vncleannesse and some Angels of the bottomles pit by couetousnes and a little after Not a few of our moderne Priests doe serue the most vild and filthy God Priapus Panormitane a man of great fame in the Councell of Basill after he had shewen the vowe of continencie not to be of the essence of Priest-hood nor by the lawe of God but a constitution of the Church addeth these words I beleeue that it were a wholesome ordinance for the good saluation of soules to leaue it to mâ—ns owne wils to marrie or not because experience doth show that now a daies they doe not liue spiritually and vndefiledly but that they are defiled by vnlawfull copulation whereas they might liue chastly with their owne wiues 37. I could adde vnto these testimonies the report of Iohn Gerson touching his time who complained that some Cloysters of Nunnes were become Stewes of strumpets and whores And of Mantuan a Carmelite Italian Frier whose verses touching this poynt are sufficiently knowne Patrum vita fuit melior cum coniuge quà m nunc Nostra sit exclusis thalamis coniugis vsu The life of the Fathers was better being married then ours to whom marriage is forbidden and of Polidor Virgill who liued in King Henrie the Eights daies whose censure is this that this enforced chastity is so farre from excelling that marriage-chastity that no crime hath brought more shame to the order of Priesthood more euill to Religion nor more griefe to all good men then that blot of the filthinesse of Priests But that I feare I haue too much offeÌ„ded chaste eares already with raking into this dunghill I conclude with the report of Martin Luther he saith that he saw Cardinals at Rome which were accounted holy for no other cause but that they were content onely to commit fornication and adultery with women and did not giue themselues to other vnnaturall lusts Thus as it were in a mappe I haue described the filthy and abominable fruites that proceed from that Romish doctrine of vowed chastitie Is it possible that the spring should be good when the streams are thus corrupt 38. The fift doctrine of Poperie giuing manifest occasion of liberty to the professours thereof is their doctrine of veniall sinnes By which they teach that many acts which are transgressions of the laws of God men yet are not properly sins nor deserue the wrath of God but of their nature are pardonable and therfore he which committeth any such doth neither offer iniury to God nor breake charity in respect of his neighbour and so deserues not hell nor is bound to be sorry for them but that the knocking of the brest going to Church being sprinckled with holy water or the Bishops blessing or crossing ones selfe or doing any worke of charity though we neuer thinke actually of them is a sufficient satisfaction for them This is the doctrine not onely of the Schoolemen but also of the finest and refyning Iesuites euen of Bellarmine himselfe who thus distinguisheth veniall sinnes that some are veniall of their own nature and kind to wit such as haue for their obiect an euill and inordinate matter but which is not repugnant to the law of God and of our neighbour others are veniall by the imperfection of the worke which imperfection ariseth partly ex surreptione that is by vnaduised falling into them without full consent of will and partly ex paruitate materiae by the smalnesse of the matter which is committed as if a man should steale a halfe-peny or some such trifle This is the Cardinals doctrine which as neere as I could I hauâ— word for word set downe And that wee may more fully vnderstand their meaning they affirme in very deede that they are no sinnes but aequiuoce that is so called but not â—o in truth for the word peccatum sinne doth not vniuoce aâ—â—ee 〈…〉 eniall sinnes as it doth to mortall and therefore it is their generall opinion that they are not against but beside the lawe that is in plaine words not sinne for euery sinne is a transgression of the law Now let the Readeriudge whether our doctrine that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall and deserue condemnation except they be repeÌ„ted of or heirs that some are veniall and binde not the offender to condemnation doe more tend to liberty whether we restraine more the people from sinning that thus say vnto them All your sinnes though neuer so small are of their owne nature damnable except by faith in the bloud of Christ they be purged away and by repentance which is a fruite of faith sorrowed for and laboured against or they that say thus to them A number of your ordinarie sinnes are not damnable you neede not faith in Christs bloud to purge them nor repentance to bewaile them nor care and endeuour to preuent them who seeth not that our doctrine pulleth in and theirs letteth out the reynes of libertie to our corrupt nature for when a man beleeueth that he may do many things which are in deed transgressions of Gods lawe without offence to God or hurt to his neighbour or wounding of his owne conscience and that after he hath committed them he needeth not greatly to repent of them or to be sorry for them but that they are done away by saying a Lords prayer or hearing a Masse or creeping to a Crosse or receiuing a little Holy water what neede he make any conscience of these so sleight trifles nay how can hee choose but neglect and make light account of them This is one of the deuils subtile deuices or iuggling