mine, I know not. For first, if he thinke that I now yeeld more vnto thē in the matter of traditions, thē our Diuines heretofore haue done, as he seemeth to doe, in that he saith, though vntruly, that I preuent and confute the vsuall objections of Protestants about the doctrine of traditions, he is greatly deceiued. De tradit. ex 1. decreto 4. sessionis. For Chemnitius in his Examen of the Tridentine Councell admitteth all those kinds of traditions which I haue deliuered. I will set down his discourse in his own words, that the reader may see he saith fully as much as I haue done. Primum genus traditionum est, quòd Apostoli tradiderunt doctrinam viuâ voce, sed illa postea in scriptura literis consignata est. Secundum genus traditionum est, quòd Libri Scripturae sacrae non interrupt â serie temporum, sicut Augustinus loquitur, & certa connexionis successione ab Ecclesia custoditi, & fideliter ad posteros transmissi, nobisque quasi per manus traditi sunt. Tertium genus traditionum constituimus illud, de quo loquuntur Irenaeus lib. 3. & Tertullianus de Praescript: Recitant autem quid sit illud quod ex traditione probant, & sunt illi ipsi articuli fidei, quos symbolum Apostolicum complectitur. Illos autem in scriptura multis manifestis testimonijs tradi nullum est dubium. Quartum genus traditionum est, de expositione, vero sensu, seu natiuâ sententiâ scripturae. Quintum genus traditionum constituimus illud, quod Patres aliquando ita vocant illa dogmata quae non totidem literis & syllabis in scripturâ ponuntur, sed bonâ, certâ, firmâ & manifestâ Ratiocinatione ex perspicuis scripturae testimoniis colliguntur. Sextum genus traditionum constituimus illud, quod de Catholico Patrum consensu dicitur. Septimum genus traditionum est, quod vbi Veteres mentionē faciunt traditionū non scriptarum, propriè non intelligunt dogmata fidei, extra & praeter Scripturam recipienda, etiamsi nullo Scripturae testimonio probare possunt, sed de ritibus & consuetudinibus quibusdam vetustis loquuntur, quos propter antiquitatem ad Apostolos retulerunt. Verisimile est quosdam etiam alios externos ritus, qui in scripturâ annotati non sunt, ab Apostolis traditos esse, & nullis quidem certis & firmis documentis probari potest qui sunt ritus certò ab Apostolis traditi, qui ex Scriptura ostendi non possunt. These are the words of Chemnitius, wherby it appeareth, that he admitteth all those kinds of tradition which I doe, and yet reiecteth the imagined traditions of Papists. D. Whit •… . disp. de sacra script. quaest. 6. controu. 2. cap. 6. Whitakers likewise acknowledgeth, that the Apostles of Christ ordained & appointed in the Churches certaine rites, and obseruations for order & comelinesse, which they did not commit to writing, because they were not of necessity to bee perpetually obserued in one and the same sort, but dispenseable according to the circumstance of times and places. This hee proueth out of the first to the Corinthians, the 11 and 14 chapters. Secondly, if hee thinke their erronious opinion touching 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 traditions, may be inferred from any thing that I acknowledge, he seemeth to bee too weake in vnderstanding, and not to know what the state of the question is betweene them and vs; for the question is not, whether there be any traditions or not, but whether (it being first supposed, that the Prophets, Apostles, and other holy men of God left vnto posterities diuine and sacred bookes, and it being agreed vpon, which they ate) they containe all things necessary to be knowne and practised by Christian men, for the attaining of euer lasting life and saluation. We say, they doe. Neither can he proue the contrary out of any thing written by me. For I acknowledge nothing to haue beene deliuered by tradition, but the bookes of Scripture, things therein in some sort contained, and certaine dispenseable obseruations not at all, or hardly to be discerned from Ecclesiasticall constitutions.

Let vs see therefore what hee can conclude out of any thing that I haue written for the confirmation of the Romish errour. To make, saith hee, a short reflexion vpon his doctrine; by his first rule of traditions; he must graunt vnto vs which I haue proued before at large, that all those bookes which the Romane church approueth for Scripture, together with the speciall doctrines of prayer for the dead, to Angels, &c. are traditions. For Doctour Field and his rules doe so assure vs. It seemeth my case is harder then I was ware of, & my danger greater then I supposed it had beene. But what are those rules assigned by mee which assure vs that all the bookes approued by the Romane church are canonicall? Haue they beene euer holden to bee so? Haue the most famous in all ages, or at the least in diverse ages constantly deliuered them vnto vs, as receiued by them from those that went before thē, no man doubting of them? Did the Pastors of any Apostolicall church in the world successiuely deliuer them as canonicall to their after-commers? He knoweth they did not. For as I haue Page 381. & 382. of the 4. book of the Church. else-where proued, Melito Bishop of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Nazianzene, Cyrill, Epiphanius, the Councell of Laodicea, Ruffinus, Hierome, Gregory, Damascene, Hugo de sancto Victore, Richardus de Sancto Victore, Petrus Cluniacensis, Lyranus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas Aquinas, Occham, Picus Mirandula, Waldensis, Armachanus, Driedo, Caietane, and all the most famous Diuines in all ages reiect them, saue onely Augustine, the third Councell of Carthage, & some few other; who yet as Caietane thinketh, receiued them not as absolutely canonicall, but in a sort onely, in that they containe a convenient good direction of manners. The Reader, I doubt not, will easily see his folly in this point. But it may bee, the speciall doctrines of prayer for the dead, and to Angels, whereof hee speaketh, will bee found Apostolicall traditions, by those rules that I allow of. Surely no, for howsoeuer it was a most auncient and laudable custome of the church to remember the names of the dead at the holy Altar, and Table of the Lord, with desire of their and our finall consummation and publique acquitall in the day of CHRIST, and some particular men doubtfuly extended the same practise and custome farther to the mitigating, suspending, or totall remouing and taking away of the punishments of Christian men dying in the state of mortall sinne: yet the Popish opinion of Purgatory, and prayer to deliuer men from thence, were not once heard of in the Primitiue Church, nor are yet receiued by the greatest part of the Christian world. Touching prayer to Angels, it was condemned by the Apostle Saint Paul, the councell of Laodicea, Aug. de vera relig c. 55. Augustine, & Theod. in ep. ad Col. cit. Synod. Laod. Theodoret, but that the church did invocate Angels from the beginning, that the most famous in all ages did teach men so to doe, or the Pastors of any Apostolicall church successiuely one after another, which are my rules he speaketh of, neither hee, nor any Papist liuing can euer proue.

