in it selfe doth not deserue a iust reproofe 64. In the other place obiected hee writeth thus Qui seriò tanquam sub conspectu Dei c. i. They which shall earnestly as in the sight of God seeke the true rule of iustice shall finde for certainty all the words of men if they be censured by their owne dignity to be nothing but pollution and filthines and that which is commonly called righteousnesse to be before God meere iniquity that which is counted integrity to be impurity and that which is esteemed glory to be ignominie Let the Reader now iudge what notorious lyars these bee to fasten this opinion vpon Caluin whose wordes I haue sincerely and fully set downe that euery one may see their false dealing for in what one place nameth hee mortall sinne or what one word tendeth to that end The worse termes he◠giueth to good workes in the first place are these That they are sprinkled with imperfection mixed with the dregs of the slesh stained with corruption and in the second that they are filthines iniquity pollution and ignominy but how first if they bee examined by the strict rule of Gods iustice secondly if they bee compared to Gods righteousnesse and thirdly if they bee considered in their owne merite and worth without the merite of Christ whereby both their staines and imperfections are couered and an excellent dignity giuen vnto them 65. And indeed what I pray you doth Caluine say herein but that which the Fathers said before I will propound two or three vnto you in stead of al the rest Woe be to our righteousnesse sayth Saint Augustine if God remouing his mercy should search into it and againe All our righteousnes standeth rather in the remission of our sinnes then in any perfection of iustice Our best righteousnes sayth Saint Bernard if it be any is right perhaps but not pure vnlesse happily we thinke our selues better then our Fathers who no lesse truely then humbly said All our righteousnes is as a defiled cloth The holy man Iob sayth Saint Gregory because he saw all the merite of our vertue to be in vice if it be strictly iudged by the eternall Iudge did rightly adde in If I will contend with him I shall not be able to answere him one of a thousand Lastly all beauty sayth Arnobius in Gods presence is but deformity all righteousnes is but vnrighteousness all strength but weakenes all riches but beggery These Fathers with all the rest say no lesse then Caluine nor Caluine no more then they and therefore they must either bee condemned with him or bee iustified with them Now if any man should say that they affirmed that our best works were deadly sinnes all men would condemne him for a liar so may we iustly say of our malicious aduersaries in imputing that opinion to Caluine which hee neuer meant nor yet the words will beare and also which in all his writings hee directly crosseth 66. That which hath beene spoken concerning Caluine may bee applyed to the iustification of Luther and Melancthon who are so farre from esteeming good workes to bee mortall sinnes that they extoll them hyperbolically as hath beene already manifested Luther indeed sayth thus That a good worke done after the best manner that can be yet is a veniall sinne according to the mercy of God and a mortall sinne according to the iustice of God but what of this doth he therefore say that it is a mortall sinne simply as they would haue him no in no case for first hee calleth it a good worke which hee would neuer haue done if hee had iudged it no better then a sinne secondly hee sayth that it is mortall according to the iustice of God and veniall by the mercy of God which is the very same that all the Fathers affirmed before intending by mortall not that which is a high degree of sinne but that which in it owne nature deserueth death Thirdly Luther himselfe sheweth what his intendment is in the article going before where he sayth that not the good worke it selfe but the defect in the worke is truely sinne because it is an omission of that precept Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart By all which it is cleare that Luther doth not condemne a good worke but the euil in the worke and that though God doth in mercy pardon the euill for the goods sake being a fruit of faith so he might iustly condemne the good for the euill sake that cleaueth vnto it being a fruit of originall sinne so that Luther standeth cleare and innocent from this crime layd to his charge in all true iudgement and they stand guilty of a most foule slander imputed vnto him by their malice 67. Thirdly they slaunder vs that we slaunder God by making him the author of sinne This accusation Bellarmine Campion Stapleton Vasques Feuardentius and all the Iesuiticall rabble lay to our charge And they accuse Caluine Luther Peter Martir and all other Protestant-writers as guilty thereof but vpon what ground and with what shew of reason let them declare vnto vs for it passeth the reach of our capacities to finde out any such doctrine either direct in plaine words or indirect by logicall consequence in any of them direct doctrine I am sure Caluine thus writeth The cause of sinne is not to be sought out of mans will out of which the roote of euill ariseth and in the which sinne resideth And in his Comment vpon the Epistle of Saint Iames more plainely he affirmeth that God is not the author of sinne and that euils doe not proceed from any other roote but from the euill concupiscence of euery mans owne heart And this doctrine he iterateth againe and againe many score of times in his bookes Peter Martyr in like maner is most direct against this blasphemous doctrine for thus he saith That opinion of the Libertines which maketh God the author of sinne is a most detestable opinion then which nothing can be imagined more wicked nor a more compendious way to hell And in the same place he concludeth that though nothing in the world no not sinnes themselues come to passe besides Gods will and prouidence yet he is not truly to be called the cause of sinne but all that can be sayd is that he is such a cause which is tearmed by the Logicians the remoouing or hindering cause that is not efficient but deficient rather which in truth is no cause at all Luther is as direct for he auoucheth this proposition in many places God is not the author of sinne And this same is the constant affirmation of all our Diuines What a shamelesse forehead then haue our malicious aduersaries that dare lay vnto our charge this blasphemy which we all detest and abhorre 68. I but say they though in word you say so yet by consequence from your doctrine it may be necessarily gathered that you hold the contrary for you all teach that God concurreth with
