malice in this kinde and surely I thinke that labour might be well bestowed in searching this stinking puddie to the bottome and discouering their malice so to the beholding of all that men might see their poyson and beware of such Serpents and high time it is to lay hand to this plough for a double danger ariseth from this dealing of theirs First it confirmeth their owne followers in their hatred against the truth and the professors thereof For they are perswaded that whatsoeuer is written or spoken by a Priest or Iesuite is certainly true it being allowed as all their writings commonly are by the authoritie of the Church and the Censors and visiters appointed for that purpose and therefore account it a deadly sinne once to call the credit thereof into question And secondly it inueigleth and seduceth many vnsettled Protestants Whilest reading such lying Pamphlets they are either not able to discerne their falshood or not carefull to examine the truth by contrarie euidences to preuent both which dangers it would be a worke much beneficiall to the Church of God and profitable to the cause of Religion if some zealous Protestant would vndertake this taske in a ful iust volume to decipher their malice and discouer their slanders to the ful but I leaue that to the guidance of Gods wisedom proceed in my purposed discourse to the next point 98. Their last trick is forgerie for when neither by treacherie nor cruelty nor periurie nor lying nor slaÌ„dering they can worke their wils but that their Religion groweth euery day more odious then others at last as the most desperate practice of alâ—â—he rest they fal to forging like Physicions that seeing their patient in a desperate case minister vnto him desperate medicines that shall either ridde him of his disease or of his life and that quickly such a medicine is this which if it take not place to cure their sicke Religion it will doubtlesse vtterly ruine and vndermine the foundation thereof and depriue it of the vitall spirit And this last wee haue rather cause to hope then they the first seeing it hath pleased God to reueale to the world the mischieuous mysteries of their Indices expurgatory which whosoeuer shall but duly consider must needs iudge their cause to lye a bleeding and ready to giue vp the ghost when they are driuen to such miserable shifts for the defence thereof 99. The common Lawes and ciuill Courts punish forgerers with slitting their noses branding their foreheads cutting off their eares pillorie imprisonment and diuers other such like fearefull censures the Ecclesiasticall Lawes are as seuere against such persons and the very Heathen Tully condemned Gabinius as a light and loose person for infringing the credit of the publike Records of the Citie and commendeth Metellus as a most holy and modest man because when hee saw a name but blurred in the tables he went to Lentulus the Pretor and desired a reformation thereof and a better care to be had in their custodie By all which we may see how great and odious a crime forgerie is and in what ranke they are to be reputed by all Lawes that defile their consciences with so foule a sinne 100. Of which that the Church of Rome is guiltie is so manifest that none that hath either read their Bookes of Controuersies with iudgement or seene their three chiefe Iudices Expurgatorij one of Rome another of Spaine the third of Antwerp can make any question And if any desire to be fully satisfied concerning their dealing in this kind let them haue recourse to Doctor Iames his learned and laborious discourse where he shal see this wound searched to tho quicke and the corruption thereof discouered to the whole world and so searched and discouered that by all their wit and policy they shal neuer be able to hide the filthines thereof notwithstanding that the Reader that hath not that booke may haue a little taste of their dealing and assurance of the truth of this my proposition I will offer vnto his view a few instances of their forgerie and those so plaine and palpable that by no colourable excuse they can be auoyded 101. Forgerie is committed two wayes first by counterfeiting secondly by corrupting counterâ—â—iâ—ing 〈…〉 Records and corrupting true Touching counterfeiting take foure instances in sâ—eed of fourescore and those out of Bellarmine onely first those â—â—elâ—e Treaâ—isâ—â— intitled â—◠〈…〉 Christi operibus are resolutely censured by Bellarmine to bee none of Cyprians and yet the same Bellarmine alleadgeth them ordinarily to proue many points of his Religion vnder Cyprians name as to proue the Virgin Marie to bee without sinne and Baptisme to be necessarie to saluation and that the Sacraments containe grace in them and that there are more Sacraments then two with diuers other points Secondly the Commentaries vpon Pauls Epistles ascribed vnto Saint Ambrose are censured by Bellarmine peremptorily to bee counterfeit And yet the same Bellarmine produceth them to proue traditions Peters supremacie Limbus Patrum that one may be holpen by anothers merit and that Antichrist is a certaine man and in a word most questions controuerted Thirdly liber Hypognosticon Bellarmine concludes that it is none of Saint Augustines yet hee alleadgeth it as Saint Augustines to proue Euangelicall Councels so Liber ad Orosium is confessed by Bellarmine to bee none of Saint Augustines and yet hee is alleadged by him in another place to proue the Booke of Ecclesiasticus authenticall Lastly the Commentaries vpon the Epistles that goe vnder the name of Saint Ierome are iudged by Bellarmine to bee none of his and yet he produceth testimonies out of them to proue the necessitie of traditions Peter to be the rocke of the Church and that children may without their parents consents enter into a religious Order And this is ordinarie not onely in Bellarm but in all other of their writers as you may see particularly and plainly discouered in Doctor Iames his Treatise touching the corrupting of Scripture Councels and Fathers by the Prelates and pillars of the Church of Rome By which wee may note First their conscience in that they know them to be Bastards and yet obtrude them as true borne Secondly their fraud in that when they make little for them or it may be against them then they brand them with counterfeit but when they speake on their behalfe then they are as true as steele and thus with a blunder of counterfeit Fathers they dazle the eyes of the ignorant but the wise will iudge discreetly and learne to discerne the Lion by his paw 102. Touching their corrupting of true Authors I will vrge against them but foure examples as in the former but those most famous and three of them corrupted by their most famous Iesuite Bellarmine The first is of Chrysostome in his seuenteenth Homily vpon Genesis where he readeth Shee shall obserue thy head and thou shalt obserue her heele whereas as Philip Montanus a
it is Romish is not the true Catholique Religion of CHRIST but the seduction of Antichrist THE PREAMBLE THat which Ireneus an ancient and godly Father of the Church speaketh of all Heretickes that all the Helleborus in the world is not sufficient to purge them that they may vomit out their follie may truely be spoken of the Church of Rome and her adherents that it is a difficult matter if not almost impossible to reclaime her from her errors and to heale her wounds All the balme of Gilead will not do it nor all the spirituall phisicke that can be ministred for there are two sinnes which of all other are most hard to bee relinquished Whoredome and Drunkennesse the one because it is so familiar and naturall to the flesh the other because it breedeth by custome such an vnquenchable thirst in the stomacke as must euer anon be watered with both which spirituall diseases the Church of ROME is infected She is the Whore of Babylon with whome the Kings of the Earth haue committed fornication and who hath made drunke with the Wine of her fornications all the Inhabitants of the Earth In regard of the first Ieremie prophecied of her that though paines be taken to heale her yet shee could not be healed And in regard of the second Saint Paul prophecied that GOD would send them strong delusion that they should beleeue lies that all they might bee damned that receiued not the loue of the truth Notwithstanding though the hope bee as little of the reclaiming of most of them as of turning an Eunuch into a man or making a blacke Moore white yet I haue propounded in this discourse a strong potion compounded of ingredients which if they bee not past cure may purge and cleanse them of their disease and reduce them to the sanity of Christian Religion Which if their queasie stomackes shall eyther refuse to take or hauing taken shall vomit vp againe and not suffer them to worke vpon their consciences yet this benefit will arise that God shall be glorified the truth manifested and all that loue the truth confirmed and they also themselues that are so drowned in error that they will rather pull in others ouer head and eares vnto them and so drowne together then be drawne out of the myre by any helpe shall be conuinced in their consciences of their most grosse apostacie With this confidence