The second thing he would inferre out of my words is, that wee must of necessitie resort to the Romish church to know and learne the forme of Christian doctrine, the explication of the seuerall parts thereof, and the obscurities of Scripture, for that I say the Apostles deliuered the forme of Christian doctrine as a tradition to posterities, & no posterity of Protestants can be of this posterity, because both their priorities & posterities deny traditions. Thus then the good Author reasoneth. The Protestants are none of those posterities to which the forme of Christian doctrine hath been deriued frō the Apostles by the line of succession: therefore we must resort to the Roman church to know it. The antecedent of this argument he proueth, because as hee saith, both priorities & posterities of Protestants deny all traditions. Surely the man cōmitteth so many faults in this one silly argument, that I know not well what first to except against: For neither is it consequent, that if Protestants be not of that posterity to which the forme of Christian doctrine was commended and deliuered from the Apostles, that we must of necessitie seeke to the Romane church to learne it. Neither doe Protestants deny all traditions, as he vntruly affirmeth, but onely the false imagined and vaine traditions of Papists and other heretickes. Wee therefore to silence this trifler, doe professe, that the forme of Christian doctrine is not to bee sought in the Romane church alone, or the other Christian churches that now presently are in the world, but in the consenting voyce of Pastours and people succeeding one another; they that went before euer reporting & deliuering to them that came after them, the things they had learned of their elders, that so what doctrine the Apostles first deliuered, might by their after-commers be deliuered to all posterities. Of these posterities we professe our selues to be, receiuing without any doubt or questioning, whatsoeuer we find to haue beene deliuered in all places, at all times, by all Christian men, not noted for heresie or singularitie, and reiecting those things that haue no testimony of antiquity: as the Popes not erring, his vniuersalitie of iurisdiction, his power and right to dispose the kingdomes of the world, priuate Masses, halfe communions, Papall indulgences, and all such things as any way carry the marke of noveltie and singularitie. But, saith he, D. Field in the fourth and fifth kindes of traditions speaketh of them in the plurall number, and yet giueth no example of the fourth, but the baptisme of infants, nor of the fifth and last, but the obseruation of Lent, and Sunday, or the Lords day: therefore hee must seeke for more then hee remembreth, and consequently, in all equall iudgement, as many articles of Catholique religion, as wee claime by tradition. The answer hereunto is easie; for touching the fourth kinde of tradition I define it to be the continued practise of such things, as are neither contained in Scripture expressely, nor the example of such practise there clearely and expressely deliuered, though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessitie of such practise be there contained, and the benefite or good that followeth of it. The onely example I giue of this kinde of tradition, is the baptisme of infants: yet may I speake in the plurall number, as I doe, because not onely the baptisme of infants is of this sort, but many very materiall things belonging thereunto; as that in time of danger of death, they are to bee baptized with all possible speede, lest we seeme to contemne or neglect the Sacrament: that this may be done in priuate houses, either by dipping, or sprinkling, as well before as after the eighth day. If this Author can tell vs of any more examples of things of this kinde, the necessitie whereof may bee proued out of Scripture, though the practise of them be not there expressed, wee will admit them, but they will make nothing for the confirmation of Popish vnwritten traditions, seeing such things are written in respect of the causes and grounds of the necessity of obseruing them, though not by way of expresse precept, or report of practise: and therefore it will not follow from any thing that I haue saide in the iudgment of any man, though not indifferent, nor equall, that I must admit so many Articles of Religion, as Papists shall bee pleased to claime by tradition. Of the fifth and last kind of traditions, which he diuideth into two, though I make but one, I giue but only one example: which is the obseruation of the Lords day, which yet appeareth by Revel. 1. 10 Scripture to haue beene in vse euen in the Apostles times. For touching the Lent Fast, I do not giue it for an example, as hee vntruly reporteth, but onely hauing described the fifth kind of traditions, say, that some thinke the Lent Fast, & the Fast of the fourth and sixth dayes of the weeke, to be of this kinde.

The next thing which he vrgeth in his reflexion vpon my doctrine, as he tearmeth it, is, that if the traditions of the last kinde bee confounded with Ecclesiasticall constitutions, as I say they are, that we might the more reverence the constitutions of the Church, wee must at last recant our contempt and dislike against them. For answere hereunto, I will first shew that the traditions of the last sort, are so confounded with Ecclesiasticall constitutions, that it can hardly bee certainely knowne which they are. Secondly, that wee neuer disliked the auncient constitutions of the primitiue and first Church, and therefore need not recant any such dislike. That Apostolicall traditions of the last kinde are confounded with Ecclesiasticall constitutions, it is most cleare & euident, in that some reckon one thing, and some another; and our Aduersaries dare not peremptorily say, which amongst those traditions diuersely and differently mentioned by the Fathers, are Apostolicall, and which not. Tertul. de corona militis. Tertullian accounteth all these following to bee Apostolicall traditions; thrice dipping of them that are baptized; the interrogatories, respondes, and words of sacred stipulation vsed in Baptisme; the renouncing of the Diuell, his Angels, and the pompe of the world when we come to the water of Baptisme; and before in the presence of the Bishop; the fore-tasting of milke and honey, and the abstaining from bathing and washing a whole weeke after; the taking, or receiuing of the holy Sacrament in the time of ordinary repast, oblations for the dead, and for their birth-dayes euery yeare the same day they dyed, standing at prayers on the Lords day, and from Easter to Whitsontide, and the signing of mens fore-heads with the signe of the crosse, Harum, saith he, & aliarum ciusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam inuenies: traditio tibi praetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, fides obseruatrix: that is, Of these and the like obseruations if thou seeke for any written law or precept, thou shalt finde none. Tradition will be alleaged vnto thee, as authour of them, custome as the confirmer, and faith as the obseruer. Hereunto some Basil. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 27. adde, praying towards the East, Leo epist. 4. vniuers. Episc. per Siciliam. baptising at Easter and Whitsontide onely; Hierome accounteth the Lent-fast amongst traditions of this sort. His words are. Hieronym. ad Marcell. aduers. Montan. Nos vnam quadragesimam secundum traditionem Apostolorum toto anno, tempore nobis congruo, ieiunamus: Wee fast one Lent according to the tradition of the Apostles in the whole yeare, at a fitte and seasonable time; to whom In concord Evang. ca: 15. Iansenius agreeth, saying, that the obseruation of the Lent-fast seemeth to haue proceeded from the tradition of the Apostles, which though perhaps it did not binde all by any expresse precept from the beginning; yet being kept in all ages, and in all parts of the world, had the strength and force of a law. I thinke there is no Papist will say certainely that all these were Apostolicall traditions, but whether they doe or not, it is most certaine they thinke themselues no more bound to keepe them then meere Ecclesiasticall constitutions, which are established by the authority of the church, and may be the same be abrogated and reuersed againe, in that the most part of all these are out of vse in the Romane Church. For they thinke not thrice dipping necessary, following therein the authority of Saint Gregorie; they fore-taste not milke and honey, Greg. l. 1. epist. 