a sinner in the acting of his sin by his powerfull prouidence and not onely foreseeth but decreeth disposeth and determineth in his wisedome all the sinnes of men according to his will and by his secret working blindeth their minds and hardneth their hearts that they cannot repent This we confesse is our doctrine if it be rightly vnderstood for we teach that God doth not barely permit sinne to be done but decreeth before to permit it and in the act worketh by it and ordereth and disposeth it to his owne ends yet so that he neither approueth of it nor is in any respect the cause of the malignity thereof and herein we consent both with the ancient Fathers and with most of their owne Doctors 69. Touching the Fathers Saint Augustine shall be the mouâ—h of all the rest thus writeth he Sinne could not be done if God doth not suffer it and he doth not suffer it against but with his will and being good as he is he would neuer suffer any thing to be ill done but that being also Almightie he can do well of that which is euill And in the next Chapter God doth fulfill the good purposes of his owne by the euill purposes of euill men And in another place God doth worke in the hardening of the wicked not onely by his permission and patience but also by his power and action through his mightie prouidence but yet most wise and iust And in another place Who may not tremble at these iudgements where God doth worke in the hearts of wicked men whatsoeuer he will rendring to them notwithstanding according to their deserts And againe in another place As God is a most holy Creator of good natures so hee is a most righteous disposer of euill wills that whereas those euill wills doe ill vse good natures he on the other side may well vse the euill wills themselues Thus Augustine is our Patrone in this Doctrine and if we be Heretikes he is one too 70. But let vs heare their owne Doctours speake When God doth good and permitteth euill sayth Hugo his will appeareth seeing he willeth that which should be both which he doth and which he permitteth both his operation and his permission are his will God worketh many things sayth Pererius within him that is hardened by which he is made worse through his owne fault he stirreth vp diuers motions either of hope or feare lust or anger and sendeth in diuers doubtfull and perplexed imaginations by which he is pusht forth vnto euill A sinner saith Medina when he sinneth doth against the will and law of God in one case and in another not he doth indeed against his signified will but against the will of his good pleasure he doth not nor against his effectuall ordination No sinne falleth out besides the will and intention of God say Mayer Durand Aquinas and other God sayth Canus is the naturall cause of all motions yea euen in euill men but not the morall cause for he neither counselleth nor commandeth euill Lastly to conclude with two famous Iesuits Vega and Suarez the first sayth that though God doth not command counsell approue or reward sinne yet he doth will and worke it together with vs and the second that God worketh the act of sinne but not the malice thereof This is the very doctrine of Caluine and Martir and all Protestants so that if wee be guilty of this blasphemous consequence to make God the author of sinne they also must needs be in the same case but Saint Augustines distinction will cleere vs both When God deliuered his Sonne and Iudas his Master to be crucified why is God iust and man guilty sayth he but because though the thing was the same which they did yet the cause was not the same for which they did it or if this distinction will not suffice their owne Iesuites will helpe vs out In sinne there are two things to be considered sayth Vasques the act and defect the act is to be referred to God but not the defect in any case which ariseth from the corrupt will of man or the act and the malignity thereof as sayth another Iesuite or the materiall part of sinne which is called by the Schoolemen subiectum substratum the vnder-laide subiect and the formall which is the prauity and anomy of the action the one of these from God the other from man or lastly if none of these will serue the turne yet our owne distinction will acquire vs to wit that Almighty God doth so will decree mans sin not as it is sin but as it is his owne iust iudgement vpon sinners for their punishment and the demonstration of his iustice And thus our doctrine is free from the conception of this vile Monster their calumniation is as vnrighteous against vs as the dealing of God about the sins of men is most righteous and iust And thus those some what too harsh sayings I contesse of Luther Swinglius and Melancthon are to bee vnderstood and no otherwise that the treason of Iudas came from God aswell as the conuersion of Paul charity will construe the wordes according to the speakers intendement and not stretch their intendement to the strict tenter of euery word and syllable 71. Fourthly they accuse vs of blasphemy against the Sonne of God for denying as they say that hee is Deus ex Deo God of God against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed and this they call the Atheisme of Caluine and Beza a palpable slander for neither Caluine nor Beza did euer imagine much lesse vtter the same in that sense which they lay to their charges for let Bellarmine their sworne aduersarie speake for them Caluine and Beza teach sayth he that the Sonne is of himselfe in respect of his essence but not in respect of his person and they seeme to say that the essence of the Deity in Christ is not begotten but is of it selfe which opinion sayth he I see not why it may not be called Catholike Heere Bellarmine telleth vs truely what their opinion was and doth acknowledge it to be a true Catholike doctrine and yet in the same Chapter hee contemneth Caluine for his manner of speaking of it and of intolerable saucinesse for finding fault with the harshnes of the phrase vsed by the Nicene Councill God of God Light of light Marke I pray you his absurdity it is Catholike and yet it may not bee spoken it is true and yet it is to be blamed May not a Catholike doctrine bee spoken then or must the truth bee smothered This is such an inconsequence as neither reason nor Religion can any wayes beare withall and for his saucy dealing with the Nicene Councill all that euer he sayth is that it is durum dictum a hard phrase yet so that hee confesseth it may receiue a good and commodious interpretation if it be vnderstood in the concrete that Christ who is God is of the
