Peters successor must be in the same case that is neither to erre personally nor iudicially or if he erre one way then also to bee subiect to error the other Lastly experience hath taught that Popes may erre euen as they are Popes and that iudicially yea and also haue beene condemned for Heretikes As Honorius the first whom three generall Councils condemned for a Meâ—othelâ—te And Iohn the two and twentieth who was constrained to recant his iudgement touching the soule by the Vniuersitie of Paris And Iohn the three and twentieth who was condemned for an Heretike by the Council of Constance for denying the immortality of the soule And diuers others who not onely in their priuate opinions but in their publike doctrines haue taught and maintained notorious errours 67. Another doctrine of theirs is that the Pope is the head of the Church and yet they denie not but sometimes the Pope is no true nor sound member of the Church how can hee be the head of the Church that is no sound member thereof nay no member at all not so much as the taile as the Iewish Rabbines call the Bishop of Rome in disdaine except their last distinction helpe them quatenus Papa and quatenus homo I know not how they will rid themselues out of this snare and yet that will not helpe them neither in this case for is it likely that Christ will make a reprobate the head of his Church and commit the cuâ—â—â—dy of the same to an Atheist an Heretike or an Epicure or a Necromancer or a monster of nature as all stories â—all Iohn 12. and as many of them haue beene Surely either as he is a Pope he is not the Churches head or as hee is a man hee must needs be a member of the same If they say that wee giue vnto a King the same title of head and gouernor of the Church who notwithstanding is often a tyrant and waster of the Church and a very reprobate I answere that in attributing these titles of dignity to Kings wee doe not positiuely set downe what euery one is for if hee bee a destroyer of the Church hee is not an vpholder of it but what euery one ought to bee in regard of his office but the Romanists absolutely set it downe that though the Pope be a wolfe wasting the flocke of Christ and though hee lead by his doctrine and example infinite soules with him to hell yet hee is still actually the head of the Church quatenus Papa and no man may say vnto him Why doe you so 68. Againe it was decreed by two Councils and those assembled authorized and confirmed by Popes themselues that the Councill was aboue the Pope and yet the Councill of Laterane vnder Pope Leo the tenth decreeth peremptorily that the Pope is aboue all Councils so also most of the moderne Romanists affirme Now if the decrees of Councils lawfully assembled and approoued by Popes bee the doctrines of the Church then here is one doctrine quite contrary to another one Councill opposite to another yea one Pope to another which is no new nor strange thing but ordinary in the Church of Rome As witnesse Pope Iohn the two and twentieth and Pope Nicholas about the question of our Sauiours manner of possessing earthly goods and Pope Celestine and Pope Innocent the third in the question of diuorce in the case of heresie and Pope Pelagius and Pope Gregory the first in the question of putting away the wiues of Subdeacons one of these crossing the other iudicially and one gain saying what the other defended And most notorious is that which diuers Chronologers testifie of Pope Stephen the sixt how hee decreed in a Councill that they who were ordained Bishops by Pope Forâ—â—sus his predecessour were not ordained lawfully because the man was wicked by whom they were ordained therfore he did vnordain them and reordaine them againe thus Stephen iudicially crossed Formâ—sus and hee againe was crossed and condemned by Pope Iohn the ninth euen for this fact and his new ordainings marched with new baptizings 69. Lastly they constantly maintaine that the Pope is not Antichrist and yet they affirme that hee is the Vicar of Christ heere on earth a flat contradiction for the word Antichrist signifieth not onely an enemie vnto Christ but also one that taketh vpon him the office and authority of Christ the prâ—position 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affording naturally and properly both significations as appeareth in these two wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an opposite and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Proconsull in the first whereof it signifieth opposition and the second substitution Now then if the Pope bee Christs Vicar generall on earth then he is in the last sense Antichrist and beeing so in the last sense it is most likely that hee is also the same in the first because the Antichrist spoken of in the Scripture is described to be such a one as is not an open and outward but a couert and disguised enemie hauing two hornes like the Lambe that is counterfeting the humility and meeknesse of Christ and making a glorious profession of religion with a shew of counterfeit holinesse when notwithstanding hee speaketh lyes in hypocrisie and vttereth wordes like the dragon and is the greatest enemy to Christ Iesus and his Gospel that euer was so that in that hee is Christs Vicar hee is Antichrist by their owne confession in that sense and being so is probably Antichrist also in the other because the true Antichrist must bee both the one and the other And so for the conclusion of this point wee haue not onely the mystery of iniquity that is Antichristianisme in the manifold contradictions and oppositions thereof but euen Antichrist himselfe lurking in his den professing himselfe and his followers to bee the onely true Church of God and pretending himselfe to be the Prince of the couenant as Saint Ierome speaketh that is asmuch as to say the Vicar of Christ and without doubt as the sweet harmonie in Christian Religion and euery part thereof with it selfe is a pregnant argument of the infallible truth thereof so the miserable opposition and contrariety in the Religion of the Church of Rome and that most of the doctrines therein contained either with themselues or with other as I haue in part here shewed leauing a fuller demonstration thereof to some other that shal more deeply search into them doe euidently euince that it is the Religion of Antichrist and therefore not onely to be suspected but euen to bee abhorred of all them that loue the truth or that desire the saluation of their soules The IX MOTIVE That Religion whose doctrines are in many points apparently opposite to the word of God and the doctrine of the Gospell cannot bee the trueth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo c. 1 IN the Chapter going before I haue shewed how the Romish Religion is contrary to it selfe
it is Romish is not the true Catholique Religion of CHRIST but the seduction of Antichrist THE PREAMBLE THat which Ireneus an ancient and godly Father of the Church speaketh of all Heretickes that all the Helleborus in the world is not sufficient to purge them that they may vomit out their follie may truely be spoken of the Church of Rome and her adherents that it is a difficult matter if not almost impossible to reclaime her from her errors and to heale her wounds All the balme of Gilead will not do it nor all the spirituall phisicke that can be ministred for there are two sinnes which of all other are most hard to bee relinquished Whoredome and Drunkennesse the one because it is so familiar and naturall to the flesh the other because it breedeth by custome such an vnquenchable thirst in the stomacke as must euer anon be watered with both which spirituall diseases the Church of ROME is infected She is the Whore of Babylon with whome the Kings of the Earth haue committed fornication and who hath made drunke with the Wine of her fornications all the Inhabitants of the Earth In regard of the first Ieremie prophecied of her that though paines be taken to heale her yet shee could not be healed And in regard of the second Saint Paul prophecied that GOD would send them strong delusion that they should beleeue lies that all they might bee damned that receiued not the loue of the truth Notwithstanding though the hope bee as little of the reclaiming of most of them as of turning an Eunuch into a man or making a blacke Moore white yet I haue propounded in this discourse a strong potion compounded of ingredients which if they bee not past cure may purge and cleanse them of their disease and reduce them to the sanity of Christian Religion Which if their queasie stomackes shall eyther refuse to take or hauing taken shall vomit vp againe and not suffer them to worke vpon their consciences yet this benefit will arise that God shall be glorified the truth manifested and all that loue the truth confirmed and they also themselues that are so drowned in error that they will rather pull in others ouer head and eares vnto them and so drowne together then be drawne out of the myre by any helpe shall be conuinced in their consciences of their most grosse apostacie With this confidence towards Gods glorie and the good of his Church though with little hope of recouering them from their obdurate blindnesse I enter into my intended taske desiring the Lord to giue a blessing to these poore labours which I consecrate to my Lord and Master Iesus Christ whom I serue and the Church his Spouse of which I professe my selfe to bee one of the meanest members MOTIVE I. That Religion which in many points giueth libertie to sinne is not the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of ROME ergo c. THe first proposition is an vndoubted truth and needs no confirmation especially seeing S. Iames describeth true Religion by these attributes pure and vndefiled And S. Paul calleth it the mysterie of godlinesse and the doctrine according to godlinesse And herein consisteth an essentiall difference betwixt the true Religion and all false ones so that it must needs follow that that Religion which is essentially the cause and occasion of sinne and openeth a wide window to vngodlinesse cannot be the truth of God but must needs fetch it beginning from the deuill who is the author of all euill The Gospell indeede may by accident be the occasion of euill as S. Paul saith The law is the occasion of sinne for it stirs vp contention and strife and discouers the corruptions of Mans heart and by opposing against them as a damme against a streame makes them to swell and boyle and burst forth beyond the bounds howbeit here the cause is not in the Gospell or Lawe but in the corruption of mans heart which the more it is stirred the more it rageth and striueth to shew it selfe But neuer yet was the doctrine of godlinesse the cause of wickednesse nor the pure and vndefiled Religion of Christ Iesus an essentiall procurer and prouoker vnto sinne 3. This therefore being thus manifest all the question and difficultie remaineth in the second proposition to wit that the Religion of the Romish Church is such as openeth a gappe vnto sinne and giueth notorious libertie and scope to vngodlinesse and that not by way of accident or occasion but necessarily as the cause to the effect Qua data necessariò soquitur effectus as the Logicians speake and therefore being an â—npure and defiled Religion and the mysterie of iniquitie not the mysterie of godlinesse it cannot be that true Religion which Christ our Sauiour brought with him from heauen and left here vpon earth blamelesse and vnspotted like himselfe to be the way to lead vs vnto heauen where hee is 4. That the Romish Religion is a polluted and defiled Religion tending to libertie and loosenesse Let the indifferent Reader iudge by these few instances deriued out of the verie bowels of their Church and being articles of their faith and grounds of their Religion And first to beginne with their doctrine of dispensations whereby they teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with the word of God and with euery commandement of the Law and not onely with the Law but with the Gospell and Epistles of Paul to what horrible loosenesse and lewdnesse of life doth it tend for to omit that it containeth in it open blasphemie by their owne rule which is that In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior the inferiour may not dispense with the precept of the superiour by which the Pope dispensing with Gods lawe is not oneâ—y equalled but exalted aboue God what sinne is there bee it neuer so hainous which there is not libertie giuen to commit by this licencious doctrine 5. Incest But Pope Martin the first gaue a dispensation to one to marrie his owne sister and not his wiues sister only as some of the Romish crue would dawbe ouer this filthie wall because it is in Antoninus Cum quadam eius germana for Siluester Prieriâ— Bartholomeus Fumus and Angelus de Clauafio speake more plainely Cumsua germana that is with his owne naturall sister Another Pope dispensed with Henry the eight to marrie his sister in law and with Philip of Spaine to marrie his owne Niece and Clement the 7. licenced Petrus Aluaradus the Spaniard to marrie two sisters at once and no maruaile seeing it is the very doctrine of the Romish Church that the Pope can dispense in all the degrees of Consanguinitie and Affinitie saue onely with the Father and his daughter and with the Mother and her Son Sodometrie But Pope Sixtus the fourth licensed the Cardinall of Saint Lucie and his familie to vse freely that sinne not to bee named in the
enforcement to take vengeance on those parts which had done her the mischiefe and to eate them also with many other filthy circumstances which I shame to speake of but in conclusion to make vp the matter with a miracle two midwiues were brought from heauen to Mistresse Nunne by the ghost of Henry Murdach the Archbishop of Yorke which discharged her of her childe without paine and carryed it forth with them to heauen with lie and all so that it was neuer after seene Is not this penance thinke you able to terrifie any one from committing the like sinne or rather might not this Nunne say as another of her sexe and profession said after she had had three Bastards which proued great Clarkes and learned men in the Church that it was a happy scape which brought forth three such worthy bastards so this might call her Sonne an happy Sonne which was honoured with so great a miracle But let the Popes lawes bee broken or his triple Crowne touched and he shall smoake for it that dares do this 25. Their fourth doctrine tending apparently and by necessary consequence to loosnesse is their doctrine of vowed chastity whereby they enioyne single life and prohibite matrimony to certaine kinds of men and women to wit such as enter into holy orders teaching and maintaining that for such it is better to go to harlots then to marry and that to go to a harlot now and then is but a sinne of infirmitie as Pighius calleth it but to marry is no better then a resolued deliberate or continuall incest vtterly without all shame What an occasion or rather a cause this point of Romish doctrine hath beene of horrible silthinesse and wickednesse of life wofull experience in all places where the Romish Religion beareth sway manifestly declareth For to omit that this doctrine is but an vpstart doctrine in respect of true antiquity brought in first by Pope Seritius three hundred and eighty yeares after Christ who was the first that made any restraint of Priests marriages as it is confessed by Polidore Virgill the decree on the Canon law and Clictoueus and yet tooke not effect vntill the time of Gregory the seuenth called Hidlebrand in the yeare one thousand seuentie and foure as also to omit that this doctrine is both contrary to the precepts of holy Scripture and practice of holy men both vnder the law and vnder the Gospell for vnder the lawe both Priests and Prophets were married and vnder the Gospell both Apostles and Disciples had their wiues and after them Bishops and Prestbyters and the doctrine of the Scripture is Marriage is honourable among all men and again If they cannot abstaine let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne Yea and Saint Paul giueth order concerning the wiues and children of Bishops which had beene needlesse if they might haue none And lastly to omit that this prohibiting of marriage is called by Saint Paul one of the doctrines of deuils euery one of which might be a sufficiēt argument not only to euince the vnsoundnesse of this doctrine but also to demonstrate how likely itmust needs be to occasionate sinne comming not from God and therfore not likely to haue his blessing to follow it but from the deuill and therfore most likely to serue for the aduancement of his kingdome Notwithstanding to omit all these and to refer them to a fitter place let vs weigh this matter in the ballance of reason and wee shall easily find that a great breach is hereby made for mens vnruely and vntoward affections to burst forth into horrible and damnable sinnes 26. For first the gift of Continency is no common but a rare and singular gift which God bestoweth not vpon all but vpon some few this proposition is prooued by that aphorisme of our Sauiour All men cannot receaue this thing saue they to whom it is giuen and in the next verse He that is able to receaue it let him receaue it Whereby he insinuateth that who so euer taketh vpon him the vowe of chastity not being able to performe the same sinneth in so doing It is proued also by Saint Paul in this conclusion Euery man hath his proper gift of God one this way another that way for speaking of the gift of continencie he wisheth that all men were as he himselfe but seeing they are not so therefore he leaueth it free to marrie for such as haue not that gift But the Romish Clergy together with the infinite orders of religious Votaries are not few but many and those chosen promiscuously without any respect had whether they be endowed with that gift or no therefore being vnable to containe and forbidden to vse the lawfull remedy ordained by God they must of necessity fall into lawlesse and vnordinate lusts besides seeing that euery man that will be hee neuer so defamed for incontinency and so by experience knowne to be voyde of that same excellent gift may become a Votary and on the contrary our Sauiour saith euery man cannot receaue this what hope can there be of chastity among these men Is the gift of chastitie indeed so common that euery man may haue it that will Is it so ordinary that it is communicated to thousands of Priests Monkes Friars and Nunnes yea to innumerable of that order in all places why then what meant Cassander a learned diuine of their owne to say that the world was come to that passe that a man could scarce find one of an hundred that kept himselfe free from incontinency And Erasmus that the number of Monkes and Priests that liued in whoredome and incest was innumerable weigh the reason now in his iust termes they that cannot containe must needs burst forth either into secret or open vncleannesse But of infinite Romish votaries few or none haue that gift to containe therefore the rest must necessarily fall into either secret or open vncleannesse let any man iudge now whether this doctrine doth not directly tend vnto loosenesse 27. If any alleadge that this gift of continency may bee obtained by fasting and prayer I answere two things First If it may be thus obtained it is a signe that they vse but little the same holy exercises seeing fewe among them doe attaine vnto it Secondly I answere that continency is in the number of those gifts which may be denyed to a man salua salute without danger of his saluation because it is not necessarie to saluation nor common to all Gods children but peculiar to some Now the promise of our Sauiour aske and yee shall haue is meant of things necessary to saluation and not of particular and speciall gifts Thus Paul prayed thrice that the pricke in the flesh the messenger of Sathan might be remoued from him and some say this was concupiscence yet he was not heard in that which he prayed for because hee might be saued without it as it appeared in the answer giuen vnto