41. nor milke and wine when they are baptized; they abstaine not from bathing a whole weeke after baptisme; they stand not at their prayers from Easter to Whitsontide, nor on the Lords dayes; they keepe not the Lent fast, as the Primitiue Church did, and as all other Churches of Greece, Armenia and Aethiopia doe to this day by eating nothing till night, and by abstaining from wine, strong drinke, and whatsoeuer is pleasing; but they make a meere mocke of God and men in their obseruation of Lent, and other fasts, in saying a part of their Euen-song in the morning, that so after the ending thereof, at dinner time men may be thought to goe to supper, and to do as the Fathers did, that did eate nothing on their fasting dayes, till the euening; they fast not the Wednesday, which in the primitiue Church was fasted as precisely as Friday, but in steede hereof they faste on Saturday, which aunciently was not fasted in many churches, nor yet is in the Churches of the East; they baptize at any time in the yeare; If they haue disused and left off these obseruations, as no doubt they will professe they haue, let them not thinke that we contemne or condemne all those auncient customes which we vse not, but haue a due respect to circumstances of times, and the different states of things. Tertullian and the ancient, thought it Nefas, an vnlawfull thing to kneele at prayers on the Lords day: wee thinke it very lawfull, fit, and seemely; yet are wee not contrary to the Fathers. They suffered none to bee baptized, but onely at Easter and Whitsontide, wee admit men to baptize at all times; they dipped those whō they baptized, thrise; wee but once: they signed themselues with the signe of the crosse, when they went out, and when they came in, when they put on, and when they put off their apparell; we by reason of the abuse of this harmelesse ceremony, in that it was vsed by the Romanists, not as an outward profession of their faith in him that was crucified, or a silent invocation of his name, but to driue away diuels, still tempests, cure diseases, and remit veniall sinnes ex opere operato, vse this ceremony more sparingly, yet doe we not wholly neglect it, but signe our new baptized infants with this glorious marke and character of the crucified Sauiour of the world: they mingled water with that wine which they consecrated in the blessed Sacrament, because euen in ordinary vse their wines being hot, were wont so to be allayed: wee not hauing the like reason of mixture, mingle not water with wine in the Sacrament, as likewise the Armenians doe not, yet are we not contrary to the ancient Christians, nor contemners of olde obseruations. So that to conclude this point, we approue the saying of Hierome, answering the question whether it were lawfull to faste on the Saturday, or not. His wordes are: Hier. ad Lucinium. Ego illud te breviter admonendum puto, traditiones Ecclesiasticas, praesertim quae fidei non officiant, it a observandas ut à maioribus traditae sunt, nec aliorum consuetudinem, aliorum contrario more subverti: atque utinam omni tempore ieiunare possem us, quod in Actibus Apostolorum diebus Pentecostes & die Dominico Apostolum Paulum, & cum eo credentes fecisse legimus: nec tamen Manichaeae haereseos accusandi sunt, cùm carnalis cibus praeferrinon debeat spirituali, nec hoc dico quod Dominicis diebus ieiunandum putem, & contextas sexaginta Diebus ferias auferam, sed unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo, & praecepta maiorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur. Wherefore let vs proceed to see if he haue any thing else to say in this hisreflection, as he calleth it, vpon my doctrine.

His fourth allegation is, that the rules I assigne, cannot tell of any traditions to advantage Protestants which deny traditions: but that both traditions and rules to know them, must of necessity belong to the church Apostolique of Rome, being in this question a rule of it selfe, as I haue declared, Surely it seemeth the good man knoweth not what he saith: for in the beginning of this chapter hee affirmeth, though falsly, that I acknowledge the perpetuall virginity of our Lady to be a tradition, and onely receiued by such authoritie, and other Protestants doe so likewise. And in the end of the chapter, he bringeth in his Maiesty, the Bishop of Winchester, and Doctour Couell, admitting diuerse traditions: and yet heere hee saith, Protestants admit no traditions. If hee say, that they now admit them, but formerly did not, hee is refuted by Brentius & Chemnitius before cited: who though they deny, as we doe, that there is any article of Faith, or materiall and substantiall point of Christian doctrine deliuered by bare tradition, and not written, yet acknowledge all those kindes of traditions that we now doe. In that which he hath, that the rules assigned by me, can tell of no traditions that advantage Protestants, and that therefore both traditions and rules to know them, must of necessitie belong to the church Apostolique of Rome, there are not a few, but very many & grosse faults cōmitted: For first, the consequence is naught the rules to know true traditions from false, can tell of none to advantage Protestants therefore they belong to the Romish church: and is no lesse absurd, then if a man should conclude in this sort. Parsons the Iesuite is not a Cardinall, though hee had once skarlet brought to his lodging in Rome to make his robes, as Watson testifieth: therefore the Author of these pretended proofes hath right to put on those robes. For as there are others fit to be Cardinals, though neither Parsons nor this good Author be: so there are other societies of Christians in the world besides the Romanists and Protestants, to which traditions and rules to know them may pertaine, if Protestants haue no claime to them. But the Romane Church is an Apostolicall Church, planted by the Apostles of Christ, and receiuing an Epistle from blessed Paul, wherein she is commended: therefore in my iudgment she hath not onely claime to traditions, is a rule to know them by. This consequence is as bad as the former: for I doe not make the present profession, testimony, or iudgement of euery Apostolicall church to bee a rule to know true traditions by, seeing there would bee no certaintie in such a rule: the present profession of the Apostolicall churches of Rome, Ephesus, Sardis, and Philadelphia, being contrary the one to the other; but the constant testimony that the Pastors of such a church haue giuen from the beginning. But his Maiestie in open Parliament acknowledged, the Romane Church to bee our mother Church; therefore wee must beleeue in all things as she doth, & by no meanes forsake her, or depart from her. For the clearing of the meaning of this speech of his Maiesty, and the silencing of these cauillers, wee must note, that the churches of Christ in the world are of two sorts: for some were planted by the Apostles themselues, or their coadiutors the Euangelists by their directions, which are named Apostolicall churches; and some other there are, that receiued not the faith immediately from the Apostles or their coadiutors, but from the Churches which the Apostles had planted. The former of these were euer esteemed to be mother churches, in respect of the latter. So the churches of Alexandria, Antioche, Ephesus, and the like, were mother churches to many famous churches in those parts of the world; and so the Romane church is a mother church to many churches of the West, that receiued their Christianity and faith from her: neither may the daughter churches, as his Maiesty excellently obserued, depart farther from those mother churches, from which they receiued the faith, then they are departed from themselues in their best estate, & first establishment: but as the Romanists thinke it lawfull for the daughter churches of the East to depart from those their mother churches, from which they receiued their faith, because, as they suppose, they are gone from their first faith: so wee thinke with his Maiesty, that we may iustly depart from our mother church of Rome, because shee hath forsaken her first faith commended by the Apostle, and is so farre changed, that a man may seeke Rome in Rome, and not finde it. That which he addeth, that no rules can leade vs to the finding out of any traditions that aduantage vs, is most vntrue: For the certaine and indubitate tradition, whereby the Scriptures are deliuered vnto vs from the Apostles of Christ, doth aduantage vs so much, that thereby the Papacy is almost shaken to peeces; and besides, the forme of Christian doctrine, and catholicke interpretation of Scripture, brought downe vnto vs from the Apostles, discouereth vnto vs the nouelties and singularities of the Romanists, to our great aduantage, and confirmation in the truth of our profession.