in this poynt Now here a double taske lyeth vpon mee first to proue this to bee their doctrine and secondly to shew how this doctrine tendeth to the empeachment of Gods glorie 4. That this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome let the Councill of Trent which they call their Church representatiue and which being approued by the Pope cannot erre as they affirme be Iudge Thus it decreeth and bindeth the decree with a curse Si quis dixerit c. that is If any man shall say that mans free-wil being mooued and stirred by God doth nothing cooperate by assenting to God moouing and calling it whereby it may dispose and prepare it selfe to the obtaining of the grace of iustification and that it cannot dissent if it will but like a thing without life is not at all actiue but meerely passiue Anathema sit Let him be accursed This Riddle of the Councill of Trent for so most of the decrees thereof are rather to bee termed then Canons of faith is thus expounded by Andradius interpretation who was present at the same Councill and knew the meaning of those holy Fathers to wit that there is in euery man by nature a power and ability Ad inchoandas perficiendas spirituales actiones that is To beginne and to effect spirituall actions but that power and ability is so fettered with the chaines of sinne that vnlesse grace come and helpe to set it free it can doe nothing as a man weighed downe with yron shooes though he hath power in himselfe to go yet cannot except his yron shooes be put off or as a bird caught in a snare hath power to flie yet cannot except the snare be broken c. By these two similitudes he illustrateth the sentence and meaning of the Councill whereby it euidently appeareth that this is the plaine doctrine of the Church of Rome that of the regeneration and conuersion of a sinner the spirit of God is not the sole cause but that with the spirit Mans free-will doth concurre and so both together make the ioynt efficient cause 5. The later Romanists and especially the Iesuites to passe ouer the grosse positions of the former Schoolemen do more plainely deliuer the meaning of their Church concerning this poynt Let vs heare Bellarmine speake Cooperamur Deo c. We cooperate with God saith he not onely as our Aduersaries would haue after iustification but euen in very iustification it selfe and in the beginning of faith And after he peremptorily concludeth Non nisi cooperantibus nobis Deus salutem nostrum operaturâ— that is God doth not worke our saluation without our owne helpe cooperating with him We are beholding to Bellar. for setting down plainly our opinion For this we hold that after the first grace wherin we are meerely passiue we then begin to will and worke our owne saluation but yet not of our selues as from our selues but onely of his grace wherewith as we are preuented to beginne so we must continually be accompanied that wee may perseuere for if God withdrraw his grace neuer so little we are â—ure to sinke as Peter did in the water which is the very opinion of Saint Augustine for in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium thus hee saith Deus nolentempraenenit vt velit volentem sequitur ne frustravelit that is God preuenteth a man being vnwilling that he may will and followeth him being willing lest he should will in vaine And of Saint Hierome who thus speaketh Non sufficit mihi quod semel donauit nisi semper donauerit peto vt accipiam cum accepero rursus peto that is It is not sufficient for me that he hath giuen me grace once vnlesse he doe alwaies giue I pray that I may receiue and when I haue receiued I pray againe And againe of Saint Augustine Hominis non libera sed Dei gratia liberata voluntas that is Mans will is not free but freed by the grace of God And in another place Eatenus libera quantenus liberata that is It is so farre-forth free as it is freed and no further 6. But to proceed Coster another Iesuite is a little more plaine and grosse Liberum arbitrium c. Free-will saith he doth prepare it selfe to iustification by the ayde of God not yet inhabiting but onely moouing and helping not onely suffering but also working and doing And againe in the same place Man being fallen into the darke pit of sinne that he may be drawne out againe doth not onely receiue and suffer but coworketh with the grace of God and prepareth himselfe by beleeuing trusting and vndertaking the duties of piety vntill arising vp to the Sonne of Righteousnes he be replenished with the diuine light of grace as Ieremie being baled out of the dungeon helped those which pulled him out by putting the cloutes and cordes vnder his arme-holes Salmeron another Iesuite is yet more palpable Liberum arbitrium non partem c. Free will saith hee doth not worke one part and the grace of God another but to euery action is extended aswell free-will as grace But Ecchius surpasseth all the rest for plainenesse for thus he writeth The beginning of our saluation we haue from Gods mercy but to yeeld to Gods wholesome inspiration is in our power c. Thus with an impudent forehead they marry together Gods grace and mans will in the act of Regeneration betwixt which a diuorce was made by the fall of Adam and so remaineth irreconciled till we be engrafted into the second Adam by faith 7. Hence it is that the Councill of Trent is bold to affirme that when equall grace is offered vnto two that one is conuerted and the other remaineth in his infidelity the cause is in their wills in that one entertaineth the other reiecteth the grace that is offered And to hold this saith Molynâ— another Iesuite is a matter of faith And this is the doctrine of Thomas their great Clerke It is in the power of our free-will saith he to hinder or not to hinder the receiuing of diuine grace And another more fully and foully thus dareth to speake If it be demanded why this man is conuerted and that man is not the helpe of God being giuen alike to both the reason is to be assigned to free-will namely because the one would bee conuerted and the other would not And this also Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth Gods motion saith he leaueth man altogether free to be conuerted or not to be Lastly they doe not onely hold that we haue a power in our wills to moue towards our owne conuersion and freely to will or nill the accepting of Gods grace offered but also to perseuere to the end after grace receiued This the Iesuite Molyna doth in expresse words set downe when hee saith That the perseuerance of men in good dependeth vpon their owne free cooperation and the dayly particular diuine helpe And this is the