practice Their principles are these As long as the Prince continueth excommunicate the Subiect is freed from the oath of subiection this is the Position of a Cardinall whose authority was so great in the Church of Rome that whatsoeuer he wrote was allowed as sound and authenticall without examination or supervizing To him I adde a Bishop whose writings after supervision and examination were approued as Catholique doctrine and to containe in them nothing contrary to the receiued faith of the Romane Church his Position is this Assoone as a Christian King becomes hereticall forthwith people are freed from their subiection The condition in the first Position is if the King be excommunicate in the second if he be hereticall which though different in termes yet in substance are all one for euery heretique is excommunicate quatenus apertè haereticus in that he is an open heretique if not by name yet in deed and by right and so Subiects may lawfully deny him obedience saith another Iesuite and what is an hereticke in their diuinity I pray you Marry Whosoeuer maintaineth any doctrine expresly condemned by the Church of Rome hee is to be accounted say they an obstinate hereticke To these adde the sentence of another Cardinall euen our owne Countriman Al in his Apology for Stanlies treason who ioyneth both these two conditions together as two twinnes By reason saith he of Queene Elizabeths excommunication and heresie it was not onely lawfull for any of her Subiects but euen they were bound in conscience to depriue her of any strength which lay in their power to doe and to deliuer her Armies Townes or fortresses into her enemies hands she no more being the right owner of them But all this while we haue not the pillar of Popery Bellarmine it may be he is of another mind heare therefore his resolution Non licet Christianis tolerare c. It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate a King that is an infidell or an heretike if he endeuour to draw his Subiects to his heresie or infidelity This is braue Bellarmines resolution of this case Neither doth he barely set it downe but laboureth to proue it by many arguments throughout that whole Chapter indeed he pinneth it all vpon the Popes sleeue he must pronounce the King to be an heretike and they like sheepe must auoyde him as a wolfe he must forbid them to obey and they must forthwith fall to rebellion that whole seuenth Chapter is worth the reading if any desire to know the full and compleat doctrine of the Romish Church concerning the poynt of rebellion and treason against Princes And that this was the doctrine not of some few among them but of all in generall Let a Fryer of their owne testifie about three hundred yeares since Sigebert mencioning the Popes proceeding against Henry the Emperor thus writeth Be it spoken with the leaue of all good men this nouelty that I say not heresie had not as yet sprung vp in the world that Gods Priests should teach the people that they owe no subiection to euill Princes and though they haue sworne allegeance to them yet they owe them no fidelity neither shall hee be accounted periur'd which thinketh against the King yea hee that obeyeth him shall be counted for excommunicate and he that doth against him shall be absolued from the guilt of iniustice and periurie Here we may behold the doctrine of that age and withall that by this Fryers iudgement concurring with vs it is not onely nouelty but a point of heresie to dissolue the bond of allegeāce which Subiects owe vnto their Princes vpon any pretence whatsoeuer 3. But all these are but the opinions of priuate men and not the decrees of the Church heare therefore what the Church speaketh by the pretended head thereof the Pope who as they affirme cannot erre whilest he sits in the chaire of Peter to determine matters of faith Gregory the seuenth alias Hildobrand thus determineth We by Apostolicall authority doe absolue all from their oaths which they haue giuen to persons excommunicate And another Pope of later time in his Bull against Queene Elizabeth thus We absolue all Subiects from their faith they haue plight with Elizabeth their Queen A third Pope Paulus Tertius did excommunicate Henry the Eight King of England and commanded his nobles to beare armes against him and to make vp the full squadron of Popes when as the Vniuersite of Salamanca determined that all Catholiques which did not forsake the defence of the English and follow the traytor One all in Ireland did sinne mortally and could not obtaine euerlasting life except they should desist Pope Xistus giueth this censure of their determination Those Diuines saith he haue done the parts of good Lawyers Confessours and Doctours Many more testimonies to this effect might be accumulated but these are sufficient because wee shall haue occasion to speake hereof more at large hereafter to all that are not either bewitched with the enchantments of the whore of Babylon or blinded with preiudice to shew how both in their principles and their practice they maintaine treason and rebellion against Princes contrary to the lawes of God of nature and of man 4. A doctrine Cousin german vnto this of the same kind though not of the same degree is that their Position touching the dissoluing of all bonds of naturall and ciuill society wherby they resolue that no communion or fellowship is to bee held with heretiques that is with Protestants by whatsoeuer bond of nature or ciuility they be obliged therevnto and therefore the Father is bound to dis-inherite and cast off his Sonne the Sonne to deny and disobey his Father the wife is forbidden to render due beneuolence to her husband the seruant is commanded to disobey his Master the debter to deny payment to his Creditor the Countriman to deny his owne Country the kinsman to disclaime his kindred if any of these be heretiques that is be Protestants What a religion is this that not only choaketh the breath of humane society but euen stifleth the life of nature it selfe Hee that desireth to see these things proued let them reade Doctor Mortons first Booke of Romish positions and practices of rebellion and also his reply vnto the moderate answere where he shall find them largely and foundly discouered and confirmed 5. Againe by their doctrine of equiuocation they teach and maintaine open and notorious lying and periury such as the very heathen of stricter life and simpler iudgement abhor'd their doctrine is this A man saith Tollet is not alwaies bound to answere according to the meaning of the asker but may sometimes vse equiuocation and deceiue the hearer this is lawfull saith he whē the Iudge requireth an oth against iustice or when he is not a competent Iudge as another speaketh as for example if the Iudge demand Hast thou done this he may answere I haue not though he
haue with this secret meaning to tell it thee or at this time or some such like things And if an husband aske his wife whether shee be an adulteresse she may answere no though she be with this mentall reseruation to reueale it to him and if a man be constrained to sweare that he will take a woman to his wife he may doe it safely although he neuer meane it with this close clause in his mind if she shall after please him Thus farre Tollet 6. Now of late dayes one hath divulged a whole Treatise in defence of this monstrous doctrine to the which Blackwell the Arch-priest hath giuē this solemne approbatiō that it is a very godly learned Catholique Tractate worthy to be published in print to the comfort of the afflicted instructiō of the godly The author of this Tractate thus concludeth If a Catholike or any other person shal be demanded vpon his oath before a Magistrate whether a Priest be in such a place he may though hee know the contrary securely in conscience answere No without periury with a secret meaning reserued in his mind namely that he is not there so as a man is bound to reueale him Againe if one shall aske me whether such a stranger lyeth in my house I may answere he lyeth not in my house albeit he do meaning Non mentitur this last is verball equiuocation the former is mentall reseruation which are the two approued kindes of their equiuocating art 7. If this filthy strumpet be not the mother of two foule daughters Lying and Periury lying if by a bare asseueration periury if ioyned with an othe let all that haue but common sense and reason iudge and let the Enquest that shall enquire into this matter be first heathen Philosophers secondly the Popish writers themselues thirdly the Fathers and Doctours of the Church and fourthly which is of greater moment then all the rest the holy Scripture of God diuinely inspired and cannot deceiue nor be deceiued Let vs heare the Philosophers verdict A Lye saith Tully is a false enunciation of words with an intent to deceaue and againe he defines dolus malus that is deceit to be when one thing is pretended another acted this is a false action So in like manner a false diction which is a lye must needs bee when one thing is spoken by the mouth another vnderstood in the heart therefore the ordinary Grammaticall notation of this word mentiri to lye is quasi contra mentemire as it were to goe against the minde and Aristotle sayth that speech is ordained for this cause to signifie and expresse the secret conceptions of the mind therfore when the mouth and the mind are at variance then the law of nature is peruerted and in stead of a naturall and true-borne childe Truth a bastard to wit a lye is produced But they which equiuocate pretend one thing and intend another they speake one thing meane another their heart and their tongue like vntuned strings are at iarre with themselues and therefore by no meanes can they be excused from open and notorious lying 8. Now if an oath bee mixed then a fouler monster is brought forth euen Periury for what is periurie but according to their own diuinity a lye made in an oath and is not equiuocating when the equiuocator is sworne to speake the truth periury Let Tully determine this doubt if it bee a doubt Not to sweare a falshood is to bee forsworne but not to performe or make good that which thou hast sworne according to thine owne meaning as customably it is conceiued by thy words is periury all the world cannot more directly cut the throat of all equiuocation then this doth 9. But I leaue the Philosophers and come to their owne Schoolemen To lye saith Lumbard is when a man speaketh any thing contrary to that which he thinketh in his mind It is a lye saith Aquinas when a man will signifie another thing then that which he thinketh in his mind Againe Lumbard Whosocuer vseth craft or subtiltie in an oath defileth his conscience with a double guilt for he both taketh the name of God in vaine and also deceiueth his neighbour And Aquinas their great Doctor condemneth in expresse words this equiuocating tricke of theirs If a Iudge saith he shall require any thing which he cannot by order of law the party accused what may he equiuocate No. he is not bound to answere in deed but either by appeale or some other meanes may deliuer himselfe but in no case may be tell a lye or vse falshood or any kind of craft or deceit This was then good diuinity but now the Iesuites our pretended resiners of Popery haue coyned a new kind of diuinity but like counterset slips it will not abide the tryall Heare what Scotus saith another Schooleman Dicere non feci c. To say I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this reseruation that I may signifie it to you is not equiuocation but a plaine lye To conclude with Maldonate Quisquis fingendo c. Whosoeuer saith he by saining doth goe about to deceiue another although he intend some other thing in his mind without doubt lyeth for otherwise there would be no lye which might not by this meanes be defended 10. Thus we haue the verdict of diuers of their own Writers touching this monstrous doctrine Let vs heare now what the Fathers thinke of it and let Saint Hierome speake first None is a lyer saith he but he that thinks otherwise then he speaketh Therfore the equiuocator is a lyar for he thinketh otherwise then he speaketh as when he affirmeth I am no Priest when he is one he thinketh hee is that which he saith he is not Is Saint Augustine of a contrary minde no hee agreeth with Hierome in this though they iarred in some other things He that speaketh saith he falsly against his conscience doth properly lye but so doth our equiuocator And for Periury This saith Augustine is the very forme of Periurie to thinke that to be false which thou dost sweare Thus doth the equiuocatour for when hee sweareth hee knoweth not a man and yet knoweth him doth hee not manifestly thinke that to be false which he sweareth his mentall reseruation cannot saue him from the pillory seeing as Isidore saith God doth valew an oath not by the sense of the speaker but according to the sense of him to whom the oath was made Thus by the verdict of these three Fathers their doctrine of equiuocation is guilty both of lying and periury 11. And that I may leaue them without a starting hole let them heare what the Iury of Life and Death saith I meane the holy Prophets and Apostles yea what GOD the Iudge himselfe saith Thou shalt not saith he Beare false witnesse against thy Neighbour No nor of thy neighbour therfore much lesse
