is there because the representation of his bodie is there And much more truly might Christ himselfe say This is my bodie when he gaue the signe and sacrament of his bodie I note fourthly that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed churches approoue therein that Christs bodie is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth figuratiuely significantly mystically sacramentally And consequently if the papists would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuit Bellarmine they here deliuer the controuersie would soone be at an end But I must needs tell the reader what the Popes owne glosse teacheth vs it is singular and worthie to be noted these are the words Nisi sane intelligas verba Berengarij in maiorem incides haeresim quam ipse habuit ideo omnia referas species ipsas nam de corpore Christi partes non facimus Vnlesse thou vnderstand the words of Berengarius soundly thou shalt fall into a greater heresie than he had and therefore thou must referre all things to the formes for of Christs bodie we make no parts Marke these words gentle reader for they are important They teach vs plainly that it is a most dangerous thing to relie vpon popish decrees euen then when they pretend to reforme the church and to condemne heresies S. Austen confirmeth the doctrine which the Pope compelled Bellengarius to abiure and that in many places of his workes one onely assertion I will now set downe These are his words Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominum They the other Apostles are the bread that was the Lord he Iudas ate not our Lord but the bread of our Lord against our Lord. Note these words gentle reader and marke them seriously S. Austen telleth vs that the bread which the other Apostles ate was our Lord yet that which Iudas receiued was but the bread of the Lord. This assertion confoundeth the papists For if our Lord and maker be present really in flesh bloud and bone vnder the accidents of bread and that so long as the same accidents remaine vncorrupt as the popish faith holdeth then doubtlesse Iudas should haue receiued his redeemer thē perforce Iudas should also haue receiued panē dominū thē Iudas could not by any possibilitie haue barely receiued panem domini which yet S. Austen affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true that after popish supposed consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christs naturall bodie as it truly consisteth of flesh bloud and bone and againe if it were also true that the selfesame bodie remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted then let all the papists in England with the best aduise of all their adherents and brother papists elswhere in Europe tell me how Iudas could receiue panem domini the bread of our Lord and not panem dominum the bread which is the Lord as S. Austen plainely auoucheth that is how Iudas could receiue the forme with the flesh bloud and bones of Christs organicall and naturall bodie hidden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and panem dominum as the other Apostles did Let them I say tell me this and I herewith promise to subscribe and neuer henceforth to write against them or any part of their popish doctrine If they will not this doe because they cannot for if they can doe it all the world must thinke they will doe it for their owne credit and the credit of their cause then doubtlesse if the feare of God be before their eyes they will acknowledge the truth and with open mouth confesse the same Corde enim creditur ad iustitiam ore confessio fit ad salutem The fourth Member Of the apparent contradictions in the Popish masse FIrst the papists tell vs that Christs bodie in their masse is the selfesame bodie that was nailed on the crosse And withall they tell vs that it is a figure of the same bodie That it is a flat contradiction their owne deare Cardinall Bellarmine shall tell them These are his words Figurae necessario inferiores esse debent rebus figuratis Figures of necessitie must be inferiour to the things figured by them And this doctrine is most true indeed as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrewes Now would I know of the papists if they can say ought for the life of their masse how Christs bodie in the masse being the selfesame bodie numero as they teach and beleeue can be inferiour to Christs bodie on the crosse how it can be both inferiour and superiour to it selfe how it can be both of greater and lesser value than Christs body on the crosse being euer the selfesame bodie on the crosse Secondly the papists tell vs that Christs naturall bodie is contained in a little round cake or vnder the accidents and forme of bread Now would I know of the same papists how the bigger can be contained of the lesser how a bushell can be couched in a pecke how a great oxe can be closed vp in a little calues bellie For all these implie euident contradiction Thirdly the papists tell vs that Christs bodie is truly broken For these are the Iesuit Bellarmines words Denique in concilio Romano sub Nicolao 2. compulsus est Berengarius confiteri Christi corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi frangi Finally in a councell at Rome vnder Pope Nicholas the second Berengarius was compelled to confesse that Christs bodie is sensuallie touched and broken with the priests hands Now would I know how it can be true that Christs bodie is broken and also true that it is not broken speaking of the same bodie at the same time Let all papists answere and tell me if they can how it implieth not contradiction For to say that not the bodie but the accident of bread is broken is too too childish and friuolous The reason is euident because Berengarius ô cruell impietie was compelled to confesse that Christs bodie was sensually broken Fourthly the papists tell vs that the pronouncing of these words by a priest This is my bodie do make Christs bodie present in their masse and also in other places insomuch marke well gentle reader what I say that if a popish priest come into a great market place where there is great store of wheat bread though a thousand or moe loaues in number and there looking on the bread shall pronounce the said words with intention to consecrate then forthwith euery loafe is God almightie and the people must adore the same Triall hereof was once made de facto in Italie as my selfe being in Rome heard from the mouth of a Iesuit For as the Iesuit reported a priest being degraded and designed to die as he passed in the street by a bakers house beheld a great quantitie of wheat bread and recited these words Hoc est corpus meum