trickes which Saint Paul speaketh of where with hee laboureth to seduce simple soules for either hee will aggrauate our sinnes to driue vs to desperation or extenuate and excuse them to draw to presumption the rocke and gulfe whereat many thousand soules suffer shipwracke And this last the most dangerous wherein the Papists shew themselues the deuils agents and factours by this their doctrine of veniall sinnes for what is this but to excuse sinne and to extenuate it and so to make men presume to commit those things which they esteeme of no greater moment 39. The truth of this will more clearely appeare if wee take a suruay a little of those particular sinnes which they account as veniall To sweare by the bloud of God or wounds or bodie of Christ is no blasphemie saith Cardinall Caietane if it be spoken in a brawle or in some perturbation of mind neither is it to be counted any more than a veniall sinne Againe formall cursing saith Gregorie de Valentia although in it owne kinde it be a mortall sinne yet it may be onely a veniall to wit in respect either of the smalnesse of the matter or the want of deliberation in the speaker and hereby saith he Parents cursing their children with bitter words and deuoting them to the deuill may often be excused from mortall sinne
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
not iustify and yet faith alone doth iustify If they say that they speake of one kinde of faith and we of another they say nothing to the purpose for euen that any faith alone should iustify is contrary to their owne positions who affirme that the former cause of our iustification is the inherent righteousnes of works and not the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith And thus I leaue the Article of iustification at farre with it selfe to be atoned by their best wits if it be possible 37. Let vs come to their doctrine of workes and see how that agreeth with it selfe and here first they hold that works done before faith and regeneration are not good workes but sinnes This is proued by them out of Saint Augustine who affirmeth that the workes of vnbeleeuers are sinnes and if the workes of vnbeleeuers then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate seeing as the same Father else-where speaketh Impij cogitant non credunt the wicked doe not beleeue but thinke they haue but a shadow of faith without substance It may be prooued also by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith and therefore are no better then sinnes in the sight of God be they neuer so glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men Or as Gregorie Nazianzene saith As faith without workes is dead so workes without faith are dead and dead workes are sinnes as appeares Heb. 9. 41. Besides Bellarmine confirmeth the same by reason because they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God whome they are ignorant of To which I adde another reason drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth Mat. 7. Because an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit but euery man til he be ingrafted into Christ is no better then an euill tree and therefore cannot doe a good worke 38. This is their doctrine and it is sound diuinitie but see how they crosse it ouer the face with a contrary falshood for the same men that teach this notwithstanding affirme that the workes of Infidels are good suo genere in their kind so they are good and not good sinnes and yet good works but this is in their kind say they that is Morally and not Theologically I but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are by their owne principles sinnes how then can they be good any waies Can sinne which is a transgression of Gods law and simply in it owne nature euill be in any respect good as it is sinne But to take cleare away this scruple another of them auoucheth that they are not onely morally but euen Theologically good for he saith that such works as are done by the light of nature onely without grace doe dispose and make a man in some sort fit to iustification though it be longè valdèremotè remotely and a farre off for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes is thereby lesse vndisposed and repugnant to diuine grace Now how can sinnes dispose or prepare a man for iustification is God delighted with sinnes Either therefore they are not sinnes or they doe not dispose to iustification neither farre nor neere or which is the present contradiction they are sinnes and not sinnes good and not good at one time and in one and the same respect And to put the contradiction out of all question the Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon of the sixt Session enacteth as much and denounceth Anathema to all that say the contrarie the words are these If any man shall say that all the works which are done before iustification by what meanes soeuer they are done are truely sinnes or deserue the hatred of God let him be Anathema And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill authorised by the Fathers of the same doth more perspicuously explaine the meaning of that Canon when hee saith that men without faith destitute of the spirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthinesse free from all fault and defiled with no sinne and by which they may obtaine saluation then which what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are