towards Gods glorie and the good of his Church though with little hope of recouering them from their obdurate blindnesse I enter into my intended taske desiring the Lord to giue a blessing to these poore labours which I consecrate to my Lord and Master Iesus Christ whom I serue and the Church his Spouse of which I professe my selfe to bee one of the meanest members MOTIVE I. That Religion which in many points giueth libertie to sinne is not the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of ROME ergo c. THe first proposition is an vndoubted truth and needs no confirmation especially seeing S. Iames describeth true Religion by these attributes pure and vndefiled And S. Paul calleth it the mysterie of godlinesse and the doctrine according to godlinesse And herein consisteth an essentiall difference betwixt the true Religion and all false ones so that it must needs follow that that Religion which is essentially the cause and occasion of sinne and openeth a wide window to vngodlinesse cannot be the truth of God but must needs fetch it beginning from the deuill who is the author of all euill The Gospell indeede may by accident be the occasion of euill as S. Paul saith The law is the occasion of sinne for it stirs vp contention and strife and discouers the corruptions of Mans heart and by opposing against them as a damme against a streame makes them to swell and boyle and burst forth beyond the bounds howbeit here the cause is not in the Gospell or Lawe but in the corruption of mans heart which the more it is stirred the more it rageth and striueth to shew it selfe But neuer yet was the doctrine of godlinesse the cause of wickednesse nor the pure and vndefiled Religion of Christ Iesus an essentiall procurer and prouoker vnto sinne 3. This therefore being thus manifest all the question and difficultie remaineth in the second proposition to wit that the Religion of the Romish Church is such as openeth a gappe vnto sinne and giueth notorious libertie and scope to vngodlinesse and that not by way of accident or occasion but necessarily as the cause to the effect Qua data necessariò soquitur effectus as the Logicians speake and therefore being an â—npure and defiled Religion and the mysterie of iniquitie not the mysterie of godlinesse it cannot be that true Religion which Christ our Sauiour brought with him from heauen and left here vpon earth blamelesse and vnspotted like himselfe to be the way to lead vs vnto heauen where hee is 4. That the Romish Religion is a polluted and defiled Religion tending to libertie and loosenesse Let the indifferent Reader iudge by these few instances deriued out of the verie bowels of their Church and being articles of their faith and grounds of their Religion And first to beginne with their doctrine of dispensations whereby they teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with the word of God and with euery commandement of the Law and not onely with the Law but with the Gospell and Epistles of Paul to what horrible loosenesse and lewdnesse of life doth it tend for to omit that it containeth in it open blasphemie by their owne rule which is that In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior the inferiour may not dispense with the precept of the superiour by which the Pope dispensing with Gods lawe is not oneâ—y equalled but exalted aboue God what sinne is there bee it neuer so hainous which there is not libertie giuen to commit by this licencious doctrine 5. Incest But Pope Martin the first gaue a dispensation to one to marrie his owne sister and not his wiues sister only as some of the Romish crue would dawbe ouer this filthie wall because it is in Antoninus Cum quadam eius germana for Siluester Prieriâ— Bartholomeus Fumus and Angelus de Clauafio speake more plainely Cumsua germana that is with his owne naturall sister Another Pope dispensed with Henry the eight to marrie his sister in law and with Philip of Spaine to marrie his owne Niece and Clement the 7. licenced Petrus Aluaradus the Spaniard to marrie two sisters at once and no maruaile seeing it is the very doctrine of the Romish Church that the Pope can dispense in all the degrees of Consanguinitie and Affinitie saue onely with the Father and his daughter and with the Mother and her Son Sodometrie But Pope Sixtus the fourth licensed the Cardinall of Saint Lucie and his familie to vse freely that sinne not to bee named in the
haue with this secret meaning to tell it thee or at this time or some such like things And if an husband aske his wife whether shee be an adulteresse she may answere no though she be with this mentall reseruation to reueale it to him and if a man be constrained to sweare that he will take a woman to his wife he may doe it safely although he neuer meane it with this close clause in his mind if she shall after please him Thus farre Tollet 6. Now of late dayes one hath divulged a whole Treatise in defence of this monstrous doctrine to the which Blackwell the Arch-priest hath giuē this solemne approbatiō that it is a very godly learned Catholique Tractate worthy to be published in print to the comfort of the afflicted instructiō of the godly The author of this Tractate thus concludeth If a Catholike or any other person shal be demanded vpon his oath before a Magistrate whether a Priest be in such a place he may though hee know the contrary securely in conscience answere No without periury with a secret meaning reserued in his mind namely that he is not there so as a man is bound to reueale him Againe if one shall aske me whether such a stranger lyeth in my house I may answere he lyeth not in my house albeit he do meaning Non mentitur this last is verball equiuocation the former is mentall reseruation which are the two approued kindes of their equiuocating art 7. If this filthy strumpet be not the mother of two foule daughters Lying and Periury lying if by a bare asseueration periury if ioyned with an othe let all that haue but common sense and reason iudge and let the Enquest that shall enquire into this matter be first heathen Philosophers secondly the Popish writers themselues thirdly the Fathers and Doctours of the Church and fourthly which is of greater moment then all the rest the holy Scripture of God diuinely inspired and cannot deceiue nor be deceiued Let vs heare the Philosophers verdict A Lye saith Tully is a false enunciation of words with an intent to deceaue and againe he defines dolus malus that is deceit to be when one thing is pretended another acted this is a false action So in like manner a false diction which is a lye must needs bee when one thing is spoken by the mouth another vnderstood in the heart therefore the ordinary Grammaticall notation of this word mentiri to lye is quasi contra mentemire as it were to goe against the minde and Aristotle sayth that speech is ordained for this cause to signifie and expresse the secret conceptions of the mind therfore when the mouth and the mind are at variance then the law of nature is peruerted and in stead of a naturall and true-borne childe Truth a bastard to wit a lye is produced But they which equiuocate pretend one thing and intend another they speake one thing meane another their heart and their tongue like vntuned strings are at iarre with themselues and therefore by no meanes can they be excused from open and notorious lying 8. Now if an oath bee mixed then a fouler monster is brought forth euen Periury for what is periurie but according to their own diuinity a lye made in an oath and is not equiuocating when the equiuocator is sworne to speake the truth periury Let Tully determine this doubt if it bee a doubt Not to sweare a falshood is to bee forsworne but not to performe or make good that which thou hast sworne according to thine owne meaning as customably it is conceiued by thy words is periury all the world cannot more directly cut the throat of all equiuocation then this doth 9. But I leaue the Philosophers and come to their owne Schoolemen To lye saith Lumbard is when a man speaketh any thing contrary to that which he thinketh in his mind It is a lye saith Aquinas when a man will signifie another thing then that which he thinketh in his mind Againe Lumbard Whosocuer vseth craft or subtiltie in an oath defileth his conscience with a double guilt for he both taketh the name of God in vaine and also deceiueth his neighbour And Aquinas their great Doctor condemneth in expresse words this equiuocating tricke of theirs If a Iudge saith he shall require any thing which he cannot by order of law the party accused what may he equiuocate No. he is not bound to answere in deed but either by appeale or some other meanes may deliuer himselfe but in no case may be tell a lye or vse falshood or any kind of craft or deceit This was then good diuinity but now the Iesuites our pretended resiners of Popery haue coyned a new kind of diuinity but like counterset slips it will not abide the tryall Heare what Scotus saith another Schooleman Dicere non feci c. To say I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this reseruation that I may signifie it to you is not equiuocation but a plaine lye To conclude with Maldonate Quisquis