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
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
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
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
the authoritie of the holy Fathers DIonysius Areopagita who liued in the daies of the Apostles doth liuely deliuer this truth vnto vs in these expresse words Omnino igitur non audendum est quicquam de summa abstrusaque diuinitate aut dicere aut cogitare praeter ea quae nobis diuinitus scripturae diuinae countiarunt In no wise therfore may we make bold to speake or thinke any thing of the most high and ineffable diuinitie saue that only which holy writ hath reuealed to vs from heauen S. Augustine that glistering beame and strong pillar of Christs church auoucheth plainely that all things necessarie for our saluation are contained in the written word as is alreadie prooued in the former reason and he confirmeth the same doctrine in another place where he hath these expresse words In his enim quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt inueniunter illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi spem scilicet atque charitatem For in those things which are plainely set downe in the holy Scripture all things are found which containe faith and manners that is to say hope and charitie The same S. Austen in another place hath these expresse words Credo quod etiam hinc diuinorum eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis illud ignorare non posset I beleeue that euen in this point also we should haue most cleere testimonie of holy writ if a man could not be ignorant thereof without the losse of his saluation S. Irenaeus hath these words Non emim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognouimus quam per eos per quos euangelium peruenit ad nos quod quidem tunc preconiauerunt postea vero per dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum For we know the dispensation of our saluation by them onely by whom the Gospell came to our hands which Gospell they first preached but afterward by Gods appointment they deliuered the same vnto vs in writing that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith Tertullianus an auncient writer who liued aboue 1300 yeeres agoe hath these expresse wordes Adoro scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem manifestat facta An autem ex aliqua subiacenti materia facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis offiicina si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adijcientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum I reuerence the plenitude fulnesse and perfection of the scripture as which sheweth to me both the maker and the things which are made But that all things are made of some subiacent matter I neuer could yet read any where Let Hermogenes his shop shew vs where it is written If it be no where written let him be afraid of that woe which is prouided for them that adde or take away from the Scripture Loe gentle reader these three most auntient fathers doe teach vs many very excellent documents First that we know the dispensation of our saluation by Christs Apostles Secondly that we receiued the Gospell from them Thirdly that they first preached the mysteries of our saluation deliuering the Gospell by word of mouth Fourthly that afterward they committed the same to writing Fiftly that the Scripture was written by Gods owne appointment Sixtly that it was written for this end and purpose That it might be the pillar and foundation of our faith Seuenthly that we may not speake or thinke any thing of God which we find not written in Gods booke Eightly that the holy Scripture is perfect and containeth all things necessarie for vs to know Ninthly that all such as teach or beleeue any doctrine not contained in the Scriptures must drinke of the cup of eternall woe for their paines Let vs proceed and see what other fathers of later times tell vs. S. Cyprian who liued about 249 yeares after Christ viz. aboue 1300 yeares agoe hath these words Vnde ista traditio Vtrumne de dominica euangelica authoritate descendens an de Apostolorum mandatis epistolis veniens Ea enim facienda esse quae scripta sunt deus testatur proponit ad Iesum Nave dicens Non recedet liber legis huius ex ore tuo sed meditaberis in eo die ac nocte vt obserues facere omnia quae scripta sunt in eo Si ergo aut euangelio precipitur aut in Apostolorum epistolis aut astibus continetur obseruetur diuina haec sancta traditio From whence came this tradition Did it descend from the authoritie of our Lord or his Gospell Or came it from the mandates of the Apostles or their epistles For that those things must be done which are written God himselfe doth witnesse and propose to Iesus Naue saying The booke of this law shall not depart from thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein night and day that thou maiest obserue to doe all things which are written in it If therefore it be either commaunded in the Gospell or be contained in the Epistles or in the Acts of the Apostles let this diuine and holy tradition be obserued Thus writeth S. Cyprian shewing plainely that all traditions ought to be examined by the written word and nothing to be admitted which is not contained in the same or grounded thereupon VVhere I note by the way for the helpe of the reader that though Cornelius then bishop of Rome whom now the papists tearme Pope and his holinesse together with the whole nationall synode of all the bishops of Italie had made a flat decree touching rebaptization and though also Pope Stephanus his holinesse had confirmed the same decree and commaunded it to be obserued and thirdly though our papists of late daies doe obstinately affirme that their Pope cannot erre when he defineth iudicially Yet this notwithstanding S. Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainly and roundly that in his time the bishop of Rome had no such authoritie as this day he proudly and antichristianly taketh vpon him for he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus who then was bishop of Rome and both sharpely reprooued him and contemned his falsely pretended authoritie And for all that S. Cyprian was euer reputed an holy bishop in his life time and a glorious martyr being dead But if the bishop of Rome had beene Christs vicar and so priuiledged as our papists beare the world in hand he is then doubtlesse S. Cyprian must needs haue beene an hereticke and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of God For if any Christian shall this day doe or affirme as S. Cyprian did or publickely denie the Popes falsely pretended prymacie in any place countrey territories or dominions where poperie beareth the sway then without all peraduenture he must be burnt at a stake with fire and faggot for his paines S. Athanasius hath these words Sufficiunt sanctae ac diuinitus inspiratae
vs plainely and without all dissimulation his mouth being now opened by him that caused Balaams asse to speake That in the holy scripture as in a plentifull storehouse is laid vp for vs and our instruction all knowledge necessarie for mans saluation Againe the same popish bishop Saint and Martyr of papists so esteemed and reputed telleth vs roundly That they must not because forsooth they cannot defend and maintaine their poperie by the authoritie of the scripture but by some other way and meanes to wit by mans inuentions and popish vnwritten vanities which they tearme the Churches traditions Now gentle reader how can any papist who is not giuen vp in reprobum sensum for his iust deserts read such testimonies against poperie freely confessed and published to the world by papists euen when they bestirre themsulues busily to maintaine their Pope and his popish doctrine and for all that continue papists still and bee carried away headlong into perdition beleeuing and obeying that doctrine which cannot be defended by the written word of God which is the store-house of all necessarie knowledge They doubtlesse are either very senselesse or so blinded for their former sinnes that they cannot behold the sunne shining at noone tide me thinks they should be ashamed to hold and beleeue that doctrine in defence whereof they can yeeld no better reasons But let vs yet heare what other renowned popish writers tel vs who doubtlesse will not bewray their owne cause but against their wils Howbeit as the wise man saith Magnaest veritas praeualet The truth is of such force as it must needes preuaile and in time haue the vpper hand Melchior Canus another popish bishop and a very learned schoole-doctor hath these expresse words Cum sit perfectus scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est vt ei sanctorum intelligentia iungatur authoritas Seeing the canon of the scripture is perfect and most sufficient of it selfe to euery end and in euery respect what need haue we to ioyne therewith either the exposition or the authoritie of the fathers Thus writeth this great learned papist not denying the sufficiencie of the holy scripture but requiring the commentaries of the fathers for the better vnderstanding of the same VVhose opinion I doe approue and commend in that respect as is euident to all that shall peruse my booke of Motiues Thomas Aquinas whom the Pope hath cannonized for a Saint and his doctrine for authenticall teacheth vs not to beleeue any thing concerning God sauing that only which is contained in the scripture expresly or at least significantly These are his owne words Dicendum quod de Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra scriptura non inuenitur vel per verba vel per sensum VVe must answere that nothing is to be verified of God which is not contained in holy writ either expresly or in sense The same popish doctour in an other place hath these wordes Quicquid enim ille Christus de suis factis dictis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit For whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to read of his doings and sayings the same he commaunded his Apostles to write as if he had done it with his owne hands Loe in these wordes Aquinas auoucheth very plainely that all things necessarie for our saluation are contained in the scriptures For in Christs deeds are contained his myracles his life his conuersation in his sayings semblably are contained his preaching his teaching his doctrine and consequently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know If then this be true as it is most true for the papists neither will nor can denie the doctrine of Aquinas that whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to know of his miracles of his life of his conuersation of his preaching of his teaching of his doctrine the same is now written in the scriptures no man doubtlesse but he that will cum ratione insanire can denie all things necessarie for our saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures To this doctrine deliuered by Aquinas agreeth their owne renowmed professor and most learned schoole-doctor Franciscus a