shee had borne CHRIST the second that all sinnes are equall If these were the opinions of Iovinian as it may very well be doubted wee condemne them and his errour therein as much as the Romanists doe For we thinke that Mary continued a Virgine in and after the birth of CHRIST But they will say many of the Protestant Divines doe teach that the doores of Maries wombe were opened when CHRIST was borne and from thence it will follow that shee ceased to bee a Virgine This consequence we deny for otherwise Tertullian Ambrose Hierome and sundry other of the Fathers shall bee proued to haue denied the virginity of Mary after the birth of CHRIST which yet they all most constantly beleeued But they know well that no such thing can be concluded from thence For as Tertullian aptly noteth there is virgo â viro and virgo à partu that is a virgin may be so named because shee hath not beene a mother nor the doores of her wombe opened by bearing a childe or because she hath knowne no man though shee haue borne a childe In this sort a virgine may remaine a virgine and yet be a mother and beare a childe with the opening of the doores of her wombe if this childe thus conceiued in her and borne of her were not begotten by man nor the doores of her wombe opened by the knowledge of a man So that though it be granted that CHRIST when he was borne opened the wombe of Mary his mother yet she remained a Virgine still because that which was conceiued in her was of the Holy Ghost Neither should our adversaries in reason presse this argument so much seeing their owne Schoolmen confesse there may be an opening of the wombe in such as still remaine virgins Thus then we say with the Fathers that CHRIST being Maries first-borne may be said more properly to haue opened the wombe of Mary his mother then any other first-borne doe because he found it shut when he came to the birth which they doe not But that from hence a denyall of Maries virginity will follow we deny And therefore we are wronged in this challenge as in the rest Touching the opinion of the parity of sinnes which is in the second place imputed to Iovinian we hold it to be a Stoicall Paradoxe Their argument to proue that we thinke all sinnes to be equall because as they suppose wee deny the difference of Veniall and Mortall sinnes and thinke all sinnes to be mortall is very weake first because we doe not deny the difference betweene veniall and mortall sinnes as shall appeare in that which followeth and secondly because if we did make all sinnes to bee mortall yet of mortall sinnes one may be and is greater and more grievous then another The opinions that Hierome imputeth to Iovinian are foure the first that there is an equality of ioyes and rewards in heauen This opinion wee do not hold neither can it bee deduced by necessary consequence from the words of Luther where he saith that all Christians are as holy and iust as the mother of God For hee speaketh of imputed righteousnesse which is equall in all men from which no imparity of ioy can flowe but he neuer denieth inherent righteousnesse to be more in one than in another and more in Mary the mother of Christ then in any other Now from this imparity of inherent righteousnesse it is that there are so different degrees of ioy and glory found among the Saints of God that are in heauen The second opinion which Hierom condemneth in Iovinian is that there is no difference betweene abstinence from meates and the sober and due taking of them with thanksgiuing This we iudge not to be so truly deliuered by him as was to be wished For eating with thanksgiuing is a matter of ordinary sobriety and temperance but abstinence is an extraordinary acte of Christian mortification and humiliation and beeing rightly vsed hath those effects the other hath not though neither meat nor abstinence from meate do simply commend vs vnto God fasting being a thing not absolutely and for it selfe but only respectiuely to certaine endes to bee iudged good The third assertion of Iouinian was that they which are baptized with water and the holy Ghost are not subiect to temptation nor sinne This is not only an error but a damnable heresie if it were so deliuered by him as it is reported by Hierome That which Caluin saith that true faith which is found in them that are called according to purpose as Augustine speaketh following blessed Paule cannot be wholly extinguished nor finally lost is most true but hath no agreement with that of Iouinian that the regenerate is neither subiect to temptation nor sin For Caluin denieth not but that the elect and chosen seruāts of God may do oftentimes fall very daungerously but that such is the loue of God towards them whome he hath called according to purpose that he is alwaies with them to raise them vp againe if they fall and that this is the difference betweene them and such as God hath not ordained vnto life that they fall into the hands of God who suffers them not to bee broken or vtterly to perish whereas the hand of God euen his heauy hand falleth vppon the other to crush and breake them to peeces as Hugo de Sancto Victore hath most excellently obserued This therefore is but a calumniation like the rest when Bellarmine doth charge Caluine with the heresie of Iouinian in this respect The fourth and last assertion of Iouinian is that married persons virgins and widowes if they differ not in other workes of vertue and therein excell one another are of equall merite This assertion howsoeuer it pleaseth Hierome to taxe I am well assured the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoolemen do approue For virginity in that it addeth ouer and aboue the ordinary chastity and purity which ought to bee found in married folkes though it be a kind of splendor beauty of vertue yet it is no vertue nor degree of vertue as Gerson proueth For that then married folkes could not haue all vertues nay because all vertues are connexed not hauing this of virginity they could haue none Besides that no vertue is lost but by sinne whereas virginity may be lost by that which is no sinne as by the act of Matrimonie All vertues in their times and places are commanded and not left free and counselled onely but virginity is neuer imposed by precept and therefore it is noe vertue Lastly there is no vertue but being lost by repentance may bee recouered againe but virginity being lost cannot be recouered againe therefore it is no vertue These reasons are laid down by Gerson whereby in his iudgment it is most clearely proued that virginitie in that it addeth ouer and aboue ordinary chastity and purity is no vertue and consequently that the bare and sole hauing
that the Church of God taught as wee do that concupiscence in it owne nature is a sinne making guilty of grieuous punishment that when it is weakned and ceaseth to be so potent as formerly it was yet it ceaseth not to be of the same kind that formerly it was as Gregorius Ariminensis sheweth and therefore seeing it was before a sin it is still in some sort a sin that God hating it before he hateth it still we also are to hate it by all meanes to seeke to weaken and destroy it Cassander sayth that a very worthy and famous diuine affirmeth that it is sin in the regenerate though it be not imputed And he addeth that the difference between them that say it is sin and them that say it was sin properly made guilty of condemnation but now being weake ned the guilt taken away it is not properly sinne is a meere logomachia And therefore in the conference at Wormes the colloquutors agreed touching this point the forme of their agreement is this We confesse with vnanimous consent that all that come of Adam according to the ordinary course are borne in originall sinne and vnder the wrath of God Originall sinne is the priuation and want of originall righteousnes ioyned with concupiscence We agree also that the guilt of originall sinne is remitted in baptisme together with all other sinnes by the merit of Christs passion But we thinke that concupiscence a vice or fault of nature an infirmity and disease remaineth taught soe to thinke not only by the apostolicall scriptures but by experience also And touching this disease wee agree that that which is materiall in originall sinne remaineth in the regenerate that which is formall being taken away by baptisme And wee call that the materiall part of originall sinne that tooke beginning from sin that inclineth vnto sinne and repugneth against the law of God as Paul also calleth it and in this sort it is briefely sayd in the Schooles that the materiall part of originall sinne remaineth in the baptized and that the formall is taken away By the formall part of sinne they vnderstand the priuation or want of those diuine graces that should cause the knowledge loue and feare of God the inordinate inclination to loue ourselues and finite things so as not to regard God and the consequent guilt of condemnation accompanying such priuation and inordinate inclination by the materiall part they vnderstand not concupiscence as it is in strength captiuating all to the sinister loue of our selues and things finite but as weakened it still solliciteth to evill but so that easily it may be resisted if wee make right vse of the grace that God hath giuen vs this remainder of concupiscence is euill inclineth to euill God hateth it and we must hate it c. And therefore it is most absurd that the councell of Trent hath that God hateth nothing in the regenerate and the reason they giue is very weake that therefore he hateth nothing in them because there is no condemnation vnto them for many things may be disliked in them that shall not be condemned It remaineth that wee speake concerning first motions Bonauentura describeth first motions to be the motions of sensuality according to the impulsion of concupiscence impetuously tending to the fruition of a delectable creature First motions saith hee are either primò primi or secundò primi primò primi sunt naturales secundò primi sunt sensualitatis primò primi sequuntur naturalium qualitatum actionem secundò primi imaginationem these first motions hee