that entring into their Temples they were sprinkled not that they might be defiled but that if they had any sinne they might be purged from it Thus it plainely appeareth that this was a Heathenish custome which how it can agree with the Church of Christ I know not sure I am that in the Primitiue Church there was no holy-water besides the water of Baptisme that can be proued by any good authority for the testimonies of Alexander the first Clement and Basil alledged by Bellarmine are all counterfeit as partly the matter in them contayned and partly the censure of Eusebius and Erasmus doe sufficiently proue and might here bee demonstrated if I thought it necessary neither doth it agree with the nature of those times to the which S. Iohn so lately before had left this doctrine that the onely purgation of sinne was the bloud of Christ and not holy-water consecrated by a Priest 9. In like manner their vse of Incense on their Altars to driue away deuils as they say doth sauour both of Iudaisme and of Paganisme That the Iewes vsed to burne Incense in sacrifice to God is no question for they had their Altar of burnt Incense appoynted by God himselfe for that purpose this Altar without question was a type of Christ our Mediatour and the incense of the prayers of the Saints which are then acceptable vnto God when they are offered vp in the name of Christ who is the Altar that sanctifieth all our sacrifices This is so euident not only out of holy Scripture but froÌ„ the full consent of all Writers old new that it is needles to stand to prooue it And therefore offering of Incense being a shadow of things to come why should it still remaine seeing the Sunne of righteousnesse is risen in our Horizon and hath â—ispelled all shadowes by the glorious beames of his presence As touching the Pagans Polydore Virgil confesseth that it was their custome to offer Incense to their Idols And Theodoret affirmeth that when Iulian distributed gold amongst his Souldiers hee commanded an Altar full of coales to bee set by him and Frankincense to bee layd on a Table to the end that euery one would recieue gold at his hand should first cast Frankincense vpon the Altar and this hee did to distinguish the Pagan from the Christian By which it is euident by the way that at that time this was not in vse in the Church This Iewish and Paganish custome then how commeth it to passe that it should now bee taken vp as a holy seruice of God Are not all Iewish Ceremonies at an end by the coÌ„ming of the body which is Christ And is it fit that Christians should learne to worship God froÌ„ the Gentiles which were worshippers of deuils These things are so dissonant to the nature of true Religion that they admit no iust reconciliation Sure it is that the Primitiue Church neuer knew the vse therof as appeareth both by that Example of Iulian before alleaged out of Theodoret and also by testimonies of Arnobius Eusebius and Augustine all which acknowledge that the Church in their time had no such custome We goâ—â—into Arabia saith Saint Augustine to fetch Frankincense God requireth of vs the sacrifice of praise As for the auncient Leiturgies and Dionisius that mention it in Gods seruice wee care not for them seeing all men either vehemently suspect them or vtterly reiect them as counterfeit 10. Againe the Iewes had their holy oyle wherewith their Kings Priests and Prophets were anoynted which was a type and figure of that spirituall vnction of grace wherewith Christ our head was anoynted aboue his fellowes and all his members in a due proportion The Church of Rome hath also reuiued this Ceremonie and that after a farre more superstitious manner for there was not halfe such a stirre at the making of the holy oyle of the Tabernacle as there is at the consecrating of their holy Chrisme it would euen prouoke the spleene to laughter and the gall to bitternesse to heare or behold the apish trickes that they vse at the making of their precious Chrisme such muttering such charming and enchanting such blowing and breathing such exorcising and coniuring the deuill by the mitted Bishop first and then twelue Priests in their order before they come to Aue Sanctum Chrisma All haile O holy Chrisme as is wonderfull What is this I pray you but a profest restoring of a Iewish Ceremony and a plaine declaration that their Priests are rather Iewish than Christian and that those graces of Gods spirit which were figured by their holy oyle are not to bee found in cheir Church seeing they retaine so superstitiously the type thereof If they say that Saint Iames mentioneth oyle to bee vsed at the visitation of the sicke whereby they recouered health I answer first that this was no such consecrated oyle as is in vse in the Church of Rome and secondly that it was applyed onely to the sicke that were in danger of death not to young Infants that are new come into the world at their baptisme thirdly that it was not an instrument of spirituall grace but of corporall health and lastly that it lasted onely during the time that miracles liued in the Church and dyed when they dyed so that Saint Iames his oyle maketh nothing for the maintenance of the Romish Chrisme and therefore I leaue it vnto them as a meere Iewish superstition 11. Lastly doth not the high Priest of Rome imitate the high Priest of the Iewes in his Pontificall garments are not their Fryers and Anchorites â—pâ—sh counterfeiters of the Leuiticall Nazarites doth not their Iubile both in name and nature represent the Iewish Iubile no man that knoweth the one and seeth the other but will confesse this to be true for Aaron wore a Crowne vpon his head to signifie the Kingly power of Christ the Bishop of Rome hath three Crownes to signifie forsooth his threefold power in Heauen Earth and Purgatory Or as Aretine iested one for the flesh another for the world and the third for the deuill and none for God Aaron had a plate on his Crowne wherin was engrauen Holinesse to the Lord. The Bishop of Rome vsed to weare a plate on his head wherein was written the word Mysterie as if he would professe himselfe to be the vpholder of that mystery of iniquitie spoken of by the Apostle Aaron had his Ephod and Robe the Bishop of Rome hath answerable therevnto his rich Pontificall attire which in many resemblances is like vnto the same yea the Romanists doe plainely Iudaize in bringing in againe into the Priestly order such variety of garments as the Pall the Miter the Crozier-staffe the Albe the Chimere the gray Amice the Sâ—oale with such like Insomuch that when their Bishops come forth to doe diuine seruice a man would thinke that he saw Aaron addressed with his attire to sacrifice at the Altar 12. As touching
are enabled to merit and partly by vertue of Gods promise whereby hee hath engaged himselfe to crowne those merits with glory which he hath wrought in vs by grace to which double obiection I returne this double answere First if all good workes issue from the roote of grace as they doe indeede then how can we merit thereby seeing that which doth merit must bee our owne and not anothers especially his of whom we looke to merit So saith Hilary it is for him to merit who himselfe is to himselfe the Author of getting his merit and therfore if it be true which they affirme that Gods grace is the onely fountaine of all good workes as without doubt it is it is so farre from following thence that therefore our workes are meritorious that it followeth by mere necessary consequence that therefore they are not meritorious And this conclusion is made by diuers of the ancient Fathers themselues We haue nothing to reioyce or glory of saith S. Cyprian therefore nothing to merit because we haue nothing of our owne The merits of men are not such saith S. Bernard as that life eternall by right is owing for them and why because all merits are the gifts of God and so man is rather a debter to God for them then God to man And S. Augustine Eternall life should be rendred as due vnto thee if of thy selfe thou hadst the righteousnesse to which it is due but now of his fulnesse wee receiue not onely grace now to liue iustly in our labours to the end but also grace for this grace that afterward wee may liue in rest without rest So then if our good works arise only frō Gods grace this maketh plaine against all merit as they know well enough and therfore behold their fraud and the mysterie of iniquity though they shadow the matter with goodly words of grace and mercy yet vpon free-will they hang the vertue and effect of this grace and from that fountaine doe they deriue vnto man all this merit which they talke so much of and so howsoeuer they ascribe vnto Gods grace the cause of merit yet in very deede with them it is free-will that maketh a worke meritorious 31. Secondly I answere that when God doth promise to reward our workes with eternall life eternall life is due to vs but not for our workes sake but for his promise sake for many things are due by promise which haue no reference to any desert As if the King should promise one of his seruants a thousand pound of his mere liberality for keeping a Hawke he is bound to pay him so much but is it from the seruants desert or from the Kings bounty So God promiseth eternall life to our workes and by reason of his promise wee may challenge it as our due but yet it is not for our worke but for his word sake as Saint Augustine confesseth when he saith God is become a debter not by receiuing any thing from vs but by promising what it pleased him therfore a reward giuen by promise is so far frō importing desert that it rather ouerthroweth the very foundation thereof by being a worke of mercy as the same Augustine saith in another place The promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy The doctrine of merit then vndermineth the mercy of God which way so euer they turne themselues whether to grace as the cause of the worke or to Gods promise as the cause of the reward 32. Againe by this doctrine not onely the mercy of God is darkened but also the merits of Christ quite euacuated and made of no force for if Christs merits were sufficient what neede there then any supply of our owne if our owne merits be necessarily required then Christs merits were not sufficient If Christs merits were perfect then mans merits cannot be added vnto them for that is perfect to which nothing can be added but if mans merits must bee added to them then it followeth that Christs were not perfect and so no merits at all for this property is required in a merit that it bee perfect and so either they must denie the necessity of our meriting or confesse the vnsufficiencie of Christ either they must acknowledge Christs merits to be vnperfect or ours to be vnnecessarie yea none at all I but they will say Christ did not onely merit the pardon of our sinnes but also that our workes should be meritorious of life euerlasting and by this sat they are Christs merits more magnified then by vs because the greater the gift is the greater is the glory of the giuer so that our meriting doth not argue any want in his merits but rather proue a greater efficacie to be in them for to this end will hee haue vs to merit partly that we may shew our selues like vnto him and partly to traine vs vp in good workes by this spurre All these are but shifts and indeede mere cauils for first to say that Christ did not alone merit for vs eternall life but also grace that so we might merit eternall life for our selues what is it but to make vs our owne Sauiours for all our merits come from grace and free-will ioyned together as hath beene shewne and grace is nothing with them except free-will concurre with it for they teach that we may receiue it if we will and when we haue it we may merit if we will eternall life or else goe without it What is this I say but to affirme that a man is not saued by Christs merits but that by the helpe of grace hee doth saue himselfe by his owne merits and so they shoue Christ out of his office and put themselues in his roome 33. Secondly I answere that the efficacie of Christs merits is greater in purchasing eternall life for vs by himselfe alone then in giuing vs ablenesse to merit it for our selues because it is a greater glory and a token of greater power to effect a thing immediatly without meanes then by the mediation or vsurpation of any meanes whatsoeuer In the former all the honour is to the worker in the later there must needes be some glory ascribed to the meanes and some power attributed vnto them and therefore to say that Christ hath onely merited by himselfe without vs eternall life for vs is to giue the entire and perfect glory vnto him and none vnto our selues and to affirme that hee merited to make our workes meritorious is to derogate from his glory and to detract from the efficacie of his death and passion 34. And here we may see the vanity of Bellarmines assertion who to proue that by this doctrine of theirs they ascribe more efficacie to Christs merits then we doe bringeth in this similitude Sicut quòd Deus c. that is As in that God vseth the Sunne to lighten the world fire to heat it ayre and raine to refresh it is not an argument of weakenesse in
c. Which words they interpret as spoken to Peter onely and consequently to the Pope his successour we to the rest of the Apostles as well as to him Where now doth the Scripture decide this doubt and speake plainely which is the truest sense Mary first in the very place it selfe by the due examination of the circumstances thereof they euidently shew that our sense is the truest for whereas the question is propounded to all the Apostles verse 15. and all the Apostles held the same faith that Iesus is the Sonne of God verse 20. it must needes be that Peter was but as the fore-man of the Quest and answered not for himselfe only but for them all thereby shewing forth not any preeminence of authority aboue the rest but a greater zeale and forwardnesse then the rest And herevpon it followeth that seeing this promise of the keyes is made because of that faith and confession therefore they all beleeuing and confessing the same haue an interest to the promise as well as Peter And this Anselmus in plaine tearmes affirmeth It is to be noted saith he that this power was not giuen alone to Peter but as Peter answered one for all so in Peter hee gaue this power to all 14. Secondly by the conference of another place which is more plaine to wit Ioh. 20. 23. where is a gift and an endowment of that power of the keyes which before was promised for to binde and to loose and to remit and retayne sinnes is all one in effect as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and containâ— the whole vertue of the keyes now here they are all inuested with equall iurisdiction the Holy Ghost is equally breathed vpon them all and equall authority be queathed vnto them all by these words of the Commission As my Father sent me so I send you which exposition is confirmed by the authority of most of the Fathers as Augustine Cyprian Hierome Theophilact Anselme c. and thus the Scripture by a most liuely voyce determineth this doubt and as of this so of all other questions and interpretations the Scripture onely must bee the Iudge which by searching the originals examination of circumstances conference of other places and consulting with the learned Fathers and Expoâ—itors together with feruent prayer to God for inward illumination will giue a most exact and precise satisfaction to all controuersies touching matters of â—aith necessarie to bee beleeued 15. To the third reason that the Scripture is the law and therefore cannot be the Iudge I answere that though the Law and the Iudge be diuers distinct things yet they are subordinate one vnto the other and so may both ioyne in the concurrence of one cause as when our Sauiour saith Call no man Father vpon earth for there is but one your Father which is in heauen his meaning is not to exclude earthly Fathers from their title but to shew that God is the primer and principall Father both in respect of time order and cause and that the other are but subordinate vnto him so in a Common-wealth the Iudge is subordinate vnto the law and the law is the Iudges Iudge and for that cause as the Law is said to be a dumbe Magistrate so the Magistrate is said to be a speaking Law and so in truth the Law is the Iudge primarily and principally and the Magistrate is but the Minister of the law and the Iudge subordinate Now if this be so in a Common-wealth gouerned by humane Lawes which are failing and imperfect in many things being the ordinances of erring men how much more may we deeme it to be so in the Church of God whose Law-giuer is God himselfe and the law the word of God and therefore though the Pastors and Ministers of the Church may interpret the Scriptures yet they must be tyed to this rule to doe it by the Scriptures and to expound the law by the law for shall not a temporall Iudge giue sentence out of his owne braine but secundum leges statuta according to the lawes and statutes of the Realme And shall any Pastour of the Church be it the Pope himselfe giue iudgement in any question out of his owne brest without the direction of Gods word This is to preferre humane lawes before Gods law and to make the state of the Church farre inferiour to the state politike and to haue a more certaine rule for the deciding of ciuill controuersies then for the determining of questions of â—aith so that in a word the Scripture is both the law and the interpreter of the Law the Iudge and the Iudgement 16. Secondly Bellarmine affirmeth and laboureth to proue that the proper and chiefe end of the Scripture was not to be the rule of faith but that it might be commonitorium quoddam vtile A certaine profitable commonitory whereby the doctrine deliuered by word of mouth might be conserued and nourished And to this end and purpose he vseth diuers reasons as first because it containes in it many things which are not necessary to faith as all the Histories of the Olde Testament and many of the New and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles all which were not therefore committed to writing because they were necessary to be beleeued but are therefore necessarily beleeued because they are written Secondly because all things necessary to be beleeued are not contained in the Scripture as by what meanes women vnder the law were clensed from originall sinne wanting circumcision and children that dyed before the eight day and many Gentiles that were saued againe which are the books of Canonicall Scripture and that these are Canonicall and those are not that the Virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin that the Passeouer is to be kept vpon the Sunday being the Lords day and that children of beleeuing Parents are to bee baptized and such like Thirdly because the Scripture is not one continued body as a rule should bee but containeth diuers workes Histories Sermons Prophecies Verses and Epistles These be his three reasons by which the Iesuite would euince that the Scripture is not giuen to this end to be the rule of faith 17. To all which I will answere briefly and distinctly and first in generall secondly in particular In generall if the Scripture be not giuen to be the rule of faith why is it called Canonicall It is therefore called Canonicall because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life this very inscription approued by all doth refute Bellarmines fond cauillation Againe if the Scripture was not giuen to bee the rule but onely a monitorie why were there so many Bookes written seeing fewer would haue serued for monition The multiplicity of Bookes proueth that they serue not onely to put vs in mind of our duty but also as an exact rule to square our faith and frame our life by And lastly if the Scripture was not giuen to be a rule why doth he himselfe