victoria that Spanish frier His expresse wordes are these Non est mihi certum licet omnes dicant quod in scriptura non continetur I doe not thinke it certaine and sure although all writers affirme it which is not contained in the scripture The same popish doctor and frier in another place hath these words Propter quas opiniones nullo modo debemus discedere à regula synceritate scripturarum For which opinions we must by no meanes depart from the rule and synceritie of the holy scriptures Loe gentle reader our popish frier will beleeue no doctrine which is not contained in the scripture although all writers teach the same Mad men therefore may they be deemed that will beleeue whatsoeuer the Pope telleth them though it be neuer so repugnant to the scripture Anselmus and Lyra two other famous popish writers doe teach vs the selfe same doctrine The second Proposition All persons of what sexe state calling or condition soeuer they be may lawfully and ought seriously to read the holy scriptures as out of which euen the simplest of all may gather so much as is necessarie for their saluation This I say against that popish ridiculous vnchristian and verie pestilent abuse where the Pope deliuereth to the people as it were by was of apostolicall traditon the scriptures sacraments and church-seruice in a strange tongue to them vnknowne VVhich to be flatly against the practise of the primitiue Church I haue proued copiously in my booke of Suruey Here therefore I will onely shew that it is both lawfull and necessarie for all sorts of people that desire to attaine eternall life to read diligently the holy scriptures S. Chrysostome discourseth at large of this subiect in many places of his workes but I will content my selfe with some few for the present In his commentaries vpon Saint Paul he hath these words Et vos itaque si lectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere nullo alio preterea opus habebitis Verus enim est sermo Christi cum dicit quaerite inuenietis pulsate aperietur Verum quia plures exijs qui huc conuenere liberorum educationem vxoris curam gubernandaeque domus insesereceperunt atque ideo non sustinent totos se labori isti addicere saltem ad percipienda quae alij collegerunt excitamini tantum ijs quae dicuntur audiendis impendite diligentiae quantum colligendis pecunijs Tam etsi enim turpe sit non nisi tantum a vobis exigere tamen contenti erimus si vel tantum prestetis Nam hinc iunumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur Hinc erupit multa illa haereseon pernicies hinc vita dissoluta hinc
cannot in the world tell which of them we may safely follow Thus you see euen by the Iesuits verdict that in the popish Church all their bishops doe so erre and sometimes so dissent one from another that no papist can tell indeed which of them it is best to follow To which doctrine I will very willingly subscribe aduising this Iesuit and all other Iesuited papists to remember well this doctrine and not to hang their soules henceforth vpon their iarring and doting popish fathers whom as their deere Iesuit and renowmed Cardinall Bellarmine telleth them they may not safely follow And least the Iesuit or some for him shall answere me or say in his defence That albeit all popish bishops may erre seuerally and dissent among themselues as is alreadie said yet can they not erre when they are called together in a synode or counsell and the same confirmed by the Pope This is all doubtlesse that posibly can be said in defence of popish doctrine And consequently if I shall once prooue this to be a rotten foundation then must all popish buildings raised vpon the same fall downe and be euen with the ground Marke gentle Reader my syncere replie which I shall pithyly and plainely set downe in this behalfe VVherein for perspicuitie sake I will proceed by way of conclusions The first Conclusion The Pope was neuer present at the counsels in the East Churches by himselfe and in his owne person This conclusion is freely confessed by the Iesuit Bellarmine who alleadgeth two reasons for the Popes absence The one forsooth because it was not conuenient that the head should follow the members The other because the emperour would euer sit in the highest place Out of whose words I must needs note two important points by the way The one that in the auntient Church the highest place in the counsels was euer reserued to the emperour The other that the East Churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes primacie which he this day arrogantly challengeth ouer all kingdomes and regalities To which twaine this pleasant adiunct perforce must be annexed viz. that our humble father the Pope who calleth himselfe hypocritically seruus seruorum dei would neuer come to the counsels because forsooth he could not endure to see the emperour sitting in the highest place The second Conclusion The Pope staying at home himselfe sendeth his legates to the counsels to supplie his place to whom for all that he cannot commit his authoritie This conclusion must needs seeme strange to a great many but I will confirme it with the testimonie of such a worthie and renowmed papist that all whosoeuer shall once heare or read it cannot but giue credit to the same Melchior Canus is the man from whose pen I receiued it the case is euident these are his words Decreta quae à legato contra sedis Apostolicae traditionem approbantur non habent Romanae ecclesiae authoritatem nec aliter se habent quam si à concilio siue legatis prodnissent Sequitur solidam auctoritatem quam in confirmandis fratribus dogmatibus Petrus habet in legatos transferre non potest The decrees which the legate shall approoue against the tradition of the Church of Rome haue no authoritie from the Church of Rome neither are they of any more force than if they had proceeded from the counsell without the consent of the legates The sound authoritie which