pronounceth to be sinne for three causes First because they moue to that which they should not and to that which is vnlawfull Secondly because they are in a sort voluntary though not in themselues yet in that they are not hindred by the will or in respect of precedent apprehension Thirdly they are sinne in respect of delight annexed for when the soule is ioyned by delight to the creature it is darkned and made worse as when it is ioyned to God it is inlightened and bettered These sayth he are veniall sinnes because the will hath not a compleate dominion ouer these motions of sensuality as ouer those acts that proceed from the command of the wil but yet it might haue hindered them therefore they are veniall sins so they continue so long as they stay proceed not so farre as to haue the willes consent but if they proceede so farre as that the will consenteth to take delight therein though not to proceede to action it is a mortall sinne This is the opinion of Bonauenture a cardinall and a canonized Saint and with him agree sundry others soe that in this point the Church formerly taught as wee do now CHAP. 9. Of the distinction of veniall and mortall sinne BEllarmine saith that the Romanists with one consent do teach that some sinnes in their owne nature no respect had to predestination or reprobation to the state of men regenerate or not regenerate are mortall other veniall and that the former make men vnworthy of the fauour of God and guilty of eternall condemnation the other onely subiect them to temporall punishments and fatherly chastisements But wee knowe the Church of God beleeued otherwise For first Gerson proueth that euery offence against God may iustly be punished by him in the strictnesse of his righteous iudgment with eternall death yea with vtter annihilation because there is no punishment so euill and so much to be auoyded as the least sinne that may be imagined So that a man should rather choose eternall death yea vtter annihilation then committe the least offence in the world Secondly he proueth the same because all diuines do agree that wheresoeuer there is eternity of sinne there must be eternity of punishment now where there is no remission there sinne must of necessity remaine for euer for though sinne soone cease in respect of the act yet euery sinne remaineth after the act is past in respect of the staine and guilt till it be remitted whence it followeth that euery sinne in it owne nature and without grace to remitte it remaineth eternally and deserueth eternity of punishment and is mortall Wee say therefore that some sinnes are mortall and some veniall not because some deserue eternity of punishment and others do not for all deserue eternity of punishment and shall eternally be punished if they remaine without grace and vnremitted eternally but because some sins either in respect of the matter wherein men do offend or ex imperfectione actus in that they are not committed with full consent exclude not grace the roote of remission and pardon out of the soule of him that committeth them whereas other either in respect of the matter wherein they are conuersant or the full consent wherewith they are committed cannot stand with grace Soe that contrary to Bellarmines position no sin is veniall in it owne nature without respect had to the
state of grace And this is proued against him by the authority of such mē liuing in the Church in the dayes of our fathers as he must not except against Thomas Aquinas saith eternity of punishment answeareth not to the grieuousnesse of sinne but to the eternall continuance of it without remission and that therefore eternity of punishment is due to every sinne of the vnregenerate so continuing ratione conditionis subiecti in respect of the condition and state of him that committeth it in whom grace is not found by which only sinne may be remitted Whence it will follow that euery sinne of the vnregenerate so continuing is worthy of eternall punishment and shall soe be punished and therefore is mortall And on the contrary side euery sin of the regenerate that may stand with grace and not exclude it is rightly sayd to be veniall that is such as leaueth place for that grace that can and will procure remission of which sort are all the sins of the elect of God called according to purpose which are not cōmitted with full consent Cardinall Caietan writing vpon those words of Thomas Aquinas cleareth this point exceeding well Grace onely saith hee is the fountaine whence floweth remission of sinne nothing therefore positiuely maketh sin veniall or remissible but to be in grace nor nothing maketh a sin positiuely irremissible or not veniall but the being out of the state of grace for to be in the state of grace is to haue that which will procure remission of sin to bee out of the state of grace is to be in a state wherein remission cannot be had So that that which positiuely maketh sin veniall or not veniall is the state of the subiect wherein it is found if we respect therefore the nature of sin as it is in it selfe without grace it will remaine eternally in staine guilt and so will subject the sinner to eternall punishment so that euery sin in it selfe deserueth eternall punishment and is mortall but yet such is the nature of some sinnes either in respect of the matter wherein they are conversant or their not being done with full consent that they doe not necessarily imply an exclusion of grace out of the subiect in which they are found so doe not necessarily put the doers of them into a state positiuely making them not veniall by remouing grace the fountaine of remission So that to conclude no sin is positiuely veniall as hauing any thing in it that may claime remission for no sinne implyeth or hath any thing in it of grace the fountaine of remission but some sin either ex genere or ex imperfectione actus in respect of the matter wherein a man offendeth or in that it is not done with full consent to the exclusion of grace may bee saide to bee remissible or veniall negativè per non ablationem principii remissionis in that it doeth not necessarily imply the exclusion of grace the fountaine of remission and some sinnes either in respect of the matter or manner doe imply such exclusion and are therefore named mortall Richardus de Sancto Victore agreeth with the former and more clearely confirmeth our opinion then they doe The circumstances of that wee finde in him touching this point are these One had written vnto him desiring to be resolued in a certaine doubt the doubt was this how it could bee true that hee had learned of his teachers that veniall sinnes deserue onely temporall punishments mortall eternall whereas yet in those that goe to hell if any of those sinnes that they call veniall bee found they must bee punished and euery punishment sustained in hell is eternall seeing out of hell there is no redemption whence it will follow that euen those sinnes that are named veniall deserue eternall punishment for they are punished eternally in the damned and it must not bee thought that the punishment inflicted for them is more then they deserue All this concerning the eternity of the punishment of euery sinne of the reprobate hee acknowledgeth to bee true and therefore sheweth that some sinnes are said to bee veniall and mortall but for other considerations then some supposed His resolution therefore of the doubt proposed is expressed in these words That sinne seemeth vnto mee to bee veuiall which found in the regenerate in Christ of it selfe alone neuer bringeth vpon them eternall punishment though they repent not particularly of the same that is mortall which though it be alone bringeth eternall death vpon the doers of it without particular repentance that therefore is a veniall sin which of it selfe alone if there be nothing else to hinder is euer sure to be pardoned and remitted in the regenerate so as neuer to bring condemnation vpon them that is mortall that of it selfe alone putteth the doer into a state of condemnation and death Here we see sins are distinguished some are said to be veniall some mortal but none are said to be veniall without respect had to a state of regeneration as Bellarmiue imagineth To these we may adde Almain and Fisher Bishop of Rochester and sundry other but it needeth not for howsoeuer our Adversaries make shew to the contrary they all confesse that to bee true that wee say for every sinne eternally punishable deserueth eternall punishment but euery the least and lightest sin that wee can commit without grace and remission remaineth eternally in staine and guilt and is eternally punishable whence it will follow that euery sinne deserueth eternall punishment and so is by nature mortall So that in this poynt as in the former the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died is found to haue bin a Protestant Church CHAP. 10. Of free will CArdinall Contarenus hath written a most diuine and excellent discourse touching free will wherein hee sheweth the nature of free will how the freedome of will is preserued or lost in this discourse First hee sheweth what it is to be free and then 2◠what that is which wee call free will What it is to be free he sheweth in this sort As he is a servant that is not at his owne dispose to do what he will but is to do what another will haue him to do so he is sayd to be free who is at his own dispose so as to do nothing presently because another will haue him but what seemeth good vnto himself he hath a liking to do The more therefore that any thing is moued by of it self the more free it is So that in naturall things we shal find that accordingly as they are moued by any thing within or without themselues in their motions they come neerer to liberty or are farther from it so that a stone is in a sort free when it goeth downeward because it is carried by something within but it suffereth violence and is moued by something from without when it ascendeth yet doth it not moue it selfe when it goeth downward but