are the fights exercises of the iust And Origen That which is to the iust the exercise of vertue is to the vniust the punishment of sin And Tertullian The plagues of the world are to one for punishment to the other for admonition aduertisement and this is the very substance of our doctrine 38. As for our aduersaries they blush not to affirme euen the Councill of Trent it selfe that when God forgiueth a sinner yet he forgiueth not all the punishment but leaueth the party by his owne workes to satisfie till it bee washed away and that the bloud of Christ doth not serue to acquite vs from the temporall punishment but that we must acquite our selues either by our owne works as prayer almes fasting c. or by our suffrings either in this life or in Purgatory Yes some of the chiefest of them are bold to auouch that the recōpence made by satisfaction respecteth not only the temporall punishment but some part of the offence also and the wrath of God And others say That a sinner by the grace of God may satisfie for his sinne condignely and equally and by that satisfaction obtaine pardon And that which is more then all the rest some of them affirme without blushing that Christ by his sacrifice on the Crosse satisfied onely for originall sinne and not for actuall after Baptisme Bellarmine indeed is ashamed of this doctrine as he might well bee but yet it is plainely maintained by Gregorie de Valentia And this in briefe is the dunghill of Popish satisfactions from whence steame forth like vapours their Purgatorie and Pardons and Penance and much more such like trumpery 39. But let vs leaue them to their manifold errours and come to the examination of this one poynt whether they or we bring more dishonour to the Crosse of Christ And to the purpose first the very nature of satisfaction which as they affirme is the yeelding of a sufficient recompence to God for a trespasse committed is inough to prooue that their doctrine tends to the singular impeachment of the Crosse of Christ for if Christ hath made a full and perfect satisfaction vpon the Crosse as without all doubt he did he himselfe contesting in that his last speech It is finished then what neede any addition of humane satisfactions If there be such a necessity of humane satisfactions as they make then Christs satisfaction must needs be imperfect and so no satisfaction at all for an imperfect satisfaction is no satisfaction as the very word it selfe implyeth importing a sufficient recompence to be made to the party offended And if it be perfect it must be full and absolute that is such as needeth nothing else to be added vnto it But they require something to be added to Christs satisfaction and therefore must needs hold that it is not a full perfect and absolute satisfaction for it implyeth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a full and perfect cause of it selfe alone and yet to adde another to it as a ioynt cause to produce the same effect 40. But they will answere that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs but to apply it vnto vs and to fulfill his will and ordinance for Christs satisfaction say they is of infinite value and might aswell haue taken away the temporall punishment as the eternall but that God will haue it otherwise for the mortifying of sinne in vs and making vs conformable to Christ our head This answere of theirs may seeme to carry a shew of sound reason but in very deed it is but a shift and a golden couer to blanch the vglinesse of their doctrine for it were odious for them to say plainely that Christs satisfaction stood in need of a supply or was any wayes imperfect and therefore they would not haue men to thinke so of them though in truth they both thinke and speake so of Christ when they a little forget what they are a doing and by infallible consequence their doctrine concludeth no lesse for plaine speech thus writeth Gabriel Biel Though the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which the grace of God and the opening of heauen and the glory thereof be giuen yet it is neither the sole nor totall meritorious cause but alwaies there concurreth some worke of him that receiueth the grace And Miletus Christ indeed is the generall cause of our saluation but yet particular causes are to be added to this and so he is not the totall and whole cause And Bellarmine himselfe by consequence confesseth as much when he saith that a righteous man hath right to the Kingdome of heauen by a two-fold title one of the merits of Christ another of his owne merits These bee plaine speeches and shew what their meaning is so that howsoeuer they gloze ouer the matter with goodly words yet it is nothing but poyson in a painted boxe wherewith the ignorant may be infected but the skilfull are able to discerne their fraud And here obserue the contrariety of Bellarmines speech to another saying of S. Bernard to the same purpose Christ saith Saint Bernard hath a double right vnto the kingdome of heauen one by inheritance as he is the Sonne of God another by purchase as he bought it by his death the first he keepeth to himselfe this latter he imparts to his members This by S. Bernards Diuinitie is all the right that a faithfull man hath to the kingdome of heauen by Christs purchase and vpon this onely doth that good man and all other of Gods children relie but Bellarmine giueth him another title to wit by purchase of his owne merits which as it is a straine of his owne wit so let him keepe it to himselfe and make merry with it for wee will haue nothing to doe with it 41. As for that which they say that our satisfactions serue not to supply the want but to apply the efficacie of Christs vnto vs is a more ridiculous and shifting deuice then the other for first how can that be when as sinne is first pardoned which is by the satisfaction of Christ and then long after commeth our satisfaction if not in this life yet sure in Purgatorie The applying of a thing is a present act arising betwixt the agent and the patient therefore if our satisfaction doe apply Christs vnto our soules then it followeth that Christ hath not satisfied for our sinnes till wee haue satisfied for the temporall punishment of them which is flat contrarie to their owne principles Secondly that which applieth hath relation to that which is applied as to the obiect but our satisfaction hath no relation to Christs satisfaction as the obiect but is onely referred to the temporall punishment and to the iustice of God as they affirme therefore it cannot apply it vnto vs. And lastly how dissonant is it vnto reason that a satisfaction should apply a satisfaction as if one medicine