sinnes be they neuer so glistering with morall vertue or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iustine Clemens and Epiphanius who affirmed that Socrates and Her aclitus were Christians because they liued according to the rule of reason and that the Grecians were iustified by Philosophie and that many were saued onely by the law of nature without the lawe of Moses or Gospell of Christ 39. Againe their doctrine of doubel merit the one of Congruity the other of Condignity as they terme them is not onely contrary to the truth but to it selfe For this they teach that the merit of congruity which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and dispositions to iustification is grounded vpon the dignity of the worke and not vpon the promise of God but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke and the promise of God to bee grounded vpon or else it is no merit This is Bellarmines plaine doctrine and is consonant to the residue of their Doctours both Schoole diuines and others for thus they define the merit of congruity It is that by which the subiect is disposed that it may receiue grace according to the reason of Gods iustice Here is onely iustice required and not any promise to the merit of congruity though I must confesse Gabriel Biel somewhat crosseth this definition when â—e saith that when a man doth what in him lyeth then God accepteth his worke and powreth in grace not by the due of Iustice but of his liberalitie And Aquinas who affirmeth that when a man vseth well the power of free-will God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy But yet they all agree in this that the merit of congruity is not grounded vpon any promise as the merit of condignity is but onely vpon the worthinâ—s of the worke done Now here lurketh a flat contradiction for by this it should follow that the merit of congruity should bee more properly a merit then that of condignity Which Bellarmine denyeth in the same Chapter because this dependeth vpon it owne dignity and hath no neede of a promise as the other hath and so should bee also more meritorious and excellent then the other being neuerthelesse but a preparation and beginning to iustification and the other the matter of iustification it selfe And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him but onely outwardly mouing him nor is yet iustified should haue more power to deserue and merite then he that is fulfilled with grace and fully iustified Thus error like a Strumpet bringeth foorth a monstrous brood of absurdities but let vs proceede 40. Their
not sinne or a vice in Philosophy that is not a sinne in diuinity This is strange diuinity The name of euill we know is vsed of annoyances crosses and afflictions but these are naturall euils and not morall but to doe euill can bee said of nothing but sinne and howsoeuer ti bee true that vice is rather the habit then the act of sinne yet because it is the habit is it therefore lesse sinfull then the act noy is it not more sinfull seeing it groweth out of many actes and is confirmed by custome and almost turned to nature In this therefore they are most contrary to themselues when they grant concupiscence to bee of it owne nature an euill and a vice and yet not a sinne for nothing is naturally euill but that which swarueth from good nor any thing vice but that which is contrary to vertue Now all morall good and vertue is within the compasse of the Law of God and all morall euill and vice a transgression of that Law therefore it cannot but follow that concupiscence being a morall euill and vice and therefore a transgression of the Law of God should bee cleared from being sinne of it owne nature especially seeing as Origen saith This is the nature of sinne if any thing bee done which the Law forbiddeth and Bede that all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse sinne and Caesarius Gregory Naianzens brother that sinne is euery assay to resist and euery resistance it selfe against vertue And Saint Augustine that therefore a thing is sinne because it ought not to bee done and that to doe any thing amisse is to sinne but euery moral leuill and vice is forbidden by the Law swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is a resistance against vertue and a thing that is done amisse and ought not to bee done therefore is also sinne in it owne nature They haue no wayes to helpe themselues out of these briers but by the distinction of properly and improperly which they say they fetch out of Saint Augustine as if concupiscence in the regenerat should be sinne improperly and not properly by which the contradiction is not taken away for they say that it is not sinne at all in it owne nature but onely euill now if it bee improperly sinne of it owne nature then it is some way sinne and so that proposition is false that it is not sinne at all and besides therefore it is said by that distinction in Saint Augustine to be improperly sinne because it is not come to so high a perfection as other sinnes are by being without consent of will neuerthelesse hee neuer meant but that it was a transgression of the Law of God and so a sinne in it owne nature as may appeare by almost infinite places in his bookes as for instance one for all Concupiscence saith he is not onely the punishment of sinne and cause of sinne but euen sinne it selfe because there is in it a rebellion against