fingendo c. Whosoeuer saith he by saining doth goe about to deceiue another although he intend some other thing in his mind without doubt lyeth for otherwise there would be no lye which might not by this meanes be defended 10. Thus we haue the verdict of diuers of their own Writers touching this monstrous doctrine Let vs heare now what the Fathers thinke of it and let Saint Hierome speake first None is a lyer saith he but he that thinks otherwise then he speaketh Therfore the equiuocator is a lyar for he thinketh otherwise then he speaketh as when he affirmeth I am no Priest when he is one he thinketh hee is that which he saith he is not Is Saint Augustine of a contrary minde no hee agreeth with Hierome in this though they iarred in some other things He that speaketh saith he falsly against his conscience doth properly lye but so doth our equiuocator And for Periury This saith Augustine is the very forme of Periurie to thinke that to be false which thou dost sweare Thus doth the equiuocatour for when hee sweareth hee knoweth not a man and yet knoweth him doth hee not manifestly thinke that to be false which he sweareth his mentall reseruation cannot saue him from the pillory seeing as Isidore saith God doth valew an oath not by the sense of the speaker but according to the sense of him to whom the oath was made Thus by the verdict of these three Fathers their doctrine of equiuocation is guilty both of lying and periury 11. And that I may leaue them without a starting hole let them heare what the Iury of Life and Death saith I meane the holy Prophets and Apostles yea what GOD the Iudge himselfe saith Thou shalt not saith he Beare false witnesse against thy Neighbour No nor of thy neighbour therfore much lesse
cases cannot be cleared from Incest for this is the rule of supputation by the Canon law which is most fauourable to them Quo gradu remotior distat à communi stipite eodem etiam inter se distant In what degree the person furthâ—st remoued is distant from the stockâ— in the same degree they are distant from one another Now put the case after this manner ABRAHAM ISAAC IACOB IVDA PHARES ISCAH ISMAEL Here in this Scheme or figure Iscah is by their own rule in the first degree from ISMAEL and therefore by their doctrine ISMAEL may marry ISCAH which is most notable and apparent Incest for brethren and sisters are but one flesh and so Isaac and Ismael are both one flesh as Iudah said of Ioseph Frater noster est caro nostra est he is our brother and our flesh And therefore Ismael is vnto all Isaacs posterity as it were their Father and they vnto him in stead of Children and so by consequent cannot marrie not onely within the fourth degree but euen vnto the thousand degree if it were possiâ—le For Adam if hee were now aliue could not find a woman in the whole world to marry lawfully withall without committing Incest neither is this a conceit of our own deuising but the expresse rule of the word of God for Leuit. 18. 12. 13. wee are forbidden to vncouer the shame of our Fathers sister or of our Mothers sister but all our predecessours in the right line are our fathers and mothers though they he neuer so sarre remooued and therefore to marry with their brothers or sisters stands guilty of Incest by 〈…〉 law For which cause also Iustinian decreeth that Amitam licet adoptiuam c. It is not lawfull to marrie our Fathers adopted sister nor our Mothers adopted sister because they are held in place of Parents and the law in the Digests is plaine and pertinent Amitam quoque materteram item magnam amitam materter am magnam prohibemur vxorem ducere quamisis amita magna maâ—â—rter a magna quarto gradit sunt We are forbidden to warry our Auxt either by Father or Mothers side yea our great Aunt though she be in the fourth degree Thus by all â—awes the Popish doctrine that it is lawfull for any to marry beyond the fourth degree is a plaine maintenance and allowance of Incest 20. Againe who knoweth not but that theft is condemned by all lawes except it be by the lawes of Platoes imaginaries CoÌ„mon-wealth or the Anabaptistical positions of some later heretikes who would haue propriety of goods taken away and a communitie of all things brought vp but the Papists by their doctrine not onely tolerate some kind of theft but euen maintaine and allowe it as lawfull For thus writeth Maldonate a learned Iesuite and of great authoritie Poore men saith he doe not commit theft when being pressed with extreame necessity they take that which is another mans because marke his Anabaptisticall reason the thing at such a time is not properly another mans but common to the life of man being in danger c. And to prooue this hee abuseth an excellent sentence of Saint Ambrose who speaking of the communitie of charitie and not of propriety saith Esurientis pauis est quem â—â— retines nudorum vestimenâ—uÌ„ est quod â—â— recludis miserorum paecunia est quam tu in terram defodis It is the poores bread which thou retainest his garment which thou lockest vp and his money which thou hy dest in the ground But he speaketh as any man may see not to encourage the poore to lay hands vpon rich mens substance but to stirre vp the rich to the workes of charitie neither to excuse a poore man from theft if he steale from the rich but to accuse the rich of theft if out of his wealth he do not powre forth to the necessitie of the poore Neither is this the opinion of one Iesuite onely but it is backed and barred by the approbation of another of no meane credite For thus writeth Emanuel Sa in his Aphorisines Ego inquit c. I saith he am of the same mind with them which thinke that it is lawfull for a poore man priuily to purloine from a richman which is bound to helpe him and doth not Here be two brethren in euill concurring in the defence of one and the same sinne for if to steale be not an offence for a poore man why doth the law say in generall Thou shalt not steale Let them shew the exception and exemption of the poore from the law or let them confesse to their eternall shame that they are maintainers of those that breake Gods law Besides if as Saint Augustine and all other learned Diuines confesse it bee not lawfull to lye though it bee to the sauing of our liues then it must needs follow that it is not lawfull for a poore man to steale though it be for the sauing of his life for theft is a sinne that bringeth more damage with it then an officious lye can doe which is vttered not for hurt of another but for the preseruation of our selues 21. Besides these Cardinall Tollet another Iesuite a man of high dignity and authority in the Romane Church approueth by his verdict another kind of theft worse then those before specified for he alloweth in some cases the vse of false ballances and falsification of wares his words are these There is saith he a man that either by reason of vniust dealing of the Magistrate or the malice of the buiers conspiring together to pull downe the price or some other reasonable cause cannot sell his wine at a iust price when the case thus falleth out then may this man either lessâ—n his measure or mingle water with his wines and so sell it for pure wine and require the full price as if the measure were compleate prouided that he doe not lye which neuertheles if he doe it is no pernitious lye nor mortall nor binding to restitution In like manner it is lawfull to sell other silke in stead of Granado silke and Italian in stead of Greeke and so after the same proportion all other wares These bee the braue positions of that renowned Cardinall wherein how apparently hee doth contradict the written word of God let any indifferent vmpier iudge by comparing this his doctrine with these sentences of the Scripture here ensuing Diuers weights are an abomination to the Lord and deceitfull ballances are not good A true weight and a ballance are of the Lord and all the weights of the bagge are his worke Diuers weights and diuers measures both these are euen abomination to the Lord yee shall not doe vniustly in iudgement in line in weight or in measure yee shall haue iust ballances true weights a true Ephah and a true Hin I am the Lord your God c. Thou shalt not haue in thy bagge two manner of weights a great and