very shallow reasons as any may discerne that will but read him To omit I say all this by that which hath beene sayd it is most cleere that vnder the doctrine and practice of Inuocation of Saints in the Church of Rome lyeth lurking most abominable Idolatry 76. The last principall branch of Idolatry maintayned and practised in the Church of Rome is the adoration and worshipping of the Crosse Now by the Crosse they vnderstand eyther the true Crosse of Christ together with any part or portion thereof or the picture or image of that Crosse whether it bee materiall and permanent or transeunt and formall onely Of both which this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome that not onely that Crosse whereon Christ dyed but euery picture and representation of it whether grauen or payntedâ— or expressed in the ayre with the hand and fingers is to be kissed and adored This is the position of Vasques the Iesuite and hee saith that it is the doctrine and faith of the Romane Church And the same is auouched by Bellarmine and confirmed by many arguments weake ones God wot in three whole Chapters wherein hee laboureth to prooue first that the Crosse it selfe secondly that the Image of the Crosse and thirdly that the signe of the Crosse are all to be worshipped and with what kind of worship Aquinas resolues vs in that point wheÌ„ he affirmeth that the very Crosse of Christ whereon he was crucified is to bee worshipped with diuine worship for two causes both for the representation or resemblance it hath to Christ as also for that it touched the body of Christ but the signe of the Crosse or Crucifix is to be worshipped with latria onely in the former respect And this is still the doctrine of their Church for neither is it taxed in their late editions for errour nor contradicted by any other Romish Doctor Yea a late famous Papist and a professor of Diuinitie doth plainely confirme the fame dedicating his booke to Pope Clement the eighth for he saith in playne words that they worship the Crosse with the same worship wherewith they adore Christ him selfe and that they pray vnto the Crosse as vnto him that was crucified on it and repose the hope of their saluation vpon it 77. And this is the doctrine of the Romish Synagogue at this day and their practice is correspondent thereunto for they kneele vnto the Crosse they kisse it they creepe vnto it they pray vnto it yea they repose the hope of their saluation in it as appeareth in that forme of prayer vsed in their Masse booke All haile ô Crosse our onely hope in this time of Lent doe thou increase righteousnes in good men and graunt pardon to sinners Now that this is heathenish Idolatrie may appeare by these reasons First because outward religious adoration is giuen to a piece of wood or brasse or gold or some other matter Secondly because diuine worship euen latria which Augustine saith is proper onely vnto God is giuen to a creature for such is the Crosse at the best Thirdly because they pray vnto it as vnto a liuing thing Fourthly because they repose the hope of their saluation in it And lastly because many if not all of these Reliques which are beleeued to bee fragments of Christs Crosse are false and counterfeit as hath beene shewed already In all these respects the Crosse is made an Idoll and the worshippers of it are no better then Idolaters 78. Ob. I but the Crosse touched Christ and therefore it is to bee worshipped with diuine worship R. So did the Manger wherein hee lay being an infant and the Graue wherein he was layd being dead and the Pillar whereunto he leaned being whipped and the Asse where on hee rode being in his iourney to the City yea so did the wombe of the blessed Virgine his Mother before hee was borne and yet they will not say that any of these are to bee worshipped with latria I am sure the Apostles cannot bee found to haue giuen any maner of religious worship to any of these things much lesse diuine worship though I deny not but that the true Reliques of Christ and those things that any waies pertayned vnto him were reuerenced without doubt by his friends after his departure and so farre we also willingly condescend vnto them but that any religious worship was giuen vnto theÌ„ they can neuer prooue Ob. I but the Crosse was the instrument of Christs passion and Mans redemption and the Altar of that great Sacrifice and the Ladder by which Christ ascended into heauen therefore it is to bee worshipped R. So was Iudas an instrument of Christs passion and our redemption as Saint Augustine teacheth when he saith that Iudas was elected by Christ to the end that by him hee might fulfill our redemption and so was Pilate and Caiphas yet these are not therefore to be worshipped vnlesse wee will reuiue the old heresie of the Caiâ—nians and the Marrionites And so was the Speare that let out his heart bloud which was the price of our redemption and yet they themselues doe not giue diuine worship vnto it for that cause albeit they make an Idoll of it as hath beene declared Ob. I but many mysteries are signified by the Crosse as first Christian perfection in the longitude latitude height and profunditie of it the profundity signifying faith the height hope the latitude charitie and the longitude perseuerance Secondly the effect of Christs passion the highest peece of wood signifying that heauen was opened and God pacified the lowest that was fastned in the ground that bel was emptied and the Diuell conquered the ouerthwart peece that the whole world was redeemed c. Thirdly the vniting of Iewes and Gentiles the two armes of the Crosses vnder one title representing the vnion of two people vnder one head These and diuers other mysteries are hidden vnder the Crosse therefore it is to be worshipped with diuine worship R. Suppose that all these mysteries were there to be coÌ„ceiued yet to say that therefore it is to be worshipped is a silly reason and scarce befitting the learning of Bellarmine for by the same argument all their Sacraments and many other things should be worshipped with diuine worship Ob. I but the Crosse was miraculously found out by Helena and that not before Constantines time when it might safely bee worshipped and it was reuealed to bee the true Crosse by euident miracles therefore it is to be worshipped with diuine worship R. Graunt all this to bee true which notwithstanding may probably be questioned yet that this doth not prooue that the Crosse is to bee worshipped Helenes owne example doeth shew for as Ambrose writeth Shee worshipped not the wood of the Crosse but him that hung vpon the wood because this saith he is a heathenish errour c. neither can they euer prooue that it was therefore reuealed that it might be worshipped 79. Did
liue sanctification and not be sanctified righteousnes and not be righteous redemption and not be redeemed for all these is Christ made vnto vs Life Righteousnes Sanctification and Redemption as the Scripture testifieth Bellarmine spendeth one whole Chapter in this argument to proue that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and therevpon expresly affirmeth that though they receiue him yet they receiue not his iustifying grace nor his merits nor the fruit and effect of his death and passion together with him Of the same mind is Aquinas the rest of their Diuines Now this position is contrary both to Scripture Fathers and to their owne diuinity To Scripture for our Sauiour saith in expresse words Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And againe He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him But say they The wicked yea the reprobate eate the very flesh and drinke the very bloud of Christ Therefore conclude that they haue eternall life and dwell in Christ and Christ in them neither can they escape by saying that the spirituall eating of Christ by faith and not the eating in the Sacrament is here vnderstood seeing they doe all for the most part interpret this place of the Sacramentall eating and drinking but more plaine if it be possible is that of S. Iohn Ioh. 5. 12. He that hath the Sonne hath life and hee that hath not the Sonne of God hath not life From which place thus a man may reason He that hath Christ hath eternall life but hee that receiueth Christ verily truely as all the wicked do in the Sacrament by their doctrine hath Christ therefore the very reprobate euen Iudas himself hath eternal life is saued for either they must deny that they receiue Christ in the Sacrament or else they must grant being conuicted by these Scriptures that together with him they receiue eternall life 25. They reply to this two things first that the wicked receiue Christ onely Sacramentally and not Spiritually and therefore they haue no benefite by him and secondly because they receiue him vnworthily therefore they receiue their owne iudgement and not saluation not discerning the body and bloud of Christ To which I answere that though they receiue Sacramentally and vnworthily yet by their doctrine they receiue vâ—ry Christ and so by these Scriptures it must needs follow that they also receiue the fruite and effect of his death which is life and saluation Adde hereunto that the termes here vsed are generall both in respect of the persons that receiue and also the manner of receiuing without any such exception or distinction as they deuise and therfore I conclude that it is as impossible to make a separation betwixt Christ and his sauing grace as to separate the Sunne from light fire from heate or the soule from naturall life 26. Thus this position is an opposition to Scripture so it is also to the opinions of the Fathers To giue a taste of some two or three Origen saith That Christ is that true meat which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer which no wicked man can eat Augustine more effectually saith Hee that is in the vnity of Christs body that is a member of Christ he is truely said to eate Christs body and drinke his bloud Note hee saith truely to signifie that all other eate him falsly that is in shew and not in substance And in another place yet more plainely Hee which disagreeth from Christ doth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud though he take the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement Theodoret as plainely saith That Christ is meate for his owne sheepe onely that is his elect And Cyrill that as many as eate his flesh haue life in them being ioyned to him who is life it selfe And Basill saith that they which are fed with the foode of life to wit the bread that came downe from heauen haue an inward mouth of the minde whereby they eate that spirituall food Many more such like sayings might be heaped together to this purpose which for breuity sake I passe ouer all which are contrary to that Romish position that the wicked eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ which they must needs doe if the bread and wine after the words of consecration be changed into the very body and bloud of Christ 27. Lastly it is contrary to their owne diuinity for they hold that the parts of this Sacrament as of all others are two to wit the matter and the forme the forme in this Sacrament is to the whole word of consecration together with the sense thereof the matter is the whole element with the signification thereof As for example in the Eucharist the matter is the species of Bread and wine containing vnder them the body and bloud of Christ and the forme is for this is my bodie this is my bloud Now hence I thus reason The wicked either receiue the whole Sacrament or they receiue it not if they do then there is no difference betwixt the faithfull and them for they receiue no more and why should not they be saued then as well as they if they do not then either they receiue not Christ at all because we are sure they receiue the outward Elements and therfore if any thing be wanting it must needs be the thing signified or there are more parts then these two of the Sacrament Againe thus if the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and yet not the vertue of Christ then they receiue not the whole Sacrament because the vertue of the Sacrament is in the Sacrament as the vertue of euery thing is in the thing it selfe And so it followeth that the wicked in the Sacrament receiue Christ and yet not Christ the whole Sacrament and yet but a part of the Sacrament and that there are but two parts of it and yet more then two Obserue gentle Reader these contradictions and wonder 28. Againe Transubstantiation is contradicted both by the doctrine of adoration of Images and by the Canon of the Masse by the doctrine of adoration of Images thus they teach that diuine adoration is to be giuen to the pictures of Christ and God the Father because they represent their most excellent and diuine persons and yet they would haue the very body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament transubstantiated because some of the Fathers pretend â—o say that it is to be adored with diuine worship Now if it bee true that they say that Images of God the Father and of Christ our Sauiour ought to be adored with diuine worship because they represent their persons then it must bee false that therfeore the bodie and bloud of Christ are really and carnally in the Sacrament because it is to be worshipped for why may not those mysteries of bread and
wine instituted by Christ to put vs in mind of his death and passion bee for such their effectuall representation adored and worshipped with diuine worship as well as Images and pictures for their representation especially seeing they carrie a more exact resemblance and liuely signification of him then any picture can doe Here is a plaine contradiction betwixt the proofe of their Transubstantiation and their doctrine of adoration of Images standing vpon these termes An Image must be worshipped because it representeth the person of Christ but the Sacrament is not to bee worshipped though it represents Christ more fully then any Image except he be corporally and substantially present in it 29. Secondly it is crossed by the Canon of the Masse diuers waies First by the praier that is vsed before the eleuation where the Priest desireth God to behold the same sacrifice with a propitious and fauourable countenance like as the sacrifices of Abel Abraham Melchizedech c. If Christ were really offered by the Priest hee need not pray that God would be propitious to that sacrifice for in him hee is euer well pleased neither can his sacrifice be possibly disrespected of God being of infinite merite and price to satisfie the rigour of his Fathers iustice it were therefore either horrible blasphemy in their Masse to equalize this absolute sacrifice of Christ with the imperfect sacrifices of Abel and Abraham which stood in need of Gods mercifull acceptation or it is false that Christ is really sacrificed in the Masse one of the two must needs be either blasphemy in the Canon of the Masse or falshood in their doctrine of Transubstantiation 30. Againe by another prayer which is vsed in the consecration where the Priest prayeth that God would command those things to be carried by the hands of the holy Angell vp to the high Altar into the sight of the diuine Maiestie Now by these words those things haec cannot bee vnderstood Christ neither in Grammaticall construction nor in any religious sense for in true Grammaticall Latine he should haue said if he had ment Christ either hunc this or hoc viz. sacrificiâ—â— this sacrifice and not haec these things for though the elements be two yet by their own doctrine whole Christ is in each of them and therefore cannot bee spoken of in the plurall number as if he were either diuided in himselfe or multiplied to more then himselfe in the construction of religion it can be no lesse then blasphemy to imagine that an Angell must carry vp Christ into Heauen and present him there vpon the high Altar to the diuine maiestie for it implieth in him either inability or vnwillingnesse to present himselfe to say he is vnable is to deny him to be God and so Almighty and to say he is vnwilling is to deny him to bee our high Priest and Mediatour to whose office it onely pertaineth to offer vp the sacrifices of the faithfull vnder the Gospell as the Priest in the law of Moses might onely offer the sacrifices of the law and enter into the most holy place to make reconciliation for the people so that it remaineth that the composer of the Masse could not vnderstand by haec these things Christ himselfe but the elements Bread and Wine which are a representation and commemoration of that one all-sufficient sacrifice on the Crosse and so either the Masse is erronious or Transubstantiation a false doctrine for if the Masse be true then Transubstantiation is false and if Transubstantiation be true then the Masse is false 31. Thirdly it is crossed