the Law of the minde and therefore hee calleth it a concupiscentiall disobedience which dwelleth in our dying members and in other places an euill quality vitious desires vnlawfull lusts c. Therefore Saint Augustine when he called it â—in improperly neuer dreamt that is was not a transgression of the Law but either that it was not so high a degree of sinne as those which are done with consent of will or that because the guilt of it is taken away by baptisme in the regenerate as hee speaketh in another place Concupiscence is not called sinne in such manner as sinne maketh guilty because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration And thus this distinction rightly vnderstood standeth them in no stead to keepe their doctrine from manifest contradiction 61. This subiect might bee prosecuted in many more points of their Religion but I conclude with these two Antichrist and the Bishop of Rome which I ioyne together in this discourse because in truth they are all one and though they differ in name yet they agree in nature one egge is not liker to another nor milke liker to milke then the Pope is to Antichrist As touching Antichrist therefore thus they confesse that by mysticall Babylon in the Reuelation is meant ` Rome and by and by with an other contrary blast they puffe away that againe and affirme that Rome is not Babylon The first is auouched in plaine termes both by Bellarmine and Viega and Ribera two other Iesuites and the whole colledge of the Rhemists and diuers others conuicted by the euidence of truth and the second is insinuated by a necessary consequence out of another position for they say that Ierusalem shall bee the seat of Antichrist and in so saying they inferre necessarily that Ierusalem is mysticall Babylon and not Rome because the whore of Babylon is set foorth in the Scripture to be the seat of Antichrist and it must needs bee so seeing shee is called the mother of all fornications that is of Superstition and Idolatry of all Atheisme and heresie and seeing shee maketh drunke the kings and inhabitants of the earth with the golden cup of her fornication and is died red and made drunke with the bloud of the Saints and of the martyrs of Iesus And lastly seeing Antichrist must bee one of the seuen heads to wit the last of the Romane beast and the last King of the Romane Empire though not called the Romane Emperour as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth All these things considered and laide together it must needs bee inferred by necessary consequence that the whore of Babylon cannot choose but bee the seat of Antichrist and if it bee so then either Ierusalem is not the seat where this man of sinne must raigne or by Babylon is not meant Rome but Ierusalem let them choose which one of these is apparantly false 62. Againe when by Babylon they vnderstand Rome they restraine it to heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours and say that it is not meant of Rome Catholicke and Christian but of Rome Ethnick and Heathenish Now if Rome be Babylon and Babylon the seat of Antichrist as hath beene proued out of their owne confession how can Rome heathenish vnder the Emperours be it when as they all agree that Antichrist shall not come vntill a little before the end of the world That state of Rome which they speake of is past aboue a thousand yeeres since and Antichrist is not yet come according to their doctrine Necessarily therefore it followeth that either Antichrist sate there then and so is come long agoe or else that Rome was not Babylon whilst it was vnder the heathen Emperours but is or shall be after it hath receiued the Christian faith 63. Againe the Romane Empire must bee remoued before the comming of this great enemie this all our aduersaries yeeld vnto and most of the ancient fathers so interpret that place When he that hindereth shall be taken
within holy Orders were accused of any crime hee must bee iudged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges and if he were conuict he should lose his Orders and so being excluded from Ecclesiasticall office and benefice if after this he incurred the like fault then might he be iudged at the pleasure of the King and his Officers This was that proud Archbishops challenge against his Soueraigne Henry the Second for defence whereof as also for other trayterous demeanors being tumultuously killed hee was canonized a Saint at Rome 20. And that you may see that this practice of theirs is agreeable to their Doctrine Bellarmine himselfe concludeth That Kings are not Superiours vnto Clarkes and therefore that they are not bound either by Gods or mans Law to obey them saue onely in respect of Lawes directiue and that the Imperiall Law ought in matters criminall to giue place to the Canon Law which is as much as to say that not the King but the Pope is the Lord of the Clergie Did Peter euer doe the like No he both in his owne person submitted himselfe to the temporall power when he paid Tribute at his Masters Commandement and when he vnder-went stripes and imprisonment for the Gospels sâ—ke without making any such challenge of exemption and also when he gaue in charge to all others euen his fellow Elders to submit themselues to Kings and Superiours for the Lords sâ—ke Sure it is that hee which payd a Tribute of monie much more ought to pay a Tribute of obedience and he which commanded others to