a partiall rule and that the word of God written and not written by this last meaning traditions is the totall and perfect rule To this I answere in a word that by this distinction he plainely ouerturneth that which before hee had confessed for if it bee the rule of faith then it must needes be totall and perfect if it be not totall and perfect then is it not the rule for a rule must be proportioned to the thing whereunto it is applied If then our faith be either longer and larger then the Scripture then cannot the Scripture bee any wayes called the rule thereof Besides as Theophilact saith Regula et amussis neque appositionem habet neque ablationem A rule doth neither admit addition nor diminution and that is the definition of a rule according to Varinus Regula est mensura quae non fallit quaeque nullam vel additionem vel detractionem admittit A rule is saith hee a measure which deceiueth not and which admitteth no addition nor detraction Therefore if it be the rule of faith either it is perfect and absolute or none at all if it standeth in neede of traditions to supply it want then why doth hee call it the rule and why doe all the Fathers giue it the same name and why hath it that inscription in the forehead the Canonicall Scripture Lastly if God would giue vs a rule for our faith and life in the Scripture then by the same reason hee would make that a perfect rule for shall any imperfect thing proceede from the authour of all perfection When an imperfect creature is borne wanting either limmes or forme we ascribe it to a defect and errour in the particular nature from whence the creature is deriued or to the indisposition of the instrumentall causes not to the generall nature which tendeth alwaies vnto perfection How much more then ought this Iesuite be afraid to ascribe an imperfect creature to the all-perfect Creatour especially seeing it is the worke of his owne hands without the intermingling of all second causes and proceedeth immediately from his owne spirit the Prophets and Apostles being but as Baruch to Ieremie writers and engrossers of that which the spirit did dictate vnto them And therefore I may boldly and firmely conclude that as the vncreated word of God begotten of the Father before all time is perfect God and can neither receiue augmentation nor diminution so the word of God pronounced first by the mouth of the Prophets and Apostles and after by them committed to writing which is called the Scripture is absolute and perfect and can neither be encreased nor diminished to make it more or lesse perfect and so is the onely true sound and sacred Rule whereby both our Faith and life is to be directed towards the Kingdome of Heauen 23. And thus I hope the first proposition remaineth sound and firme notwithstanding all that can be sayd to the contrary Now I come to the confirmation of the assumption or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome refuseth to be tryed and iudged by the Scriptures alone and will be tried and iudged by none but it selfe which if it be euicted then the conclusion must necessarily follow that therefore it is not onely to be suspected but vtterly reiected and abhorred 24. That this is so though it hath already in the precedent discourse beene sufficiently demonstrated yet that the matter may appeare more plaine and their impudency may be more notorious let vs search deeper into this wound and discouer the filthinesse thereof from the very bottome and first that they renounce the Scripture from being their Iudge and then in the second place that they admit of no other Iudge but themselues 25. Concerning the first let vs heare Bellarmine the Achilles of Rome speake foremost hee affirmeth in expresse words that the Scripture is not the rule of faith or if it be that it is a partiall and imperfect rule and vtterly insufficient of it selfe without the helpe of Ecclesiasticall traditions This assertion is well-neere the whole matter subiect of his third and fourth Bookes De verbo Dei which he laboureth to strengthen by all meanes possible Yea in the third Chapter of his third Booke he saith peremptorily that the Pope with a Councill is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scripture all controuersies Now in setting vp the Pope or a Councill into the supreme throne of Iudgement he must needes pull downe the Scripture the Spirit of God speaking therein from that throne and despoyle it of that authority But what need I draw this consequence from his words seeing throughout that whole Chapter he doth almost nothing else but striue to proue that the Scripture is not the Iudge doth reproue the Protestāts for saying that all the iudgements of the Fathers and all the decrees of Councils ought to be examined ad amussim Scripturarum according to the rule of the Scriptures Next vnto Bellarmine commeth in Gregory de Valentia and hee most boldly auoucheth that the Scripture is not a sufficient Iudge or rule of all controuersies of faith and that the Scripture alone defineth nothing at all no not obscurely of the chiefe questions of faith and where it doth speake it speaketh so obscurely that it doth not resolue but rather increase the doubt Cardinall Hosius is no whit lesse audacious when he affirmeth that the Scripture in it selfe is not the true and expresse word of God which we ought to obey vnlesse it bee expounded according to the sense and consent of the Catholike that is in his opinion the Romane Church The Iesuites Salmeron Turrian and Coster doe not onely barely affirme as much but also confirme it by reason The Scripture is dumbe saith Salmeron but the deciding voyce of a Iudge must be quicke The Scripture is a dead letter saith Turrian and a thing without life saith Coster but a Iudge must be liuing who may correct such as erre therfore that Scripture cannot be the Iudge It is as it were a Nose of wax saith Melchior Canus flexible into euery sense and as it were a Delphian Sword fit for all purposes saith Turrian therefore cannot be the Iudge And therefore two other Iesuites to wit Tanner and Gretzer impudently conclude that no heresie can be sufficiently refuted by Scripture alone and that by no meanes it may be graunted that either the holy Scripture or the Holy Ghost speaking by the Scripture should be the supreme and generall Iudge of Controuersies and hee addes his reason because the Scripture cannot dicere sententiam giue sentence on one side as a Iudge should doe Nay one Vitus Miletus as Pelargus reporteth is not ashamed to say that wee read that an Asse spoke in the Scripture but that the Scripture it selfe euer spoke we neuer read And thus this fellow makes the Scripture it selfe to be more mute then Balaams
