organicall bodie be there as popish faith auoucheth then must the papists beleeue euident contradictions contrarie to Iesuit Bellarmines resolution yea contrarie to all power all Logicke all reason All the papists in England are not able to solue this reason I challenge them all and aduise them to consult together and to craue helpe of their friends elswhere and then to let me haue their speedie answere hereunto Cardinall Caietane affirmeth boldly that no text in the whole Gospell doth prooue effectually and conuince the reader to vnderstand these words properly This is my bodie For which respect frier Ioseph aduiseth grauely to read their Cardinall caute warily Aquinas affirmeth constantly Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis simul secundū proprias dimensiones that Christs bodie is not in many places at once according to the proper dimensions thereof whose assertion is my flat position For Christs naturall bodie cannot be without those dimensions which naturally pertaine vnto it Durandus holdeth the very same opinion S. Austine saith plainely that Christs true bodie can be but in one onely place of heauen Vbi totum presentem esse non dubites tanquam deum in codem templo dei esse tanquam inhabitantem deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum Thou must not doubt saith S. Austen that Christ is wholly present euery where as God and in the same temple of God as God inhabiting it and in some one place of heauen for the manner of a true bodie Lo this graue father telleth vs that Christ as God is euery where but yet in respect of his true bodie he is onely in heauen and in some certaine place of heauen Only in heauen because the Scripture saith That he shall be there till the worlds end in some certaine place of heauen to declare the nature and veritie of a true bodie indeed So then if he were present as the papists would haue him his bodie should lose the nature and veritie of a true bodie indeed Againe in another place S. Austen hath these words Donec seculum finiatur sursum est dominus sed tamen etiam hic nobiscum est veritas domini corpus enim in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse oportet veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est Our Lord is aboue vntill the worlds end but yet his truth is with vs here for the bodie of our Lord wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but this truth is diffused euery where Againe the same S. Austen writing against Faustus the Manichee hath these expresse words Secundum presentiam corporalem simul in Sole in Luna in cruce esse non posset According to his corporall presence it was not possible for him to be both in the Sunne and in the Moone and on the crosse at one and the same time O papists answere if you can if not recant for shame The second Member Of the Sacrifice of the Popish Masse THe Papists teach and beleeue as an article of Christian faith That in their masse Christs true and reall bodie is truly and really sacrificed to God the father vnder the forme of bread as also his true and reall bloud vnder the forme of wine Yet this implieth horrible impietie and brutish crueltie as shall be prooued and consequently popish Masse is to be abhorred First where the Apostle telleth vs that Christ rising againe from the dead henceforth dieth no more because death hath no more dominion ouer him the papists tell vs a contrarie tale that Christ dieth euery day nay a thousand times a day in the daily sacrifice of their masse for with them all priests the Pope Cardinals and some others excepted doe ordinarily say masse euery day and three masses vpon euery Christmas day VVhich being so and three hundred Iesuits and seminarie priests being this day in England and Scotland as the Iesuites tell vs an huge multitude of masses must be said daily in these realmes and many times must Christ be put to death so farre forth as in them lieth though they pretend to honour him thereby For as Cardinall Bellarmine graunteth freely a sacrifice implieth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing that is sacrificed I will not auouch any vntruth vpon any man gentle reader these are his owne words Sacrificium enim preter oblationem requirit mutationem consumptionem rei quae offertur For saith Bellarmine a sacrifice besides the oblation requires an alteration and a consumption of the thing which is offered Againe Bellarmine in another place telleth vs that the bodie and bloud of Christ are offered in the masse verè propriè truly and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine Againe Bellarmine saith in another place that flesh and bloud are not fit for meat nisi prius animal moriatur vnlesse the beast first die and be slaine Againe the same Bellarmine teacheth the same doctrin yet more plainely in another place Thus doth he write Sacrificium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij For a true and reall sacrifice requireth a true and reall killing seeing that the essence of the sacrifice consisteth in the killing thereof And in very deed this is that constant doctrine which S. Paule doth inculcate to the Hebrewes So then we see it cleare and euident by popish faith and doctrine that Iesus Christ our sweet redeemer must first be killed then offered lastly torne and consumed by the teeth of the sacrificing masse-priest or els the popish masse cannot be perfect as their most perfect doctor telleth vs. For confirmation of this popish doctrine it is a constant position and generally receiued axiome in the popish church that by vertue of their consecratorie words Christs bodie is put apart from his bloud and his bloud apart from his bodie and so Christ is there slaine by force of their consecration though he still liue indeed because the priests words haue not so much force as they imagin You shall heare Bellarmines owne words Nam inprimis ideo in coena seorsim consecratur corpus seorsim sanguis vt intelligamus presentiam corporis sanguinis in coena esse ad modum occisi mortui corporis For first therfore is the bodie consecrate apart in the supper and the bloud asunder that we may vnderstand the presence of the bodie and bloud in the supper to be there after the manner of a bodie slaine and dead These are his words and this which he thus deliuereth is the constant doctrine of the Popish Church VVhereupon it followeth of necessitie that if any papist should haue said masse in triduo mortis Christi during Christs death then Christs bodie by vertue there of should haue been dead in one place and his bloud in another place for otherwise Christ should haue been both quicke and dead at
good my positioÌ„ euen against themselues For seeing as they grant That God beholding all in a generall condemnation for originall sinne saueth the elect of mercie and iustly decreeth to condemne the reprobate for originall sinne it followeth of necessity that either some reprobate shall be saued which the papists neither dare nor may auouch or els that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is sinne indeed which is the doctrine I defend The consequution and illation is euident For if originall sinne be truly remitted in baptisme and be not truly sinne in the baptised then can none be iustly damned that are baptised for how shal they be iustly condemned for that which is remitted it cannot be And to graunt that all baptised persons shal be saued is most absurd neither can I thinke any papist so senselesse as to affirme the same For to name one for all their Pope Boniface the eight who as their owne deere frier Caranza saith entred into the popedome as a foxe reigned in it as a wolfe and died in the end as a dog is not I trow a saint in heauen and yet must we thinke he was baptised or els a terrible vae vobis will fall vpon our papists Now because the papists vse to boast that S. Austen is on their side I will prooue at large that he defendeth this my doctrine here deliuered and that I purpose in God to doe so plainely and euidently as none can stand in doubt thereof that shal seriously ponder my discourse The first place of Saint Austen SIcut caecitas cordis quam solus remouet illuminator Deus peccatum est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cum mali aliquid caeci cordis errore committitur ita concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccatiest defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis Like as the blindnesse of heart which onely God the illuminatour doth remooue is sinne through which man beleeueth not in God and the punishment of sinne wherwith a proud heart is iustly chastened and the cause of sinne when through the blindnesse of heart any euill is committed euen so concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit coueteth is sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the mind and also a punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the merits of the disobedient and it is also the cause of sinne by defection of him that consenteth or by contagion of the child that is borne In these wordes Saint Austen expresseth three things precisely first that concupiscence in the regenerate is the punishment of sinne secondly that it is the cause of sinne thirdly that it is sinne it selfe VVhich three S. Austen doth not onely distinguish but withall he yeeldeth three seuerall reasons for the same and that he speaketh of the regenerate it is euident in this because he speaketh of that concupiscence against which the good spirit striueth Most impudent therefore are the papists when they auouch with open mouth that Saint Austen onely calleth it sinne because it is the cause of sinne And the gentle reader may here also obserue that S. Austen compareth concupiscence of the flesh with that blindnesse of heart which breedeth infidelity in man which how great a sinne it is euery one can tell The second place of Saint Austen NEque enim nulla est iniquitas cum in vno homine vel superiora inferioribus turpitâ—r seruiunt vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur etiam si vincere non sinantur For it is some iniquitie when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour or the inferiour partes stubbornly striue against the superiour although they be not suffered to preuaile These words of Saint Austen are so plaine as the papists cannot possible inuent any euasion at all For he saith in plaine and expresse tearmes that the rebellion which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne yea that it is euen then sinne when it is resisted and cannot preuaile At which time and in which respect the papists will haue it to be merite but no sinne at all Behold a flat contradiction it is sinne saith Saint Austen it is merite and no sinne say the papists The third place of Saint Austen SI in parente baptizato potest esse peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non sit sed vt in peccatum non imputetur Sequitur non ergo aliquid remanet quod non remittatur cum fit sicut scriptum est propitius dominus omnibus iniquitatibus nostris sed donec fiat quod sequitur qui sanat omnes languores tuo qui redimet de corruptione vitam tuam manet in corpore mortis huius carnalis concupiscentia If concupiscence can both be in the baptised parent and withall be no sinne why is the selfe same made sinne in the child to this this is the answere that the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiuen in baptisme not so that it remaine not but so that it is not reputed for sinne Not any thing therefore remaineth which is not forgiuen seeing that is done which is written God is mercifull to all our iniquities but vntill that be done also which followeth which healeth all thine infirmities which redeemeth thy life from corruption carnall concupiscence abideth in the bodie of this death Saint Austen in these wordes sheweth plainely that concupiscence remaineth aswell in the baptised parent as in the vnbaptised child yet with this difference that it is sinne in the parent though not for sinne imputed but in the child it both is sinne and is also so reputed And the reader must not forget that Saint Austen saith Nothing remaineth which is not forgiuen He doth not say Nothing is sinne that remaineth or thus No sinne remaineth but thus Not any thing remaineth which is not remitted As if he had said sinne indeede remaineth still in the baptised but shall not be imputed to the faithfull Marke well gentle reader the phrase which Saint Austen here vseth It is forgiuen that still remaineth saith Saint Austen or not any thing remaineth which is not forgiuen Therefore he must needes meane that something remaineth which is sinne though pardoned and not reputed sinne For nothing hath need of forgiuenesse but that which is sinne indeed The fourth place of Saint Austen I Deo apostolus non ait facere bonum sibi non adiacere sed perficere Multum enim boni facit qui facit quod scriptum est post concupiscentias tuas non eas sed non perficit quia non
so I conclude that mortall and veniall sinnes as they be such are not distinguished intrinse cally and essentially but onely in respect of Gods grace which assigneth one sinne to the paine or torture of death and not another Thus writeth this famous popish bishop who was a man of high esteeme in the counsell of Constance Whose onely testimonie if his words be well marked is able to confound the papists and to strike them dead For first he telleth them plainely that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature Secondly that no sinne is veniall saue only in respect of Gods mercie Thirdly that God may most iustly iustissimè condeme vs for the least sinne we do Note seriously gentle reader the word iustissimè Fourthly that mortall and veniall sinnes are the same intrinse cally and essentially and differ but accidentally that is to say they differ in accident but not in nature in quantitie but not in qualitie in mercy but not in deformitie in the subiect but not in the obiect in imputation but not in enormitie saue onely that the one is a greater mortall sinne than is the other For as Gerson auoucheth we may iustly be damned for the least sinne of all howsoeuer other papists doe flatter themselues in their cursed deformed venials Seuenthly because sinne in generall is the transgression of Gods law as S. Ambrose defineth it yea euery word deed or desire against Gods law as S. Austen describeth it Their words are set downe in the fourth article of this discourse Eightly because the Iesuit Bellarmine vnawares confesseth the same against himselfe These are his owne words Respondeo omne peccatum esse contra legem dei non positiuam sed aternam vt Aug. rectè docet Omnis enim iusta lex siue à deo siue ab bomine detur ab aterna dei lege deriuatur Est enim aterna lex vt malum sit viol are regulam I answere that euery sinne is against the law of God not positiue but eternall as Austen teacheth rightly For euery iust law whether it be given of God or of man is deriued from the eternal law of God For the eternall law is that it is euill to offend against the rule These are our Iesuits owne words which as euery child can easily discerne doe euidently confute himselfe and his Romish doctrine For first vnder euery sinne must needs be contained their veniall sinnes or els some sinnes shall be no sinnes which implieth flat contradiction Secondly he telâ—eth vs that euery sinne and consequently veniall sinnes are against the eternall law of God Thirdly he graunteth that they are not onely besides the law sed contra legem but euen against the law Fourthly hence it is cleere and euident that the law eternall is the chiefe and principall law of all other laws seeing from it all other lawes are deriued Ninthly because the papists cannot possibly yeeld any sound reason why in the sinnes of theft one shall be mortall and another veniall For example sake let vs suppose one at one time to steale so many egs as will make a mortall sinne by Romish doctrine another at another time to steale so many as will make a venial sinne by the same doctrine then I demaund of our papists Why God cannot iustly condemne the theefe to hell that stealeth but so many egs and for all that can iustly condemne him to eternall torment that stealeth but one only egge aboue the said number For this must they doe and a good reason here of must they yeeld which I am well assured they can neuer do or els confesse euery sinne to be mortall and so against their wils to subscribe to mine opinion Answere ô papists if ye can if ye cannot then repent for shame and yeeld vnto the truth The seuenth Article Of popish vnwritten traditions THe papists beare the world in hand that many things necessarie for mans