view or handled with the handes of men and that the burying of them and hiding them from the sight of men is a duty wee owe vnto them wee haue caused Reliques which were wont superstitiously to bee adored and offered to be seene and handled of men to bee honourably buryed If any thing haue beene disorderly done in the confusions of warre and popular tumults they know our aunswere wee cannot excuse it nor could not remedie it Touching the fourth wee say that Bishoppes neither are bound to marry nor abstaine from marriage Touching the last wee say that Christian perfection standeth in this that wee set not our hearts vpon riches that wee bee not proude of them nor trust in them that we be ready if it be for Gods glory or our own soules good to leaue all But for giuing away all at once or retaining to our selues a sufficiency neither the one nor the other is absolutely a matter of more perfection For sometimes and for some men it is better to keepe and retaine a sufficiencie and to giue according to the proportion of their abilitie then to giue away all at once and sometimes for some men vpon some occasion and in some state of things it argueth more perfection to giue away relinquish and forsake all at once Perfection therefore essentially consisteth not in riches or pouerty nor in the refusing to haue any property in any thing as thereby expressing the state of things in the time of mans innocency but in the affection of the minde alwayes ready to forsake all for the glory of God the profession of the faith of Christ and the attaining of eternall saluation See to this purpose Gerson in his booke de consilijs evangelicis wherein hee excellently handleth and cleareth this matter of Christian perfection CHAP. 32. Of the heresies of Pelagius touching originall sinne and the difference of veniall and mortall sinnes THe fourteenth heresie wee are charged with is Pelagianisme which Bellarmine endeuoureth to fasten vpon vs three wayes First because Zuinglius did sometimes seeme to deny originall sinne as did the Pelagians Secondly because Calvine and others teach that the children of the faithfull are holy by the right of their birth Thirdly because wee say that all sinnes are by nature mortall To the first of these obiections wee say there is no more reason to charge vs with the priuate opinion of Zuinglius which himselfe afterwards corrected and none of his followers euer in the Heluetian Church defended then for vs to charge them with the errour of Pighius and Catharinus who taught more peremptorily the same errour that Zuinglius did if not a worse more dangerous For whereas he acknowledged most greeuous euils to be found in the nature of man since Adams fall which no way could haue beene in the integrity of nature though hee will not call them by the name of sinne They hold that originall sinne is not subiectiuely inherent in euery of vs but that Adams sinne is imputed to vs and wee punished for his offence that all the euils the sonnes of Adam are subiect to are the conditions of nature consequently not newly brought in by Adams sinne with sundry other erroneous conceits of the like nature Touching the second obiection that Bucer and Calvine deny originall sinne though not generally as did Zuinglius yet at least in the children of the faithfull If hee had said that these men affirme the earth doth moue and the heauens stand still he might haue as soone iustified it against them as this he now saith For they most constantly defend the contrary of that he imputeth to them But sayth hee they teach that the children of the faithfull are borne holy or are holy by the right of their birth O inconsiderate Iesuite is this the ground of that vile and vniust imputation Doth not Paul say so in expresse words and wilt thou make him a Pelagian like wise But sayth hee Calvin and Bucer teach that the children of Christians by the right of their birth are comprehended in the couenants of grace and so vnderstand the holinesse attributed to them whence it will follow that they are borne without originall sinne To this wee answere that the children of beleeuing parents may bee vnderstood to bee comprehended in the couenants of mercy and grace by the right of their birth either as beeing already in the couenants by actuall admission in that they are borne of such parents or for that in the couenant betweene God and their parents their parents offering them vnto God and his admission of them and taking them to bee his children vpon such offer made are couenanted and agreed vpon If Caluin and Bucer did teach that the children of beleeuing parents are already in the couenant by actuall admission in that they are borne of such parents it would follow that they were the children of grace by nature and not of wrath and consequently not borne in sinne But they teach no such thing but vnderstand the comprehension in the couenants in the other sense namely that the offering of them vnto God by their parents and his acceptation of them vpon such offer made are couenanted and agreed vpon in the couenants betweene God and their parents Now then as beleeuing parents haue good assurance that God will receiue their children as his owne children by adoption and forgiue them the sinne they are borne in if they present and offer them to Baptisme as they are bound by couenant to doe as much as in them lyeth So if by ineuitable impossibility they be hindred and cannot they hope of Gods goodnes in this behalfe are moued so to hope by sundry Rules of equity whereof Gerson and diuerse others do speake whom I hope Bellarmine will not pronounce to bee Pelagian heretickes The second thing wherin Bellarmine supposeth wee agree with the Pelagians is the deniall of the difference or distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes That the Pelagians did expressely and directly deny this distinction of sinnes there is no auncient writer that reporteth Bellarmine therefore prooueth it to bee consequent vpon that which they taught concerning the perfection of righteousnes supposed by them to be so full absolute as not to admit any imperfectiō or any the lightest sins to be where it remaineth How good this consequence is how well he proueth that he intendeth I referre to the iudgmēt of the Reader will not now examine But whether the Pelagians were in an error touching the difference of sins or no I will make it cleare euident that wee are not For wee do not deny the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes but do thinke that some sinnes are rightly said to bee mortall and some veniall not for that some are worthy of eternall punishment therefore named mortall others of temporall only and therefore iudged veniall as the Papists imagine but for that some exclude grace out of that man in
the first the question is vsually proposed whether the Rulers of Gods Church and people may make lawes concerning Gods worshippe and service For the clearing whereof Stapleton distinguisheth the things pertayning to the worshippe and service of God into three sorts The first such as are seales assurances and in their sort and kinde causes of grace as the sacrifices in old time and the sacraments now the second such as remooue the impediments of grace dispose to the receipt of it and worke other spirituall and supernaturall effectes though they giue not grace in so high degree as the first as the signing with the signe of the Crosse sprinkling with holy water and the like the third such as are vsed onely for order and comelinesse in the performance of the principall and essentiall duties of Gods worshippe and seruice These being the diuerse sorts of things pertayning to the worshippe and seruice of God the question and controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries is onely touching thinges of the second ranke For they confesse the Church hath no power to institute things of the first sort and wee willingly grant vnto it a most ample power in things of the third sort Let vs first therefore lay downe their opinion and then examine the trueth or falshood of it Their opinion is that the Church hath power to institute Ceremonies and obseruations though not to iustifie and giue grace as doe the sacraments yet to cure diseases driue away deuils purge out veniall sinnes and to worke other the like spirituall and supernaturall effects and that not onely by way of impâ—…tration and by force of the prayers of the Church which hath prayed that they that vse such things may enjoy such happy benefites but ex opere operato by the very worke wrought the vse of these things applying the merits of Christ to the effecting of these inferiour effects as the Sacraments doe to the effects of Iustification and remission of sinnes The signe of the Crosse sayth Bellarmine driueth away Diuels three wayes first by the deuotion of them that vse it it being a kinde of invocation of his name that was crucified for the redemption of the world expressed not by words but by this signe Secondly by the impression of feare which the verie sight and apprehension of it worketh in the diuell as being the thing whereby Christ wrought his overthrow Thirdly ex opere operato in which sort Infidells vsing this signe haue wrought these effects The Rhemists vpon 1. Tim 4. 