the word of God Now from hence thus I reason If the word of God written be the onely ground of faith then that Religion which will not acknowledge it dependance onely vpon the word written is not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious but the word written is the onely ground of faith as hath beene proued therefore that Religion which disclaymeth it dependance only vpon the word deserues iustly not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious And in this regard the Romish Religion though it be in our Pater noster to wit vnder the last petition Deliuer vs from euill yet it should neuer come into our Creed to repose our faith and our saluation vpon it 4. Thirdly the Scripture as it is the fountaine and foundation of true Religion So it is the rule of faith and the touchstone of doctrines and the ballance of the Sanctuarie to weigh truth and falshood in that the one may be discerned from the other This the Prophet Esay teacheth when hee calleth vs to the Law and to the Testimonie saying that if any speake not according to that word there is no light in them From which place thus I reason that whereunto we must resort in all controuersies and doubts for resolution that is the rule of faith but such is the Scripture by the testimonie of the Prophet therefore the Scripture is the rule of faith In like manner we may conclude out of S. Peter who saith that We haue a more sure word of the Prophets whereunto wee must take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place till the Day-starre arise in our hearts If the word of the Prophets was a sure direction to the Church of God before the Gospell was written then much more is the whole Scripture contayning the word of the Prophets and of the Apostles together but S. Peter affirmeth the first therefore the second must needs follow For this cause when one asked our Sauiour what hee might doe to bee saued hee referred him to the Scripture for his direction What is written how readest thou And so Abraham referreth the rich gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets and Christ telleth the Saduces that this was the cause of their errour because they knew not the Scriptures Out of all which Texts thus I argue If there were any other rule of faith besides the sacred Scripture our Sauiour and Saint Peter would neuer haue sent vs ouer to the Scripture alone but would haue poynted out vnto vs some other meanes but they send vs to the Scripture alone and therefore that alone is the rule and ballance of our faith 5. And this the very title and inscription of the Scripture doth intimate for why is it called Canonicall but because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life The Fathers with one consent agree in this truth Saint Basil calls the Scripture Canonem recti normam veritatis The Canon of right and the rule of truth Chrysostome sayth that Assertio diuinarum legum c. The assertion of the law of God is a most exact Ballance Squire and Rule Saint Augustine calleth it Statera diuina Gods ballance or a diuine ballance these bee his words Non afferamus stateras dolosas Let vs not bring deceitfull ballances to weigh what we will and how we will saying This is heauie that is light but let vs bring that diuine ballance out of the holy Scriptures as it were out of the Lords treasurie and by it weigh all things or rather acknowledge them being weighed by the Lord. Tertullian giueth to the Scripture the same name so doth Gregory Nyssen and our Countriman venerable Bede to passe ouer all the rest as he is reported by Gratian in his decrees telleth vs in most plaine termes that In sacris literis vnica est credendi pariter viuendi regula praescripta The onely rule both of Faith and Life is prescribed vnto vs in the holy Scriptures Now if this be so as it is meere madnesse to affirme the contrary then that religion which doth refuse to be tryed by this rule and to be weighed in this ballance doth giue iust cause of suspition that it is but light stuffe and crooked ware 6. If a man should offer to his creditor a piece of gold for payment and should refuse to haue it either tryed by the touch-stone or weighed in the ballance he might iustly suspect that it was but either light or counterfeit so may any of good sense rightly suspect that religion to bee both light and counterfet which refuseth to be examined by the rule of Gods word especially which is the second branch of the first proposition if it not onely refuse to be tryed by the Scripture but also will admit no tryall nor Iudge but it selfe for as by reason wee conclude that such a man hath an euill cause in hand who in Westminster Hall refuseth to haue his matter tryed by the law and will admit no Iudge but his own opinion that man to be guilty which standing at the bar of iustice accused of some great crime denyeth to be tryed by the verdict of his Country according to the law so likewise the cause of Religion being called in question that must needs in any equall iudgement bee deemed vnsound and guilty which will not stand to the verdict and sentence of the Prophets and Apostles who are the Iury to trye all cases of conscience and of the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture who is the onely Iudge to heare and determine all questions of doubt which may arise in matters of faith and will be censured and iudged by none but it selfe 7. Against this truth all the Romanists and especially the Iesuites and of the Iesuites chiefly Bellarmine conflict and fight with foote and horse sailes and oares tooth and naile and all they can doe for herein lyeth the very bloud and life of their Religion And if this bee wrung from them that the Scripture is the onely iudge and rule of faith Actum est de regno Pontificio The Romish kingdome goeth to wracke vtterly and therefore they mainely contend to proue first that the Scripture is not the Iudge of controuersies secondly that it is not properly the rule of faith and if it bee a Iudge it is a dumbe one that cannot speake and if it be a Rule it is a partiall and imperfect one not totall and absolute 8. These two positions Bellarmine laboureth to prooue by many sorts of Arguments first from testimonies of the Olde Testament secondly from testimonies of the New thirdly by the authority of Bishops and Emperours fourthly by the witnesse of the Fathers lastly by reason I passe ouer the foure first sorts of Arguments as being sufficiently answered by others and come to the last which are deriued from reason the slightnesse whereof doth plainely discouer the vanity of this their opinion
c. Which words they interpret as spoken to Peter onely and consequently to the Pope his successour we to the rest of the Apostles as well as to him Where now doth the Scripture decide this doubt and speake plainely which is the truest sense Mary first in the very place it selfe by the due examination of the circumstances thereof they euidently shew that our sense is the truest for whereas the question is propounded to all the Apostles verse 15. and all the Apostles held the same faith that Iesus is the Sonne of God verse 20. it must needes be that Peter was but as the fore-man of the Quest and answered not for himselfe only but for them all thereby shewing forth not any preeminence of authority aboue the rest but a greater zeale and forwardnesse then the rest And herevpon it followeth that seeing this promise of the keyes is made because of that faith and confession therefore they all beleeuing and confessing the same haue an interest to the promise as well as Peter And this Anselmus in plaine tearmes affirmeth It is to be noted saith he that this power was not giuen alone to Peter but as Peter answered one for all so in Peter hee gaue this power to all 14. Secondly by the conference of another place which is more plaine to wit Ioh. 20. 23. where is a gift and an endowment of that power of the keyes which before was promised for to binde and to loose and to remit and retayne sinnes is all one in effect as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and containâ— the whole vertue of the keyes now here they are all inuested with equall iurisdiction the Holy Ghost is equally breathed vpon them all and equall authority be queathed vnto them all by these words of the Commission As my Father sent me so I send you which exposition is confirmed by the authority of most of the Fathers as Augustine Cyprian Hierome Theophilact Anselme c. and thus the Scripture by a most liuely voyce determineth this doubt and as of this so of all other questions and interpretations the Scripture onely must bee the Iudge which by searching the originals examination of circumstances conference of other places and consulting with the learned Fathers and Expoâ—itors together with feruent prayer to God for inward illumination will giue a most exact and precise satisfaction to all controuersies touching matters of â—aith necessarie to bee beleeued 15. To the third reason that the Scripture is the law and therefore cannot be the Iudge I answere that though the Law and the Iudge be diuers distinct things yet they are subordinate one vnto the other and so may both ioyne in the concurrence of one cause as when our Sauiour saith Call no man Father vpon earth for there is but one your Father which is in heauen his meaning is not to exclude earthly Fathers from their title but to shew that God is the primer and principall Father both in respect of time order and cause and that the other are but subordinate vnto him so in a Common-wealth the Iudge is subordinate vnto the law and the law is the Iudges Iudge and for that cause as the Law is said to be a dumbe Magistrate so the Magistrate is said to be a speaking Law and so in truth the Law is the Iudge primarily and principally and the Magistrate is but the Minister of the law and the Iudge subordinate Now if this be so in a Common-wealth gouerned by humane Lawes which are failing and imperfect in many things being the ordinances of erring men how much more may we deeme it to be so in the Church of God whose Law-giuer is God himselfe and the law the word of God and therefore though the Pastors and