Hauing thus in his fancie engrossed all traditions, & appropriated them to the present Romane church, hee goeth forward and inferreth out of my admitting some kinde of traditions, and assigning rules to know them, that diuers particular thinges which hee specifieth, are traditions. The two first instances that hee giueth, are the signe of the crosse, and the mingling of water with wine in the holy Sacrament, whereof I haue spoken before. The third, is the reuerence of Images, which hee saith, is by my rules, proued to be an Apostolicall tradition. It is well he dareth not say, the worshipping of Images is proued to bee Apostolicall, for that by Greg. l. 〈◊〉 . cp. 9. Saint Gregory and the Fathers, it will be proued to be rather a Diabolicall then an Apostolicall tradition. Wherefore let vs see what those rules are that proue the reuerence of Images to be Apostolicall, seeing it is euident August. in Ps. 11 •… . the church had them not at all for a long time, and Euseb. l. 7. histor. cap. 17. Eusebius assureth vs, the making and hauing of them, was by imitation of Heathenish custome. The rules, saith hee, that proue this, are the Pastors of the Apostolicall Churches in the second Nicene Councell, and old custome; but these are no rules assigned by me: For I neuer admit the iudgement of the present Pastors of Apostolicall churches, or custome to bee rules to know true traditions by, and therefore much lesse make the Bishops in the second Councell of Nice to bee rules of this sort; but the consenting profession of the Pastours of an Apostolicall Church, successiuely from the beginning, and the generall and perpetuall obseruation of a thing from the time that Christianity was first known in the world, by neither of which he shal euer proue, either the worshipping or reuerencing of Images, to be Apostolicall. The fourth thing that he saith by my rules is found to bee an Apostolicall tradition, is sacrifice, and prayer for the dead; but herein he is deceiued, or goeth about to deceiue others, as in the rest. For it is true indeede, that the offering of the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing, the naming of the dead, and prayer for their and our ioynt consummation and publicke acquitall in the day of CHRIST, is such an Apostolicall tradition as hath ground in Scripture; but, he can neuer proue, that the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice for the dead, or prayer to deliuer them out of Purgatory paines, was deliuered as a tradition from the Apostles, by any of my rules, to wit, consent of Fathers from the beginning, or continued practise from the Apostles times. The like I say of his fifth instance, for hee cannot proue the vow of single life in Priests to haue beene from the beginning; but I haue largely proued the contrary in my fifth booke of the Church. So that the vow of single life is not proued out of any of the rules set downe by mee to bee an Apostolicall tradition. Wherefore let vs proceede to the rest of his instances. He telleth vs in the next place, that we may resolue with the ancient Fathers, that Reliques are to bee reverenced is a tradition, because M. Willet telleth vs, Vigilantius was condemned of heresie for denying it. Surely it is greatly to bee doubted, that he is not a sound and perfect Romish Catholique, for that hee dareth not to say the worshipping of Images and Reliques, is a tradition, but minseth the matter, and saith onely, the reverencing of them is a tradition. For touching the reverence of Reliques, if hee meane nothing else thereby, but the reverent and honourable laying vp of such parts of the bodies of Gods Saints, as come to our hands, it is a Christian duty that we stand bound vnto, so that not onely M. Willet, but we all think Vigilantius was iustly condemned, if he either despised, or contemptuously vsed the dead bodies of the Saints. Neither neede we flye to vnwritten tradition to seeke proofes for the necessitie of this duty, for they are plentiously found in Scripture; but if he meane by the reverencing of Reliques, the shewing of them to be touched and adored, we think it impiety, and know it was forbidden by Greg. l. 30. ep. 30. S, Gregory, who condemneth the bringing forth of any parts of the bodies of Gods Saints departed, into the sight of men, to bee seene or handled of them. That particular and personall absolution from sinne after confession, is an Apostolicall and godly ordinance, which is his next instance, we make no doubt; but deny that it is an vnwritten ordinance: neither can this good man proue it so to bee. For doth Christ in Scripture giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to the Apostles and their successors, with power to binde, and power to loose, with power to remit, and power to retaine sinnes? and is it not a written veritie, that particular absolution is necessary? His Maiestie, on whom he fathereth this tradition, did most learnedly and excellently distinguish in the conference he mentioneth, three kindes of absolution from sinne, making the first to bee the freeing of men from such punishments of Almighty God, as sinne subiecteth them vnto, in that they offend him: and this is proper to God, in that he onely hath power not to punish, that hath power to punish; and the Ministers of the Church concurre hereunto no otherwise, but onely by bringing men by force of the Word and Sacraments into such an estate, wherein God finding them, will not punish them. The second kinde of absolution, is the freeing of men from the censures of suspension, excommunication, penitentiall corrections, and such punishments as the Church may inflict: and in this kinde the Church may properly bee saide to absolue. The third kinde of absolution, is the comfortable assuring of men vpon the vnderstanding of their estate, that they shall escape Gods fearefull punishments. In these two later sorts the Ministers of the Church haue power to absolue, and personall absolution in either of these senses is rightly said to be an Apostolicall