touch of diuine worship and religion therfore it was reiected the one saying Stand vp for I my selfe am a man insinuating that a man must not bee religiously adored and the other See thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant implying thereby that Angels and if Angels then Saints are but our fellow-seruants and therefore not to bee worshipped with any part of diuine and religious worship 49. To the example of Peter Bellarmine and Vasques giue two answers the one out of Hierom in his Booke against Vigilantius that Cornelius was worthily corrected by Peter because he thought some diuine thing to be in him aboue othermen the other out of Chrysostome vpon this place that it was no fault in Cornelius to exhibite but modesty in Peter to refuse that honour which was due vnto him Bellarmine is in different which of these two answers we take and therefore without propounding his owne iudgement leaues theÌ„ to our choyce and yet the one of them ouer-turneth the other for Hierom saith it was a fault in Cornelius Chrysostome that it was no fault Hierom that Peter did well in reprouing Cornelius Chrysostome that he did not reprooue him at all but of modesty refused the honour giuen to him What reason had he to leaue these to our choyce being thus contrary It plainely sheweth that he knew not what to answere Therefore Vasques the Iesuite renounceth Hieroms answere vpon this ground that Cornelius knew the true God before Peter came vnto him and therefore could not erre so grossely as to ascribe any diuinity to a mortall man and insists vpon Chrysostomes that hee did it for modesty sake but by as good warrant we may reiect Chrysostome as he doth Hierom especially seeing our reason is as effectuall for Peter giues this reason of his denyall for I my selfe am a man which must needs be the medium of a sillogisme thus to be concluded No religious worship is to be giuen to man but I my selfe am a man therefore thou doest euill to worship me Here is not a strayning at courtesie for modesty sake but a plaine renunciation of Cornelius his sact as vnlawfull if it had been a tricke of modesty onely he should rather haue said thus comparatiuely I am not worthy of this honour from such a man as thou art or such like but in saying I my selfe am but a man he insinuateth that Cornelius did more then he ought to do 50. If they say I but though you thus escape from Chrysostome yet Hieroms interpretation will hold you fast I answere Besides Vasques reason whereby he reiecteth Hierom that it maketh nothing against vs but for vs rather against them because Hierom seemeth to condemne as idolatrous all such adoration of Saints wherein any part or propertie of the diuine nature is attributed vnto them but the Romanists in kneeling and prostrating their bodies to the Saints ascribe the properties of God vnto them to wit either to be present in many places at once oâ— to heare being as farre remote from them as â—eaâ—en is from earth and to know the heart and to haue power to helpe c. all which properly are proper vnto God 51. To the example of Iohn and the Angell the former two Iesuites oppose also a double answere first that the Angell did appeare vnto Iohn in that maiesty that he might bee thought to be Christ himselfe And therefore that Iohn was rebuked not for the errour in his adoration but for his errour in the person adored This answere Vasques names onely and then reiects as friuolous But Bellarmine propounds it as good and authenticall Which shall we beleeue in this case Maâ—y sauing his reuerence though hee be now a Cardinall the plaine Iesuite is to be preferred before him both because this answere is crossed and contradicted by the second and also because the Iesuite giues a reason of his reiection And the Cardinall goeth to it by downe-right authority as if because he is their chiefe Rabbi hee may say what hee list his reason is because Iohn did truely know him to be an Angell and not God and therefore that there was no errour in the person Secondly they answere that the Angell would not now as in time before be worshipped of men because now God was become man and by his incarnation brought such dignity to the nature of man that the very Angels should doe reuerence vnto it not be adored and reuerenced by it especially of Christs Apostles and Princes of the Church To which I answere first that by this allegation it must needes follow that Angels are not now to bee adored in the Church of Christ howsoeuer they were before which is contrarie to their owne doctrine and generall tenent of their religion And secondly if not Angels then much lesse the Saints who at their highest though they be made like yet are farre inferiour to the Angels in excellency of graces and gifts And thâ—â—â—ly the reason where with the Angell after he had reproued Iohn directeth him to the right obiect of religious worship doth ouerthrow this exposition for he saith Worship God he doth not say Forbeare to worship me because your nature is dignified by the incarnation of the Sonne of God but forbeare because I am not God and all diuine and religious worship belongeth vnto him And thus notwithstanding all that is yet said all religious kneeling and prostrating the body to the Saints is Idolatrous 52. As for the dedicating Temples consecrating Festiuall daies making vowes to them they are all within the same compasse and that partly for the reasons before specified being acts of a religious worship but especially because the doctrine of their Church is that these things are so properly directed vnto the Saints that the end of their consecration is determined in them And therefore Bellarmine reprooues their opinion which say that Temples cannot properly bee erected to any but to God and affirmeth that they may be dedicated directly vnto Saints and that vowes may bee made to them determinately and so also Holy daies consecrated which cannot be any lesse then plaine Idolatrie seeing as Saint Augustine saith Cuiconuenit Templum ei conuenit sacrificium to whom a Temple to him a Sacrifice belongeth And seeing the Scripture in many places testifieth that vows must onely be made to God I am not ignorant of their cuasion that they doe not dedicate Churches to Saints as they are Temples but as they are Basilicae that is stately buildings for memorials of the Saints and that a Vow is made to God in signum gratitudinis â—rga authorem primum principium omnium bâ—nâ—rum as a signe of our thankfulnes to God the authour and first cause of all good things but to the Saints as a signe of gratefulnesse towards our mediatours and Intercessours by whose meanes wee receaue benefits from God And that the honour of the holy day though it immediately pertaineth to the Saints yet mediately