by their manifold crossings vsed by the Priest in the Masse for if Christ in person bee really present as a complete sacrifice what neede such signings or crossings by the earthly hands of a sinfull Priest is hee sanctified by them that were blasphemy to thinke He needeth no sanctification being the Holy of holies Is the diuell driuen away by these meanes that is a greater blasphemy to beleeue for hee once conquered the diuell in such sort that he dareth neuer meddle with him any more And yet the blasphemous Iesuites are not afraid to affirme that the diuels may and doe so come neere to their Sacrament that they can both carry it away and abuse it also Surely if this bee true then the diuels know Christ is not there for they durst not come so neere vnto him sacrificed on the Altar by whose true sacrifice on the Crosse they receiued such a deadly wound Lastly is God put in minde of his Sonnes sacrifice on the Crosse by their crossings of him vpon the Altar This is impudency to thinke for Almighty God cannot forget the sacrifice of his owne Sonne neyther can his Crosse bee any whit dignified by their crossings Which way soeuer they turne them here is eyther impietie in their Masse or falsity in their doctrine of Transsubstantiation 32. Thus much touching the contradictions in the Eucharist Now let vs see their concordance in other Articles of their Religion and that with greater breuitie And first in their Article of Iustification therein there lurke foure maine contradictions First they say that the first iustification when a man of vniust and wicked is made iust and good is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent works and yet they say againe that a man doth prepare and make himselfe fit for this iustification by certayne acts of faith Feare Hope Repentance and the purpose of a new life Yea Bellarmine doth not sticke to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenesse of sinnes after a certaine manner And all of them â—each that those dispositions and preparations arise partly from grace and partly from free-will as two seuerall and deuided agents and that it is in the power of mans will eyther to accept that grace of God or to refuse it as hath beene at large discouered in the fourth Reason Now heare the contradictions If it bee meerely Gods free gift then it is no wayes mans free-will and if it bee any waies mans free-will to prepare himselfe then it is not euery way Gods free gift For it is not in this case as in other externall donations the King may giue a pardon freely and yet the prisoner may haue power to receiue or to refuse the pardon because the pardon is one thing and the prisoners will on other but in the iustification of a sinner the gift it selfe is the very change of the minde and the will and the whole man for it is as they say when a sinner is made righteous and an vniust man is made iust and so the will hath no power to reiect it when God effectually giues it nor power to accept it till God alter and change it by his grace And hence it followeth that to say it is Gods free gift and yet that we in part prepare our selues thereunto by our owne free-will implyeth contradiction as also this to
Religion to the experience of euery mans owne conscience But I leaue this to others who haue or shall meddle in this argument my taske is to shew how it contradicteth both it selfe and other doctrines of their Religion 44. It selfe thus They teach that works of supererogation grounded vpon Euangelicall Counsels are as you haue heard more excellent perfect and meritorious then those which are done in obedience to the law of God and that in three respects First comparing seuerall Counsels with seuerall Precepts which concerne the same matter As to sell all and giue to the poore is a more excellent worke then any commanded in that Precept Thou shalt not steale And the Counsell of Single life is more perfect then the Precept Thou shalt not commit Adultery As if men could bee more perfect then God had commanuded or then Christ himselfe was whose righteousnes consisted in this in being obedient to his Fathers will Or then the Angels whose perfection consisteth in executing the Commandements of God Or as if the law of God was not a perfect rule of righteousnes Secondly comparing the state of men obseruing Euangelicall Counsells with the state of them that onely yeeld obedience to Precepts as if a man could be in a higher and happier estate then they are which loue God with all their heart and their Neighbour as themselues which is the summe of the Law And thirdly marke this comparing Counsells with any precept whatsoeuer euen with that great Commaundement of the Law Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength As if a man could loue God more then with all his heart and with all his strength Gods children labour for so much let them take the more for their shares Hence they conclude that in respect of matter the Precept is good but the Counsels better and in respect of the end the fulfilling of Precepts hath a reward but the execution of Counsels hath a greater reward This is their plaine doctrine And yet neuerthelesse the same men teach that the perfection of a Christian man consisteth essentially in the obseruation of Precepts and instrumentally in the obseruation of Counsels And secondly that the Precepts of charitie are the ends whereunto Counsels are ordayned and the works of Counsels are but the way and meanes for the better keeping of the Precepts Now to the purpose How can works of supererogation bee more perfect then works of obedience Counsels then Precepts seeing perfection consisteth in the one instrumentally and in the other essentially and Precepts are the end of Counsels and not Counsels of Precepts Is an instrumentall perfection greater then an essentiall or the meanes more perfect then the end This is contrary to naturall reason for Aristotle saith Maius bonum est finis quà m quod finis non est The end is a greater good then that which is not the end and the instrument is neuer so perfect as the essence of a thing 45. Againe it crosseth another of their doctrines thus They teach that though the law of God bee possible to bee kept by the regenerate the works of the faithfull be simply and absolutely iust yet they are mixed with many veniall sinnes and therefore there is none so iust but that sinneth sometimes and hath neede to vse that petition in the Lords Prayer daily Forgiue vs our trespasses According to that generall axiome of Sain Iames In many things wee sinne all Yea Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth that the regenerate may fall into many deadly sinnes and that hee cannot possibly auoyd veniall sinnes Nisi priuilegio singulari But by a singular priuiledge Which priuiledge hee cannot instance to haue beene granted to any man liuing or dead except Christ only who was God man Obserue now the contradiction to omit that this necessitie of sinning doth ouerthrow the possibility of fulfilling the law and doth imply an impossibilitie how can these two extremes be reconciled The regenerate cannot performe all they should do yet do performe more then they should do They cannot auoyd veniall sins and yet can supererogate It is as much as to say that a man is not able to pay his owne debts but must aske pardon for them yet hath ability to pay another mans far greater then his owne Or an Archer cannot by any means shoot home to the marke yet with the same Bow Arrowes sent forth by the same strength of his arme he can shoote farre beyond the marke He that is tainted and stained with many veniall sinnes in that respect is not perfect but hee that doeth supererogate is more then perfect For so they say when they giue a higher degree of perfection to these works then to the perfect obedience of the law If they say that veniall sinnes doe not hinder the perfection of good works I answere that neuerthelesse they hinder the perfection of the worker if they stick fast to the worke it selfe they hinder that also as the least spot of inke blemisheth the whole face and the lightest disease disableth the health of the whole body Eyther therefore they must deny them to be sinnes and so spots defects in the soules of the regenerate or they must confesse that they are not so perfect as they should be And how then can they be more perfect then they should be 46. Further they teach that one degree of superero gating perfection is the vow of Monasticall pouerty renouncing all propriety in worldly goods and holding in Common the vse of temporall things and yet they say that the state of Bishops who possesse lands and goods and enioy the propriety of them is more perfect then the state of Monks who depriue themselues thereof because Bishops haue alreadie atchiued this perfection and Monks are but in the way to it From which ground a man may thus argue If perfection consist in voluntary pouerty which is an alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods then Bshiops possessing Lordships and reuenues are not more perfect then Monks that haue renounced all and if Bishops possessing be more perfect then Monks not possessing then perfection consisteth not in the alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods One or the other must needes bee false except hee will place perfection in two contraries to wit possessing and not possessing And the rather may this absurditie appeare because aske them why Monks are more perfect then other men they will answere because they remooue from them all impediments of their loue to God in which ranke they place worldly wealth and consecrate themselues wholly to Gods seruice By which reason Bishops cannot bee more perfect then either they or other men because they retayne those impediments and so by their doctrine doe not wholly consecrate themselues to Gods seruice 47. From their actions let vs come to their passions to wit their Satisfactions or as Melanchton calleth them Satispassions
of this life to bee purged in that purging fire This is also their doctrine Now I would aske of them if all the reliques of sin be wyped away by this annoynting Sacrament then what vse is there of Purgatory and if the reliques of sinne bee to bee purged in Purgatory then what vse of this Sacrament Either therefore this fire doth dry vp the vertue of that sacramentall Oyle or this sacramentall Oyle doth quench that fire They will say peraduenture that eyther all are not anoynted with this Oyle â— or that some that are anoynted by their owne infidelity and impenitency barre out the vertue thereof Or lastly that the sinne being remitted yet the temporall punishment due vnto it is to bee payd in Purgatory To which I reply first that it is against the rule of their owne Religion that none that are anoynted with this Oyle should goe to Purgatory for then a very small number should goe to that place seeing their Priests are so diligent for their owne belly sake that they seldome suffer any to passe away without this Pasport Secondly for them which barre out the efficacy of the Sacrament by their owne infidelity or impenitency not that purging fire of the Suburbs but the deuouring fire of Hell it selfe is prepared as they themselues acknowledge And thirdly if there be not a purging away of some filthy staines of sinnes from the soule by that fire but onely a satisfactory punishment why do they call it a Purgatory Nay and why doeth Bellarmine thus define it to bee a place wherein as it were in a Prison after this life those soules are purged which were not sufficiently purged in this life to the end that being so purged they may enter into heauen whither no polluted thing can haue admittance And thus it remaynes a necessary conclusion that either the reliques of sinne are not clensed away by Extreme vnction and so that Sacrament is of no force or if they be they are not then purged in Purgatory and so that fire must needes be quenched 51. But if this Oyle will not serue to extinguish Purgatorie because the fire burneth so hot let vs adde vnto this the Popes Pardons which will at least evacuate and empty it that there shall be no fuell for that fire For they teach that a Pardon or Indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment due for actuall sinnes out of the dispensation of the Churches Treasury Thus doth Tollet define it and Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia adding onely that it is by meanes of application of the superabounding satisfaction of Christ and the Saints made by him that hath authority there unto Now none hath authority thereunto but the Pope onely and such as are delegated by him to that purpose for the keyes of this Treasury were committed to Peter and his Vicar saith Osorius another Iesuite and from them is deriued to Cardinalls Archbishops Bishops and other inferiour Clarkes And the Pope by his iurisdiction may absolue all that are in Purgatory from the paine and so empty Purgatory at once saith Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence which if it be true then either the Pope is vnmercifull if he can and will not for who would suffer such a number of poore soules to bee so tormented when with a word of his mouth he might release them or if hee would and cannot then their doctrine is false of his absolute Iurisdiction Let them choose whether they will But of this more hereafter Now to the purpose Some of them hold that the paynes of Purgatory hold but ten yeeres some an hundred some two hundred they that stretch them farthest yet say that they must end at the day of Iudgement because then all must bee Sheepe or Goates none betwixt both of middle nature as Beliarmine affirmeth Well then if Purgatory dure no longer then we shall not neede to feare it no more then that fire which the Philosopher calls Ignis fatuus For let any man goe to Venice and say but a prayer of Saint Augustine printed in a table and he shall haue 82000. yeeres pardon that is longer then the world is like to endure by their owne confession and therefore longer then needes This indulgence was granted by Pope Boniface the eyghth Or if Venice be too farre a iourney let him stay at home and but nod the head at the Name of Iesus and hee shall haue twenty yeeres pardon for euery time I would nod twenty times a day if this were true and that commeth to 7300. in the yeere O how a man may disappoint this Purgatory if he haue any wit in his head This Indulgence came from Pope Iohn the two and twentieth Or if this be also too great a matter let a man weare but an Agnus Dei about his necke and thinke onely in his heart on the Name of Iesus at the houre of his death and hee shall haue plenary forgiuenes of all his sinnes And for them that are there already they are helped out daily or at least may bee by the Suffrages and Masses of those that are aliue and if any remaine there the fault is in the Priests that say not Masses fast enough and the reason of that is because they receiue not money fast enough for there is the common Prouerbe most true No penny no pater noster To conclude in the yeere of Iubile a perfect and full pâ—rdou is graunted to all that desire the same or on whom the Pope will bestow it therefore the soules in Purgatory cannot be excluded Now if all these things stand true then Purgatory must fall for who would fall into Purgatory that may thus easily preuent it or who would suffer any of his friends soules and acquaintance to lye burning there one houre when it is in his power thus to redeeme them Either therefore the doctrine of Pardons is false and fayned or else Purgatory is no better then a scarcrow 52. Adde to these that soules onely are tormented in Purgatory and not bodies but bodies sinne as well as soules and some sinnes are committed by the whole man to wit bodie and soule together and therefore the body is not free from the relicks of sinnes no more then the soule especially from obligation vnto temporall punishment How can then these relicks bee purged away in this fire when as the one part of man which standeth in neede of purging as well as the other neuer commeth thither Bellarmine sawe this contradiction well enough and therefore labours to salue it by a false position driuing out one nayle of error with another to wit That sinne is onely an act of free-will and therefore after the dissolution of the body and soule by death remayneth onely in the soule and not in the dead body But this is first false for albeit properly it is the soule that sinneth yet the body also sinneth by being an instrument of the soule in sinning and he himselfe saith