and godly ordinance: but it is a written ordinance, and not an vnwritten tradition, which is the thing that this man should proue. There is another kinde of absolution imagined by the Papists: which is a Sacramentall act, giuing grace ex opere operato, to the remission of sinnes, which is not an Apostolicall ordinance, but an invention of their owne, whereof I haue spoken Appendix to •… e 3. booke of the Church. cap. 24 elsewhere. Touching the ministration of baptisme by priuate persons in the time of necessity, it is not said to bee an vnwritten tradition by the Bishoppe of Winchester, and therefore it is not to this purpose: no more then that Bishoppes are saide to bee Diuinae ordinationis: seeing the distinct degrees of Bishops and Presbyters are proued out of the Scripture. That confirmation is an Apostolicall tradition, wee confesse; but it is a written tradition, both in respect of the first practise of it by the Apostles, who laid their hands on such as were baptized by others; from which authority, the custome of imposing hands doth come, as Hieron. contra Luciferian. Hierome testifieth; as also in respect of the necessity of the continuance of it, in that the Apostle to the Chap. 6. Hebrewes, reckoneth the imposition of hands together with the doctrine of baptismes, amongst the foundations of Christian religion. We doubt not therefore, but it is a fitting thing that the Bishop should confirme by imposition of hands, those that are baptized by others, but it is rather for the honour of Priest-hood, then the necessity of any law, as Hierome testifieth; for that otherwise they were in a wofull case, who in places farre remote, die before the Bishop can come to them, if none could receiue the t Hier. vbi suprà. spirit of God but by the imposition of his hands. It is therefore a sacramentall complement not to be neglected, but not a Sacrament: But this good man will proue it to be a Sacrament. First, because, as hee saith, it is so ioyned by vs with baptisme. And secondly, because it hath both a visible signe and grace by the communion-booke reviued. It seemeth hee was neuer any good disputer, he bringeth so many weake & silly arguments, and yet vrgeth them as if they were vnanswerable. Surely these reasons will be found too weake to proue confirmation a Sacrament, if they fall into the hands of any one that will take the paines to examine them. For first, if hee meane, that it is joyned by vs with baptisme as a Sacrament, hee is greatly deceiued, seeing wee joyne it only as a Sacramentall complement. And secondly, though it haue an outward signe, and inuisible grace; yet the signe is not so much a signe of that grace which the Bishop imposing hands by his prayer obtayneth for the confirmation of the parties he layeth his hands vpon, as a signe of limitation, or restraint, specifying and setting out the partie on whom hee desireth God to powre his confirming grace: and therefore it hath not the nature of a Sacrament, wherein there must be a visible signe of that grace that is conferred. Secondly, because, though the Bishop ouershadowing the party by the imposition of his hands, doe in a sort expresse & resemble the hand of God stretched forth for the protecting, assisting, and safe keeping of the party, which is an inuisible grace, yet it followeth not that it is a Sacrament: for the Acts. 2. fiery and clouen tongues, were a visible signe of that gracious gift of the spirit which the Apostles receiued in the day of Pentecost, enabling them with all fiery zeale to publish the mysteries of Gods kingdome in all the seuerall languages of the world; yet were they no Sacraments, as Bellar. de Sacram, in genere. Bellarmine noteth, because the grace whereof these fiery tongues were a signe, was not giuen by force of this signe, as a set meane appointed by almighty God: So in like sort, the imposition of hands is a signe of protecting, assisting, and safe keeping grace, not giuen or obtayned by the due vse of this signe, as in Sacraments, but to be obtained by the prayers of the Bishop and Church of God. That which he hath out of Basil, is to little purpose; for I hope, he thinketh not the doctrine of the Trinity to be holden by bare and onely tradition, without the warrant of the written word or God. And if Saint Basil reckon the forme of wordes, wherein we professe our faith in the blessed Trinity, to bee a tradition, it proueth nothing against vs, seeing the thing so professed is contayned in Scripture. That the ordaining of Bishops in Diocesses to rule their churches, and Metropolitanes in prouinces to call and moderate Synodes, was an Apostolicall tradition, we make no question; but we deny it to be an vnwritten tradition. For whereas in the Acts Acts. 20. Paul sendeth for the Presbyters of Ephesus to Miletum, in the Reuel. 2. Reuelation it appeareth by the Epistles of the Spirit of God, directed to the seauen churches of Asia, that amongst many Presbyters feeding the flocke of Christ in Ephesus, there was one chiefe, who had a kinde of eminent power, who is named the Angell of the Church, and who is commended or reproued for all thinges done well or ill within the limits and bounds of the same. That the Bishop of Winchester saith, the Article of Christs descending into hell, and the Creede wherein it is contayned, is an Apostolicall tradition, deliuered to the Church by the direction and agreement of the Apostles, is nothing but that we all say. Neither is the Popish conceit touching vnwritten Articles of religion, thereby confirmed: for howsoeuer the Creede of the Apostles may be said to be a tradition in respect of the orderly collection of the principall heades of Christian faith into a briefe summe and Epitome, which are scattered here and there in Scripture; yet no Article of this Creed is beleeued or receiued by bare and onely tradition, but they are all proued out of Scripture, as that worthy and learned Bishop doth most excellently confirme and proue the Article of Christs descending into hell out of the same.