they done it to gaine any thing thereby in disputation but onely to keepe the common people from infection whereas they spare none neither Fathers nor Councels nor moderne Writers and that not so much lest the common sort should bee infected as that the learned might be depriued of those weapons wherewith they might fight against them and wound their cause Seeing the case now so stands that hee which can muster vp together the greatest armie of Authours to fight vnder his colours is thought to haue the best cause their dealing then with vs is like that of the Philistims against the Israelites who despoyled them of all weapons and instruments of warre that they might dominiere ouer them with greater securitie but ours is not so towards them And therefore both in this and all the former respects it is a miserable vntruth and a desperate cuasion to say that wee are more guiltie of this crime then they are 107. Lastly whereas in his first answere hee pleadeth the lawfulnesse of the fact let vs heare his reasons to moue thereunto and in the interim remember that in prouing it to bee lawfull hee confesseth it to bee done But why is it lawfull Mary first because the Church being supreme Iudge on earth of all Controuersies touching faith and Religion hath authoritie to condemne Heretikes And therefore also the workes of Heretikes and if this then much more to correct and purge their Bookes if by that meanes shee can make them profitable for her vse and beneficiall to her children To which I answere two things First that it is not the Church that doth this but the sacred Inquisitors to wit certaine Cardinals and Lawyers deputed to that office who for the most part are so farre from being the Church that they are often no sound members thereof Iâ— it be said that they haue their authoritie from the Pope who is vertually the whole Church why doe they then speake so darkly and say the Church hath this authoritie when as they might in plaine termes say that the Pope hath it but that hereby they should display the feeblenesse of their cause and the fillinesse of this reason for thus it would stand Why is it lawful for Books to be purged because the Pope thinkes it lawful And must not he needs think so when the Authors crosse his triple crowne and speake against his state and dignitie Adde hereunto that it is a fallacie in reasoning when that is taken for granted which is in question For we deny their Synagogue to be the true Church and much more the Pope to bee the supreme Iudge and therefore till those things be proued the reason is of no effect 108. Secondly most of those things which are purged by them are so farre from being heresies or errours that they are the most of them sound doctrines of faith grounded vpon the authoritie of Gods sacred truth for they blot out many things in both olde and new Authours that they themselues dare not accuse to bee hereticall as that place in Saint Cyril before mentioned touching the power of faith which is no more in direct termes then that which is said in the Scripture Act. 15. 15. that faith purifieth the heart and that in the Basil Index of Chrysostome The Church is not built vpon a man but vpon faith and those propositions which are commanded by the Dutch Index to be wiped out of the Table of Robert Stephens Bible to wit that sinnes are remitted by beleeuing in Christ that he which beleeueth in Christ shall not die for euer that faith purifieth the heart that Christ is our righteousnes that no man is iust before God and that repentance is the gift of God with a number of like nature These they purge out of Stephens Index which notwithstanding are directly and in as many words recorded in the Booke of God and so it may iustly be thought that they are so farre from clenfing Bookes from the drosse and dregs of errour that they rather purge out the pure gold and cleare wine of truth and leaue nothing but dregs and drosse behind 109. His second reason is because nothing is more dangerous to infect true Christian hearts then bad Bookes Therefore it is not onely lawfull but needfull and behoouefull to the Church of God that such Bookes should bee purged and burned too if it bee so thought meete by the Church to the end that the sinceritie of one true faith and Religion might be preserued I answere all this is true which he saith but are they heresies which they purge no they are sound and orthodox opinions for the most part as hath beene proued in the answere to the former reason And doe they it to keepe Christian men from infection no their chiefe end and drift is to depriue their aduersaries of all authorities that make against them that so they might triumph in the antiquitie of their Religion and noueltie of ours which is one of their principall arguments which they vse though with euill successe for defence of their cause dealing herein as Holofernes did with the Israelites at the siege of Bethulia breaking the Conduits cutting the pipes and slopping the passages which might bring vs prouision of good and wholsome waters out of the cisternes of olde and new Writers this is their purpose and no other whatsoeuer they pretend for if they meant any good to Gods people for preuenting of infection they would haue purged their lying Legends of infinite fables their Canon Law of horrible blasphemies and their Schoolemen of many strange opinions Yea they would haue condemned the Bookes of Machiauel and of that Cardinall that wrote in commendation of the vnnaturall sinne of Sodomie and a number such like filthy and deuillish Writings which are printed and reprinted among them without controulement And againe is it vnitie in the true faith and religion that they seeke no it is conspiracie in falshood and consent in errour and not vnitie in the truth till the Romish Religion bee proued to bee the true Religion which can neuer be this reason is of no force to iustifie their proceedings Lastly is it Christian policy no it is deuilish subtletie and craftie forgerie for the case so stands betwixt them and vs as in a tryall of land betwixt partie and partie wherein hee that bringeth best euidence and witnesse carrieth the cause now if one partie either suborne false witnesses or corrupt true or forge euidences to his purpose or falsifie those that are extant all men will count him as a forger and his cause desperate and iudge him worthie the Pillorie so betwixt vs the question is who hath the right faith and the best title to the Church Our euidences are first and principally Gods Word then the writings and records of godly men in all ages now then they that shall purge pare raze blurr falsify or corrupt any of these must needs bee thought to bee subtle and craftie companions and not honest