that some sinnes cannot bee committed but a toto composite by the whole man And if the bodie doe not sinne as well as the soule I wonder why it is punished both in this life with corporall diseases and plagues and after death with putrefaction and depriuation of life and in the day of iudgement with eternall torment in hell fire Secondly if it were so that a dead carkasse had no relique of sinne in it yet in that it was an instrument of sinne it is lyable to temporall punishment which is the chiefe ground of Purgatory as hath beene shewed And therefore I conclude that either the body goeth to Purgatory as well as the soule or else a full satisfaction is not made for the temporall punishment or at least that the fire of Purgatory is but an imaginary and witty conceit to keepe men in some awe and to maintaine their owne pride and pompe 53. Next vnto Purgatory is Prayer for the dead which is both the mother and daughter of that fire for as it is vpheld by Purgatory a weake and imaginary foundation so it vpholdeth Purgatory a paper building neuerthelesse it is ouerturned by it owne poyse and weight For this they teach That the prayers and suffrages of the liuing doe nothing profite those that doe enioy blessednesse as the Martyrs and such like according to that of Saint Augustine Iniuriam facit martyri qui or at pro martyro He doth wrong a Martyr that prayes for a Martyr nor the damned whether they be in the lowest Hell as reprobates or in Lymbo as vnbaptized Infants but onely the soules in Purgatory And yet notwithstanding they both alledge the authorities of ancient Fathers to prooue the prayer for the dead who prayed for those whom they assured themselues to be in heauen and also by their owne doctrine and practice declare that they haue vsed to pray for the damned As touching the Fathers Nazianzene prayed for Cesarius and Ambrose for Theodosius Valentinian and Saint Augustine for his mother And in the ancient Leiturgies of the Church prayers were made for Patriarks Prophets Martyrs and the blessed Virgine Mary her selfe yea for the Popes also as for Pope Leo for example and yet they thought all these to be in the state of blessednesse as it appeareth in the same places where these prayers are expressed and therefore Cassander their iudicious reconciler calleth those prayers Testimonies of charitie towards the dead congratulations of their present ioyes and professions of their faith and hope concerning the immortality of their soules and resurrection of their bodies not supplications for their releasement out of Purgatory as our Romanists imagine Now hence thus we reason If the Fathers prayed for them who were in possession of blessednes then their testimonies serue nothing for their purpose who affirme that soules in Purgatory are onely benefited by such prayers and if soules in Purgatory bee onely benefited by such prayers as they say then they deale impertinently and deceitfully to bring in the testimony of the Fathers for maintenance of such prayers in the one bewraying the imbecillitie of their cause in the other the weaknesse of their iudgements and in both crossing themselues in that which they would build vp as the builders of Babel did Neyther doth this onely bewray their fraude in misapplying the authorities of the Fathers but also it implyeth a playne contradiction for they teach that though wee ought not to pray for the soules of the Saints that are in heauen yet wee may pray for the resurrection and glorification of their bodies which notwithstanding are not tormented in Purgatory but asleepe in their graues And so it followeth that by their doctrine we may not pray at all for the Saints departed and yet wee may pray for their bodies which are the one halfe of them And againe we may not pray for any that are dead except they be in Purgatory and yet we may pray for the bodies of the dead that are not in Purgatory but in their graues 54. If they reply as Bellarmine doth that we may pray for the Saints in Heauen not for releas of any paine but for increase of their glorie either of their soules presently or of their bodies futurely at the Resurrection then I say they contradict themselues againe For how doe the Praiers of the liuing doe no good to any but those that are in Purgatorie whereas they are meanes to increase the glorie of their soules and to procure the consummation of their bodies glorie also As for their practice in praying for the damned Damascene reporteth that Gregorie the Pope absolued Traiane and a Martyr Falcenilla from the paines of hell and also relateth out of the historie of Palladius that Saint Maehary demanded of the dead skull of an Idolater whether the Praiers of the liuing did good vnto them in Hell or not to whom the skull should answere When thou offerest vp Praiers for the dead we in the meane time feele some refreshing The like wee read of Iudas in the Legend of Saint Branden. Bellarmine indeed reiecteth this Tale of the skull as a Fable but yet he gain-saith not the deliuerie of Traiane by the praiers of Gregorie But Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence approoueth the first as an authenticall Storie so doth Aquinas the last and frameth this answere thereunto that the soules of the damned receiue no mitigation of their paine by the Praiers of the liuing but onely a certaine vaine and deceitfull ioy and the Schoole men deuise strange reasons how this should be brought to passe some saying that Traian by the vertue of Gregories Praiers returned to life and did penance and so obtained pardon and glorie others affirming that his soule was not simply absolued from the guilt of punishment but that his paine was suspended vntill the day of Iudgement others imagining that his soule was not freed from Hell but from the torments of Hell so that he should remaine there but should feele no paine And lastly Bernardine reiecting all these opinions and concluding that Traian was not definitiuely condemned but conditionally to wit the diuine Wisdome fore-seeing that Gregorie should pray for him and therefore to haue deferred his damnatorie sentence Thus they labour in by-paths that forsake the way of Truth and wander they know not whither But to the point either that is false that soules in Purgatorie are onely helped by the Praiers and Sacrifices of the liuing or this that by them the damned may be either released or refreshed 55. Lastly both the Doctrines of Purgatorie and Praier for the dead are directly crossed by their Canon of the Masse for there those dead persons for whom Praier is made are said to rest in Christ and to sleepe the sleepe of peace and yet here they say that none are to be praied and sacrificed for but those onely that are in Purgatorie What is there then any rest in Purgatorie is to
That all the power of Emperours and Kings is subdeligate in respect of the power of the Pope And againe that all secular power is to be restrayned enlarged and executed at the commaundement of the Pope This is the assertion of that man who was authorised first to write by Pope Iohn the two and twentieth and after his Booke was set foorth by the priuiledge of Gregory the thirteenth So that here we haue two Popes maintayning this doctrine Clement the first was of the same minde who affirmeth that hee and the rest of the Popes had a soueraignity and superiority ouer the Empire and vpon that ground he dissanulled all the Sentences and Processes made by Henry the seuenth Emperour And so also was Boniface the eighth who in that famous Canon Vnam sanctam c. directly affirmeth that the Temporall authority must be subiect to the Spirituall and that it is necessary to saluation to beleeue that euery humane creature is subiect to the Pope of Rome Now the rest of the Popes must needes be of the same minde or else they should condemne these of error and that speaking definitiuely which is contrary to their Religion And so indeede that they are Bellarmine their Champion in his late Booke against Barclay the Lawyer doth manifestly declare who most impudently maintayneth this position with all his wit against that learned man as also in his last doting Apologie against our King wherein without doubt he is authorised and as it were tapped on the backe and called A good childe by the Popes Holinesse himselfe 72. Thus we see this doctrine maintayned by the Popes and their Lawes Let vs see also what the Cardinalls and the Iesuites say vnto it Cardinall Baronius a notable clawer of the Popes holdeth that the Pope hath power directly ouer Princes agreeing with Bozius and Triumphus but Cardinall Bellarmine with others on his side quallifieth the matter and saith that the Popes power ouer Princes in temporall matters is not direct but indirect as depending vpon his spirituall power and in order relation vnto that Let vs leaue these two Cardinalls fighting about direct indirect and come to the other Iesuites Gregory de Valentia saith that the Pope is subiect to none but that by a certaine hereditary right he is exempted from all humane jurisdiction Tollet affirmeth that there may bee in the Church many holier and learneder then the Pope but none superior or equall vnto him in dignitie Turrian the Iesuite saith that Christ hath translated all his Kingdome on earth vpon the Pope who beareth his person and carryeth his Image And lastly all of them like lines in a circle meeting in a Center ioyne in this that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to translate Kingdomes and to conferre them vpon others if it seeme to him necessary for the good of mens soules 73. Thus we haue their doctrine concerning their Head the Pope Now let vs heare what they say touching the body that hangs vpon his head their Clergie Kings are not now any more Soueraignes ouer Clerks faith Bellarmine and therefore Clerks are not bound to obey them by Gods law or mans except it be in respect of directiue lawes And Emanuel Sa. affirmeth that a Clergie man cannot be a Traytor though hee rebell because he is no subiect And it was long agoe the doctrine of the Fryers continued by the Iesuites that the King was not Lord ouer the Clergie but that the Pope was their Lord and therefore though a Clergie man had committed theft murther or treason yet hee ought not to bee called in question much lesse punished for it by a temporall Magistrate but ought to be iudged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges in the Ecclesiasticall Court and if hee were conuict hee should lose his Orders and so being excluded from Office Benefice Ecclefiasticall if after this he incurred the like fault then might he be iudged at the pleasure of the King yea they goe so farre that if any offence were committed by diuers persons amongst whom there were one Clergie man none of the offenders were subiect to temporall iurisdiction And thus we see that neyther the Pope nor his Clergie will bee subiect to these higher Powers to which the Gospell commaundeth all men to submit themselues 74. How will they distinguish here Mary they haue two distinctions to helpe this doctrine out of the myre and yet all too weake First they say that when the Apostles Paul and Peter commanded euery soule to bee subiect c. they meane generally that all subiects should obey their superiors whether Spirituall or Temporall and not that euery one should particularly bee subiect to the King or secular power which interpretation is first flat contrary to the text for both Paul and Peter mention expressely Kings and Princes and such as haue the right of the sword which they would neuer haue done if Kings should haue beene subiect to Popes and not Popes to Kings for then they would haue instanced in Popes and not in Kings and though Christians were falsely accused of treason and rebellion to Princes yet this could not be a sufficient reason to mooue the Apostles to conceale so necessary a truth especially seeing they write to Christians and not to Infidels 75. Secondly it is contrary to reason for if Peter and so the Pope his pretended successor had beene in their iudgement superiors to Kings then surely Peter himselfe writing not onely to the people but also to the Elders of the Church as appeareth 1. Pet. 5. 1. would neuer haue enioyned them all to the obedience of the Ciuill Magistrate but would haue reserued some to his owne iurisdiction and bidden them all both Magistrate and people to submit themselues vnto him as the head of the Church or if he for modestie might forbeare this imperiall iniunction yet without question Paul had he beene of that minde would not haue sent euery soule to bee subiect to Kings but would haue told them that Kings and all should be subiect to Peter but seeing that neither of them both doth it neither here nor elsewhere and it is as they thinke so necessary a thing to be beleeued of all men it is most euident that they neuer meant it 76. Thirdly and lastly whereas the Apostle Paul commaundeth euery soule to be subiect wee may conclude that if the Pope be a soule or haue a soule for some of them haue thought that a man had no more a soule then a beast then he must be subiect And this conclusion a learned man that was afterward a Pope himselfe made when he plainly confessed that the Apostle did not except animam Papae the Popes soule from this subiection I omit heere S. Chrysostomes and Oecumenius exposition of the same place both which affirme that by euery soule the Apostle included both Priests Monks and Apostles and that this subiection was not contrary vnto piety And
of God A dead man cannot moue the members of the body nor vse the naturall saculties of the soule no more can the vnregenerate mooue one haire bredth to Heauen-ward nor vse any graces of the Spirit A dead man hath no sense nor feeling though hee bee neuer so sharply handled seeth not though the Sunne shineth neuer so bright heareth not though a trumpet be sounded in his eare no more can the vnregenerat feele the wounds of Gods Lawes heare the sound of the Gospell nor see the cleare light of truth that shinethround about him Lastly in a dead man there is a separation of the soule froÌ„ the body so in the vnregenerate there is a separation of Gods Spirit from the soule which is the soule of the soule For this cause S. Aug. likened the vnregenerate man to the Shunamites sonne beeing dead whom the Prophet Elizeus raised from death to life and others to Lazarus stinking in the graue or to the widowes sonne of Naiâ—â— lying dead vpon the beare or to Iairus daughter that was dead in the house noting three degrees of sinnes one more notorious then the other yet all in the state of death vntill Christ by his Spirit shall inspire life into them and this is the perfect analogy and proportion betwixt a dead man and a sinner and therefore Bellarmines exception is false that they doe not agree in all things for there is nothing wherein they doe agree not if the comparison bee rightly proportioned 82. Secondly if they did disagree in other things yet in this wherein lyeth the life of the similitude they must needs agree that as a dead man hath nothing whereby he can helpe himselfe for the recouery of his life so man spiritually dead hath nothing in him no faculty or power of the soule whereby he can any way further the obtaining of his coÌ„uersioÌ„ And this was Saint Augustines opinion agreeable to the Gospell for his words are plaine concerning Pauls conuersion that he was called from Heauen and by that mighty and effectuall calling conuerted Gratia Deisolaerat It was onely the grace of God And no otherwise did Iustine Martyr conceiue thereof when hee sayth That as to haue beeing at the first when wee are created was not of our selues so to choose and follow that which is pleasing to God is not by vs but by his perswading and mouing vs to the faith In this therefore which is the point of the question the similitude holds most strongly and so Bellarmines exception is nothing to the purpose 83. Thirdly and lastly it is most absurd of all which hee sayth that because a sinner liueth naturally therefore he moueth towards grace more then a dead carkas to nature which hath no life at all for in respect of grace it is all one to haue no life at all and to haue no life of the Spirit For nothing can worke aboue the compasse of it owne beeing Naturall life cannot tranicend the Spheare of nature nor any way moue to the Spheare of grace For as Plants that liue the vegetatiue life cannot arise to the sensitiue life which is in beasts nor they to the rationall which is in men So neither can these arise vp any whit to the life of the Spirit which is in Gods Saints till a new life bee inspired into them which new life as it is the conuersion of the soule to God so it is the foundation of all spirituall actions seeing life in euery kinde is the foundation of all the actions in that kind For vntill there bee life in a plant it doth not grow vntill it bee in a beast it doth not moue nor feele vntill in a man hee doth not thinke speake or remember and so vntill this life of the Spirit bee in the soule it cannot will nor worke any thing that is good Therefore I conclude that though a sinner liue naturally yet beeing dead to grace that that life doth no more helpe to his conuersion then the sensitiue life of a beast doth to the obtaining of reason or the vegetatiue life of a Plant to the obtaining of sense 84. The Gospell teacheth that all should read the Scriptures for so our Sauiour chargeth and his Apostles Paul and Peter and Iohn charge not Priests onely but all others And Abraham sendeth the rich Gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets And the Eunuch is not rebuked but approued by Philip for reading the Prophesie of Esay And the Bereans are commended for examining Pauls doctrine by the Scripture which should neuer haue beene if it had not beene lawfull for them to doe it This is the doctrine of the Gospell most plaine and euident But the Church of Rome teacheth that all men must not read the Scripture to wit Laymen except they bee permitted by their Ordinary because pearles are not to bee cast amongst swine nor a sword or a knife put into a childes hand nor occasion of errour offered to the ignorant nor matter of offence to the weake as also because they are more obscure then can bee vnderstood of the Laicks and common sort of people Thus they paint ouer the foule wrinkled face of Iezabel with false colours but yet the contrariety is plaine All ought to read the Scriptures and some ought not to read the Scriptures The one is the doctrine of Iesus Christ The other of the Pope and his Church 85. But Bellarmine distinguisheth two wayes First that there is a double way of knowing the Scriptures one by hearing and another by reading The first is commanded to all and therefore necessary to be vsed of all But this last is not commanded to any but to the Clergie and those whom they shall thinke fit to read them with profit and without danger But who seeth not that when our Sauiour willeth to search the Scriptures hee speaketh of reading And when the Bereans examined Pauls sermon by the Scriptures they did it by reading And when Abraham remitteth Diues brethren to Moses and the Prophets hee sendeth them to reading For Moses and the Prophets were dead in their persons and liued onely in their writings And lastly when the Apostles wrote their Epistles to the seuerall Churches they wrote them to this end that they might bee read of all For so Saint Paul chargeth the Colossians after they had read the Epistle that they themselues would cause it also to bee read in the Church of the Laodiceans Besides if it bee a dangerous thing for the ignorant to read the Scriptures for feare they should peruert the sense so fal into heresie or impiety then much more dangerous is the hearing of it seeing there is no preaching so pure as the word it selfe man euer mixing some dregs of his own corruption with the pure wine of the word nor any preacher so sincere but he doth often erre and so the hearer being debarred from trying his doctrine by the touchstone of the Scripture must needs irrecouerably fall into