After these particular instances, this authour groweth to a generall conclusion, and asketh why we may not say with the Councell of Florence, cited by M. Willet for generall, and the Patriarches of the Apostolicke Sees there present, with the Councell of Constance not of vnequall authoritie, and the Councell of Trent, that Protestancy in all points is false, and Catholicke religion true? It seemeth the good man is neere driuen, and hath spent all his strength in this tedious discourse of Traditions, and therefore in the conclusion hee taketh a strange course: for insteed of prouing by the testimonies of protestants, as hee vndertooke, that Romish religion is true, and Protestancy false, hee asketh, why hee may not say, with the Councells of Florence, Constance, & Trent, that Protestants religion is false, and the Romish profession true? Touching the Councell of Trent, it is of so great authority with vs, that if hee had beene pleased to let vs know his name, & vrge his own authority, we would as soone haue listned vnto him, as to that Councell in any thing it hath defined touching the controuersies that are betweene vs and the Papists: for wee knowe, that howsoeuer there wanted not many learned and worthy men in that meeting, that opposed themselues mainely against many thinges there questioned, and in conclusion agreed vpon, they were forced to giue way to the preuailing faction. I will giue one example in steede of many, Vega. defens. trident. deer. de justif. l. 9. c. 7. touching the certaine knowledge each man hath of his owne estate, whether he be in grace or not. There was great opposition in that meeting, many protesting, Ibid. cap. 46. that the authours of vncertainty would bring in a worse errour, then any was imputed to Luther; yet the conclusion passed against them, though in some ambiguity of words and termes, to giue them some contentment: the like might be said touching c Ibid. ca. 8. the authority of the vulgar translation, and sundry other things, as it appeareth by the confession of their owne Diuines there present. Wherefore to passe by that Councell, and to come to the Councels of Florence and Constance, I maruaile that this man dareth say, they are of equall authority, whereas Cardinall Bellar. de Concil. c. 7. Bellarmine reckoneth the Florentine Councell amongst those that are absolutely approued, and that of Constance amongst those that are partly approued, and partly reiected, in which number he doth likewise account the Councell of Basil. But it may bee hee is of the faction of the French, who deny the Councell of Florence to be generall, who neither would e Andrad. de Script. & trad. authorit. lib. 2. come to it when it was holden, nor receiue the decrees of it when it was concluded. It is true indeede that many Bishoppes of the Orientall and Greeke Churches were there, and many of them consented with the Latines, in hope of helpe from them against their barbarous and cruell enemies, so that it may carry some shew of a generall Councell; but the Patriarch of Constantinople was dead before the conclusion. Some protested against the vnion there agreed on; the churches of the East would not admit it, as being concluded by their Bishops that were there without commission from thē, & therefore do not account it a lawfull, free, generall councell. But (saith he) the Patriarches of the Apostolicke Sees of Alexandria and Antioche, were present with the Bishop of Rome, and subscribed to the decrees and conclusions of that Councell, therefore it must be accounted generall. The antecedent of this argument is most false & vntrue. for the Patriarches of the Apostolicke Sees, were not there in person, but others supplyed their places; neither can hee say it was all one, as if they had beene personally present: seeing what their Vicegerents did in their names, in all likelihood they would haue done, if they had bin present; when themselues confesse, that the acts of the Popes Legate, are not of binding force, vnlesse he ratifie them, for that sometimes, as in the deposition of Ignatius, & setting vp of Photius, they may go against his instructions. This I doe the rather insist vpon, for that the vnion agreed on in this Councell, and consented vnto by these Vicegerents, was disliked by the Bishops that remained at home, and so could be of no force; they that were sent, hauing no commission to discusse or determine any other points of difference, but that touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost; and yet adventuring of themselues to define and determine some other very important controversies. But to let this passe, these two Councels of Florence and Constance are ill matched by this Author. For they agree no better together then fire and water; the one of them defining, that the Pope is head of the whole vniuersall Church, and the other making him onely head ouer particular churches, but subiect to the whole vniuersall church, and a generall councell representing the same. Whereupon Cit. ab Andrad. ibid. Caietane denyeth it to be a generall Councell, and others say, it was a generall Councell, but partly approued, and partly reiected. And doubtlesse, howsoeuer this Author make shew to the contrary, yet he knoweth right well, that this Councell did more advantage our cause, and shake the Papacy, in making the Popes as men, subiect to errour and vile disorders, inferiour to generall Councels, then it helpeth them, or hurteth vs, by disliking and condemning some positions of Wickliffe, partially and corruptly gathered out of his writings by his adversaries, and taken in the worst sense; which were so vttered by him, as being rightly vnderstood, might haue a good and Catholique meaning, as Gerson testifieth. And therefore, if it were granted, that it was a lawfull generall Councell, yet it followeth not, that I must acknowledge Romish religion to be true in all points: seeing it is pronounced false by this Councell in the chiefest and most principall of all other, which is touching the supreame commaunding power of the Pope ouer the whole vniuersall church, & his infallible iudgment from which no man may appeale.

But such is my infelicitie, that I must be forced to acknowledge, that Romish Religion is true in all points, though this councell define the contrary. His words are. This of necessity Doctor Field with his protestants must acknowledge, or freely by their recited doctrine confesse, that there neither is, nor can be hereafter, by his rules, any true and certaine Scripture, tradition, or religion in the world. A hard case, and ill choyce, if wee must needesrunne into one of these extremities, either to acknowledge that our whole religion is false, or that there is no certaine Scripture, tradition, or religion in the world. But though the Sea be before vs, and Pharaoh and the Aegyptians behind vs, yet I hope wee shall neither fall into the hands of the one, nor bee swallowed vp of the gulfes of the other. Let vs see therefore whether our danger be so great as hee would make vs beleeue. If saith he, we neither haue Scripture, exposition of the difficulties of it, nor tradition, but by tradition, as Doctor Field hath granted, and those onely three rules to know them: if those rules may propose vnto vs false Scripture, false expositions of their obscurities, and false traditions in matters of faith, faith cannot be certaine, & the religion groūded vpon it