saluation are not conteined in the holy scriptures of the old and new testament and consequently that none can be saued but such as beleeue their vnwritten traditions and what their Pope telleth them For the exact knowledge whereof I put downe these propositions The first Proposition with the first reason THe written word or holy scripture containeth in it selfe euery doctrine necessarie for mans saluation I prooue it by the manifold texts both of the old and new testament by the authoritie of the holy fathers and by the the testimonie of renowned and best approoued popish writers Ex testamente veteri Locus primus Ye shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you neither shall ye take any thing away from it Againe thus That which I command that only doe thou to the Lord. Neither add any thing nor take any thing away Againe thus Only be thou strong and of a valiant courage that thou mayest obserue and doe according to all the law which Moses my seruant hath coÌ„manded thee Thou shalt not turne away from it neither to the right hand nor to the left Bee carefull that ye keepe all things which are written in the booke of the law of Moses that ye decline not from them neither to the right hand nor to the left By these manifold texts we may see euidently that the holy scriptures are most perfect and that nothing may bee taken from them neither any thing added to them But doubtlesse if all doctrine necessarie for mans saluation were not sufficiently conteined in them then of necessitie many things should be added to them Bellarmine the mouth of all papists answereth to these and the like places that they are not spoken of the written word precisely but of Gods word generally which is partly written and partly vnwritten Non ait inquit ille ad verbum quod scripsi sed quod ego precipio He saith not quoth our Iesuite to the word which I haue written but which I command But doublesse this is a miserable shift and a very childish answere For first God himselfe wrote his owne wordes in two tables of stone and then deliuered them to Moses Yea after Moses had broken the said tables in his vehement zeale against Idolatrie God commanded Moses to hew two other tables of stone like to the first in which he writ againe the wordes that were in the first tables and commanded Moses to put them vp in an arke of wood Secondly Moses expounded the law of God to the Israelites at large VVhich large explication of the law God himselfe commanded him to write and to giue the same to the Israelites that they might put it in the side of the arke of the couenant and there keepe it for a witnesse against them Thirdly God commanded Iosue to keepe and obserue all things which were written in the booke of the law which Moses had deliuered to the Leuites charging him to meditate therein day and night that he might doe according to the same Fourthly Moses telleth
I find these expresse wordes Sic Papa dicitur habere caelesteâ— arbitrium ideo etiam naturam rerum immutat substantiam vnius rei applicando alij de nihilo potest aliquid facere So the Pope is said to haue celestiall arbitrement and therefore doth he alter the nature of things applying the substantiall parts of one thing to an other and so can make of nothing something Thus the papists write of their Pope and he is well pleased therewith And yet the truth is that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of an other so in all cases at all times to make some thing of nothing is proper to God alone The Popes parasites write thus of his power in generall Sicut non est potestas nisia deo sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica imperialis vel regalis nisi à Papa in cuius foemore scripsit Christus rex regum dominus dominantium Like as there is no power but of God so is there neither any temporall nor ecclesiasticall neither imperiall nor regall but of the Pope in whose thigh Christ hath written the King of kings and Lord of lords Loe here gentle reader two things are proper to God alone the one to be King of kings and Lord of lords the other to be the author of all power both which you see here ascribed to the Pope The Pope himselfe from his owne pen Gregorie the ninth deliuereth vs this doctrine Ad firmamentum coeli hoc est vniuers alis ecclesiae fecit deus duo magna luminaria id est duas instituit dignitates quae sunt pontificalis authoritas regalis potestas sequitur vt quanta est inter solem lunam tanta inter pontifices reges differentia cognoscatur To the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersall church God made two lights pontificall authoritie and power royall that we may know there is asmuch difference between Popes and kings as there is betweene the sunne the moone The glosse setteth downe precisely how farre a king is inferiour to a Pope that is to any bishop of Rome in these words Restat vt pontificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit maior regali dignitate It remaineth that the dignitie of the Pope is fourtie times seuen times greater than the power of the king Now touching the kissing of the Popes feete I answere that some Christian kings and emperours vpon a blind zeale not grounded in knowledge humbling themselues to the Bishop of Rome and yeelding vp their soueraigne rights to him opened the window to all antichristian tyrannie For in short time after as is alreadie prooued the Romish bishops became so lordly and insolent that they tooke vpon them to depose the emperors to translate their empires and to dispose at their pleasures of their royall scepters and regalities Much more might be said in this matter but for that the Pope hath made it sacriledge to dispute of this I will here onely tell thee gentle reader what the Popes deere frier Sigebertus hath written of his holines These are his expresse words Vt pace omnium honorum dixerim haec sola nouitas non dicam haeresis nondum in mundo emerserat vt sacerdotes illius qui regnarefacit hypocritaÌ„ propter peccata populi doceant populum quod malis regibus nullam debeant subiectionem licet ei sacramentum fidelitatis fecerint nullam tamen debeant fidelitatem nec periuri dicantur qui contra regem senserint imo qui regi paâ—â—erit pro excommunicato habeatur qui contra regem fecerit noxa iniustitiae periuris absoluatur To speake by the fauour of all good men this sole noueltie I wil not say heresie was not yet known in the world that his priests who maketh an hypocrite to reigne for the sinnes of the people should teach the people that they owe no subiection to wicked kings and that although they haue taken the oth of fealtie yet doe they owe them no allegeance neither are they periured that thinke ill against the king yea he that obeyeth the king is this day reputed an excommunicate person and he that taketh part against the king is absolued from the crime of iniustice and periurie This is our very case gentle reader this day in England so liuely painted out in best beseeming coulours as if the writer had bene liuing euen now amongst vs. So then wee haue to obserue here for our instruction That the Popes owne monkes and friers haue thought as ill of the Popes dealings in former times as we thinke of his procedings in these latter dayes As also That popish religon hath alwaies bene condemned euen of great learned papists that liued in the Popes Church VVhereof none can be ignorant that will seriously peruse my bookes of Motiues and Suruey And this shall suffice for the first article to which if their hearts doe not faint them or their consciences condemne them the papists will frame some answere vndoubtedly The second Article touching the erroneous doctrine of the Popish masse The first member Of the impossibilitie of their supposed reall presence AQuinas the Iesuit Bellarmine the councell of Trent Melchior Canus Iosephus Angles and the rest of the Romish brood hold constantlie as an article of their christian faith That the true organicall and naturall bodie of Christ Iesus which was borne of the Virgin Marie which was crucified and nayled on the crosse which rose againe the third day from death and is circumscriptiuely and locally in heauen is also truelie really and substantially vnder the forme of bread and wine in the sacrifice of the popish masse But this is impossible as which implieth flat contradiction and consequently late romish religion consisteth of impossibilities falshoodes and contradictions The doubt hereof is onely in the assumption for proofe whereof I set downe this supposall with our Cardinall Bellarmine viz. That we are not bound to beleeue any thing which implyeth contradiction And because I will proceed sincerely yee shall heare his owne words thus doth he write Neque fides nostra ad id nos obligat vt ea defendamus quae euidenter implicant contradictionem Neither doth our faith bind vs so that wee must defend those things which implie euident contradiction But so it is that the popish imaginarie being of Christs bodie in a little round cake implieth in it selfe euident contradiction and cannot possibly be brought to passe For example no power vpon earth or in heauen can bring to passe that a bodie being three cubits long and one cubit broad remaining still so long and so broad shall be contained in another bodie of two cubits length and halfe a cubite breadth The reason hereof is euident because so to containe and be so contained implieth flat contradiction And this is the case now in controuersie concerning Christs supposed being in the round popish cake For if Christs naturall and