and plain-dealing men The case then thus standing this practice of theirs cannot be termed Christian policy but plaine subtlety to giue it no worse a name 110. His last reason is drawne from the practice of the Church of God in all ages which hath alwaies forbidden the Bookes of Heretikes to be read and condemned them to the fire and to this purpose he produceth diuers fit and pertinent authorities to which I answere first that he fighteth herein without an aduersarie for we confesse that this was a necessarie and commendable practice to prohibit condemne burne and abolish all such Bookes as tend to the corrupting of the Christian faith and also to preuent them in the birth that they may not come to light but yet for all that this alloweth not their purging and paring of Bookes for they cannot giue vs one example in all antiquitie of this dealing except it bee drawne from Heretikes whose practice it hath beene to depraue the Scriptures themselues and the Decrees of Councels and the Bookes of ancient Fathers as witnesseth Bellarmine in many places of his workes and Sixtus Senensis and almost all other of their side III. Secondly the Fathers condemned onely the Bookes of Heretikes but our holy Inquisitors condemne not onely those whom they call Heretikes as Caluine Luther Beza Melancthon but mangle and purge the Fathers themselues and their owne deare children whom they dare not condemne for Heretikes as this Author himselfe confesleth those they chop and change wriâ—he and wring bend and bow as they list which is so much the more intolerable because being profest Romanists they durst not vary from the receiued opinions of the Church of Rome except mere conscience inwardly and some forcible reason outwardly mooued them thereunto 112. Thirdly and lastly the Fathers when they condemned any Heretike or hereticall Booke did it openly to the view of the World and not secretly in a corner not ascribing vnto them other opinions then they held eyther by adding vnto or detracting from their writings But our Romish correctors like Owles flye by moonshine and so closely câ—rtie their businesse that they would haue none to discry them yea they denie and abiure this trade I meane in respect of the Fathers and in a word they make almost all Authours to speake what they list for if any thing dislike them deleatur let it be wiped out or at least mutetur let it bee changed or addatur let something bee added vnto it that may change the sense and turne the sentence into a new mâ—ld of all these their Iudices Expurgatorij afford plentifull examples so that they can no wayes colour their forgerie and false dealing by the examples of the Fathers or Primitiue Church For this is a new tricke of legerdemaine of the Deuils owne inuention found out in this latter age of the World which hath beene verie fertile in strange deuices 113. Now then to conclude and to leaue this Priest with his vaine and idle reasons to be fuller confuted of him whom it more neerely concerneth and whose credit is touched by him Hence two necessarie conclusions doe arise one that they are guiltie of forgerie and corrupting of Authours by their owne confessions and secondly that they adde hereunto impudencie and shamelessenesse which is alwayes the marke of an Heretike and that first in defending their owne vniust and false dealing by reasons as if their wits were able to maintaine that snow was blacke and the Crow white and secondly in translating the crime from themselues vnto vs without all shew of reason not caring what they say so they say something for the honour of their mistresse the whore of Babylon and defence of her cause 114. Now then seeing it is manifest that they labour to vphold their Religion by these vniust vngodly and deuillish practices as treason crueltie periurie lying slandering and forging this conclusion must needes bee of necessarie consequence that therefore their Religion is not the truth of God nor their Church the true Church of God It is the iudgement of their owne learned Iesuites touching this last crime that wee may conuince them out of their owne mouthes that forging of false Treatises corrupting of true changing of Scriptures and altering of mens words contrarie to their meaning be certaine notes of heresie what can the Church of Rome be then lesse then hereticall that not onely doth all this but now at length professeth and maintaineth the doing thereof as lawful and profitable MOTIVE XIII That Religion the doctrines whereof are more safe both in respect Gods glorie mans saluation and Christian charitie is to bee preferred before that which is not so safe but dangerous But the doctrine of the Protestants Religion is more safe in all those respects and of the Papists more dangerous ergo that is to be preferred before this and consequently this to bee reiected THe first proposition is so euident and cleare that our aduersaries themselues will not deny it neither can it by any good reason bee excepted against for as it is in bodily physicke that medicine is alwayes preferred which bringeth with it lesse danger to the life of the patient and if it misse curing cannot kill so is it in the spirituall physicke of the soule which is Religion that doctrine deserueth best acceptance which is most safe and least dangerous for the soules health And as desperate medicines if they bee applyed by a skilfull Physicion argue a desperate case in the patient so desperate doctrines proue a desperate cause Neyther will any wayfaring man when two wayes are offered vnto him the one whereof is full of manifold perils and the end doubtfull the other safe from dangers and the end certainly good not choose rather the safer and certainer way and leaue the other so men like Pilgrimes trauelling towards the heauenly Canaan the way of Poperie on the one side and of Protestancie on the other being seâ— before them if they bee well in their wits will choose rather that way which is both the safer in the passage and the certainer in the end There is no doubt then in this first proposition and therefore let vs leaue it thus naked without further proofe and come to the second and examine whether our Religion or the Romish is the safer that all men may imbrace that which by euidence of demonstration shall appeare to be so and resuse the contrarie and here notwithstanding all the former pregnant arguments whereby the falsitie of their Church and Religion is plainly discouered wee put our selues againe vpon a lawfull tryall and referre our cause to the iudgement not of twelue men but of the whole world that if our euidence bee good wee may obtaine the day and the mouthes of our aduersaries may be stopped if not we may yeeld as conquered to bee led in triumph by them to Rome yea to the Popes owne palace to kisse his feet and receiue his marke on our