is ouerthrown. If this be all, I hope the worst is past; for if I should grant as he maketh me absurdly to doe, that we haue neither Scripture nor tradition, but by tradition: yet cannot those rules I assigne to know true traditions by, propose vnto vs false Scriptures or traditions. For what are they, but the constant practise of the whole Christian church from the beginning, the consent of the most famous learned in all ages, or at least in diuerse ages, no man contradicting or doubting, and the constant testimony of the pastors of Apostolicall churches, from their first establishment successiuely witnessing the same things? Indeed if these rules could propose vnto vs false traditions, false Scriptures, or expositions of the difficulties thereof, our faith could not be certaine, & all religion were ouerthrowne: but neither he, nor all the Diuels in hell shall euer force vs to acknowledge any such thing, neither is there any point of Romish superstition proued by any such traditions, as are found to bee true traditions by these rules. But will some man say, doth he make no shew of proofe, that we acknowledge these rules may propose vnto vs false traditions, false Scriptures, & expositions of the difficulties in them? Doubtlesse he doth. For thus he concludeth very terribly against vs. The testimony and iudgment of the Patriarches or Bishops of Apostolicall Sees, is one of the rules assigned to know true traditions by; but wee acknowledge, that the Patriarches of Apostolicke Sees did erre in the Councell of Florence, & propose vnto vs false expositions of Scripture: therefore we must confesse whether we will or not, that the rules we assigne, may propose vnto vs false Scriptures, & false expositions of Scripture. Vnto this concluding argument, wherein the force of the whole chapter lieth, we answere briefly and peremptorily. First, that the maior proposition is most false, as hee well knoweth; for I neuer make the judgement and opinion of the present Bishops of Apostolicall churches, to be the rule to know true traditions by: but deny it, and professe the contrary against the Papists, and make onely the testimony of the Pastours of Apostolicall churches, successiuely from the beginning witnessing the same things, to bee a rule in this kinde. Secondly, that the Patriarches of the Apostolicke Sees, hee speaketh of, were not at the councell of Florence in their owne persons, but had others to supply their places, whose proceedings they disclaimed, and voyded whatsoeuer they did in their names, because they presumed to discusse and determine diuers matters of controuersie without directions and instructions from them. But howsoeuer we thinke of the proceedings in this Councell, yet he sayth, no Protestant church can shew any such authority for their cause, as that of the Councels of Florence, Constance, and Trent. It had beene well if hee had beene better aduised before hee had so much disenabled vs: for he shall finde that we can and will shew farre greater authority for our cause then the late Councels of Florence, Constance, and Trent, and that in the weightiest points of all other. For did not the Bishops in the great Councell of Chalcedon, professe openly, that the reason why the Fathers gaue the preëminence to the Bishoppe of Rome, was the greatnesse of his city, being the seate of the Emperours, and that they thought it fit to giue equall priuiledges to the Bishop of Constantinople for the same cause, seeing it was become the seate of the Emperors, and named new Rome? Did not the 6. generall Councell in Trullo confirme the same parity of the B. of Constantinople with the B. of Rome? and doe not the decrees of these two Councells shake in peeces the whole frame & fabricke of the Papacy? Did not the second, fourth, and sixth Councels, &c. make the B. of Constantinople a patriarch, and set him in degree of honour before the other two of Alexandria and Antioche, notwithstanding the resistance of the Romane Bishops, & their claime from Peter? Did not the sixth generall Councell blame the Church of Rome for sundry things, and particularly among other, for forcing married mē entring into the orders of ministery, to forsake the matrimoniall society of their wiues? Did not the Councell of Nice referre both Bishops and other inferiour clergy-men to be ordered by their owne Metropolitanes, and the Conci. Carthag. 6. &. 7. cap. 105. epist. Concil. ad. Celestinum. Councels of Africa therevpon condemne appeales to Rome? Did not the Councell of Eliberis forbid the lighting of tapers in the Coemiteries, or places of buriall, to the disquieting of the spirits of the Saintes departed? and did it not abolish those pernoctations in the places of buriall which Hierome vrged so violently against Vigilantius, and forbid the hauing of any pictures in churches: Ne quod colitur, aut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur? Doth not the Canon of the Apostles prescribe, that all the faithfull that come together in the Church, and communicate not in the Sacrament shall be excommunicate, which also the Councell of Antioche reuiveth, and confirmeth? Doth not Gelasius command all them to bee excommunicated, that receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords body, abstaine from the participation of the cuppe? Did not the church of Rome thinke it so farre necessary that the people should communicate in both kindes, that Ordo Romanus prescribeth on good Friday, when they consecrate not, but receiue that which was reserued being consecrated the day before, they should take wine & consecrate it by putting or dipping the body of the Lord into it, with pronouncing the Lords prayer, that so the people might receiue the whole Sacrament? and yet now the halfe communion is sufficient. Did not the Mileuitane and Arausicane Councels condemne those errours touching the strength of nature, and power of free-will to performe the workes of vertue, without assistance of speciall grace? which since haue beene receiued in the Romane Schooles, as if they had beene catholicke verities. The like might bee shewed in many other particulars, but these may suffice. Wherefore let vs proceed to his eigth chapter.

CHAP. 8.

IN this chapter, first hee sheweth that generall Councels are of highest authority in the Church of God: and secondly, laboureth to proue, that they testifie for Romish Religion. To proue that Councels are of highest authority in the Church of God, which no man denyeth, he produceth the testimonies of the Bishop of Winchester, Doctour Morton, the Protestant Relator of Religion, and Doctour Sutcliffe. And lastly addeth, that I am clearely of the same opinion, assuring all men, that the interpretations of Scripture proposed by priuate men, are not so proposed and vrged by them, as if they would binde all others to receiue them, and that none but Bishops assembled in a Generall Councell may interprete Scriptures in such sort, as by their authority to suppresse all them that gaine-say such interpretations. For so are my words, which hee hath altered, to make men thinke I allow none in any sort to interprete Scriptures, but generall Councels: wherein he wrongeth me, as he well knoweth, seeing I professe the contrary, euen in the place cited by him. This allegatiō of my words might haue beene spared, seeing there was neuer any man doubted of the truth of that for proofe whereof he alledgeth them.