once which implieth contradiction Aquinas graunteth this illation these are his words Ideo si in illo triduo mortis fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum non fuisset ibi anima Christi Therefore during Christs death if this sacrament had been celebrated the soule of Christ should not haue been in it Secondly if this popish kind of doctrine were true these absurdities and grosse impieties must perforce follow hereupon viz. that Christ the night before he was crucified was both sitting at the table and borne in his own hands both liuing and dead both visible and inuisible both long and short both broad and narrow both light and heauie that he was a sacrifice for our sinnes before he died for our sinnes that his sacrifice was either vnperfect in the former oblation in his last supper or els that it was needlesse in his bitter immolation vpon the altar of the crosse For as the Apostle telleth vs Christ was not to offer himselfe often as the high priest did but once to the destruction of sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe These are his words as the papists our English Rhemists I meane haue put them downe and as it is appointed to men to die once and after this the iudgement so also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sinnes of many Loe Christ died but once and that one oblation was sufficient to take away all sinnes in the world The word exhaust which the Rhemists vse doth significantly expresse so much But the words of S. Paul in another place are most manifest and doe plainely conuince this truth In the which will saith S. Paule we are made holy euen by the offering of the bodie of Iesus Christ once for all Againe thus But this man after he hath offered one sacrifice for sinnes is set downe for euer on the right hand of God Againe in these words For with one offering hath he made perfect for euer them that are sanctified Loe gentle reader Christ saith Christs apostle made but one oblation Christ say the papists hath made many and still maketh moe oblations Christ saith Christs Apostle died but once on the crosse Christ say the papists dieth euery day in the masse Christ saith Christ apostle made perfect finished and consummated mans redemption with one onely sacrifice Christ say the papists doth perfect and consummate his with the daily sacrifice of the masse Now whether Christs apostle or our papists be of better credit let the indifferent reader iudge Thirdly the cup is the new testament in my bloud saith Christ which is shed for you But a testament is not of force without the death of the testator as S. Paul teacheth vs. And consequently either Christs bodie was not really offered in his supper or at least it was a sacrifice of no force value or efficacie at all for that it was not yet ratified by the death of the testator Hereupon it followeth of necessitie that when Christ saith in S. Luke This cup is the new testament in my bloud and in S. Matthew This is my bloud of the new Testament the sence is all one most plaine and cleare viz. that the cup is a sacrament of the bloud of Christ and of the new Testament confirmed thereby but indeed is no more really the bloud of Christ it selfe than it is really the new testament it selfe For the expresse mention of remission of sinnes is referred to the bloud of Christ shed vpon the crosse and not to the sacrament of his bloud seeing his bloud was not shed in his supper but in his bitter passion Fourthly the Apostle saith flatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not henceforth any oblation for sinne But if Saint Paule say truly that there is no oblation for sinne after Christs death on the crosse then doubtlesse the papists must needs say falsely that they haue a daily propitiatorie sacrifice in their popish masse Neither will it serue their turne to answere that it is the selfesame sacrifice of the crosse but offered in another manner for if that were true then should their masse-sacrifice be of infinit value which for all that no papist dareth auouch Nay Bellarmine saith in plaine tearmes Valor sacrificij missae finitus est The value or worth of the masse is finit not infinit And yet if the value of the masse be not infinit then doubtlesse that sacrifice cannot be the sonne of God for he is of infinit power of infinit maiestie of infinit value Yea whosoeuer denieth Christs bodie and bloud subsisting in the person of God by hypostaticall vnion to be of infinit value he is become a flat Arrian beleeuing Christ to be pure man and not God And consequently the papists howsoeuer they thinke or speake of their masse yet in making it a sacrifice they must perforce be blasphemous against the sonne of God Again Bellarmine confesseth against himselfe vnawares and against an article of popish faith That their popish masse is not verè propriè truly and properly propitiarie Quod Christus nunc immortalis nec mereri nec satisfacere potest Because saith Bellarmine Christ now being immortall can neither merit nor satisfie But I am well assured that their holy late councell of Trent teacheth otherwise These are the words Et quoniam in diuino hoc sacrificio quod in missa peragitur idem ille Christus continetur incruentè immolatur qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruentè obtulit docet sanctasynodus sacrificium istud verè propitiatorium esse And because in this diuine sacrifice which is made in the masse that same Christ is contained and offered vnbloudily who on the altar of the crosse once offered himselfe bloudily the holy councell teacheth it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice truly indeed Loe how the papists say and vnsay one while it is truly a propitiatorie sacrifice another while it cannot truly be so called VVell the Pope hath allowed Bellarmines doctrine and he hath also allowed the Councell and yet wise men can see how they flatly disagree and that in the highest point of their melodie Fiftly the Popes owne decrees doe seale vp this truth against the Pope these are his words Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius viz. quod visibile quod palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipso immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio sic sacrum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As therefore the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after it manner called the bodie of Christ when indeed it is the sacrament of Christs bodie of that bodie which is visible which is palpable mortall and nailed on the crosse and that oblation of flesh which is made