5. Euery Creature is good c. haue these obseruations First that euery creature is by nature and condition of creation good Secondly that Sathan vniustly vsurpeth vpon these creatures in by them seeking to hurt the bodies and soules of men Thirdly that by prayer and inuocation of Gods name notwithstanding the curse vpon all creatures Sathans readinesse to doe vs harme they are good and comfortable to vs so that in them wee taste the sweetenesse of Diuine goodnesse Fourthly that the blessings of Gods Church and her Ministers doe not onely stay and hinder Sathans working remoue the curse and make the creatures serue for our good accordingly as at the first they were appointed but apply them also to so sacred vses as to be instruments of remission of sinnes iustification and infusion of grace as appeareth in the sacraments instituted by Christ Fiftly that besides and out of the vse of Sacraments the prayers and blessings of the Church doe sanctifie diuers creatures to the working of spirituall and supernaturall effects as to expell Diuells cure diseases and remitte veniall sinnes and that not only as sanctified things are wont to doe in that they stirre vp and increase devotion and the fervour of piety but in that the Ministers of the Church by their soueraigne authority haue annexed to the vse of them power to worke such effects This last proposition containeth the whole matter of difference betweene them and vs for touching all the former wee consent and agree with them For clearing of this point wee lay downe these propositions First that by ordinary prayers the Creatures of God are sanctified to ordinary vses Secondly that the presenting them or some part of them in holy places and to holy persons to be blessed of them maketh the vse of them more comfortable then the former blessing but addeth no supernaturall force efficacie or grace vnto them Thirdly that Christ appointed and the Church daylie sanctifieth the Creatures of God and elements of this world to bee the matter of his Sacraments Fourthly that bread being appointed to bee the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ and water of Baptisme the Christians in ancient time held that bread which had beene offered and presented at the Lords Table out of which a part was consecrated for the vse of the Sacrament more holy then other bread And this is that bread Augustine saith was giuen to the Catechumens as also they religiously kept of that water which had beene hallowed for the vse of Baptisme and by the vse of it strengthened their assurance of enjoying the benefites which are bestowed on men in Baptisme Neither can our adversaries clearely proue any separate sanctifying of water to haue beene vsed in the Primitiue Church If they could it were nothing else but the bringing of some part of this element into holy places with humble desire that they which in memory of Baptisme should vse it and so have their faith strengthened might more and more receiue the effects of sauing grace as the Christians of Russia and Aethiopia vnto this day on the Epiphany on which day they remember the Baptisme of Christ goe into the water praying vnto God that the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme may more more be seene and appeare in them Fiftly that the Church consecrateth sundry outward things to the vse of Gods seruice not giuing them any new quality force or efficacie but onely praying that God will bee pleased to accept that which is done in or with them and to worke in vs that the vse of them importeth Sixtly holy men hauing the gift of miracles did vse sometimes water sometimes oyle sometimes other things and gaue them to bee vsed by other for the working of miraculous effects after the example of Elizeus and Christ himselfe of which sort is that of Ioseph mentioned by Epiphanius who filling a vessell with water signing it with the signe of the Crosse and casting it into a certaine fire caused it to burne though Sathan hindered it before that it could not burne as likewise that of Hilarion who gaue a kind of hallowed oyle to certaine who by vsing it were cured of their diseases But the consecrating of oyle salt water and the like things by men not hauing the gift of miracles to driue away deuils cure diseases remit veniall sinnes and worke other spirituall and supernaturall effects ex opere operato by application of the
vttermost farthing let him attaine the life of immortality with thee The 3◠Receiue the soule of thy seruant which thou leadest out of the dirty miry gulfe of this world to the heauenly coūtry receiue it into the bosome of Abrahā be-dew it with the dew of refreshing let it be kept apart from the cruell burning of the fiery flaming hell The 4◠Graunt that thy seruant may escape the place of punishment the fire of hel the flames af the lowest gulfe The like may bee shewed in the rest for they are all framed to the same purpose forthe escaping of hel the power of the Prince of darknes the deuouring gulfe of eternall condemnation al which things in the judgment of our Aduersaries thēselues are granted vnto men dying in the faith of Christ state of grace in the very entrance into the other world and the first instant of the next life so that all the prayers that wee finde in the auncient were made respectiuely to the passing hence entrance into the other world with desire of the Resurrection and perfect consummation which we expect in the last day and because this passage is often past they that are departed already entred into their rest before their friends whom they leaue behinde them canne send so many good wishes after them as they desire it was an ordinary thing with the Auncient in their prayers to acknowledge and professe they were perswaded the thing was already granted and performed which they desired and to beseech GOD notwithstanding to accept their voluntary deuotions good affections In this sort Augustine prayeth for Monica his Mother That God will keepe her from the powers and Princes of darkenesse and remit her sinnes And yet saith Hee beleeueth it is already done that hee asketh So Nazianzen professeth his assured perswasion that Caesarius is with God and yet commendeth him to God And the like wee finde in Ambrose touching Valentinian By all which it is euident that the Auncient prayed not to deliuer the departed out of Purgatorie or any estate of temporall affliction but on their obite dayes acknowledged the goodnesse of God towards them preuenting all desires of men declared their readinesse to entreate for them if they were in neede or danger and not past before they could send their good wishes after them and expressed their desires of the perfecting and accomplishing of all that which is yet wanting to them And as the Auncient were wont to pray for their brethren and friends on the dayes of their obites and the deposition of their bodies respectiuely to their passage hence and the escaping of the daungers of hell and eternall death in the same so in like sort in processe of time in those dayes wherein their obites were remembred and by returne of times represented to them they vsed the same forme of prayer againe as if they had beene but euen then in the passage hence and in danger of hell and the powers of darkenesse But as on the dayes of the birth circumcision apparition passion resurrection and ascension of Christ for so wee call the dayes answering to these representing them to vs signes and remembrances carrying the names of the things themselues men so speake asif God did then send his Sonne into the world to be borne of a woman to be made vnder the Law to suffer ouercome and triumph ouer death by ascending into Heaven to take possession thereof for vs and yet meane not as the wordes may seeme to import that Christ doth newly take flesh and is borne of the Virgin c. But that he is borne vnto vs and wee made partakers of the benefits of his birth circumcision passion c. So in the dayes wherein they remembred the obites of their brethren and friends as then present and prayed for them as then in passage hence and in danger to be swallowed vp of hell destruction they desired not that which the words may seeme to import for that was granted to them on their dying dayes or else they are vncapable of it for euer but that which is yet wanting to them In which sense the wordes of that prayer in the Masse-booke must bee vnderstood Lord Iesus King of glory deliuer the soules of all faithfull ones departed from the hand of hell and from the deepe lake deliuer them from the mouth of the Lyon that the lowest hell swallow them not vp and that they fall not into the dungeons of vtter darkenesse but let thy Standard-bearer holy Michael present them into the place of holy Light which of old thou diddest promise to Abraham and to his seede For these dangers of falling into the deepe lake the mouth of the Lyon the dungeons of vtter darkenesse and being swallowed vp of the lowest Hell the dead in Christ escaped in the day and time of their dissolution neither is there any thing to be wished farther vnto them in this behalfe but that publicke acquitall and full and perfect escape in the day of Iudgement according to that other prayer found in the Missall O gracious God which calledst backe the first man to eternall glory O good shepheard which broughtest backe the lost sheepe vpon thy shoulder to the folde Righteous Iudge when thou shalt come to Iudge deliuer from death the soules of them whom thou hast redeemed Deliuer not the soules of them which confesse vnto thee vnto the beasts forsake them not for euer In all these prayers there is no word of petition for the deliuerance of the dead out of any paines or punishments but for their escaping avoyding declining and not falling into hell eternall condemnation the power of Satan and the mouth of the Lyon It is true that some long since began to pray to deliuer men out of paines and punishments or to suspend mitigate and ease their paines but in such sort as the Romanists dare not pray It was an opiniō of many whootherwisewere right beleeuers that all Christians professing the truth in Christ how ill soeuer they liue shall bee saued in the end Frustrà nonnulli saith S. Augustine immò quamplurimi aeternam damnatorū poenam cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserantur affectu atque ita futurumesse non credunt that is there are some nay there are exceeding many who out of an humane affection commiserate the eternall punishments of the damned and their torments that are without ceasing these men thought the sayings of CHRIST and his Apostles concerning the eternall punishments of the wicked were vttered rather minacitèr then veracitèr and that they rather shew what men according to their deseruing should suffer then what indeede they shall suffer Hence it came that many did pray for the deliuerance of men out of hell that died in mortall sinne This opinion Damascene followed and whereas the Prophet asketh Who shall confesse vnto thee O Lord in hell he