Wherefore let vs come to his second part, wherein he endeauoureth to shew, that generall Councels make for the Romish Religion: this hee proueth, because when Protestants deny the authority of generall Councels, they haue no excuse, but because they were called by the Popes authority. So, saith he, Doctor Field, Doctor Sutcliffe, M. Willet, and the rest. Surely it is a most shamelesse kinde of dealing to charge men with that they neuer thought, spake, nor wrote: yet so doth the honest man vse me in this place: and therefore citeth neither booke nor page, as he is wont to doe, but sendeth his Reader to seeke that which he shall neuer finde. For I neuer denyed the authority of any councell, onely because it was called by the Pope, as he vntruely reporteth: so that it is vaine and foolish that he vrgeth, that in so doing I contradict my selfe, in that the rules assigned by me to know true traditions, as the testimony of the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches from the beginning, the practise and consent of holy Fathers doe warrant vs, that that priviledge euer belonged to the See of Rome, that without the consent thereof no councell could be called, none confirmed. For the clearing of this point, touching the calling and confirming of councels, we must note, that they are of diuerse sorts: some Diocesan, holden by each Bishop in his Diocese: some Provinciall, consisting of the Bishops of a Province called together, or at least moderated by the Metropolitane: some Patriarchicall, consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops of diuerse Provinces vnder one Patriarch: and some Oecumenicall, consisting of all the Bishops in the world. The canon he speaketh of, must bee vnderstood of Oecumenicall councels onely, wherein things concerning the faith and state of the whole Catholique church are handled; for otherwise each Bishop might hold a Diocesan Synode, each Metropolitane a Provinciall, and each Patriarch a Patriarchicall, without requiring the consent of the Bishop of Rome: wherefore let vs see how, and in what sort the consent of the Bishop of Rome was required to the holding of generall councels, and to what purpose his confirmation of their decrees was sought. Cardinall Concord. cathol. l. 2. c. 15 Cusanus handleth this matter excellently well, shewing at large, that the meaning of the Canon of the primitiue church, was not to giue any such absolutenesse to the Bishop of Rome, that his negatiue should dash all, or his affirmatiue establish what hee pleaseth, without the consent and approbation of the rest: but that being one of the prime Patriarches and chiefe Bishops of the Christian church, nothing should be concluded without seeking, requiring, and expecting his presence, ioynt deliberation, and consent: which is not to be marvailed at, seeing no generall councell can be of force, wherein the meanest Bishoppe in the world is purposely neglected, or refused, offering himselfe to such deliberation. As no chapter act can bee good, wherein any one hauing voyce in chapter, is neglected, or excluded: though when he is present, or at least called, & not excluded nor neglected, things may passe, though he say no; euen so in like sort in a generall councell, though no such assembly be lawfull and of force, wherein the Bishop of Rome is neglected, or his ioynt deliberation and consent not sought: yet a man is rather to adhere to the Fathers in such a meeting consenting together, then to the person of the Pope contradicting or refusing to assent to that they resolue on: as not only those Papists do think, that teach the Pope may erre, & is inferior to general coūcels in the power of iurisdiction, but they also that are opposite to them in iudgement, as Defens. fidei Trid. l. 2. Andradius sheweth out of Cardinall Turrecremata, who professeth, that a man should rather assent to the consenting voice of the Fathers assembled in a generall councell, then to the person of the pope dissenting from them, or refusing to confirme and ratifie that they agree vpon: & that in the power of discretiue iudgement the councell is greater then the pope. Besides this we are to obserue, that when the canon provided no Councell should bee holden, and be of force without the Bishop of Rome, the meaning of it was not precisely in respect of his person, but of him, and the Metropolitanes and Bishops of the West provinces subiect to him as Patriarch of the West, who were a great and principall part of the Christian Church. For the manner was when a generall councell was to be holden in the East, as all the generall Councels that haue beene were, that the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, should impart the occasions of such a generall meeting in Councell to the seuerall Metropolitanes subiect vnto him; and they calling their Bishops together in their seuerall provinces, should send whom they thought fit to the same generall meeting, with such directions and resolutions, as it pleased them; and as De Concil. & Ecclesia l. 1. c. 17. In concil. 2. & 3. nulli suerunt ex occidente sed Damasus & Caelestinus, concilia illa confirmârunt nomine suo & aliorum Episcoporum, quos ipsi Romae collegerāt. Constantinus pro 6. Concil. scribit ad Agathonem ut mittat tres personas de sua Ecclesia, & 12 Metropolitanos de suo concilio, Agatho rescribit, cum uniuersis Synodis •… biacentibus Concilio Apostolicae Sedis. Cardinall Bellarmine hath rightly obserued, it was enough if many Bishops of the East meeting and comming together, some few came out of the West; yea sometimes, though none at all came, as appeareth by the second generall Councell holden at Constantinople, if the resolutions which the Bishoppe of Rome sent as agreed on in the seuerall Synodes subiect to him, as Patriarch, and the determinations of the Bishops and Fathers assembled, concurred and consented. And this doubtlesse was the reason why the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome with his Westerne Synodes, was required for the ratifying of Generall Councels: because neuer being present in person, and very few or none of his Bishoppes being at those Councels, it was necessary they should confirme & ratifie what the rest in councell debated, discussed, and resolued on by testifying their assent. For what could passe currantly as an act of a generall councell, whereunto a great and principall part of the Christian World consented not? So that it was not the Popes personall confirmation that was desired in auncient times, as if all the Bishops in the World might erre, & the certainty of truth rested in him only, as some men now teach: but the consent of those Bishops that were subiect to him as Patriarch of the West, as well as his owne: who being absent, were to ratifie, strengthen and confirme the determinations of them that were present, not as being more infallible in iudgement then they, but by a ioynt concurrence and agreement. This is all that can be proued out of the consent of Fathers, Historians, and practise of former times; and therefore this man doth but trifle in this as in the rest. Wherefore to conclude this matter touching Councels, I dare vndertake to proue that Papists deny and reiect more councels then any of our Diuines doe. Touching the right of calling Councels, and in what cases they may bee called without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, without any breach of the Canon alleaged, I haue shewed my opinion in the fifth Booke of the Church. And therefore seeing the Authour of these proofes proceedeth no farther in alleaging any thing out of that which I haue written, I will here leaue him, not doubting but others whom he hath wronged will make him know hee hath dealt no better with them then he hath with me, and that therefore the plausible conclusion hee maketh in the end, of it selfe falleth to the ground, the premises vpon which it should stay it selfe, being taken away. For we neither acknowledge thrt Papists holding the infallibility of the popes iudgement, the vniversalitie of his iurisdiction, and power to dispose the kingdomes of the world: beleeuing free-will, to performe & do the actions of vertue, without assistance of speciall grace; perfection of inherent righteousnesse, satisfactions, merit of condignitie, propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse, and the like, can euer be saued so liuing & dying; nor that the present Roman Church is the true church of Christ, nor that the preeminence they now giue to the Pope, was either claimed or practised ouer the whole church, from S. Peter to these our dayes, as this namelesse and shamelesse Author saith we doe: nor that all the bookes which the Romane church now receiueth for canonicall Scriptures were deliuered for such by the Apostles, or receiued for such by the church; nor that the true and best translations of holy Scripture, with the lawfull supreme binding exposition of them, together with Apostolicall traditions, generall Councels, or primitiue Fathers giue any testimony that the present Romane church is that company of holy ones, that houshold of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and church of the liuing God, which is so diligently to be sought after; whose communion wee must embrace, whose directions we must follow, and in whose judgement wee must rest; but contrariwise we are well assured all these doe witnesse against her, that shee is an erring hereticall, and apostaticall church; that shee hath forsaken her first faith, departed from her primitiue sincerity, plunged those that adhere vnto her into many grosse and damnable errours, and defiled her selfe with intolerable superstition and idolatrie, so that as well in respect of her errours in faith, superstition and idolatry in diuine worship; as of her slanderous, treacherous, bloudy, and most horrible & hellish practises, to ouerthrow and destrow all that doe but open their mouthes against her abominations, wee may justly account her to bee the Synagogue of Sathan, the faction of Antichrist, and that Babylon out of which wee must flie, vnlesse wee will be partakers of her plagues.

FINIS.