Ministers of the Church may interpret the Scriptures yet they must be tyed to this rule to doe it by the Scriptures and to expound the law by the law for shall not a temporall Iudge giue sentence out of his owne braine but secundum leges statuta according to the lawes and statutes of the Realme And shall any Pastour of the Church be it the Pope himselfe giue iudgement in any question out of his owne brest without the direction of Gods word This is to preferre humane lawes before Gods law and to make the state of the Church farre inferiour to the state politike and to haue a more certaine rule for the deciding of ciuill controuersies then for the determining of questions of â—aith so that in a word the Scripture is both the law and the interpreter of the Law the Iudge and the Iudgement 16. Secondly Bellarmine affirmeth and laboureth to proue that the proper and chiefe end of the Scripture was not to be the rule of faith but that it might be commonitorium quoddam vtile A certaine profitable commonitory whereby the doctrine deliuered by word of mouth might be conserued and nourished And to this end and purpose he vseth diuers reasons as first because it containes in it many things which are not necessary to faith as all the Histories of the Olde Testament and many of the New and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles all which were not therefore committed to writing because they were necessary to be beleeued but are therefore necessarily beleeued because they are written Secondly because all things necessary to be beleeued are not contained in the Scripture as by what meanes women vnder the law were clensed from originall sinne wanting circumcision and children that dyed before the eight day and many Gentiles that were saued againe which are the books of Canonicall Scripture and that these are Canonicall and those are not that the Virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin that the Passeouer is to be kept vpon the Sunday being the Lords day and that children of beleeuing Parents are to bee baptized and such like Thirdly because the Scripture is not one continued body as a rule should bee but containeth diuers workes Histories Sermons Prophecies Verses and Epistles These be his three reasons by which the Iesuite would euince that the Scripture is not giuen to this end to be the rule of faith 17. To all which I will answere briefly and distinctly and first in generall secondly in particular In generall if the Scripture be not giuen to be the rule of faith why is it called Canonicall It is therefore called Canonicall because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life this very inscription approued by all doth refute Bellarmines fond cauillation Againe if the Scripture was not giuen to bee the rule but onely a monitorie why were there so many Bookes written seeing fewer would haue serued for monition The multiplicity of Bookes proueth that they serue not onely to put vs in mind of our duty but also as an exact rule to square our faith and frame our life by And lastly if the Scripture was not giuen to be a rule why doth he himselfe
that are inferiour Iudges are but the Ministers of the law of God and must not vary from the rule thereof in any respect And for this cause as the Iewes were commanded to obey the sentence and determination of the Priest in all controuersies so the Priest was commanded to giue iudgement according to the law and no otherwise and albeit the Hebrew glosse vpon that Text teacheth that if the Priest say that the right hand is the left or the left is the right his sentence is to be holden which is the plaine doctrine of the Church of Rome Iudaizing in this as in many other things yet Lyra writing vpon that Text saith that the glosse is manifestly false because the sentence of no man of what authority soeuer is to be holden if it be contrary to the law of God so we admit the Church to be Iudge and euery priuate Christian also in his place but we ascribe the chiefe power and authority of Iudging to the Scripture alone The next place we allow vnto the Church and the lowest vnto the particular members thereof These last to be directed by the Church but yet so farre as it bringeth it authority out of the Scriptures and it to be limited by the bounds of the Scripture also and if it iudge against the euidence thereof not to bee heard nor beleeued This is our opinion that wee may not be mistaken but our aduersaries aduance their Church vnto the highest place and make the Scripture an inferiour vassall and seruant vnto it as I haue declared 30. Secondly note thereason that moueth them thus to disclaime from the iudgement of the Scripture it is because they know full well that the maynest and chiefest poynts of their Religion wherein they dissent from vs haue no ground nor foundation in the Scripture but would vanish like a morning aust if the light of Gods word should but shine vpon them as for instance their doctrines of worshipping Images of tasting dayes of prayer for the dead of Purgatorie of shrift of pardons of the communion in one kinde of single life and of the priuate Masse and such like all which poynts and many other their owne Writers contesse cannot be sufficiently proued out of the Scripture And therefore Andradius doth fully and ingenuously acknowledge that many poynts of their Religion would reele and stagger if they were not supported by tradition and Bellarmine himselfe saith that it may be doubted whether the great poynt of transubstantiation may be sufficiently enforced out of the words of the Text Hoc est corpus meum So that wee see now the reason why they will not be tried by the Scriptures euen this because if the Scripture bee Iudge Popery must needes goe to wracke This is ther fore a cunning and witty policie or rather a grosse and palpable subtilty of theirs whereby though they dazle the sight of the simple and ignorant yet they cannot bleare the eyes of the vnderstanding and wise from discerning into their fraud 31. Hauing thus proued that they reiect the Scripture now I come to shew that they allow of no other Iudges but themselues for the proofe whereof there needes no long discourse seeing it is sufficiently apparent by that which hath already beene deliuered that they appeale from the sentence of the Scripture vnto the iudgement of the Church and tye vnto the girdle thereof the onely key of interpretation Now by the Church they intend first the Romish Synagogue that is all that whole bony which dependeth vpon the Pope for their head and receiue as it were life and nourishment by his influence for as Bristo saith the Romane Church is the Catholike Church and as the Rhemists the Catholike and the Roman faith is all one Secondly by the Church they meane more particularly a congregation of Romish Bishops and Prelates assembled together in a Councill which they call the Church representatiue And thirdly and principally they intend by the Church the Pope who is the head of the Church and contayneth in him virtually all the power and authority of the Church The Church in the first sense is not to be this Iudge say they nor yet in the second which notwithstanding is but an vpstart opinion and but of the first head for in the Councils of Constance and Basil it was decreed that the Pope should obey the Councill and be ordered by it in all things pertayning to faith and the reformation of the 〈…〉 and many learned Romanists haue been of the same opinion as Bellarmine confesseth but now neither may the Councill be Iudge therefore take the Church in the third sense for the Pope and then you haue the man that is the Church virtuall and must be all in all euen the only Iudge and Vmpier in all controuersies The center in which all the lines that is opinions of Fathers Councils and Diuines must concurre and meete The Epitome and abridgement of the whole Church in whom alone remayneth the whole power of the Catholike Church And thus from the Scripture they call vs to the Church from the Church to the Councils and from them to the Pope and there they pitch their line as in the highest poynt of resolution 32. That they thus vnderstand by the Church the Pope and that all iudgement is deuolued vnto him alone heare them speake in their owne persons Bellarmine saith that the Pope without a Councill may define matters of faith because being the vniuersall Pastor and Teacher of the Church he cannot erre teaching out of the chaire and that he is absolutely aboue the Councill and that he may as he is the chiefe Prince of the Church retract the iudgement of the Councill and not follow the greater part And therefore when hee affirmeth in another place that the Pope with a Councill is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scripture he foysteth in the word Councill for a flourish but indeede hee meaneth the Pope alone for if the Pope be aboue all Councils and may establish or disanull their decrees at his pleasure then is not hee with a Councill but without a Councill the chiefe Iudge 33. Gregory of Valence is more plaine By the Church saith he we meane her head that is to say the Romane Bishop in whom resideth the full authority of the Church the Iesuite Coster after he hath discarded the Scripture from being Iudge because it is Res sine anima sensu in varias pugnantesque sent entias distracta A thing without life and sense distracted into diuers and contrary opinions saith that Penes Ecclesiā Cathelicā est indicium veritatis The iudgement of the truth is belonging to the Catholike Church but because the whole Church cannot meete together in one place without great inconueniences Therefore God hath appoynted and nominated one man to wit the Pope to whom he hath so tyed his presence and spirituall grace that in question◠of