was no cause for here is neither falsehood nor absurdity but in himselfe who to wrecke his anger hath sold himselfe to bee an absurd Patron of errour and vntruth The rest of his friuolous discourse following being but a reflection as hee calleth it vpon these premises I will not trouble my selfe nor the reader with The Second Booke §. 1. I Come to his Second Booke in the first part whereof hee challengeth mee for traducing the foure Doctors of the Church beginning with Gregory and from him proceeding to the rest To make it appeare that I haue wronged Gregory First he noteth that the principall drift of my discourse touching the Church is to proue that the opinions wherein the Papists dissent from the Protestants at this day were not the doctrines of the Church wherein our Fathers liued and died but of a faction only predominating in the same Secondly that to this purpose I frame an appendix wherein I produce the testimonies of sundry Fathers and Schoole-authors to justifie the foresayd position Thirdly that descending into the controuersie whether any sinnes be remitted after this life or not I vse this pretense to wit that whereas Lombard and other do say that some veniall sinnes are remitted after this life we must so vnderstand their sayings that therefore they are sayd to bee remitted after this life because they are taken away in the very momēt of dissolution the last instant of life being the first after life That this is the summe of that Exposition I make of Lombards other mens opinion cōcerning the remission of sins after this life wherein how sincerely exactly I deale he wil not dispute 4ly That to corroborate this my Exposition I bring a testimony of S. Gregory not without great wrong done vnto him To these his obseruations I briefely answere First that it is true that the doctrines wherein the Papists and We dissent at this day were not the doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers liued and dyed but that I haue in any part vntruly set downe the differences betweene them and vs this false runnagate shall neuer be able to proue though if his credit would reach vnto it hee would gladly make men beleeue so 2ly That I haue indeed framed and added such an Appendix as he speaketh of to my Third booke wherein I haue produced sundry learned men and Schoole-authors for proofe of that my former position calling them as they well deserue worthy learned men but that they are mine enimies or that I speake honourably of them for mine own aduantage is but the saying of a silly fellow that careth not much what hee sayth soe he may be thought to say something Thirdly that this good fellow that complaineth so much of falshood and bad dealing hath in his third obseruation wholy mistaken the matter shamefully belied me for I make not that costruction of the sayings of Lombard and others which he speaketh of but it is the construction of Alexander of Ales the irrefragable Doctor and first of all the Schoole-men But that the Reader may the better perceiue how hee peruerteth all that commeth in his way I will lay downe the matter at large In the twentieth Chapter of that Appendix he speaketh of I produce the iudgment and resolution of Scotus Durandus and Alexander of Ales that all sinfulnesse is vtterly abolished in the very moment of dissolution and that there is no remission of any sin in respect of the fault and staine after death The words of these Authors I set downe at large The words of Alexander of Ales are these Finall grace taketh away all sinfulnesse out of the soule because when the soule parteth from the body all pronenesse to ill and all perturbations which were found in it by reason of the coniunction with the flesh do cease the powers thereof are quieted perfectly subiected to grace by that means all veniall sins remoued so that no veniall sin is remitted after this life but in that instant wherein grace may be said to be finall grace it hath full dominion absolute command and expelleth all sin Whereunto he addeth that whereas the Mr of Sentences some other do say that some veniall sins are remitted after this life some answer that they speake of a full remission both in respect of the fault and staine and the punishment also but that others more narrowly and piercingly looking into the thing do say that they are to be vnderstood to say sins are remitted after this life because it being the same moment or instant that doth continuate the time of life that after life so that the last instant of life is the first after life they are remitted in the very moment of dissolution grace more fully infusing and powring it selfe into the soule at that time then before to the vtter abolishing of all sin all impediment formerly hindering her working now ceasing So that these are the words of Alexander of Ales deliuering the opiniōof many worthy men in the church and not mine and therefore whether he and they doe aptly expound the sayings of the Master of Sentences and others or not it is nothing to me for I doe not so interpret the sayings of these men nor cite him to proue they are to bee so interpreted but cite him onely to shew that many learned men in former times did thinke all sinfulnes to be purged out of the souls of men departing hence in the state of grace euen in the very moment of dissolution which he clearely sheweth and besides telleth vs how they sought to construe the sayings of them that seemed to bee of another judgement that they might not be thought to bee contrary herevnto The same may bee confirmed out of Bonaventura who sayth it was the opinion of certaine Doctours who were of good vnderstanding that no sinne is remitted after death because the force of Free-will in respect of merite or demerite doth altogether cease These as he saith thought that veniall sinnes are wholly remitted and taken away either by repentance or by finall grace if there bee no time and place for repentance as when a just good man is suddainly seized vpon by death The Authour of the booke called Regimen Animarum a manuscript copy whereof I haue who liued about the yeare 1343 hath these words Delet gratia finalis veniale peccatum in ipsà dissolutione corporis animae ex virtute completionis sui status quamvis motus contritionis non sit ad illud directus hoc ab antiquis dictum est sed modò communiter tenetur quod peccatum veniale hinc deferatur à multis etiam quoad culpam That is finall grace doth abolish and vtterly take away veniall sinne in the very dissolution and parting of the soule and body in that she groweth to bee in a full and perfect estate though no motion of contrition bee directed to the putting of it
away and this was said by the Auncient but now it is commonly holden that many carry venial sinnes with them out of this world euen in respect of the staine and fault Caietan agreeth with those Auncient Diuines that this Author speaketh of his words are these Patet quòd nec pro fomite purgando qui etiam in baptizatis remanet nec pro reliquis quibuscunque nisi satisfactione debit â pro commissis velomissis poenae sunt purgatoriae sicut nihil acquirit grave ex remotione prohibentis sed iuxta pristinam gravitatem tendit ad proprium locum it a anima ex remotlone prohibentis iuxta sortitam prius charitatem in coelestis patriae mansionem sibi paratam intrat That is It is evident that Purgatory paines serue neither for the purging out of the remaines of concupiscence which still abideth euen in the Baptized nor for the taking away of any other thing whatsoeuer but onely for the satisfying for the sinnes of omission and commision that are past and therefore if that bee once performed as a heauy thing when that is taken away which hindered getteth no new quality or vertue but by force of that waight and heauinesse it formerly had goeth to the proper place where nature hath appointed it to rest so the soule so soone as that is taken away which hindered by force and vertue of that charitie it formerly had entereth into the mansion of the Heauenly Countrey provided for it Further hee addeth that as after death charitie is extra statum merendi that is in a state wherein there is no farther meriting so likewise it is in a state wherein it is capable of no increase the increase of charitie being the bound of the merite of it whence it followeth that there is no purging out of any sinne after death for if after death there bee no new increasing of that grace and charitie which during life stood together with veniall sinne there is no purging out of any such sinne after death seeing it is charity stirred vp and enkindled that consumeth sinne as the burning Furnace doth a droppe of water and nothing else This is the resolution not of a few or meane men but of many and those the greatest and best esteemed of in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued and died To these I say Gregory seemeth to agree saying That the very feare that is found in men dying purgeth out the lesser sinnes But heere Maister Higgons hath noted three points of fraudulencie as hee saith committed by mee in a few words First by an omission in that whereas Saint Gregory saith plerunque for the most part it is so I omitte and leaue out this particle Secondly by a reddition in that whereas Gregory saith the Smallest I say the Lesser Thirdly by an extension in that whereas Gregory saith the Soules of the iust are purged I say in a more generall sort the soules of men dying are purged For answere hereunto I say I haue no way misalledged Gregory nor deriued any conclusion out of any words of his contrary to his purpose and Doctrine in other places for Gregory seemeth to bee of opinion that the feare that is found in the soules of good men dying doth alwayes purge out the lesser sinnes so often as it is found in them but that it is not alwayes found in them but for the most part whereas I haue onely said it doth purge out such sinnes without adding alwaies or for the most part And that hee addeth the particle for the most part to shew that this feare is not alwaies found in good men when they are to die and not to deny the effect of purging out the smaller sinnes vnto it wheresoeuer it is found