obey would not in any wise bee refractorie himselfe lest that olde Prouerbe should be returned vpon him Phisician heale thy selfe and lest his practice should looke one way and his doctrine another which was vnfit for any much more for an Apostle 21. Lastly did euer Peter challenge to himselfe any such power and preeminence aboue the Scriptures as to dispense with the Law of GOD at his pleasure and to take away and abrogate what hee list in the same But the Pope taketh vpon him this also for these be their owne positions That the Pope may dispense with the Law of God and against the Apostle and against the new Testament vpon a great causâ— and that he may take away the Law of God in part but not in whole Yea that hee can ex iniustitia facere iustitiam turne sinne into righteousnesse and de facto Some of them haue dispenst with diuers Commandements of the Law with Incest with Murther with Theft with Treason Adulterie and such like as hath beene before sufficiently declared and may further be prooued if it were not a thing both knowne and confessed To shut vp the poynt certaine it is that Peter neuer exercised any such Iurisdiction eyther in part or whole as here is claimed by the Popes and if hee had it and did not shew it eyther by doctrine or practice he was not so carefull of the Church of God as hee should bee to hide from them so necessarie a truth but if he had it not then doe the Popes both vniustly deriue it from his chaire and wrongfully vsurpe that which by no right belongeth vnto them Now in that which I say Peter neuer did the like let Paul and Iames and Iohn and all the rest of the Apostles yea the whole Primitiue Church be included within the same proposition and it is as fully true as in that one particular and therefore it must necessarily follow that the Romish Iurisdiction hath no footing nor founding in the whole Primitiue Church but is like a Monster borne out of time deformed and mis-shapen in euery part thereof 22. In the third place if we coÌ„sider the outward ceremonies now vsed in the Church of Rome we shall yet more cleerely foe their declining from the Primitiue antiquitie for a taste whereof I instance first in their Latine Seruice which Bellarmine himselfe confesseth was not in vse in the Apostles times and Lyranus goeth a step further and sayth that in the Primitiue Church and long after all things in the Church were performed in the vulgar tongue the same is acknowledged by Aquinas and Caietan writing vpon the same place and Cassander as learned and iudicious a Papist as their side affordeth yea Platina himselfe pointeth out the very time when and person by whom this was first commanded to wit by Vittalianus the first about the yeere sixe hundred threescore ten What need we more to euince the noueltie of this Ceremonie seeing wee haue so many of their owne confessions and no maruell if they confesse it seeing else they should haue contradicted most of the ancient Fathers whose testimonies are so cleere in this point that they admit no exception as the places quoted doe manifestly declare 23. Secondly I instance in their praying vpon beades which came in as Polidore Virgil affirmeth in the yeere of our Lord 1040. being the deuice of one Petrus a French Eremite but the Rosarie was deuised by Fryer Dominick long after that is fiftie Aue Maries fiue Pater nosters for which purpose he framed fiue fiftie stones which were so hanged together on a string that betwixt euery tenne small stones one big one was interposed this he called a Patriloquie Out of which as yet a later inuention sprung the Marie Psalter for three Rosaries that is an hundred and fiftie Aue Maries and 15. Pater nosters make a Psalter because forsooth Dauids Psalmes were so many in number these are confessed nouelties and therefore I neede not to insist any longer in them 24. Thirdly I vrge their festiuall dayes which as they are full of superstition so are they of nouell and late institution as for example the feast of the conception of the Virgin Marie not that whereby shee conceiued Christ but whereby she was conceiued by her Mother and also the feast of her assumption and of her visitation and of her presentation the first whereof their Iesuite Suarez confesseth not to haue beene clearely knowne in the world fiue hundreth yeeres since nor receiued by generall consent till almost three hundreth yeeres after so that by his confession it is not much aboue two hundreth yeeres old and indeed it was publikely inioyned by Sistus quartus Anno 1480. The second their Sixtus Senensis confesseth that it was not found among the Latine Fathers and Baronius that it is not confirmed either by Canonicall Scriptures or by the writings of ancient Fathers and in a constitution of the Council of Mentz where it is named this addition is with all sound in the bookes of Charolus Magnus Touching the assumption of Mary wee leaue it to bee questioned Now this Councill was in the yeere 800. whereby it is euident that all that time it was no publike ordination of the Church The third was instituted by Vrbanus Sextus which though Antoninus affirmeth was neuer receiued nor kept yet it was the inuention of a Pope and that of no