not effectiuè as the cause thereof which distinction first implieth a contradiction for the authority of a thing is quoad extra in respect of others not quoad intra in respect of it selfe that is rather to be termed dignitie and excellencie then authority secondly that being granted yet it importeth a falshoode in them and concludeth directly our purpose for by it the last resolut on of our faith should not bee into the Scripture but into the authority of the Church which is contrary both to truth and to their owne principles For why doe they attribute that infallible authority to the Church but because the Scripture saith so as they themselues acknowledge And then to affirm that the Church is of greater authority in respect of vs is sufficient to â—uince that in respect of vs they preferre the Church before the Scripture What is this but to offer open iniury and disgrace to the holy Scripture especially seeing a Iesuite of their own is bold to say that a man may mordicus tenere and propugnare acerrimè strongly hold stoutly maintaine a doctrine contrary to the word of God and yet bee no Heretike vnlesse the opposite to that opinion be defined by the Church in his time 16. The fourth and last doctrine whereby they offer iniurie to the Scripture is this That the Pope may dispense with the Law of God This the Popes vassals do not onely affirme but euen confirme and auouch For thus they teach Potestas in diuinas leges ordinariè in Romano Pontifice residet Power ouer the lawes of God remaineth ordinarily in the Pope of Rome and that the Pope may dispense against the Apostles yea against the new Testament vpon great cause and also against all the precepts of the olde Testament The reason whereby they confirme this braue doctrine is this that where the reason of the law faileth there the Pope may dispense but the reason of the law always faileth where he iudgeth it to faile for speaking definitiuely he cannot erre therefore the Pope may dispense with the precepts of the Olde New Testament where and when he list Now what can be more iniurious to the Scripture then this for first they set the Pope aboue the scriptures because he that taketh vpon him to dispense with the law of another challengeth to himselfe a greater authority then the other according as their owne rule is In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior The inferiour may not dispense with the commandement of the superiour Secondly they equall him to God himselfe for whereas there is no exception nor exemption from the law of God but this Nisi deus aliter voluerit Except God otherwise appoynt they instead thereof put in this exception Nisi Papa aliter voluerit And lastly they make the law of God a maimed an imperfect law in that as their diuinity is it cannot giue sufficient direction to mans life for practice of duties and auoyding of sinnes in all cases without the Poprs dispensation and the interposition of his superwise authority 17. From their iniurious doctrines lâ—t vs come to their malicious practice against the Scripture that both by their precepts and practice their enmity to the Scriptures may fully appeare First therefore whereas the language wherein the Scriptures were originally written is indeed the true Scriptures because that is the immediate dialect of the holy Ghost and the translations of it into other tongues are no farther to bee regarded then as they agree with the originall yet the Church of Rome in the Councill of Trent hath canonized the vulgar Latine aboue the Hebrew and Greeke and hath â—nâ—oyned it onely to be vsed in all readings disputations sermons and expositions and not to be reiected vnder any pretence whatsoeuer vpon paine of Anathema Yea Bellarmine with the rest of that crue accuse the Greeke and Hebrew of many corruptions and iustifie the vulgar Latine aboue them as most free from corruptions whereas notwithstanding for one corruption which they would saine fasten vpon them there are to be found twenty in this and that by the confession of many learned of their owne side 18. Besides those corruptions which are supposed to be in the originals are either none at all as may easily be prooued and is already sufficiently by our learned Diuines or else such as are not of that weight to derogate from the perfection of the Scripture in things pertaining to faith and good manners as Posseuine and Sixtus Senensis confesse or at least are but errours of the Writers which no Booke is free from growing either from humane infirmity or from the mistaking of the letters in the Greeke and prickes in the Hebrew which last is but a late inuention of the Massorites and no essentiall part of the Text whereas on the contrary the errours which are extant iâ— the vulgar Latine are many of them contrary to the grounds of faith as that one for all in the third of Genesis where the Latine readeth ipsa conteret caput tuum she shall bruise thy head which they apply vnto the Virgin Marie being in the originall ipse his and in the Septuagâ—nt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Hee vnderstanding Christ our Sauiour Here wee see a fundamentall poynt of saith ouerthrowne not onely in accommodating a Prophecy of Christ vnto the Virgin his mother but also in ascribing vnto her the worke of our RedeÌ„ption signified by the bruising of the Serpents head And as in this so in many other places which I willingly for breuitie sake â—uerpasse And yet for all this by their doctrine and practice their Latine Translation is onely authenticall Yea so impudent is a Bishop of theirs that setting forth the Bible in diuers Languages he placeth the vulgar Latine betwixt the Hebrew and the Greeke as Christ betwixt two theeues as blasphemouslâ— he speaketh This is therefore a notable iniuricus practice of theirs against the Scripture 19. To which adde second no whâ—t inferiour to the former which â—â— their forbidding the Scripture to bee translated into the mother tongue of euery Nation to the end that it may be to the common people as a Booke sealed vp and that they might not reade nor be exercised therein This prohibition is both contrary to the practice of all the Saints of God both vnder the Law and the Gospell for it was their daily exercise to meditate vpon the Law of God continually and to search the Scriptures whether those things which they heard were so or no and to the plaine precept of Christ and the Apostle bidding vs to search the Scriptures and to haue the word of God to dwell plentiously in vs and to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers who with one consent exhort and perswade to the diligent reading of them as may appeare by the places quoted in the margent And beside is most iniurious to the Scriptures themselues
not sinne or a vice in Philosophy that is not a sinne in diuinity This is strange diuinity The name of euill we know is vsed of annoyances crosses and afflictions but these are naturall euils and not morall but to doe euill can bee said of nothing but sinne and howsoeuer ti bee true that vice is rather the habit then the act of sinne yet because it is the habit is it therefore lesse sinfull then the act noy is it not more sinfull seeing it groweth out of many actes and is confirmed by custome and almost turned to nature In this therefore they are most contrary to themselues when they grant concupiscence to bee of it owne nature an euill and a vice and yet not a sinne for nothing is naturally euill but that which swarueth from good nor any thing vice but that which is contrary to vertue Now all morall good and vertue is within the compasse of the Law of God and all morall euill and vice a transgression of that Law therefore it cannot but follow that concupiscence being a morall euill and vice and therefore a transgression of the Law of God should bee cleared from being sinne of it owne nature especially seeing as Origen saith This is the nature of sinne if any thing bee done which the Law forbiddeth and Bede that all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse sinne and Caesarius Gregory Naianzens brother that sinne is euery assay to resist and euery resistance it selfe against vertue And Saint Augustine that therefore a thing is sinne because it ought not to bee done and that to doe any thing amisse is to sinne but euery moral leuill and vice is forbidden by the Law swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is a resistance against vertue and a thing that is done amisse and ought not to bee done therefore is also sinne in it owne nature They haue no wayes to helpe themselues out of these briers but by the distinction