appeareth in that immediatly after by way of opposition he saith that nonnunquam that is sometimes God strengtheneth and confirmeth the mindes of men ready to die that otherwise would feare so that they doe not feare at all but if wee take the words as Higgons would haue vs yet am I no whit disaduantaged for if the feare of Gods iudgements alone doe for the most part purge out the lesser sinnes it is likely that other good motions and the strengthning of grace and putting of it into a state of perfection by the subtraction of impediments should take away the rest which is all that I haue said For I doe not say that hee doth agree with those that thinke all sinfulnesse is purged out in the very moment of dissolution but that hee seemeth to agree with them or that in consequence of reason hee should agree with them Neither is his next exception of least and lesser any better then this For Gregorie himselfe in the thirty ninth chapter of the same booke speaking of those sinnes that are compared to timber hay and stubble and are to be purged out by the fire the Apostle speaketh of to the Corinthians calleth them indifferently peccata parua minima leâ—…ia leuissima minuta atque leuissima that is small and smallest light and lightest sins so that small or light sinnes in the positiue degree are the same with him that least or lightest and therefore it was no fraudulencie in mee not translating any sentence of Gregorie but reporting his opinion touching veniall sinnes indifferently and freely to name them small lesser or smallest and lightest sinnes seeing in his meaning and phrase of speech and trueth of the thing it selfe they are all one The last exception is more friuolous then the two former for speaking onely of the soules of the iust and the purging out of such sinnes as are found in them till death in my whole discourse what neede was there that I should adde iust seeing no man could possibly vnderstand mee to speake of any other but it seemeth the pooreman knoweth not well what hee saith for hee will haue Gregorie to meane by iust men men of singular sâ—…ctity and not generally all that are in the state of grace and yet denieth that all the sins of these are purged out in death so casting into purgatorie not only those of the middle sort but the best and perfittest also contrary to the opinions of his owne Diuines So that wee see here is much a doe about nothing and as the poore man said when he shore his Sowe heere is a great crie and a little woolle For I doe not absolutely say that Gregory fully agreeth with these worthy Diuines before mentioned who thinke all sinnefullnesse to be vtterly abolished and remoued out of the soule in the very moment of dissolution but that hee seemeth to agree vnto them or that in consequence of reason hee should agree vnto them in that hee maketh the very feare that is found in men dying to purge out their lesser sins when it is found in them though alwayes it be not found in them which is not my priuate conceit but the Grecians in their Apology touching Purgatory long before deliuered
it is time for mee to looke about mee for I heare a horrible outcry as if Hanniball were at the gates of the cittie Theophilus Higgons causeth it to be proclaymed with sound of Trumpet that I haue shewed my selfe a notable trifler in the question of Purgatory and prayer for the dead to the vtter confusion of my booke and the Protestanticall Church When Moyses came downe from the Mount and heard the noyse in the Campe he sayd It was not the noyse of them that ouercome in battel nor of them that are ouercome but of singing So is this hideous clamor but the venting of the boyish vanity of a foolish youth in sporting sort calling companie to come and play with him for all that he saith will be found to be lesse then nothing The occasion of this strange out-crie is this In the Appendix to the third booke I shewe that there was nothing constantly resolued on in the Romane Church in the dayes of our Fathers before Luther beganne touching that Purgatory that is denied by vs and defended by the Papists which I haue demonstrated in such sort that this fellow hath nothing to oppose against it but flourishes of his youthfull Rhetoricke For the more cleare and perfit vnderstanding whereof the Reader must obserue that wee all acknowledge a purging out of sinne in the dissolution of soule and bodie and in the first enterance of the soule into the state of the other world But all the question is of the nature kinde qualitie of it Luther saith Bellarmine admitteth a kind of Purgatory but of most short continuance For hee supposeth that all sinnes are purged out by the dolours of death or by the very separation of soule and body wrought by death Which opinion of Luther wee all follow and the same was embraced by many in the Romane Church in the daies of our Fathers before Luther was borne who taught then as wee doe now that all veniall sinnes are done away and purged out in the moment of dissolution and in the first entrance into the other world as I haue shewed before So that concerning Purgatorie properly as it serueth to purge out the impuritie of sinne there was nothing resolued on in the daies of our Fathers but that which wee willingly admitte But the Papists at this day deny that all veniall sinnes are purged out in the dissolution of soule and body and the first enterance into the state of the other world They imagine that they are long in purging out that they are purged in materiall fire and that the place of their purging out is below in the earth nearely bordering vpon the Hell of the damned This is the true difference betweene Protestants and Papists and rightly deliuered by me howsoeuer it please Master Higgons to say I yeeld not the true difference in this matter nor propose the question as in learning and honesty it became me It is true that he saith that wee must distinguish matter of substance from matter of circumstance and that it is sufficient to haue fundamentall vnity in the first howsoeuer there may be accidentall diversitie in the second But it is a matter of substance whether all sinnefulnesse bee purged out in the moment of dissolution they deny it wee affirme it and are well assured they canne neuer proue that all our fathers agreed with them in this matter of substance and therefore Master Higgons may soone be answered when hee asketh where that man is who in the time of our fathers denied Purgatorie or shewed any doubtfulnesse therein against the essentiall Doctrine in which the true difference betwixt Papists and Protestants doth stand most eminently at this day seeing there were found very many as I haue shewed before who not onely doubted of the circumstances of materiall fire place and instruments of punishment but taught as wee doe against the Papists in the most substantiall point of all other that all sinnefulnesse is purged out of the soules of men departing hence in the state of grace not by materiall fire in a place of Purgation vnder the earth or neare Hell nor by being afflicted by the ministerie of Deuills or otherwise but by the completion of the state of grace getting full dominion in the soule vpon her diuiding from the body in the moment of dissolution Now if all impurity and staine of sinne bee purged out in the moment of dissolution by the taking away of impediments and leauing grace to her selfe that shee may fill all with her diuine effects as many of our fore-fathers beleeued and taught there is no such Purgatorie as the Papists at this day imagine If it be said that though all sinne be purged out by death in respect of the staine or sinfull impurity yet the punishment remaineth and so there is a kinde of Purgatorie wherein men are to suffer the punishments due to sinnes past though now perfectly blotted out It will easily be answered that whatsoeuer is of force to doe away all impurity of sinne offending God is likewise able to reconcile God vnto vs so perfectly as that no guilt of punishments shall remaine For seeing it is the nature of grace to expell sinne offending God and to make men acceptable to God that stood in termes of disfauour before where grace is so perfect as that it expelleth all sinfulnesse there it must needes worke and procure a perfect reconciliation with which guilt of punishment cannot stand Besides charity implieth a dislike of all that which is displeasing to God whom we loue and a sorrow that wee haue offended him therefore charitie in such perfection as is able to purge out all impuritie of sinne implieth dislike of that which in sinning was ill affected and desired before and sorrow for the same aequivalent to the pleasure and delight taken in sinning and consequently doth satisfie God in such sort as that no punishment shall come vpon him that so sorroweth Thirdly the punishments of men pure and cleane from sinne for such sinnes as they formerly committed if any such be imagined cannot be named Purgatory punishments but satisfactory onely So that if all sinfulnesse be purged our there remaineth afterwards no Purgatory properly so named Lastly if it were doubtfull in the dayes of our Fathers as Master Higgons confesseth it was whether the fire bee materiall or not in which men are to satisfie GODS displeasure what kind of suffering it is that is to satisfie whether of sorrow onely or some thing inflicted from without and likewise how long it doth continue it is evident that notwithstanding any thing resolued on in former times God may be so satisfied by the first conversion of the soule vpon her separation turning vnto him in mislike of her former misdeeds as that all guilt of punishments may be vtterly taken away in the very moment of dissolution Whence it will follow that nothing was constantly certainely and genelally resolued on in the dayes of our Fathers