by the hands of the priest is called Christs passion death crucifixion not in the truth of the thing but in a mysterie which signifieth the thing so the sacrament of faith by which baptisme is vnderstood is faith Thus saith the text Let vs now heare their own glosse vpon the same text these are the expresse words Coeleste sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significate mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significatur The heauenly sacrament which representeth Christs flesh truly is called the bodie of Christ but vnproperly wherefore it is said suo modo after it manner but not in the truth of the thing but in the mysterie of the thing signified that this may be the sence it is called Christs bodie that is to say it signifieth his bodie Out of these golden words deliuered as God would haue it by the pens of papists to the confusion of all papists I note first that the holy and blessed bread of the Eucharist or Lords supper is called the bodie of Christ. Secondly that it is also called the passion death of Christ. Thirdly that it is not Christs bodie truly properly and in the truth of the thing Fourthly that it is Christs body as the sacrament of baptisme is faith Fifthly that it is not Christs bodie in truth but in signification Sixtly that it is only called Christs bodie because it is the sacrament of his body as baptisme is called faith being only the sacrament of faith Seuenthly that it is Christs bodie impropriè suo modo significat◠mysterio improperly after a sort in the mysterie of the thing signified which words must be well remembred and marked Lastly that it is said negatiuely non rei veritate it is not Christs bodie in truth in deed or in the veritie of the thing These words are the very vpshot of the controuersie they can admit no solution For if Christs bodie were in the sacrament really and substantially with bodie flesh bloud sinews bones and quantitie as the papists say and beleeue then doubtlesse he should be there in rei veritate in the truth of the thing euen in that true bodie which was borne of the blessed virgin the true mother of true God and true man Answere papists if ye can or els come home and yeeld to the truth for shame The third Member Of the barbarous and plaine villanous proceeding against Berengarius for deniall of the abouenamed popish sacrifice POpish decrees tell vs a long tale of one Berengarius sometime deacon of a church in Gaunt who held a doctrine surely grounded vpon the holy scriptures but wholie opposite to the late popish faith viz. That the bread and wine in the holy Eucharist after Christs words vttered which they call consecration are onely the sacrament and not the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and that they cannot sensuallie or sensibly for so their owne word sensualiter signifieth bee handled or broken with the hands of the priests or torne with the teeth of the faithfull For this opinion so setled vpon Gods word as all the cursed Romish brood are not able in truth to gainesay the same Pope Nicholas with his Romish synod did so cruelly proceed against the sillie deacon as he must needs either abiure and renounce the truth or else betake himselfe to be burnt with popish fire and faggot out of hand In regard whereof the poore deacon ouercome with humane frailtie yeelded at least in shew of wordes to their most wicked cruell and very barbarous or rather villanous suggestion Then the Pope and Councell set downe the forme of words which he should pronounce the summe whereof I haue alreadie alleaged who as list may read the words at large in the place quoted in the margent I omit the wordes because they are long and tedious onely I wish the reader to obserue seriously with me for this reason can neuer be answered till the worlds end that it is an article of popish faith oh horrible blasphemie That the true and reall body of the sonne of God which was borne of the vigin Marie and sitteth at the right hand of God the father omnipotent and all sufficient is torne in pieces with the teeth of the faithfull and broken asunder with the hands of the priest in their idolatrous masse For these are the words of the popish synod Manibus sacerdotum frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Which wordes are so fully farced with blasphemie and repugnant to the truth that neither Melchior Canus nor the popish glosse nor Bellarmine can tell how to shuffle vp the same but with shame inough they passe it ouer as they can Bellarmine who is as it were the Popes owne mouth writeth in this manner Respondeo nunquam fuisse quaestionem an Christi corpus vere vt est in se frangeretur manibus dentibus tereretur certum enim est semper fuit Christi corpus incorruptibile nunc existens non posse frangi teri nisi in signo siue sacramento ita vt dicatur frangi ac teri cum signum eius id est species panis frangitur teritur I answere saith the Iesuite that question was neuer made if the body of Christ as it is in it selfe were truely broken with hands and torne with teeth for it is and and euer was certaine and sure that Christs bodie being now incorruptible cannot be broken and torne saue only in a signe or sacrament so as it may be said to be broken and torne when the signe thereof that is to say the forme of bread is broken and torne Out of these words I note first that by the Popes owne doctrine for the Iesuites doctrine is the doctrine of the Pope seeing the Pope hath approoued it Christs bodie cannot be broken or torne truely and indeede I note secondly that the Pope and his Councell decreed the contrarie doctrine and that as an article of popish faith when they compelled Berengarius to confesse it with his mouth and to beleeue it with his heart and did also publish the same per vrbes Italiae Germaniae Galliae through the cities of Italie France and Germanie for so saith the decree Ego Berengarius I note thirdly that it is truely said Christs bodie is broken because the forme of the bread is broken as popish doctrine teacheth vs. For we see here that this is all that the papists can say for themselues and vpon this strong foundation and inuincible bulwarke I inferre this golden and euident corollarie viz. That if it be true to say Christs bodie is broken and torne because the signe of his bodie is broken and torne then truely may wee say and truelie doe we say that Christs bodie is in the Eucharist because the signe of his bodie is there because the sacrament of his bodie
giue licence to marrie a mans owne naturall sister Answere papists if ye can or els yeeld vnto the truth for shame The fourth Article Of originall concupiscence in the regenerat SAint Paule throughout the whole seuenth chapter to the Romans proueth originall concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne But the papists cannot abide to heare this doctrine they stop their eares against the charmer though he charme neuer so wisely And why I pray you because forsooth it ouerthroweth their holy so supposed iustifications their inherent purities their mutuall satisfactions their condigne merites their pharisaicall supererogations And yet Petrus Lombardus their famous master of sentences whose book to this day is publickely read in their schooles of diuinitie vtterly condemneth their damnable doctrine in this point These are his expresse words Secundum animas vero iam redemptisumus ex parte non ex toto à culpa non à poena nec omnino à eulpa non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus vt non sit sed vt non dominetur But touching our soules we are redeemed in part not wholly from the sinne not from the paine neither wholly from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Thus writeth the worshipfull popish master our reuerend father Lombard out of whose words we may gather with facilitie so much as will serue our turne against the papists For first he saith we are redeemed in part but not in the whole Secondly that we are not wholly redeemed from sinne Thirdly he telleth vs how we are redeemed from sinne viz. that albeit sinne still remaine in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs that it can enforce vs to consent thereunto Loe this doctrine is not mine but the flat doctrine of the papists which I learned of that great papist who for his learning was surnamed the master of sentences and to this day is publickly read in their diuinitie schooles Touching S. Paule he saith first in this manner I my selfe with the mind serue the law of God but with the flesh the law of sinne Out of these words I note first that the Apostle speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter because he nameth himselfe who was Gods chosen and elect vessell For which respect and the like expressed in the seuenth chapter to the Romanes S. Austen changed his opinion and graunted S. Paule to speake here of the regenerate I note secondly that the elect and regenerate doe