of properly and improperly which they say they fetch out of Saint Augustine as if concupiscence in the regenerat should be sinne improperly and not properly by which the contradiction is not taken away for they say that it is not sinne at all in it owne nature but onely euill now if it bee improperly sinne of it owne nature then it is some way sinne and so that proposition is false that it is not sinne at all and besides therefore it is said by that distinction in Saint Augustine to be improperly sinne because it is not come to so high a perfection as other sinnes are by being without consent of will neuerthelesse hee neuer meant but that it was a transgression of the Law of God and so a sinne in it owne nature as may appeare by almost infinite places in his bookes as for instance one for all Concupiscence saith he is not onely the punishment of sinne and cause of sinne but euen sinne it selfe because there is in it a rebellion against the Law of the minde and therefore hee calleth it a concupiscentiall disobedience which dwelleth in our dying members and in other places an euill quality vitious desires vnlawfull lusts c. Therefore Saint Augustine when he called it â—in improperly neuer dreamt that is was not a transgression of the Law but either that it was not so high a degree of sinne as those which are done with consent of will or that because the guilt of it is taken away by baptisme in the regenerate as hee speaketh in another place Concupiscence is not called sinne in such manner as sinne maketh guilty because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration And thus this distinction rightly vnderstood standeth them in no stead to keepe their doctrine from manifest contradiction 61. This subiect might bee prosecuted in many more points of their Religion but I conclude with these two Antichrist and the Bishop of Rome which I ioyne together in this discourse because in truth they are all one and though they differ in name yet they agree in nature one egge is not liker to another nor milke liker to milke then the Pope is to Antichrist As touching Antichrist therefore thus they confesse that by mysticall Babylon in the Reuelation is meant ` Rome and by and by with an other contrary blast they puffe away that againe and affirme that Rome is not Babylon The first is auouched in plaine termes both by Bellarmine and Viega and Ribera two other Iesuites and the whole colledge of the Rhemists and diuers others conuicted by the euidence of truth and the second is insinuated by a necessary consequence out of another position for they say that Ierusalem shall bee the seat of Antichrist and in so saying they inferre necessarily that Ierusalem is mysticall Babylon and not Rome because the whore of Babylon is set foorth in the Scripture to be the seat of Antichrist and it must needs bee so seeing shee is called the mother of all fornications that is of Superstition and Idolatry of all Atheisme and heresie and seeing shee maketh drunke the kings and inhabitants of the earth with the golden cup of her fornication and is died red and made drunke with the bloud of the Saints and of the martyrs of Iesus And lastly seeing Antichrist must bee one of the seuen heads to wit the last of the Romane beast and the last King of the Romane Empire though not called the Romane Emperour as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth All these things considered and laide together it must needs bee inferred by necessary consequence that the whore of Babylon cannot choose but bee the seat of Antichrist and if it bee so then either Ierusalem is not the seat where this man of sinne must raigne or by Babylon is not meant Rome but Ierusalem let them choose which one of these is apparantly false 62. Againe when by Babylon they vnderstand Rome they restraine it to heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours and say that it is not meant of Rome Catholicke and Christian but of Rome Ethnick and Heathenish Now if Rome be Babylon and Babylon the seat of Antichrist as hath beene proued out of their owne confession how can Rome heathenish vnder the Emperours be it when as they all agree that Antichrist shall not come vntill a little before the end of the world That state of Rome which they speake of is past aboue a thousand yeeres since and Antichrist is not yet come according to their doctrine Necessarily therefore it followeth that either Antichrist sate there then and so is come long agoe or else that Rome was not Babylon whilst it was vnder the heathen Emperours but is or shall be after it hath receiued the Christian faith 63. Againe the Romane Empire must bee remoued before the comming of this great enemie this all our aduersaries yeeld vnto and most of the ancient fathers so interpret that place When he that hindereth shall be taken
Laterane himselfe sitting in his Pontificall Throne and the Emperour kneeling before him and holding vp his hands vnto him as vnto God Did Peter euer doe the like Gregory the third deposed Leo surnamed Iconomachus for defacing Images set vp in Churches to bee worshipped Pope Stephen deposed Childerick King of France and set vp Pipin in his roome for no haynous offence by him committed but onely because hee was in his iudgement vnprofitable for the kingdome Gregory the seuenth called Hildebrand would haue deposed Henry the fourth and haue aduanced Rodolph Duke of Sueuia into his throne but that Gods iustice preuented his purpose by bringing Rodolph to an vntimely end and the Pope himselfe to a miserable and fearefull destruction yet afterwards the same Henry was surprised by his owne sonne Henry the fift at the inspiration of the succeeding Popes and depriued and imprisoned and brought to his graue Hadrian the fourth discharged the subiects of William King of Sicilia of their oath and alleageance because hee would not yeeld Apulia to the Pope for inlarging of Saint Peters patrimony Alexander the fift excommunicated the Emperour Frederick as also he had done his predecessour Hadrian and thundred out great curses vpon him and sent letters abroad to all Princes and people to raise tumults against him for punishing some dissolute persons of the Clergy and claiming by warre some rebellious Cities in Italy as they pretended Innocent the third excommunicated Philip and raised vp Otho against him seeking to dispossesse him of his kingdome and after when Otho was inuested with the Empyre hee set vp Frederick the sonne of Henry the sixt against him and deposed Otho Honorius the third persecuted this Frederick depriued him and stirred vp his subiects against him absoluted them from their faith oath and alleageance And the like also did Gregory the ninth and Celestine the fourth and Innocent the fourth against the same man After the same manner was serued King Iohn of England by the fore-named Innocent the fourth because hee banished the Monks that had chosen Stephen Langton to bee Archbishop of Canterbury contrary to his minde 16. What should I reckon Raymundus Earle of Tholouse Or Conrade the son of Frederick the second Or Mamphred the bastard sonne of Frederick Or Peter King of Arragon Or Philip the faire King of France Or Henry the seuenth who being persecuted by Clement the fift was at last poysoned in the Eucharist by a Iacobine Fryer suborned to worke that feate Or Lewes of Bauary Charles the fourth or Wenceslaus or George King of Bohemia or Iohn King of Naâ—arre all which were grieuously persecuted if not vtterly deposed by sundry Popes And lastly our late Queene of famous memory whose life was not once or twise but often assaulted by the Popes instruments and her kingdome so farre as lay in the Popes power taken from her and translated to the Spanish faction Did euer Peter doe the like 17. But to descend from Kings to Bishopâ— the Pope doth challenge to himselfe the fulnesse of power ouer all other Bishops that the fountaine of iurisdiction the authority of the keyes is resident onely in his person and that all other Bishops are subdelegate vnder him and receâ—â—â— their power from him and that they ought to receiue their inuestitures from him alone Did Peter euer doe the like No Hee esteemed all the rest of the Apostles his equals and so our Sauiour Christ inioyned an equality and parity to be among the Apostles albeit they had a superiority ouer the seuenty disciples and all Bishops are the vndoubted successors of the Apostles witnesse Irenaeus Cyprian and Hierome and therefore must needs haue equall power of iurisdiction as those from whom they receiued it were equall this Saint Ierome auoucheth in direct termes when hee sayth Vbicunque fuâ—rit Episcopus c. Wheresoeuer he be Bishop whether at Rome or at Eugubium c. hee is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood And Saint Cyprian Episcopatus vnus est cuius à singulis pars in solidum tenetur The Bishopricke is one whereof euery Bishop hath a found and entyre part 18. Againe the Pope claimeth a Soueraignetâ—e ouer a Councell and that not onely to call it at his pleasure and to dissolue it againe when hee will but also to allow and approue what he lusteth and to disanull whatsoeuer is distastefull vnto his humorous palate in