Peter hath in confirming his brethren and decrees he cannot transferre vnto his legates These are the expresse words of Canus that worthie bishop and strong pillar of popish doctrine Out of whose words I note first that decrees of counsels be of no force when they haue not the consent of the Popes legates Secondly that the decrees of counsels euen when they haue the consent of the legates are of no force at all if the legates shall agree to any thing which is against the Popes mind Thirdly that the Pope cannot translate or giue his authoritie vnto the legates And consequently that the Pope abuseth the whole world shamefully when he calleth together all bishops in the Christian world to decide and determine controuersies in religion and for all that will approoue nothing that they doe or decree vnlesse it be agreeable to that which himselfe decreeth apart in his chaire at home The third Conclusion Generall popish counsels in these our daies are euen as a nose of waxe and the decrees thereof are as vncertaine as the wind I prooue this conclusion by very strong and irrefragable reasons The Iesuit Bellarmine hath these words Nos dicimus concessum episcoporum in concilijs legitimis esse verum indicum concessum corum decreta leges necessario sequendas VVe say that the consistorie of bishops in lawfull counsels is the true assembly of iudges and that their decrees and lawes must be obserued of necessitie But in another place the same Bellarmine singeth another song in these expresse words Idem enim est siue pontifex expresse concilium reprobet siue concilium agat contra pontificis sententiam For it is all one whether the Pope disanull the counsell expressely or the counsell doe against the Popes mind Againe the same Bellarmine in another place auoucheth that the greater part of voices must beare the sway in counsels These are his owne words Non potest fieri vt aliquando ad finem controuersiarū deueniatur nisi detur locus maiori parti suffragiorum It cannot be that there should euer be made an end of controuersies except the greater part of voices may haue the vpper hand Againe in another place he hath these words Est autem verumdecretum concilij quod fit à maiori parte alioqui nullum esset legitimum concilij decretum cum semper aliqui dissentiant It is the true decree of the councell which hath the consent of the greater part for otherwise there should be no lawfull decree made at all seeing some doe euermore dissent This notwithstanding their famous bishop Melchior Canns doth roundly tell vs another tale These are his expresse wordes Non itaque quod in humanis conccssionibus fit plurimum apud nos sententia praeualet paulo post non enim numero haec indicantur sed pondere pondus autem concilijs dat summi pontificis grauitas authoritas Quae si adsit centum patres satis sunt sin desit nulli sint satis sint quamlibet plurimi It is not therefore with vs as it is in humane assemblies where moe voyces euer doe preuaile For these matters are not to be iudged by number but by weight And the councels receiue their weight from the grauitie and authoritie of the Pope Thus writeth our popish bishop Canus Now who seeth not that the decrees of popish councels are as vncertaine as the wind For the Iesuit telleth vs that moe voyces must needes preuaile But Melchior their renowmed bishop is of another mind that be they many
the Popes iudgement alone is infalliable VVherefore they ad this clause to salue the Popes proceedings That councels are called not for necessitie sake but for the better contentation of the weake I therefore conclude against the popish supposed bulwarke that seeing all bishops may erre seuerally as the Iesuit Bellarmine hath taught vs and seeing also that the constitutions in popish councels are nothing else in deed but the bare decrees of one onely bishop as is alreadie prooued it followeth of necessite and cannot be denied that all bishops in the popish Church may erre egregiously and that as well iointly as seuerally as is to be seene at large in my Golden ballance of triall to which treatise I referre the reader for better satisfaction both touching the Popes double person and concerning his priuate and publike errors In the interim I must needs tell the papists that a generall councell is aboue the Pope that a generall councell hath power to depose the Pope that a generall councell did de facto depose Iohn the 12 long sithence and Iohn the 13 of that name as I haue prooued at large by sound popish testimonie in my Anatomie of popish tyrannie And thus haue I prooued that the sole and onely scripture inspired from heauen is the infalliable rule of truth and that all traditions must bee examined by the same and then addmitted when they be consonant thereunto not otherwise howsoeuer antiquitie be pretended in that behalfe The fourth Proposition Popish vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine and doubtfull that the best learned papists are at great contention about them and cannot possibly be accorded therein For the proofe of this proposition it were ynough to call to mind that great and endlesse strife which was in the Church about 1400 yeeres sithence betweene Victor then Bishop of Rome and the bishops of Asia The controuersie was among them concerning the keeping of Easter Tradition apostolicall was alledged earnestly and both sides did stoutly defend the same The same tradition was in controuersie afore Polycarpus the bishop of Smyrna and Anicetus the Bishop of Rome But neither could Polycarpe perswade Anicetus nor Anicetus perswade Polycarpus albeit they both agreed as deere friends The storie is set done at large by Eusebius a learned father and most famous historiographer But Victor the Bishop of Rome dealt so furiously in that controuersie that Ireneus and other bishops of Gallia did sharply reprooue him for the same VVhat need more bee said for the varietie