hellish blasphemies which we accurse to the pit of hell many things no doubt were written by Wickliff in a good godly sense which as they were wrested by his Adversaries were heretical damnable For example it is a damnable heresie to think that Kings Bishops cease to be that they were if they fall into mortal sin or that reprobats cānot be truly Kings or Bishops neither did Wickliff euer hold any such opiniō but as Iohn Hus shewed he thought that godles persons howsoeuer officio in office place they be Kings Bishops yet merito that is in merit they are neither because they are vnworthy to be either and are of such quality as that if GOD would take the forfeiture they might iustly bee depriued not of dignitie alone but of life and beeing also Now then this is the goodly Argument which Maister Higgons frameth Gerson condemned such hereticall and impious Articles as were presented to him and other assembled in the Councell of Constance as taken out of the writings of Wickliffe and disliked some other that were indeed his and might haue a good sense because they were deliuered in a dangerous forme of speech as likewise such as rather bewrayed his too passionate dislike of things amisse carrying him too farre into contrary extremities then an aduised and wise consideration of the meanes whereby they might bee amended therefore hee would neuer haue allowed that reformation of religion that now is This Argument I thinke will not holde because we also condemne many of the Articles attributed to Wickliffe noe lesse then Gerson and yet are no enimies to the Protestanticall reformation as Maister Higgons calleth it But Maister Higgons sayth I must needes be found contrary to my selfe in that I acknowledge Wickliffe Husse Hierome of Prage and the like to haue beene the worthy seruants of Christ and holy Martyrs and confessours and yet praise Gerson as a worthy guide of Gods Church and one that desired the present reformation who consented to the condemnation of Wickliffes Articles We are wont to say Distinguish times and the Scriptures will soone be accorded so let Maister Higgons distinguish aright things that differ one from another and this seeming contrariety will bee found to bee none at all For Wickliffe Husse might be worthy seruants of God in that they reproued the intollerable abuses of those times which Gerson neuer approued and yet Gerson though as zealous and religious as eyther of them might condemne as impious some positions falsely imputed to Wickliffe not knowing but that they were his and dislike other that indeede were his as not deliuered in such sort and such formes of words as was fitte or sauouring of too much passion and violence and therefore like a right wise and moderate man he interposed himselfe betweene Wickliffe and such as he was opposite to disliking the one sort as attributing too much to the Cleargy and the other as detracting too much from it Touching Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage I could neuer yet finde in what point of faith they dissented from the Doctrine of the Church then constantly resolued on but they bitterly inueighed against the ambition pride couetousnesse and negligence of the Cleargy they vrged the necessity of oftner preaching then was vsuall in those times and desired to haue the Communion in both kindes according to the ancient custome of the Primitiue Church and could not be induced simply and absolutely to condemne the articles of Wickliffe but thought many of them might carry a good sence and that the author of them was a man that carried a good minde how-soeuer hee might faile in some things Neither was there any matter worthy of death proued against them but they were vniustly charged with things they neuer thought of so that Luther said truly that they were Murderers and seauen times Heretickes that condemned the innocent men Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prague For it is most euident to any one that will consider the acts of that Councell that things were carried in it in a most violent and tumultuous manner with clamours and out-cries against those poore men standing in their iust defence clearing them-selues from any thing their Aduersaries themselues accounted to bee hereticall And particularly concerning Hierome of Prage it appeareth the Cardinalls that were cheefe Presidents of that Councell sought all possible meanes to lette him goe free as Pilate did to acquite Christ but the crye of the multitude preuailed And therefore I thinke it will not bee easily proued by Maister Higgons that Gerson had any hand in the turbulent and furious proceeding against the persons of these men howsoeuer he might mislike some things which they were charged with So that hee is neither pronounced to be an Hereticke nor a murderer by Luther as Maister Higgons vntruly sayth hee is What manner of proceeding there was in the Councell Gerson himselfe reporteth shewing his dislike of the courses holden in it and confessing that many intollerable things were done there which neither could nor would haue beene indured if men had not beene content to endure any thing in hope of vnitie and peace after soe many calamities of the Church most pittifully torne and rent in sunder by the former Schismes There is onely one thing more remaining in this chapter that toucheth Me that is that speaking of the tyranny of the See of Rome such as withheld the truth of God in vnrighteousnesse being named Christians serued Antichrist I adde as Bernard complained of some in his time in which addition Maister Higgons chargeth Mee with fraudulency saying that I goe about to make the world beleeue that they against whome Iohn Husse Hierome of Prage and the rest opposed themselues serued Antichrist euen by the verdit of Saint Bernard himselfe If Bernard say not expresly that many euen exceeding many so that they were without number of the pretended friendes and louers of the Church of Rome and such as possessed high places of rule and gouernement in the same serued Antichrist lette him charge Mee with ill dealing at his pleasure but if hee doe let Maister Higgons know he hath wronged Mee in a very high degree Let vs heare therefore what Bernard will say Woe sayth he to this generation because of the leauen of the Pharizees which is hypocrisie if yet it may be named hypocrisie which in respect of the greatnesse of it cannot and in respect of the impudencie it is growne vnto seeketh not to be hid A filthy rotten running soare secretly passeth along thorough all parts of the body of the Church the more largely the more desperately it spreadeth it selfe and the more inwardly the more dangerously for if an open ene◅ by professed heresie opposing himselfe should rise vp hee would be cast out an◅◅iolent enemie should seeke to oppresse the Church Men would hide themselues from him but now whom should the Church cast out or from whom should she
quos symbolum Apostolicum complectitur Illos autem in scriptura multis manifestis testimonijs tradi nullum est dubium Quartum genus traditionum est de expositione vero sensu seu natiuâ sententiâ scripturae Quintum genus traditionum constituimus illud quod Patres aliquando ita vocant illa dogmata quae non totidem literis syllabis in scripturâ ponuntur sed bonâ certâ firmâ manifestâ Ratiocinatione ex perspicuis scripturae testimoniis colliguntur Sextum genus traditionum constituimus illud quod de Catholico Patrum consensu dicitur Septimum genus traditionum est quod vbi Veteres mentionē faciunt traditionū non scriptarum propriè non intelligunt dogmata fidei extra praeter Scripturam recipienda etiamsi nullo Scripturae testimonio probare possunt sed de ritibus consuetudinibus quibusdam vetustis loquuntur quos propter antiquitatem ad Apostolos retulerunt Verisimile est quosdam etiam alios externos ritus qui in scripturâ annotati non sunt ab Apostolis traditos esse nullis quidem certis firmis documentis probari potest qui sunt ritus certò ab Apostolis traditi qui ex Scriptura ostendi non possunt These are the words of Chemnitius wherby it appeareth that he admitteth all those kinds of tradition which I doe and yet reiecteth the imagined traditions of Papists D. Whitakers likewise acknowledgeth that the Apostles of Christ ordained appointed in the Churches certaine rites and obseruations for order comelinesse which they did not commit to writing because they were not of necessity to bee perpetually obserued in one and the same sort but dispenseable according to the circumstance of times and places This hee proueth out of the first to the Corinthians the 11 and 14 chapters Secondly if hee thinke their erronious opinion touching traditions may be inferred from any thing that I acknowledge he seemeth to bee too weake in vnderstanding and not to know what the state of the question is betweene them and vs for the question is not whether there be any traditions or not but whether it being first supposed that the Prophets Apostles and other holy men of God left vnto posterities diuine and sacred bookes and it being agreed vpon which they ate they containe all things necessary to be knowne and practised by Christian men for the attaining of euer lasting life and saluation We say they doe Neither can he proue the contrary out of any thing written by me For I acknowledge nothing to haue beene deliuered by tradition but the bookes of Scripture things therein in some sort contained and certaine dispenseable obseruations not at all or hardly to be discerned from Ecclesiasticall constitutions Let vs see therefore what hee can conclude out of any thing that I haue written for the confirmation of the Romish errour To make saith hee a short reflexion vpon his doctrine by his first rule of traditions he must graunt vnto vs which I haue proued before at large that all those bookes which the Romane church approueth for Scripture together with the speciall doctrines of prayer for the dead to Angels c. are traditions For Doctour Field and his rules doe so assure vs. It seemeth my case is harder then I was ware of my danger greater then I supposed it had beene But what are those rules assigned by mee which assure vs that all the bookes approued by the Romane church are canonicall Haue they beene euer holden to bee so Haue the most famous in all ages or at the least in diverse ages constantly deliuered them vnto vs as receiued by them from those that