absolution to wit if he will be absolued from adultery or incest it must cost him foure Turons if from both together it must stand him in sixe Turons if from wilfull murther being in holy orders hee must pay twelue Turons being a Bishop or an Abbot fiftie Turons twelue Ducats c. Thus there is no sinne so haynous for which pardon may not be purchased for a small summe of money as one of their owne Canonists could sing Si dederis marcas ijs impleueris arcas Culpa soluêris quaque ligatus eris If thou with markes wilt fill their arkes what ere thou doest commit By word or deed thou shalt be freed the Pope hath pardon'd it 15. If this be not a doctrine of liberty let all the world iudge Who need care what sinne hee commit when a pardon is but a money matter Is it any maruaile now if whores and theeues and notorious offenders turne Papists seeing they may haue so easily a full and plenary remission of all their offences And that which is yet a greater emboldening of men to sinne then all the rest they oftentimes for money pardon a sinne before it be committed as it is constantly reported of Parry that he brought with him his pardon in his pocket for murdering the late Queene intended by him But I haue heard of some that haue beene hanged with their pardons about their necks and so it may be was that bloudy-minded Traytor And this was it that emboldened the Germans to robbe the Popes pardoner because they had purchased of him before a pardon for the next sinne they should commit though it were a great one now this was the next and therfore iustly he could not find fault with them 16 By this it is euident to what loosenesse and lewdnesse of life this doctrine doth tend Isti enim indulgentiarum buccinatores omnimodam promitâ—unt securitatem quaeparit negligentiam negligentia offensam Dei saith the Author of that Booke called Onus Ecclesiae that is these publishers of pardons do promise all manner of security which breedeth negligence and negligence the offence of God for Culpam qui praeterit inuitat nouam conniuence at one fault is the hatching of a new Who so will plainly see in one view the monstrous licentiousnesse of life that issueth from this puddle of Popish pardons let him read the third grieuance of the German Nation in the Booke of their Centum grauamina exhibited to the Popes Legate at Noremberge Anno 1522. in the latter end whereof are these wordes of iust complaint By the sale and marchandize of this ware not onely Germany is spoyled of money but Christian godlinesse is extinguished where when euery one according to the quantity of his payment taketh vnto himselfe liberty to sinne hence whoredome incest adultery periury murther theft robbery vsury and a whole heape of mischiefes haue proceeded for what mischiefe will men be afraid to commit when they be once perswaded that they haue obtained licence and impunitie to sinne not onely in this life but also after their death Hitherto is the complaint of Germany which also may bee the iust complaint of the whole world 17 A third doctrine of the Papists opening the gap to licentiousnes is their auricular confession and popish penance I ioyne them together because they goe together in their practice and are both together members of one of their new deuised Sacraments True it is that in outward showe these carry a semblance of seuere discipline but if we search into their bowels we shall find them to be the greatest baytes that can be vnto dissolutenesse For when they teach that the enumeration and reckoning vp of all a mans finnes in the yeare of a Priest once a yeare obtaineth present absolution and pardon at the Priests hands who is both Iudge in this cause and Phisicion and hath power to loofe and binde and to open and shut to wound and heale by the key of power committed to him What is this but to open a gappe to all wickednes for when men are perswaded that there is so ready and easie a meanes to be rid of their sinne what need they be so chary of committing it Hence it is as by lamentable experience it is found true among those that are deuoted to this Religion they sinne freely that they may confesse and be absolued and when they haue confessed they sinne againe that they may confesse againe making no conscience how they liue all the yeare and what horrible sinnes they commit being perswaded that at Easter by the shriuing of a Priest they are cleane absolued Iust like a drunkard that drinkes so long till hee vomite and when his stomacke is disgorged drinkes afresh that he may vomite afresh or like a glutton that surfets all the yere long in all maner of intemperancy then in the spring takes phisick to purge out the naughty humors froÌ„ his stomake as soone as he is purged fals again to his surfeting ryot in hope to be purged again in the spring 18. This is the fruite of Popish shrift commended so highly by them to be so soueraigne a medicine against sin which if it be so why did not Christ and his Apostles vse it were they not as carefull to preserue men from sinne as the Pope and his shauelings are or is the Pope and his Apostles wiser then Christ Iesus and his Disciples why was it not vsed in the Primitiue and purer times of the Church Rhenanus and Erasmus two learned Papists affirme plainely that it was neither ordained by Christ nor vsed by the ancient Church and Chrysostome telleth vs that God doth not enforce vs to come forth and disclose our sinnes to any man He requireth no more saith he but that we speake to him alone and to him alone confesse our faults I but the Popes iudgement is more diuine and the times of Popery are more free