errour 86. Secondly hee sayth that there are two kindes of Readers One that read with fruit and profit others that read without fruit yea rather with hurt Now the Scripture may bee read of the first but not of the second But I would know of him againe who hath that power to discerne betwixt these two Doe they know the heart of a man Or can they prophecy of that which is to come If they cannot doe these things then they ought not to locke vp the Scriptures from any vpon this surmise but permit the vse of that which is good to all and leaue the successe to God Againe because some peruert the Scripture to their damnation shall therefore all bee forbidden to reape comfort by it Because the theefe robs and kils with his sword shall not therefore an honest man vse one for his owne defence Because the Spider sucks vp poyson out of the flowre therefore shall not the Bee suck honey This is to take away the vse of all good things For as the Poet sayth Nil prodest quod non laedere possit idem Nothing so profitable in the vse but in the abuse may be hurtfull and nuisant 87. Lastly are the ignorant common people more subiect to erring and heresie then the learned Let Espensaeus a learned Bishop of their owne informe him to the contrary I remember sayth hee that an Italian Bishop told me that his countrey-men were scarred from reading the Scriptures lest they should become heretikes as if heresies did spring from the study of the Scriptures and not rather from the neglect and ignorance of them And if he will not beleeue him let another learned Roman si step out tel him that very few ignorāt persons were the authors of heresie another that learned men indued with great wits fall by their pride into heresie so that he need not so much feare lest heresie should build her nest in the bosome of the poore ignorant man as lest like the Eagle shee should flye aloft and set her selfe in the top of the high Cedars of the Church 88. But what doe I stand to ouerthrow this vaine exception since it is no better then a meere deception confuted by the practice of their owne Church for without difference any that will pay for it beeing neuer so ignorant might haue a licence to read the Scriptures And we had heere in England in Queene Maries dayes a Romish indulgence that hee that could dispend a certaine reuenue by the yeere might read the Bible in English as is reported by Master Cartwright in his answere to the Preface of the Rhemes Testament So that is as cleare as the day that it is not the fruit and benefit that should come to the Reader that they regarded but the profit and gaine that should accrue to their owne purses neither was the feare of erring the cause of their prohibition but rather the feare of too much knowledge lest thereby the grosse and foule abominations of their Church should bee discouered and so come to bee abhorred and detested 89. The Gospell teacheth that none can forgiue sins but God because sinne is a preuarication of Gods Law and therefore none can remit it but hee against whom it is committed Vpon which ground venerable Bede writing vpon these words of the fift of Luke Who can forgiue sinnes but God sayth that the Pharises said truely therein because no man can forgiue sinnes saue God alone who also forgiueth by them to whom hee hath committed the power of the keyes and therefore Christ is proued to bee truely God by this that hee can forgiue sinnes as God and it may be proued further to bee true because our Sauiour himselfe approoueth of that speech of theirs not shewing any manner of dislike thereunto And therefore Saint Ambrose affirmeth plainely that to forgiue sinnes is not common to any man with Christ This is sayth he the onely office of Christ who tooke away the sinne of the world And Cyprian as directly Onely the Lord can take pitty and grant pardon to sinnes which are committed against him But the Synagogue of Rome teacheth that though this power bee originally and fundamentally in Christ yet he hath committed the same to his Vicar the Pope and from him it is deriued to Cardinals Bishops and infetiou◠Priests vnder the commission and authority of the keyes and that not ministerially and by way of declaration onely which wee confesse but absolutely and iudicially and as Christ himselfe and that not onely to the liuing but to the dead also that are in Purgatory For it is a rule without exception amongst them that all satisfactory punishments may bee released by a pardon And it is as sure that a pardon for any manner of sinne may bee obtained for a price And therefore there is a certaine rate set downe for all kinde of sinnes as Murther Incests Sodomy Sacriledge c. And Aquinas thus reasoneth If Christ might release the fault without any satisfaction then so may it be that the Pope By which wee see that according to their doctrine the Pope hath asmuch power to forgiue sins as Christ himselfe hath which is the Scribes and Pharises liued and heard they would cry out O blasphemie This is the expresse doctrine of the Church of Rome 90. For the making good of this doctrine they haue a double distinction answerable to the double manner of remitting sin vsed in their Church one touching the absolution of a sinner by the Priest in their Sacrament of penance The other touching the Popes indulgence out of the Sacramēt groūded vpon the treasure of supererogatory works which they say is in the Church and consequently in the Popes dispensation Concerning the first they say that Christ absolueth a sinner by his owne power but the Priest by the power of Christ committed vnto him in that famous Legacy Whose sinnes yee remit on earth they are remitted in Heauen 91. To which I answere two things First that heerein they cōtradict their ancient schoole For Peter Lumbard one of the masters of the schoole doth plainly affirme that such only are worthily absolued by the Church who are absolued in Heauen because by the error of man it may so happen that hee that seemeth to bee cast out of Gods family bee still within and he who may be thoght to remaine within is notwithstanding cast ou◠And that therefore God absolueth differently from the Church God by remitting the sinne purging the soule from the blemish thereof and freeing it from eternall punishment the Church by declaring who are absolued by God By which not onely his opinion is manifest that the Priest hath no absolute power of absoluing a sinner but onely of declaring that hee is absolued which is our doctrine but also his reason is inuincible that because the Priest may erre in his absolution therefore hee hath no such absolute power committed
as it appeareth Acts 16. but rather is to bee thought to bee the extraordinary gift of the holy Ghost as Saint Paul plainly insinuateth 2. Tim. 1. And secondly though it should bee sauing grace yet it is not promised to all others though it were then giuen to Timotheus neither were all that receiued holy orders partakers thereof for then Nicholas the Deacon should haue beene sanctified being an hypocrite Who seeth no◠then now weakely hee hath prooued this to bee a Sacrament out of holy Scriptures and this may seeme for a taste of the rest of his proofes which are most of them of the like nature 70. Againe the doctrine of Indulgences to wit that the Pope hath power out of the Churches treasury to grant relaxation from temporall punishment either heere or in Purgatory is so new an article that diuers of their own Doctors doe confesse that there is not any one testimony for proofe thereof either in Scriptures or in the writings of ancient Fathers but that the first that put them in practice in that manner as they are now vsed was Pope Boniface the eight anno 1300. neither could they bee any older then Purgatory being extracted from the flames thereof which hath beene already prooued to bee a meere nouell inuention so that the child cannot be old when as the Father is not gray-headed and that the matter may bee without contradiction reade Burchardus who liued about the yeare of our Lord 1020. And Gratian and Peter Lumbard that came after who all speake of satisfaction and penance and commutation and relaxation of penance but yet haue not a word of these Romish Indulgences whereas if they had beene then extant they would neuer haue passed them ouer in silence especially in the discoursing vpon these points whereupon they haue their necessary dependance 71. Last of all their doctrine touching merite of workes may bee branded with the same marke For first though the word merite bee often vsed by the Fathers yet ordinarily it is not taken in that sense which the Romanists vse it in as witnesse both Bellarmine and Viega and Stapleton and if they did not yet manifold examples out of their owne writings would prooue to be true Secondly the full streame of their doctrine doth make against the proud conceit of merite for they ascribe all to Gods mercy and Christs merits esteeming their owne best workings and sufferings vnworthy of the euerlasting and celestiall reward they neuer dreamt of that ambitious doctrine taught in the Church of Rome that our good workes are absolutely good and truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of eternall life Let their books be viewed and nothing can bee more apparantly cleare then this is Thirdly the termes of congruity and condignity were deuised but of late dayes by the subtill Schoolemen who notwithstanding could not agree among themselues touching the true definition distinctiō of their own books by which it appeareth that it was not then any Catholike or vniuersall truth Lastly their owne Doctours terme the merite of congruity a new inuention and that other of condignity no Catholike nor ancient doctrine and the whole doctrine of meriting to haue beene first made an article of faith by the Councill of Trent all which laide together prooue it most clearely to bee of no great standing nor they of any vnderstanding that were the first forgers and deuisers thereof 72. Thus wee haue sixteene points wherein the new Romish Religion hath degenerated from all pure antiquity to which many more might bee added but these are sufficient to euince our conclusion which is this that seeing the Romish Church hath neither in matter nor forme substance nor accidents any sure ground either from Scripture or the doctrine of the Primitiue Church but is vtterly vnlike to it in many substantiall respects therefore it cannot bee the true Church of God but an harlot in her stead and their Religion not of God but of men and consequently that wee in declining from them and conforming our selues both in doctrine and manners to the Primitiue patterne are not fallen from the Church but to the Church and that theirs is the new Religion and not ours And thus wee see what all their bragges and clamours touching the antiquity of their Religion and the nouelty of ours come vnto seeing there is no one thing more pregnant to prooue the falshood of their Religion and the Apostacy and Antichristianity of their Church then this is And to conclude as wee would thinke him not well in his wits that hauing beene long sicke and after regained health should say that sicknes was more ancient then health whereas he should rather say that hee had recouered his old health that his new Inmate sicknesse was dispossessed of his lodging though it had kept it long so in all reason it is madnesse to thinke the reformation of the Church and reducing of Christian Religion to the ancient health to bee more nouell and new then the horrible sicknesse and apostacy wherewith it was long not onely infected but almost ouer-whelmed And this is iust our case with the Church of Rome but I leaue them to bee healed by the heauenly Phisitian himselfe Iesus Christ our Sauiour whose wholesome Physicke must cure them or nothing will MOTIVE XII ¶ That Church which maintaineth it selfe and the Religion professed by it and seeketh to disaduantage the aduersaries by vnlawfull vniust and vngodly meanes cannot bee the true Church of God nor that Religion the truth of God by the grounds whereof they are warranted to act such deuilish practices but such is the practice of the Romist Church and therfore neither their Church nor their Religion can be of God IT is a wonder to see what deuises sleights impostures and deuilish practices the Romanists haue and now at this day doe more then euer vse to vphold their rotten Religion to ensnare mens minds with the forlorne superstitiō their kingdome being ready to fall they care not with what props they vnder-shore it and the truth preuailing against them they care not with what engines though fetched from hell it selfe they vndermine it so that they may any wayes batter the walles or shake the foundation thereof My purpose is in this Chapter to discouer some of the Sathanicall practices of these subtle Enginers I meane the Iesuites and Priests and other rabble of Romish proctors It is not possible to reckon them vp all being so many and various such therefore God willing shall be heere discouered as are for villany most notorious for impudency most shamelesse and for certainty most perspicuous and by them let the Christian Reader that loueth the truth iudge of their Religion and Church what it is 2. The first proposition of this argument is grounded vpon three principles one of nature another of reason the third of Scripture nature teacheth that contraries are cured that is expelled by contraries as hot diseases by cold