went before thē no man doubting of them Did the Pastors of any Apostolicall church in the world successiuely deliuer them as canonicall to their after-commers He knoweth they did not For as I haue else-where proued Melito Bishop of Sardis Origen Athanasius Hilary Nazianzene Cyrill Epiphanius the Councell of Laodicea Ruffinus Hierome Gregory Damascene Hugo de sancto Victore Richardus de Sancto Victore Petrus Cluniacensis Lyranus Dionysius Carthusianus Hugo Cardinalis Thomas Aquinas Occham Picus Mirandula Waldensis Armachanus Driedo Caietane and all the most famous Diuines in all ages reiect them saue onely Augustine the third Councell of Carthage some few other who yet as Caietane thinketh receiued them not as absolutely canonicall but in a sort onely in that they containe a convenient good direction of manners The Reader I doubt not will easily see his folly in this point But it may bee the speciall doctrines of prayer for the dead and to Angels whereof hee speaketh will bee found Apostolicall traditions by those rules that I allow of Surely no for howsoeuer it was a most auncient and laudable custome of the church to remember the names of the dead at the holy Altar and Table of the Lord with desire of their and our finall consummation and publique acquitall in the day of CHRIST and some particular men doubtfuly extended the same practise and custome farther to the mitigating suspending or totall remouing and taking away of the punishments of Christian men dying in the state of mortall sinne yet the Popish opinion of Purgatory and prayer to deliuer men from thence were not once heard of in the Primitiue Church nor are yet receiued by the greatest part of the Christian world Touching prayer to Angels it was condemned by the Apostle Saint Paul the councell of Laodicea Augustine Theodoret but that the church did invocate Angels from the beginning that the most famous in all ages did teach men so to doe or the Pastors of any Apostolicall church successiuely one after another which are my rules he speaketh of neither hee nor any Papist liuing can euer proue The second thing he would inferre out of my words is that wee must of necessitie resort to the Romish church to know and learne the forme of Christian doctrine the explication of the seuerall parts thereof and the obscurities of Scripture for that I say the Apostles deliuered the forme of Christian doctrine as a tradition to posterities no posterity of Protestants can be of this posterity because both their priorities posterities deny traditions Thus then the good Author reasoneth The Protestants are none of those posterities to which the forme of Christian doctrine hath been deriued frō the Apostles by the line of succession therefore we must resort to the Roman church to know it The antecedent of this argument he proueth because as hee saith both priorities posterities of Protestants deny all traditions Surely the man cōmitteth so many faults in this one silly argument that I know not well what first to except against For neither is it consequent that if Protestants be not of that posterity to which the forme of Christian doctrine was commended and deliuered from the Apostles that we must of necessitie seeke to the Romane church to learne it Neither doe Protestants deny
Liberius Bishoppe of Rome did not consent to this Councell it will easily be answered that though at the very first he did not consent to the Hereticall practises of the Arrians yet in the end he did after he had beene in banishment for a time As likewise Vigilius refused to subscribe to the Fifth Generall Councell till he was banished for his refusal The only thing that can be said is that they proceeded not orderly in this Councell but violently and fraudulently But this absolutely ouerthroweth the infallibility of Councels and their Decrees For if Councels may erre when they proceede disorderly and vse not that diligence for the finding out of the Truth which they should what certainty can there be in their Decrees Seeing it may be doubted whether they proceeded orderly and consequently whether they erred or not Leo confesseth that in the Second Councell of Ephesus there were a great number of worthy Bishops who might haue been sufficient to haue found out and cleared the Truth if he that obtained the chiefe place had vsed accustomed moderation and suffered euery one to speake his minde freely and not forced all to serue his vile designes If it bee saide that howsoeuer this was a Generall Councel and lawfully called yet the resolution was not the resolution of a Generall Councell because it was not consented vnto but mainely resisted by the Legates of the Bishop of Rome we shall finde that in the councels vnder Michael the Emperour the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome consented also to an ill and vnlawfull conclusion there made If it be further alleadged that howsoeuer the Legats of the Bishop of Rome may erre as well as other Bishops in the councell when they presume to define without instructions or to goe against their instructions yet the Pope himselfe cannot giue consent to any thing that is not true and right it will bee proued that Popes also may be so mis-led by sinister affections as not onely to consent to that they should not but also to miscarry all in Councell as well as others For Sigebert reporteth that Stephen Bishoppe of Rome and after him Sergius called Councels and proceeded in them in furious manner against Formosus their Predecessour not only pulling his dead body out of the graue and despightfully re-ordaining such as hee ordained but judicially pronouncing and defining that his ordinations were voide which was an errour in Faith seeing hee was knowne once to haue beene a true and lawfull Bishop though in respect of perjury or violent intrusion he had beene judged neuer to haue beene lawfull Bishop of Rome But heere I cannot passe by the contradiction of Cardinall Bellarmine strangely forgetting himselfe and saying hee knoweth not what For first hee saith it is certain and a matter of Faith that a Generall councell confirmed by the Pope cannot erre Secondly he saith the infallibility of Councels is wholly in the Pope and not partly in the Pope partly in the Bishops And thirdly he saith he dareth not to affirme it to be a matter of Faith that the Pope is free from danger of erring though hee haue a particular Councell concurring with him So strangely doth the good man crosse himselfe and ouer-throw that in one place which hee built in another For how can it bee certaine and a matter of Faith that the Generall Councell approued by the Pope cannot erre if it haue no certainty of not erring but from the Pope and it bee not certaine that the Pope cannot erre That Councels though lawfull to which nothing wanted but the Popes consent haue erred hee saith it is most certaine and vndoubted So that Generall Councels are not in them-selues free from errour but their infallibility resteth in the Pope Now that it is not certaine that the Pope is free from danger of erring hee proueth first because they are still tollerated by the Church not condemned as Heretikes that thinke the pope subiect to errour euen in judiciall sentence and decree Secondly out of Eusebius who saith that Cornelius the pope with a National councel of all the Bishops of Italy decreed that Heretikes ought not to be rebaptized and Stephen afterwards approued the same sentence and commaunded that Heretikes should not bee rebaptized and yet Cyprian thought the contrary and earnestly maintained it charging Stephen with errour and obstinacy which he would not haue done if he had thought the pope free from danger of erring Neither would the Church haue honoured him as a Catholicke Bishop and blessed Martyr that thus confidently contradicted the Pope and resisted his decrees and mandates if it were certaine and a matter of Faith and all men vnder paine of Heresie bound to beleeue that the Pope cannot erre Wherefore to conclude this point how can wee be sure with the certainty of Faith that Generall Councels cannot erre if their infallibility depēd on the Popes who may be most prodigiously impious and worse then infidells not onely erring in some particular points concerning the Faith but ouerthrowing all as he did that Picus Mirandula speaketh of who peremptorily denied that there is any God and confirmed the same his execrable impiety by the manner of his entering into the Popedome and liuing in it And that other he speaketh of who denied the immortality of the soule though after his death appearing to one of them to whom in his life time he had vttered that his impious conceit he told him he now found to his endlesse woe and misery that soule he thought mortall to be immortall neuer to dye Yet when there is a lawfull Generall Councell according to the former description to wit wherein all the Patriarches are present either in person or by their deputies and the Synode of Bishoppes vnder them signifie their opinion either by such as they send or by their Prouinciall letters if there appeare nothing to vs in it that may argue an vnlawfull proceeding nor there be no gaine-saying of men of worth place and esteeme wee are so strongly to presume that it is true and right that with vnanimous consent is agreed on in such a Councell that wee must not so much as professe publikely that wee thinke otherwise vnlesse wee doe most certainely know the contrary yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remaine in some doubt carefully seeking by the Scripture and Monuments of antiquity to finde out the Trueth Neither is it necessary for vs expressely to beleeue whatsoeuer the Councell hath concluded though it be true vnlesse by some other meanes it appeare vnto vs to be true and wee be convinced of it in some other sort then by the bare determination of the Councell onely But it sufficeth that we beleeue it implicitè and in praeparatione animi that out of the due respect wee beare to the Councels Decree we dare not resolue otherwise and bee ready expresly to beleeue it if it shall be made to appeare vnto vs.