serue the law of sinne I note thirdly that the best liuers are so farre from meriting ex condigno grace and glorie that they deserue in rigour of iustice eternall death because death is the reward of sin VVhich for that S. Austen could not well digest at the first he thought that S. Paules words were to be vnderstood of the reprobate and not of the elect and godly sort but when he had pondered the Apostles discourse and words more seriously he changed his opinion This is confirmed in the selfesame chapter in these words But I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my mind and subduing me vnto the law of sinne which is in my members By these words it is euident that albeit S. Paule were the child of God yet could he not merite any thing in Gods sight but rather in rigour of iustice prouoke Gods heauie displeasure against him For where or what could be his merite who was prisoner to the law of sinne Againe the same is confirmed in these words For I do not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. Thus saith S. Paule And doubtlesse since he did the euill which he would not he sinned though he were regenerate and in that he sinned he was guiltie of damnation because death is the stipend of sinne For this cause grauely saith S. Austen Cum deus coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua VVhen God crowneth our merites he crowneth nothing els but his owne gifts Againe the same is confirmed in these words For the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne Thus saith S. Paule of himselfe And yet it is most true that one vnder the buthen of sinne can merite nothing saue hell fire and eternall paine Againe the same is confirmed in these words If I do that I would not then it is not I that doth it but sinne that dwelleth in me Loe S. Paule graunteth that to be sinne in himselfe which yet himself consenteth not vnto And that he speaketh of originall concupiscence which remaineth in the regenerate after baptisme it cannot be denied And it will not serue the turne to say as Bellarmine doth viz. that originall concupiscence remaineth after baptisme but is no sinne at all and that it is called sinne onely in this respect because it prouoketh a man to sinne as a mans writing is called his hand because it is written with his hand For first their owne master Petrus Lombardus graunteth it to be sinne euen as S. Paule doth Secondly it causeth man to serue the law of sinne which seruice can neuer be but sinne Thirdly S. Paule saith he doth that ill which he would not and that which he doth hate All which must needs be meant of sinne That concupiscence remaining after baptisme is truly called sinne the papists themselues confesse vnawares in a maine point of doctrine and setled ground of their religion Marke well gentle reader what I shall deliuer in this behalfe God chose all in Christ that shall be saued before the foundation of the world and likewise reprobated al both negatiuely and positiuely that I may vse their schoole-tearmes but positiuely for the foresight of original sinne For the proofe hereof it will suffice to alledge the words of our papists at Rhemes in their notes vpon the new testament Thus doe they write So likewise God seeing all mankind and euery one of the same in a generall condemnation and masse of sinne in and by Adam deliuereth some and not othersome These are their own words and that which they teach is the common doctrine of the Romish church Againe the same Rhemists in the chapter afore quoted haue these words by the same example of those twins it is euident also that neither nations nor particular persons be elected eternally or called temporally or preferred to Gods fauour before others by their owne merits because God when he made choise and first loued Iacob and refused Esau respected them both as ill and the one no lesse than the other guiltie of damnation for originall sinne which was alike in them both And therefore where iustly he might haue reprobated both he saued of mercie one This is that strong foundation whereon the papists thinke predestination to be built the which I willingly doe admit as which will make
doe they or can they merit ex condigno eternall life or glorie I say merit ex condigno because I willingly graunt with the auntient writers and holie fathers that good workes in a godly sense may be said to merit that is to say to impetrate fauour and reward at Gods hands for his mercie and promise sake who hath promised not to leaue vnrewarded so much as one cup of cold water giuen in his name but they can neuer truly be said to merite for any worthinesse or condigne desert of the works that are done Against which last part I contend with the papists at this present and namely against the late decree of the late Romish Counsell of Trent whose expresse wordes are these Si quis dixerit hominis iustificati bona opera ita esse dona Dei vt non sint etiam bona ipsius iustificati merita aut ipsum iustificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei gratiam Iesu Christi meritum cuius membrum viuum est fiunt non verè mereri augmentum gratiae vitam aeternam ipsius vitae aeternae si tamen in gratia decesserit consecutionem atque etiam gloriae augmentum anathema sit If any shall say that the good workes of the iustified man are so the gifts of God that they be not also the good merites of him that is iustified or that the iustified man by his good workes which he doth by the grace of God and merit of Christ Iesus whose liuely member he is doth not truly merit the increase of grace eternall life and the consequution of the same eternall life if he shal depart hence in grace and also the augment of glory let him be accursed Here we see the flat doctrine of the Romish Church which whosoeuer will not beleeue stedfastly must bee damned euerlastingly and with fire and faggot bee sent packing speedily Yet that this doctrine is most absurd in it selfe most blaphemous against the free mercie of God and most iniurious to the inestimable merits of our Lord Iesus I vndertake by Gods assistance to prooue by such cleere and euident demonstrations as shal be able to satisfie all indifferent readers and to put the papists to silence for euer in this behalfe The first reason drawne from the holy Scriptures THe first place of holy scripture is conteined in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the gift of God is life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our Lord. This text of scripture doth plainely conuince that life eternall cannot be condignely atchieued by the workes of man for being the free gift of God it can no way be due to the merite of mans worke The Rhemists to extenuate the cleerenesse of this text and as it were to hide and conceale the euidencie thereof doe translate for the Gift of God the Grace of God following their old vulgar Latin edition VVhich translation though in this place it mae be admitted yet doth it not sufficiently expresse the efficacie of the originall word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a gift freely bestowed for which respect their owne famous linguist Arias Montanus who was the onely man chosen as most sufficient for the translation of the old testament out of the Hebrew and of the new out of Greeke and imployed by the king of Spaine for that onlie end did not translate gratia but donatio not grace but donation or free gift Now let vs see and view the iudgement of the holy fathers vpon this portion of holy writ Saint Theodoret hath these wordes Hic non dicit mercedem sed gratiam est enim Dei donum vita aeterna si quis enim summam absolutam iustitiam praestiterit temporalibus laboribus aeterna in aequilibrio non respondent He saith no there reward but grace for eternal life is the gift of God For although one could performe the highest and absolute iustice yet eternall ioyes being weighed with temporall labours are nothing answerable Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes Non eundem seruat oppositorum ordinem Non enim dicit merces benefactorum vestrorum vita aeterna sed donum Dei vita aeterna vt ostenderet quod non proprijs viribus liberati sint neque debitum aut merces aut laborum sit retributio sed omnia illa ex diuino munere gratuitò acceperint He doth not obserue the same order of opposites For he saith not eternall life is