from corruption beleeue it who list and therefore howsoeuer then yet now it is found to be a soueraigne preseruatiue against sinne as if they that feare not to offend in the presence of God will blush to confesse their offences in the eare of a sinnefull Priest or as if the law of God were of lesse force to keep men in awe which they cannot escape than the feare of a mortall man whome they may deceiue 19. But let them say what they will and cloake their licentiousnesse with neuer so holie pretences all that haue any iudgement to discerne colours which the blinde Romanists cannot do or any wisedome to trye the spirits and doctrines whether they be of God or no know that Romish shrift is nothing but a shift to diue into mens purses and a tricke of policie to search into their purposes that by that meanes they may enrich their owne coffers and vphold their Antichristian Hierarchie for by this deuice they vnderstand the secrets of state and ciscouer mens
a small neither shalt thou haue in thy house diuers measures a great and a small but thou shalt haue a right and a iust weight a perfect and a iust measure Let no man oppresse or defraude his brother in any matter How contradictory these plaine precepts and enunciatiue propositions of Gods word are vnto the positions of the Cardinall no man can but discerne that is not bewitched with the soâ—cerie of Iezabel either therefore let him shew out of holy writ some exception from these generall rules or let him acknowledge his Doctrine and Religion to be the vpholder of most grosse and palpable theft 22. If any man say that these be the opinions of priuate men and not the doctrine of the Church I answere that this is a most friuolous conceit for none of their bookes are admitted to the presse before they be examined by certaine Censurers deputed to that purpose by the Church and if any thing dislike them or seeme to sauour of heresie as they call the trueth presently it is either gelded out or corrected at their pleasures And that which goeth for currant hath his allowance subnexed That it containeth in it nothing contrary to the Catholike faith of the Church of Rome These positions then of these Iesuites standing thus approued by the common consent of their Censurers and priuiledged to be both printed and read of all men as containing nothing contrary to wholesome doctrine cannot be thought to be the vnaduised opinions of priuatemen but euen the doctrine and religion of their Church 23. Lastly that I may conclude this second argument they maintaine also the prophanation of the Sabboth which the Lord hath enioyned to be sanctified with so great and vrgent a precept Remember that thou keepe holy the Sabboth day Adding â— mâ—menâ—o before and fencing it with so many reasons after that it might not seeme a light matter but a coÌ„mandement of great consequence yet these impudent preuaricators make it a matter of no moment yea giue liberty to the open breach and transgression of it For thus writeth Cardinall Tollet Homo tenetur c. A man saith he is bound vpon paine of a mortall sinne to sanctifie the Sabboth but is not bound vnder the same paine to sanctifie it well As if forsooth it could be sanctified at all if it be not well sanctified or as if the prophanation of the Sabboth were the sanctifying of it for not to sanctifie it well is nothing else but to prophane it howbeit if this were all the iniurie hee doth to Gods Sabboth it might be borne withall but the bold Cardinall taketh vpon him to breake in pieces the barres thereof and to expose it being the Lords day and therefore fit to bee employed onely in the Lords worke to most vile and base offices for thus hee writeth in the same booke Licet iter facere c. It is lawfull to take a iourney on the feast day with this caueat that diuine seruice be first heard It is lawfull to hunt and doe such like things It is lawfull for Iudges especially rurall to giue iudgement on the feast day it is no sinne for a Barber to exercise his trade on the feast day for commodity if he had no leasure to doe it at another time they are excused also which sell flesh kill beasts and sell necessary victuals on holy dayes And if the occasion of a great gayne would otherwise bee lost as in fishing for Herring and Tunnes which come not but vpon certaine dayes it is lawfull to fish on the holy day In publique solemnities it is lawfull to prepare the wayes and to build for spectacles This is the doctrine of that renowned Cardinall whose writings are so approued of the Church of Rome that whatsoeuer hee speaketh is held for trueth But here it may be answered that he nameth not the Sabboth but the festiuall or holy day to which I answere First that the title of that Chapter is de Sabbathâ— and therefore if he meaneth not that hee swarueth from his purpose Secondly that the expresse words and drift of the whole Chapter demonstrates that vnder the name of the festiuall or holy day he includeth also the Sabboth And thirdly how could he giue instructions touching the cases of the Sabboth if he intended not the Sabboth seeing all his rules runne vnder this generall terme on the festiuall or holy day This therfore is but a mist to blinde mens eyes that they might not see their impietie 24. Can this Religion thinke you be of God which in thus many points crosseth and trampleth vnder foote the law of God Doth not the head of that congregation