which respect it is set downe as a ruled case amongst them that Although in a generall Councell the vniuersall Church is represented insomuch that nothing is greater then a Councell notwithstanding the Pope surpasseth the same in all manner authoritie and therefore if the whole world should giue sentence against the Pope yet the Popes sentence is to be stood vnto and all other reiected And the reason is giuen because hee is of greater perfection then the whole bodie of the Church beside Did euer Peter doe the like In that Councell of the Apostles and Disciples in the eleuenth of the Acts when as diuers Christians of the Circumcision contended against him for preaching and baptizing Cornelius and his houshold at Cesarea which were of the Gentiles he did not arrogate this supereminencie to himselfe that he was their chiefe and head and therefore ought not to be called to an account by them 〈…〉 that they ought to subiect themselues to his power as one that could not erre no he doth no such matter but meekly rendreth a reckoning of his carriage in this businesse and submitteth himselfe to their censure So Acts 15. when the Apostles and Elders of the Church came together in a Councell to decide that great Controuerfie then mooued in the Church about Circumcision Peter behaueth not himselfe as a Iudge nor taketh vpon him any authoritie aboue the rest but as one of the Apostles giueth his opinion and the determination of the question is set downe not vnder his name onely but in the name of the Apostles Elders and brethren that were present yea Iames was president of that Councell and not Peter if we will beleeue Gerson and Lyran of their owne and Chrysostome of the ancients 19. Againe the Pope taketh vpon him to exempt Clarks though offending by Murder Treason Theft Adulterie or such like from all temporall Courts of Princes and punishment of the Laytie except the Church proceed against them first and make them no Clarkes Thus Pope Nicholas the first wrote to Michael the Emperour Christian Emperors haue no right at all to make any inquisition for Monkes vnlesse it be in fauour to pittie them Thus Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterburie quarrelled with Henrie the Second for this cause principally as both Houeden and Fabain report for that the King went about to punish such of the Clergie as were malefactors by the temporall Lawes of the Land which the Archbishop vtterly denyed to be lawfull For this he said that if a Clarke being
Popish superstition doe say that it is an ordinarie matter A wonderful superstitiō that is nourished by Images so apparent that it cannot be denied Now if this were a scandall taken and not giuen they might in some sort bee excused but it is eūidently not onely occasioned but caused by reason that both the doctrine is inuolued with so many intricate questions and distinctions that it is impossible for an ignorant person to discerne thereof and also because the Image it selfe as the Prophet Habacuck telleth vs is a teacher of lyes For which cause as Polidore Virgil reporteth the Fathers of all vices condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatrie the most execrable vice of all The second offence is to the vnconuerted Iewes who are most zealous in this point of the Law against Images insomuch as Iosephus reports of them they did hate the verie Images of men in their Heathenish Trophees as being forbidden them by God Now it is well concluded by a iudicious obseruer of the Westerne Religions and without doubt is a most true obseruation that there is no one thing in outward respects that doth ingender in the Iewes such a detestation of Christian Religion and keepe them from being conuerted as the worship of Images in the Church of Rome for they and that by good reason may thus dispute If this Religion of Christians were of God then they would not oppose themselues to the expresse Commaundement of God in worshipping Images which he hath so plainly forbidden but they oppose themselues to Gods Commandement and worship Images therefore their Religion cannot bee of God Hence it is as the former learned Relator doth report that at Rome though all the Iewes in the Citie are constrained once a yeere to come to a Christian Church and there heare a Sermon for their pretended conuersion yet when as a Fryer before the beginning of his Sermon holdeth vp a Crucifix and prayeth vnto it in their open sight they are more alienated from the Christian faith by this odious spectacle then all the reasons and arguments that he can vse are able to perswade them to the same Behold two dangerous and fearefull scandals which arise from this doctrine one to their owne weake ones of which our Sauiour saith that it were better for a man that a milstone were hanged about his necke and that hee were throwne into the Sea then that hee should offend one of them the other to the obstinate Iewes whose conuersion shall be so beneficiall to the whole world as that Saint Paul calleth it life from the dead Now our Religion is farre from giuing any such offence to one or other either in this or any other point thereof if it bee not vtterly misconstrued and misconceiued 24. Againe in their worship of Relickes there is no securitie at all both in feare of Idolatrie which may bee well committed to them if they bee true in giuing them a higher measure of adoration then they themselues allow of which is easio to bee done by the ignorant multitude and also in feare of worshipping false relickes in stead of true whereof there is no small number in the Church of Rome as hath bin alreadie declared and lasty in feare of neglecting the true members of Christ by a too sumptuous prodigalitie towards the bones of I cannot tel what dead men or other creatures as is most vsuall in their Church and that in great excesse in which respects it is without question a more safe course that all such Relickes were buried vnder the earth with due honour of Christian sepulture then that they should thus indanger both godly pietie Christian charitie And this is the conclusion of their Cassander who sayth that it is more safe rather honourably to burie those corruptible relickes and to draw the World to the worship of their spirituall relickes which neither time can corrupt nor fraud counterfeit 25. Againe they hold and teach that traditions are to bee honoured with equall affection and deuotion as is due vnto the olde and new Testament and that there are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christianitie which are neyther expressely nor obscurely contained in the Scriptures And therefore by their owne confession they build many doctrines of their Religion vpon tradition onely without Scripture and acknowledge that without tradition many of them would reele and totter The Protestants hold the contrarie and constantly affirme that the Scripture is an all-sufficient directorie and a most absolute and perfect rule for faith and manners and therefore that wee ought not to relye our faith vpon any thing but Scripture alone Now let vs consider and examine whether of these two doctrines are more safe for a man to repose his soule vpon And that our doctrine is so may appeare first by the nature of the question it selfe which is controuerted betwixt them and vs for the question is not whether the Scripture bee the Word of God or no therein wee shake hands as an vndoubted truth but whether traditions bee the Word of God or no the affirmatiue they hold wee the negatiue and that by great and strong grounds which our aduersaries themselues cannot deny but that they carrie great shew of reason and probabilitie Now whether is the safer course to relye our faith vpon those principles that are vnquestionably Gods Word or vpon those that are controuerted disputed and called in question Any man that goeth about to buy a purchase will sooner venture vpon such a title which was neuer called in question nor can indeed bee doubted of then vpon a broken disputable and vndecided title he will looke twice vpon his pennie before he part with it in such a case lest caueat emptor proue him to bee of little discretion and teach him to repent when it is too late This is the case of euerie Christian wee are to buy the truth and not to sell it as Salomon counselleth Now who will not that hath any graine of wisedome in his heart rather lay out his monie that is his soule and conscience which as Augustine calleth it is numisma Dei Godscoyne because his Image is imprinted therein for the purchase of that truth which is without all exception in the holy Scriptures then for that which is said to be in traditions but mixed with many doubts and ambiguities It is a rule in Law that abundans cautela non nocet a man cannot be too warie in making sure his title to any thing whatsoeuer How much more then should it preuaile in cases of conscience where the damage is not of house and land but of our soules which to euery man ought to be more precious then the whole world Here is an euident direction for our choice if we eyther loue the truth or our own soules which must liue by it 26. Secondly it may appeare by the perpetuall certaintie of the holy Scripture and variable