and vncertaintie of traditious For first the bishops that thought and taught thus diuersly of tradions did all of them liue within 200 yeeres after Christ at which time the Church was in in good estate and stayned with very few or no corruptions at all Secondly the one side doubtlesse must needs be seduced with false and vnsound traditions For apostolicall doctrine was vniforme and constant and could not possible bee contrarie to it selfe Thirdly Saint Policarpe Polycrates and the other bishops did in those dayes make no more reckoning of the bishop of Romes opinion than they did of another mans Fourthly they all were so farre from acknowledging the bishop of Rome to be the supreme head of the Church and that he could not erre that they all with vniforme assent affirmed him to defend a grosse errour and to hold a false opinion that they all reputed themselues his equals touching gouernment ecclesiasticall that they all verie sharpely reprooued him and with might and maine withstood his proceedings VVhereas this day if any bishops magistrates or other potentates in the world where poperie beareth the sway should doe the like they might all roundly be excommunicated and not onely deposed from their iurisdiction but also be burnt with fire an faggot for their paines Fiftly if Saint Polycarpe had cause in his time being the flourishing age of the Church to doubt of romish traditions much more doubtlesse haue wee cause at this day to stand in doubt thereof in these doolefull dayes I say in which iniquitie hath gotten the vpper hand in which the bishops of Rome haue brought an huge multitude of errors into the Church and seduced a great part of the Christian world Another controuersie touching traditions is for and about the keeping of Lent For albeit Saint Chrysostome tel vs plainely that Christ did not commaund vs to imitate his fast but to learne of him to be humble and meeke in heart yet doe the papists this day mordicus defend it to be an apostolicall tradition yea many of them are so blinded and besotted with vnsauorie traditions and superstitious illusions that they deeme it a greater sinne to eat flesh in Lent than to commit adulterie murder or periurie Of this vnwritten tradition falsly supposed apostolical Eusebius Caesariensis a famous historigrapher of great antiquitie writeth in this maner Non solum de die paschae agiter controuersia sed de ipsa specie ieiunij Quidam enim putant vno tantum die obseruari debere ieunium alij doubus alij vero pluribus nonnulli etiam quadraginta Quae varietas obseruantiae non nunc primum neque nostris temporibus coepit sed multò ante nos ex illis vt opinor qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditū est tenentes in alium morem vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam postmodum dicidêre The controuersie is not onely touching the day of Easter but alos concerning the very king or manner of fasting For some thinke they must onely fast one day some two dayes others moe dayes and there bee that thinke they should fast fourtie VVhich varietie of fasting did not now begin first neither yet in our daies but long before our time I thinke by them who keeping not simply what they receiued from the beginning did afterward fall to another manner either of negligence or els of ignorance Socrates in like manner reporteth hystorically that they differed no lesse in their manner of eating than they did in their daies of abstaining For some saith he would eat no liuing thing othersome of liuing things ate onely fish some together with fish did eat also birds but some ate only bread and others at night ate all kind of meates without difference Yea he telleth vs in the same place that the Romans fast three weekes before Easter besides the Sabboth and the Lords day And that the Illyrians and Alexandrians do fast six weekes and yet do they all tearm their fasts Lent By which testimonies euery man may easily perceiue how doubtfull and vncertaine vnwritten traditions be Thirdly there was another endlesse controuersie concerning traditions betweene the Greeks and the Latins whether the Eucharist ought to be celebrated in leauened or in vnleauened bread Fourthly Irenaeus a very auntient father affirmeth out of Apostolicall tradition that Christ was fortie yeeres old when he suffered his bitter passion Papias another father saith vpon the like traditiō that Christ
should raign 1000 yeeres after the generall resurrection Basilius another holy father saith that Zacharias the sonne of Barachias slaine betweene the altar and the temple was father to S. Iohn the baptist These absurdities the papists are this day ashamed to hold and yet did these fathers receiue them by Apostolicall so supposed tradition as their own famous doctor Andradius graunteth willingly Fiftly popish tradition telleth vs that all the bishops of Rome one after another haue taught succesiuely the selfesame doctrine with S. Peter Howbeit their own deere doctor and religious frier Nicholaus de Lyra auoucheth plainely roundly and boldly to the whole world that many bishops of Rome haue fallen away from the faith and become flat Apostataes And least this my narration be thought strange vnto many that our holy fathers the Popes should be Atheists or Apostataes and that their own deare brethren in high esteeme among them would neuer so write of them I will deale plainely in this important point and after my wonted manner set downe his owne expresse words Thus doth he write Ex quo patet quod ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticae vel secularis quia multi principes et summi pontifices et alij inscriores inuenti sunt a side apostatasse Propter quod ecclesia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera et confessio fidei et veritatis VVhereby it is euident that the Church doth not consist in men by reason of power or dignitie either ecclesiasticall or