the reward of your good workes but eternall life is the gift of God that he might shew that they are not deliuered by their owne strength or vertues and that it is not a debt or a wages or a retribution of labours but that they haue receiued all those things freely of the gift of God Origen writeth thus vpon the same wordes Deum verò non erat dignum militibus suis stipendia quasi debitum alique dare sed donum gratiam quae est vita aeterna in Christo Iesu domino nostro But it was not a thing worthy beseeming God to giue stipends to his souldiers as a due debt or wage but to bestow on them a gift or free grace which is eternall life in Christ Iesus our Lord. Saint Ambrose hath these wordes Sicut enim sequentes peccatum acquirunt mortem ita sequentes gratium Dei id est fidem Christi quae donat peccata babebunt vitam aeternam For as they that follow sinne gaine death so they that follow the grace of Christ that is the faith of Christ which forgiueth sinnes shall haue eternall life Theophilact hath these wordes Gratiam autem non mercedem dixit à Deo futurum perinde ac si inquiat non enim laborum accipitis premia sed per gratiam fiunt haec omnia in Christo Iesu qui haec operatur factitat He said grace not wages was to come from God as if he should say for ye receiue not rewards of labours but all these things are done by grace in Christ Iesus who worketh and doth them Anselmus and Photius haue the same wordes in effect which I omit in regard of breuitie By these manifold testimonies of the holy fathers the doctrine which I defend is cleere and euident viz. that eternall life is the free gift of God and is not merited or purchased by desert of man that eternall life is not a due debt a deserued wages or retribution of mans labours but proceedeth wholy and solie of the free mercy and grace of God that mans workes waighed in the ballance with the ioyes of heauen are nothing at all answerable vnto them To which fathers I will add the verdict of Paulus Burgensis a verie famous popish Spanish Bishop These are his wordes Noluit ergo dicere stipendium iustitiae vita aeterna sed maluit dicere gratia Dei vita aeterna quia eadem merita quibus redditur non a nobis sunt sed in nobis à Deo facta sunt
whosoeuer affirmeth that any man in particular being a true beleeuer cannot keepe and fulfill Gods commaundements in him of whose fulnesse we haue all receiued and whose righteousnesse is ours by his free gift and grace Thirdly that Gods commaundements may in some measure that is to say imperfectly bee kept euen in this life of all the regenerate And this not my answere but euen that answere which the famous papist Aquinas maketh to the obiection out of Saint Hierome whose answere is very sufficient to stop the mouthes of all papists seeing his testimonie is to them as if it were an oracle from Heauen To Saint Austen the same answere is very consonant as both by the precedent and subsequent words will appeare And if there be any papists whose appetites this answere cannot satisfie of those papist I would demaund this one thing VVhy infants not baptised before their death are iustlie damned for originall sinne seeing they could not possibly auoid the same He that would know Saint Austens meaning more fully both touching this obiection and others of like qualitie may reade the same holy Father in his booke De Corrept gratia and therein find much excellent matter for his contention in that behalfe Answere ô papists if ye can if not repent for shame and yeeld vnto the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Viz. Against M. D. Sutcliffe and M. Willet In his Preface to the reader In my Motiues booke 2. chap. 1. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. pont ca. 7. col 824. Gregor lib. 2. epist. 61. cap. 100 Ambros. de apologia Dauid cap. 10. pag. 386. Hieron tom 1. fol. 63. d. Enthi in Psal. 50. Glossa ordin in Ps. 50. Lyranus in Ps. 50. Aquin. 1. 2. q. 96. ar 5. ad 3. Hugo Card. in Ps. 50. See S. Cyprians opinion in the sixt article following in the first proposition and second reason and note it well because it is of great importance Victor de potest eccles relect 1. sect 6. p. 39. Gerson de potest eccles consid 12 part 3. Gerson vbi supra Dist. 96. can Constantinus Bellarm. lib. 5. de rom pont cap. 9. A. D. 471. Ar. Pontac Burdeg pag. 93. A. D. 536. A. D. 684 Platina in vita Benedicti secuÌ„di Vide Ar. Pontac fol. 111. a. A. D. 607. A. D. 751. Geraes 28. v. 12. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom pont cap. 8. A. D. 1294. A. D. 1408. A. D. 756. Manus manum fricat 2. Thess. 2. Bellar. tom 3. col 827. A. D. 801. A. D. 727. A. D. 805. Vide Ar. Poniac fol. 122. Vide Phillip Bergemens p. 277. Antoninus 3. par tit 22. cap. 5. §. 13. A. D. 994. A. D. 1294. Dest 22. can omnes Gloss. F. caelestis Appendix Fuldensis Gloss. lib. 1. decret tit 7. cap. 3. GersoÌ„ de potest ecclâ—s consider 12. part 3. Greg. 9. libr. 1. decr tit 33. cap. 6. Gloss. ibid. Sigebert in anno 1088. Answere ô papists if you can if not repent for shame Conc. tri sess 3. can 1. Aquin. 3. p. q. 76. ar 1. Ioseph Angles in 4. 1. p. q. 4. de euchar Bellar. de euch libr. 1. cap. 2. col 468. B. Bellarm. de euchar lib. 3. cap. 19. col 748. A. Aquin 3. p. q. 76 ar 4. contra Apud Ioseph Angles in 4. sect 1. p. pag. 144. Aquinas in 4. s. d. 10. q. 1. art 1. Aug. epist. ad Dardan in fine Aug. de consecr dist 2. can prima quidem Aug. cont Faust. lib. 20. ca. 11. to 6 Conc. trid sess 6. can 2. die 17. sep Bellar. li. 1. ca. 12 Aq in 3. p q. 82 art 4. Note this reason Beller de missa lib. 1. cap. 2. col 957. Vbi sup col 697. Vbi sup col 1015. Bellar. de missa lib. 1. cap. vlt. Hebr. 9. ver 17 25 26 27 28. Bellar. de missa lib. 1. cap. 12. col 1015. a. Aquin. 3. p. q. 76. ar 1. Hebr. 9. v. 27. Hebr. 10. v. 10. ibid. v. 12. ibid. v. 14. Luke 22. v. 20. Hebr. 9. v. 17. Luke 22. v. 20. Math. 26. v. 28. Hebr. 10. 18. Bellar. de missa lib. 2. cap. 4. col 1076. Bellar. de missa lib. 2. cap 4. col 1076. Conc. trid sess 6. can 2. die 17. sep De consecrat dist 2. can hoc est De consecrat dist 2. can Ego Berengarius Bellar. de con lib. 2. cap. 8. d. Gloss. de Cons. dist 2. cap. ego Berengarius August in Ioan. tract â—9 Rom. 10. v. 10. Bellar. de Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 3. col 474. Hebr. 10. Bellar. de Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 2. col 472. This is a great wonderment and extreame popish sollie Ioseph Angl. in 4. s. pag. 180. Antoninus 3. par tit 22. cap. 5. §. 8. Aug. de Anch. in summa pag. 152. Nauar. in Euchar cap. 22. par 21. Nauar. vbi sup Couar to 1. cap. 7. par 4. n. 13. col 1 Matth. 19. v. 7. Luke 16. v. 18. 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. Canus de locis lib. 8. ca. p. 246. Matth. 1. Ambros. de instit virg cap. 6. August de consens euang lib. 2. cap. 1. to 4. Augustin de nupâ—ijs concupisc lib. 1. cap. 11. tom 7. Antonin 3. p. tit 1. cap. 11. prope fin Fatetur Durandus olim papam dispensando errasse lib. 4. sent dist 7. q. 4. in fine Rom. 7. Psal. 58. v. 6. Lombard lib. 3. sent dist 19. Now must the papists perforce either recant their doctrine or els crie fire and faggot for their chiefe master Rom. 7. v. 25. Aug. li. 1. retract cap. 22. p. 23. Rom. 7. v. 23. Rom. 7. v. 19. August epist. 105. pag. 301. Rom. 7 v. 14. Rom. 7. v. 20. Rhemes test in Rom. 9. v. 14. Rhem. Rom. 9. v. 11. Marke wel this Dilemma Junò per actualia propria sua peccata quid ni Caranza in summa conciliorum fol. 369. Aug. lib. 5. cont Iulian. cap. 3. tom 7. Aug. contr Iulian lib. 6. cap. 8. to 7. August de nuptijs concupis lib. 1. cap. 25. to 7. Ps. 103. v. 3. It remaineth sinne by nature and so passeth by regeneration from the parents to the children August de nupttijs concupis libr. 1. cap. 29. Rom. 7. v. 7. Rom. 7. v. 7. Matt. 5. v. 22. August de nupt concup lib. 1. cap. 27. Rom. 6. v. 12. Aug. lib. 1. retract cap. 13. pag. 13. Aug. retract lib. 1. cap. 15. pag. 16. August vbi sup pag. 17. Bellarm. tom 3. col 400. vide Aug. de spiritu liter cap. vlt. tom 3. Eccles. 18. v. 30. 1. Ioan. 3. v. 4. Rhemâ— test in the notes in 1. Ioan. 3. 4. Arias Montan. in 1. Ioan. 3. Ambros. de parad cap. 8. tom 4. Vide Ambros. in 7. cap. ad rom in sine huius articuli August de consensu Euangel cap. 4. tom 4. Aug. cont Faust. lib. 22. cap. 27. tom 6. pag. 281. Vide Bernard de aduent dom serm 6.