a sinner in the acting of his sin by his powerfull prouidence and not onely foreseeth but decreeth disposeth and determineth in his wisedome all the sinnes of men according to his will and by his secret working blindeth their minds and hardneth their hearts that they cannot repent This we confesse is our doctrine if it be rightly vnderstood for we teach that God doth not barely permit sinne to be done but decreeth before to permit it and in the act worketh by it and ordereth and disposeth it to his owne ends yet so that he neither approueth of it nor is in any respect the cause of the malignity thereof and herein we consent both with the ancient Fathers and with most of their owne Doctors 69. Touching the Fathers Saint Augustine shall be the mouâ—h of all the rest thus writeth he Sinne could not be done if God doth not suffer it and he doth not suffer it against but with his will and being good as he is he would neuer suffer any thing to be ill done but that being also Almightie he can do well of that which is euill And in the next Chapter God doth fulfill the good purposes of his owne by the euill purposes of euill men And in another place God doth worke in the hardening of the wicked not onely by his permission and patience but also by his power and action through his mightie prouidence but yet most wise and iust And in another place Who may not tremble at these iudgements where God doth worke in the hearts of wicked men whatsoeuer he will rendring to them notwithstanding according to their deserts And againe in another place As God is a most holy Creator of good natures so hee is a most righteous disposer of euill wills that whereas those euill wills doe ill vse good natures he on the other side may well vse the euill wills themselues Thus Augustine is our Patrone in this Doctrine and if we be Heretikes he is one too 70. But let vs heare their owne Doctours speake When God doth good and permitteth euill sayth Hugo his will appeareth seeing he willeth that which should be both which he doth and which he permitteth both his operation and his permission are his will God worketh many things sayth Pererius within him that is hardened by which he is made worse through his owne fault he stirreth vp diuers motions either of hope or feare lust or anger and sendeth in diuers doubtfull and perplexed imaginations by which he is pusht forth vnto euill A sinner saith Medina when he sinneth doth against the will and law of God in one case and in another not he doth indeed against his signified will but against the will of his good pleasure he doth not nor against his effectuall ordination No sinne falleth out besides the will and intention of God say Mayer Durand Aquinas and other God sayth Canus is the naturall cause of all motions yea euen in euill men but not the morall cause for he neither counselleth nor commandeth euill Lastly to conclude with two famous Iesuits Vega and Suarez the first sayth that though God doth not command counsell approue or reward sinne yet he doth will and worke it together with vs and the second that God worketh the act of sinne but not the malice thereof This is the very doctrine of Caluine and Martir and all Protestants so that if wee be guilty of this blasphemous consequence to make God the author of sinne they also must needs be in the same case but Saint Augustines distinction will cleere vs both When God deliuered his Sonne and Iudas his Master to be crucified why is God iust and man guilty sayth he but because though the thing was the same which they did yet the cause was not the same for which they did it or if this distinction will not suffice their owne Iesuites will helpe vs out In sinne there are two things to be considered sayth Vasques the act and defect the act is to be referred to God but not the defect in any case which ariseth from the corrupt will of man or the act and the malignity thereof as sayth another Iesuite or the materiall part of sinne which is called by the Schoolemen subiectum substratum the vnder-laide subiect and the formall which is the prauity and anomy of the action the one of these from God the other from man or lastly if none of these will serue the turne yet our owne distinction will acquire vs to wit that Almighty God doth so will decree mans sin not as it is sin but as it is his owne iust iudgement vpon sinners for their punishment and the demonstration of his iustice And thus our doctrine is free from the conception of this vile Monster their calumniation is as vnrighteous against vs as the dealing of God about the sins of men is most righteous and iust And thus those some what too harsh sayings I contesse of Luther Swinglius and Melancthon are to bee vnderstood and no otherwise that the treason of Iudas came from God aswell as the conuersion of Paul charity will construe the wordes according to the speakers intendement and not stretch their intendement to the strict tenter of euery word and syllable 71. Fourthly they accuse vs of blasphemy against the Sonne of God for denying as they say that hee is Deus ex Deo God of God against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed and this they call the Atheisme of Caluine and Beza a palpable slander for neither Caluine nor Beza did euer imagine much lesse vtter the same in that sense which they lay to their charges for let Bellarmine their sworne aduersarie speake for them Caluine and Beza teach sayth he that the Sonne is of himselfe in respect of his essence but not in respect of his person and they seeme to say that the essence of the Deity in Christ is not begotten but is of it selfe which opinion sayth he I see not why it may not be called Catholike Heere Bellarmine telleth vs truely what their opinion was and doth acknowledge it to be a true Catholike doctrine and yet in the same Chapter hee contemneth Caluine for his manner of speaking of it and of intolerable saucinesse for finding fault with the harshnes of the phrase vsed by the Nicene Councill God of God Light of light Marke I pray you his absurdity it is Catholike and yet it may not bee spoken it is true and yet it is to be blamed May not a Catholike doctrine bee spoken then or must the truth bee smothered This is such an inconsequence as neither reason nor Religion can any wayes beare withall and for his saucy dealing with the Nicene Councill all that euer he sayth is that it is durum dictum a hard phrase yet so that hee confesseth it may receiue a good and commodious interpretation if it be vnderstood in the concrete that Christ who is God is of the
Father that is God the word being taken personally and not in the abstract as if the essence of the Deity of the Sonne should bee from the Father which is entirely subsisting in of and by it owne eternall incomprehensible and most glorious nature and this without question was the true intendement of the Councill for els it had not confuted but fauoured the blasphemous heresie of Arrius against whom it was assembled which Caluine and Beza doe not any wayes crosse but onely bring vnto it a fit and fauourable exposition Thus we haue Bellarmine Caluines and Bezaes patrone in this doctrine though full ill against his will and not onely him but Ribera and Gregory de Valentia two other no meane Rabbies both which doe conclude that the Sonne as he is a person is of another but as he is a simple Ens is not of another and that the Essence doth not beget the Essence but the Father the Son so that either they are slanderers of the truth or their Catholike doctrines may bee Atheisme and blasphemy 72. Againe they accuse Caluine of another blasphemy against our Lord and Sauior Iesus Christ to wit that he should make him inferiour to his Father in respect of his Deity This is Arrlanisme indeed as Bellarmine calleth it or Atheisme as Posseuine if it were to bee found in Caluines diuinity or any other but it is as farre from him thus to thinke as it is from their malice to speake the truth This is all that Caluine affirmeth that the Father is God per excellentiam that is after a more excellent manner And what errour I pray you is in this doth hee not speake of the personall relation that is betwixt the Father and the Sonne and not of the nature and essence of the God-head that is in both of equall dignity and excellency This is cleare both by the former article wherein he sloutly auoucheth him to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe and not to receiue the essence of his Deity from his Father and so not to be inferiour to his Father in that respect and also by infinite places in his books where he directly maketh the Son Iehouah equall to the Father in dignity excellency eternity and all other properties of the Deity therefore he speaketh this in respect of the person of Christ in which consideration the Father that begetteth respected with the Sonne that is begotten may truely bee said to haue a certaine priority of order ānd to be God after a more excellent manner Here is now neither Arrianisme nor Atheisme nor indeed any error in Caluines doctrine but malicious lying and slaundering in in these Iesuites accusation 73. Nay that Caluine may bee cleared from all suspition of errour and those fellowes condemned as notorious slaunderers Tollet one of their owne fraternity affirmeth that Athanasius Basil Nazianzene Hilary and Origen all strong maintainers of Christs diuinity and profest enemies to Arrius heresie interpret that place Iohn 14. My Father is greater then I in Caluines sense Maldonate another Iesuite in his commentary vpon Iohn addeth to these Epiphanius Cyrillus Leontius Chrysostome Theophilact and Euthemius as patrones of the same opinion yea and this last Iesuite himselfe subscribeth to their exposition for he sayth that the Father is greater then the Sonne in that respect that hee is the Sonne for the Name of the Father is more honorable then the Name of the Son and the Schoolmen say asmuch as Caluine when they ascribe to the Father authority and to the Sonne subauthority What is this but to say that the Father is God after a more excellent manner Now then if this were neither Atheisme nor Arrianisme nor heresie in the Fathers nor in their owne Doctors why should it bee branded with those infamous titles in Caluine I see no reason but that malice is blinde and that the hatred they bare to that good man made them to say and do they cared not what so they might wound his credite thereby 74. Luther is likewise traduced by them as a denyer of the blessed Trinity and that because the word Trinity is said to dislike him for which cause he dispunged out of the Germane Lyturgies this sorme of prayer Sancta Trinitas vnus Deus miserere nostri a notorious calumniation for Luther indeed blotteth out of the Germane prayers a certain forme like vnto that obiected but not so as he setteth it downe for the word vsed in the Germane tongue signifieth rather a triplicity then a Trinity which mooued Luther in a desire to maintaine the pure doctrine of the Trinity as Iunius obserueth to blot out that word thinking it a dangerous matter to vse such a word in so holy and high a mystery By which practice he is so farre from impugning or denying that blessed principle that he sheweth himselfe rather a zealous defender and maintainer thereof and in a word to discouer their falsity and his innocency List how diuinely and soundly and orthodoxally he writeth else-where of that mystery Vnitas Trinitatis est magis vna c. The vnity of the Trinity is more one then the vnity of any creature euen mathematically neuertheles this vnity is a Trinity or the diuinity of three distinct persons that euery person is the whole diuinity as if there were no other and yet it is true that no person is the fole diuinity as if there were no other Againe vpon the transfiguration of Christ Mat. 17. hee thus commenteth Heere the whole Trinity doth appeare to the confirmation of all the faithfull Christ the Son in a glorious forme God the Father by his voyce declaring his Son to be God and the holy Ghost in the bright cloud ouer-shadowing them Againe we beleeue sayth he that there is one God the Father begetting the Sonne begotten and the holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and Son we determine such a plurality in God which is of an vndiuided substāce an indiuisible vnity again the mystery of the Trinity was discouered in the beginning of the world after vnderstood by the Prophets and lastly plainly reuealed by the Gospell when our Saviour commandeth to baptize in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost A number of such like places might bee alledged out of his workes wherein most constantly hee auoucheth that doctrine which our and his vnequall aduersaries accuse him to bee an enemy vnto Let enuy it selfe now bee iudge whether this bee not a slander when as they both falsisy those sayings out of which they would deriue their accusation and conceale those which they knew to bee a iust defence and apologie for his innocency 75. Againe they condemne Beza and Martyr and other Protestants for denying the omnipotency of God and why because forsooth they say Quod facta vt infecta sint facere nequeat Hee cannot make those things that bee done to bee vndone An absurd inference for that
Protestants condemne the worship of Images taught and practised in the Church of Rome but they are not alone therein but haue many Romanists for their abetters and companions Cassander concludeth out of Saint Augustine that there were no Images in all the Churches of his Diocesse And Polydore Virgil writeth that by the testimonie of Ierome it appeareth how in a manner all the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatrie thus speaketh he in his vncorrupted editions but in his later editions his tongue is tyed by the Belgicke Index others as Holcot Durand Alphonsus flatly affirme that no worship at all is due to an Image neither is it lawfull to worship it diuers Councels also decreed the same as the ancient Councell of Eliberis propounded this onely remedie against Idolatrie that no Images should bee painted in Churches but this Councell was not Romish for Poperie was then scarce in the Embrio therefore of later time a mere Romish Councell to wit that of Franckford consisting of many Romish Bishops and the Popes owne Legates condemned all worship of Images and a later yet to wit the Councell of Mentz held in the yeere 1549. decreed that the Image it selfe was not to bee worshipped but that by the Image of Christ men should bee stirred vp to adore Christ which is contrarie to the new professed doctrine of the Church of Rome 54. Many Romanists as well as Protestants reiect the intercession and inuocation of Saints as an Article not found eyther in the olde or new Testament In the olde Testament sayth Salmeron The Patriarchs vsed not to be inuocated both because they were not in perfect estate of blessednesse and also because there had beene then a danger of Idolatrie to offer that honour vnto them And for the new Testament the same Iesuite confesseth that this article is not expressed because the Iewes would haue thought it an hard matter to inuocate Saints departed and the Gentiles would haue taken occasion to haue thought that the worship of new Gods had beene prescribed vnto them Of the same opinion was Ecchius who peremptorily affirmeth that the inuocation of Saints departed is not commanded in the holy Scripture And Faber Stapulensis thus writeth I would to God that the forme of beleeuing might bee fetcht from the Primitiue Church which consecrated so many Martyrs to Christ and had no scope but Christ nor imployed any worship to any saue to the one Trinity alone 55. That a Christian may bee certaine of his owne standing in present grace and of his future saluation is the doctrine of Protestants denyed by the Church of Rome and yet approued by many of her deare children as for example Euery one that beleeueth seeth that he doth beleeue sayth Dominicus Bannes A Christian man by the infallible certaintie of faith which cannot bee deceiued certainly knoweth himselfe to haue a supernaturall faith sayth Medina Some spirituall men may be so certaine that they are in grace that this their assurance shall be free from all feare and staggering sayth Vega reported by Gregory de Valentia And touching assurance of eternall life the same Medina sayth that hee would haue euery beleeuer certainly to hope that he shall obtaine eternall life And of the same opinion are al the rest of them saue that they will haue this certainty to be of hope and not of faith and so the difference is in words and not in the thing for they make it to be without doubting or wauering firme and assured aswell as we 56. That concupiscence is a finne in the regenerate is affirmed by Protestants contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Church of Rome yet many Romanists themselues shake hands with the Protestants in this point as Ribera a Iesuite who writing vpon the twelfth of the Hebrewes sayth that by sinne hanging fast vpon is meant the concupiscence of the flesh against the holy Spirit which the Apostle vseth often to call by the name of sinne and Tanner another Iesuite acknowledgeing that concupiscence in the regenerate is called sinne by the Scripture sayth that it is a great wickednesse to traduce as blasphemous the manner of speech true in it selfe and imitating the Scriptures yea and Stapleton calleth it a certaine iniquitie and obliquity not onely against the dominion of the mind but also against the Law of God Now Bellarmine telleth vs that whatsoeuer is contrarie to the Law of God is mortall sinne Cassander playeth the Protestant in direct termes in this point for he sayth that if we respect sinne as an iniquitie or disease which must be resisted by the spirit lest it burst forth into vnlawfull acts concupiscence is not vnfitly called sinne but if we respect it as an offence to God and guiltinesse to which punishment and damnation is answering it is not thus sinne in the regenerate 57. Touching marriage of Priests which the Church of Rome condemneth as execrable filthie and abominable we allow as holy and lawfull we haue their owne Doctours on our side and against their owne mother Gratian sayth that marriage of Priests is not prohibited eyther by legall or Euangelicall or yet Apostolicall authoritie but by Ecclesiasticall onely Espenseus sayth that for many hundred yeeres after the Apostles time by reason of the want of others Priests were married Caietane affirmeth that if wee stand onely to the tradition of Christ and his Apostles it cannot appeare by any authoritie or reason that holy order can be any hinderance to marriage eyther as it is an order or as it is holy Pius the second one of their owne Popes affirmeth that it is better for a Priest to marry then to burne though hee haue vowed the contrary and that there be many reasons to forbid Priests marriage but more to allow it Panormitane Cassander Erasmus doe all agree that in regard of the monstrous and filthy effects that follow a vowed single life it were better both for Gods glory and the auoyding of scandall in the Church that libertie of marrying were granted to all men And Espenseus and Agrippa doe grieue and blush to behold rather Concubines and Stewes to bee permitted to their Clergy then lawfull wiues 58. The Popes Primacie or rather Supremacie in all affaires and ouer all persons challenging the iurisdiction of both swords and authoritie of supreme Iudicatures in cases of controuersie and interpretation of Scripture with an infallibilitie of Iudgement is the verie foundation of Poperie yet the same is razed not onely by Protestants but by many of their owne ranke that are both by name and profession Papists Concerning his temporall Iurisdiction so stiffely maintained by Bellarmine and the Iesuits our Wisbich Priests affirme that this power was neuer giuen vnto Peter Espensâ—us condemneth it in direct tearmes Tolosanus confesseth that for two hundred yeeres after Christ it was neuer read that Christians attempted any thing