secular because many princes and Popes and others of the inferiour sort are found to haue beene apostataes and to haue swarued wholie from faith For which cause the Church consisteth in those persons in whom there is true knowledge and confession of the faith and of the truth Thus writeth this learned papist whom their owne so supposed martyr sir Thomas Moore called a great clearke as he was indeed whose words are well worthie to be engrauen in marble with golden letters For by his iudgement it is cleare and euident that not they who sit in S. Peters chaire are euer the true and lawfull successors of S. Peter but they only and solely that confesse and preach S. Peters faith and doctrine as also that their receiued maxime vbi Papa ibi Roma vbi Roma ibi ecclesia catholica is false vaine and friuolous VVe therefore this day impugne nothing in popish proceedings but the selfesame indeed which famous popish doctors reproued afore our time and that in their publicke writings published freely to the whole world VVhich thing whosoeuer will seriously ponder as my selfe haue done that man must perforce detest and abhorre all popish superstitious trumperie But of this argument I haue discoursed at large in my booke of Motiues Sixtly popish tradition telleth vs that the blessed virgine Marie the true mother of true God and true man was conceiued without originall sinne and that the bishop of Rome did for that end ordaine a feastiuall day of her conception to be kept vpon the eight of December But by your leaue Aquinas their owne Angelicall Doctor affirmeth resolutely that she was conceiued in originall sinne Yea their other holy doctor and deare frier Bernard doth very sharpely reprooue the Cathedrall Church of Lyons because they obserued the feastiuitie of the conception of the blessed virgine and the calleth that their practise the noueltie of presumption the mother of temeritie the sister of superstition and the daughtet of leuitie That done he addeth these words Hoc non est virginem honor are sed honori detrahere This is not to giue honour to the virgine but to take honour from her Yet Pope Sixtus the fourth did institute the feast of the conception Seuenthly popish tradition telleth vs that the emperour Constantine worthily surnamed the Great was baptised at Rome in a font there remaining to this day my self haue seene the same Howbeit Hieronymus Eusebius Socrates Theodoritus Sozomenus Cassiodorus and Pomponius doe all affirme very cōstantly that he was baptised at Nichomedia Eightly popish tradition hath brought flat idolatrie into the Church teaching to adore them as saints and Gods friends who were known heretickes and professed enemies to God and his Church This to be so their owne deare friend and brother Platina will tell them when he affirmeth the dead corps of Hermannus to haue been worshipped for a saints reliques at Ferrara the space of twentie yeares together who for all that was an hereticke as the same Platina auoucheth VVhere two speciall things are to be obserued seriously first the vncertainetie of vnwritten traditions secondly the danger in giuing credit to the same Now it remaineth for the better contentation of the reader to make answere to such obiections in defence of popish traditions as the papists haue euer in their mouths and boast of them as if they were insoluble The first Obiection VVe doe not know which bookes of the scripture are canonicall and which are not but onely by the vnwritten traditions of the Church And yet is this a matter of faith and very necessarie vnto saluation The answere This is that mightie obiection wherein the papists glorie and boast beyond all measure and say more rashly than wisely that it can neuer be truly answered I therefore shall desire the gentle reader to ponder well my words and then to iudge of the matter as right reason shall prescribe My answere is this First there is great ods betweene the primitiue Church and the Church of late daies VVhich to be so the famous popish doctor Durandus will contest with me For the Apostles as Durand saith wisely heard Christs doctrine saw Christs myracles and were replenished with the holy ghost and consequently they must needs be fit witnesses of all that Christ did and taught But these adiuncts cannot be rightly ascribed to the late bishops of Rome and their cursed Iesuited brood Secondly the old testament was deliuered by the Iewes and confirmed by Christ and his Apostles and therefore as the papists admit that tradition and withall doe reiect their other manifold vnwritten traditions which the Iews in their Talmud affirme to be of Moses euen so doe we receiue this tradition and reiect all vnwritten traditions contrarie to the same Thirdly the bookes of the new testament are but an exposition of the law and the Prophets as I haue alreadie prooued in the first proposition of this present article And consequently it may be discerned and tried by the same as the godly Bereans tried S. Paules preaching Fourthly when we affirme all things necessarie for our saluation to be comprised and contained in the scriptures we then speake of them as they are acknowledged and agreed vpon both among the Iewes for the old Testament in the which the new is comprehended and ioyntly for the old and new throughout the Christian world And