may not onely truly but also iustly require reward at Gods hands in regard of his promise freely made vnto vs. But I euer denie withall that any reward is due to our best workes for any condigne merit or desert of or in our workes Gods free acceptation mercie and promise set apart For as Saint Austen grauely saith Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the best liuer vpon earth if thou examine his life thy mercy set apart Answere ô papists if ye can and if ye cannot then repent and yeeld vnto the truth for shame I challenge you I prouoke you to the combat I adiure you all ioyntlie and euery one of you seuerally for the credite of your cause for the honour of your Pope and the life of popish doctrine which now lieth bleeding and wil shortly yeeld vp the Ghost if some soueraigne remedie bee not speedily prouided for the same The sixt Article Of the Popish distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes ALthough it be true that all sinnes are not equall but one greater than another and although it be also true that in a good and godly sence some sinne may be tearmed mortall and some veniall which yet may more fitly be called sinnes regnant and not regnant neuerthelesse most true it is to the euerlasting confusion of all impenitent papists that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature and onely veniall by way of Gods free acceptation and mercie for his owne name sake and merits of his deare sonne our Lord Iesus I prooue it first both briefely and euidently For Christ himselfe telleth vs in his holy Gospell that we must giue a straight account of euery idle word in the generall day of iudgement And for no other end doubtlesse must this account be made but onely because euery idle word is flatly against the law of God This the papists can neuer denie it is euident to euery child And yet must they likewise confesse that idle words be those sinnes which they call venials And consequently they must confesse against their wils and against their professed Romish doctrine that all sinnes are mortall that is to say against the law of God This doctrine of our Sauiour Christ Iesus is confirmed by the testimonie of S. Iohn his beloued Apostle where he telleth vs that euery sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the transgression of Gods law as is alreadie prooued at large in the fourth article of concupiscence And the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a declining from the right way doth plainely confirme the same Secondly because our popish Rhemists confesse in plaine tearms that euery sinne is a swaruing from the law of God For doubtlesse that which swarueth from the law is truly said to be against the law but not agreeable to the law Thirdly because the famous popish Frier and Romish bishop Iosephus Angles teacheth the same doctrine in his booke dedicated to the Pope himselfe These are his own expresse words Omne peccatum veniale est alicuius legis transgressio Patet quia omne veniale est contra rectam rationem agere contra rectam rationeÌ„ est agere contra legem naturalem precipientem non esse à regula rectae rationis deuiandum Euery sinne veniall is the transgression of some law This is cleere because euery veniall sinne is against right reason and to doe against right reason is to doe against the law of nature which commaundeth vs not to depart or swarue from the rule of right reason Loe euery veniall sinne is against right reason and against the law of nature which is giuen to euery one in his creation in his birth or natiuitie Fourthly because Durandus another famous papist confuteth the late receiued popish opinion of Thomas Aquinas which the Pope and his Iesuits hold to wit that veniall sinnes are preter legem non contra Besides the law but not against the law These are Duâ—ands owne words Ad argumentum dicendum quod omne peccatum est contra legem dei naturalem vel inspiratam vel ab eis deriuatam To the argument answere must be made that euery sinne is against the law of God either naturall or inspired or deriued from them And this opinion of M. Durand is this day commonly defended in the popish vniuersities and schooles So saith Frier Ioseph these are his words D. Thomas eius sectatores tenent peccatum veniale non tam esse contra legem quam preter legem Sequitur Durandus tamen alij permulti hanc sententiam impugnant affirmantes peccata venialia esse contra mandata Et haec opinio modo in scbolis videtur communior S. Thomas and his followers hold that a veniall sinne is not so much against the law as besides the law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion auouching veniall sinnes to be against the commaundements And this opinion seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wish the reader to note by the way out of the word modo now adaies the mutabilitie of Romish religion For in that he saith modo now adaies he giueth vs to vnderstand that their doctrine is now otherwise than it was of old and in former ages A note worthie to be remembred For the old Romane religion was catholicke pure and sound and with it doe not I contend but I impugne late Romish faith and doctrine which the Pope and his Romish Schoole-men haue brought into the Church Fiftly because their canonized martyr Iohn Fisher the late bishop of Rochester teacheth the same doctrine so plainely as euery child must needs perceiue the truth in that behalfe These are his expresse words Quod peccatum veniale solum ex dei misericordia veniale sit in hoc tecum sentio That a veniall sinne is onely veniall through the mercie of God and not of it owne nature therein doe I agree vnto you Thus saith our bishop And as he telleth me that he agreeth with Luther therein so doe I tell our Iesuites that I agree with him with Durand Almaine and the other papists that teach the same doctrine Sixtly because Gerson another famous popish writer holdeth the same opinion These are his expresse words Nulla offensa dei est venialis de se nisi tantum modo per respectum ad diuinam misericordiam qui non vult de facto quamlibet offensam imputare ad mortem cum illud posset iustissimè Et ita concluditur quod peccatum mortale veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsecè essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad diuinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis aliud non No offence of God is veniall of it owne nature but onely in respect of Gods mercie who will not de facto imputa euery offence to death though he might doe it most iustly And