the catholike Church and there hath reckoned vp the consent of peoples and nations authoritie begun with miracles nourished with hope increased with charitie established with antiquitie succession of priests from Saint Peters seat and the name of Catholike he addeth that though these things bee great motiues to keepe him in the vnitie of the Church yet must the truth of the scriptures be preferred before them all In regard whereof he promiseth to giue more credit to Manichaeus than to the Church and to yeeld vnto his doctrine if he shal be able to prooue it out of the scripture In the meane while he must giue him leaue to preferre the credit of the catholike Church before his bare wordes especially seeing the Church but not Manichaeus was the outward meanes and externall helpe that brought him to the faith of the Gospell The second Obiection The baptisme of infants is a matter of faith but not conteined in the holy scriptures ergo not all things necessarie for mans saluation are therein to be found The Answere I answere that it is contained in the scriptures and I proue it by sundry reasons The first argument is drawne from the couenant For infants being within the couenant ought not to be debarred from the signe and seale thereof I will establish my couenant betweene me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an euerlasting couenant to be God to thee and to thy seed after thee Againe you are the children of the Prophets and of the couenant which God made to our fathers saying to Abraham euen in thy seede shall all the families of the earth be blessed Againe repent and be euery one of you bâ—ptised in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes and ye shall receiue the gift of the holy Ghost For the promise was made to you and to your children and to all that are a farre off euen so many as the Lord our God shall call Againe if the first fruits be holy the whole lumpe also is holy And if the roote be holy the boughes also Againe suffer the yong children and stay them not from comming vnto me for to such belongeth the kingdome of heauen And where Saint Matthew hath little children then S. Luke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infants which can neither vnderstand nor come Againe your children are holy yong children therefore must be baptised The second argument is drawne from the analogie of the figure of the old testament For circumcision to which baptisme succeeded did pertaine to both ages as well to yoong as to old In whom also yee are circumcised with circumcisioÌ„ made without hands by putting off the body of the flesh subiect to sinne by the circumcision of Christ buried with him in baptisme in whom yee are also risen againe through the faith of the operation of God who raised him vp from the dead Thus saith Saint Paul by whose wordes we may learne sufficiently that baptisme did succeed to circumcision for the same end vse and purpose viz. that by it we may putting off the bodie of sinfull flesh be buried together with Christ and rise again with him through faith The third argument is drawne from the practise of the Church For the Apostles of our Lord Iesus were commaunded to baptise all sorts of people withour exception Goe therefore and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost Againe we read in the historie Apostolical that the whole house of Lydia was baptised neither yong nor old being excepted Againe we may find in the acts that the keeper of the prison at Philippos was baptised all they of his houshold incontinent Againe in another place we may read that the whole family of Stephaâ—â—s was baptised not one at all exempted The Obiection Infants haue no faith ergo they may not be baptised The Answere I denie the antecedent because their faith and profession is this to be borne of the faithfull in the vnitie of the Catholike Church Againe though they haue not actuall faith yet haue they faith fundamentallie and by inclination In which sense our Lord Iesus doth reckon them among the faithfull when he saith in this manner VVhosoeuer shall offend one of these little ones that beleeue in me it is better for him if a milstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea Infants therefore when they are baptized in the Church for faithfull are then deemed to beleeue after their manner VVho albeit they haue not faith in act yet haue they the spirit and vertue or foundation of faith by Gods operation in them Neither ought this thing to seeme strange vnto vs. For if the infants of the wicked ones haue infidelitie and impietie though not in act yet in inclinatioÌ„ by nature as writers graunt then truly may it be said that the infants of the faithfull haue faith and pietie though not in act yet in inclination by grace For grace cannot be of lesse force through Christ than nature through the fall of Adam for God saith plainely I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee The third Obiection VVee beleeue the trinitie of persons in vnitie of substance but this is not in the scripture Ergo. The answere I denie the assumption for the trinitie of persons is plainly auouched in the holy Gospel where it is thus written But the comforter which is the holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things Thus saith our Lord Iesus In which words we see mention made of three distinct persons first of the Father which sendeth secondly of the holy Ghost which is sent thirdly of the Sonne in whose name he is sent Againe in another place it is thus written There are three which beare recorde in heauen the Father the VVord and the holy Ghost and these three are one Item Matth. 28. verse 19. The fourth Obiection It is not to be found in the holy scrpture that Christ is consubstantiall and of the same substance which the Father Ergo. The Answere The antecedent is false For first in the prophesie of Zacharias I find these wordes arise O sword vpon my shepheard and vpon the man that is my fellow saith the Lord of hostes Secondly in many places of the new testament First in these words I and my Father are one Secondly in these words If ye beleeue not me beleeue the works that ye may know and beleeue that the Father is in me and I in him Thirdly in these words VVho being in the forme of God thought it no robberie to be equall with God Fourthly in these words She shall bring foorth a sonne and thou shalt call his name Iesus for he shall saue his people from their sinnes For this respect saith holy