euidently shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that outlaw which S. Paul speaketh of 2. Thess 2. that is such an one as opposeth himselfe to the law of God Doe not the necke and shoulder which are supporters of that head I meane the Cardinals and Bishops shew themselues to be of the same nature and disposition with it and the whole body which is quickned by the life of his doctrine to be meerely Antichristian He that seeth not this is blinde and cannot discerne a farre off hee that seeth it and confesseth it not is carelesse of his owne saluation Let vs leaue them therefore either to bee conuerted which God graunt for Christ his sake or to bee confounded if they continue in their errours MOTIVE III. That Religion which imitateth the Iewes in those things wherin they are enemies to Christ cannot bee the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe malice of the Iewes towards Christ our Sauiour and his Church from the beginning vnto this day is so notorious that the whole world is witnesse thereof Saint Paul witnesseth of them that they killed the Lord Iesus and their owne Prophets and persecuted the Apostles and were contrary to all men and forbad them to preach vnto the Gentiles that they might be saued to fulfill their sinnes alwaies and that the wrath of God was come vpon them to the vttermost And as it was at that time so euer since they haue not any whit remitted but increased in their rancour for still they crucifie vnto themselues the Lord of Life though not in his person which is at the right hand of God yet in his meÌ„bers whoÌ„ they persecute vnto death asmuch as in them lyeth and in his Gospel which they still pursue with a deadly hatred Yea so great is their malice that many times they haue taken Christian children vpon their preparation day to the Passouer and nailed them vpon the Crosse loaded them with reproaches and scornes in disgrace of Christ and miserably tormented them to death as was done by the Iewes of Inmester a Towne scituate betwixt Chalchis and Antiochia as witnesseth Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall History and in Germany at Fretulium as also in England at Lincolne and Norwich as our Chronicles testifie Yea it
an effect of omnipotency Dicitur enim Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult non patiendo quod non vult i. For God is sayd to be omnipotent by doing that which he will not by suffering that which he will not 8. From hence it must needes follow that heere can bee no miracle and that not onely because miracles are extraordinary works of God and this change of substances is ordinary in euery Sacrament as they say and miracles are not contrary but aboue or beside nature but this is flat contrary not onely to nature but to God himselfe the Authour and Creator of nature and miracles are alwaies sensible but this is insensible and cannot bee discerned by any outward meanes but also for that no miracle can imply contradiction in it selfe as this must needes doe if it were as they would haue it For when Aarons Rodde was turned into a Serpent it left to be a Rodde and when it turned into a Rodde it left to be a Serpent And when the Water was turned into Wine it left to bee Water it was impossible that it should haue beene both Water and Wine at one time in one and the same respect or a Rodde and a Serpent at once And so of all other miracles there is not one to be found that enwrappeth contradictions Besides all which Saint Augustine concludeth peremptorily that Sacraments may haue honour vt Religiosa but not amazement vt admiranda as miracles And Thomas Aquinas more plainely saith Ea quae contradictionem implioant sub diuina potentia non continentur i. Those things which imply contradiction cannot fall vnder the power of God 9. They reply that they teach no more then Cyprian did thirteeene hundred yeeres since who said that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands at the last Supper I answere that Cyprian in that place the rest of the Fathers elsewhere did often vse hyperbolicall speeches to extoll the dignity of the Sacrament and to shew the certainty and efficacy of our communion with Christ and of our spirituall eating of him but they neuer meant so as the Romanists doe that Christ bore his reall naturall substantiall body in his owne hands and gaue it to his Apostles after a fleshly manner For Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in another place when hee saith that Sacraments haue the names of those things which they signifie And Saint Augustine more plainly saith that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands after a sort If it had beene really and substantially what neede hee haue added after a sort for this word as they vse to speake in Schooles is Terminus diminutiuus qui realitati vbique detrahit A diminitiue terme which detracteth from the realtie and true being of a thing And this speech Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands after a sort is all one with that in another place After a certaine manner the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs body So that it is playne that when the Fathers said Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands they meant nothing but that he bore in his hands the Sacrament of himselfe and thus this first contradiction is irreconciliable I come to a second and that in the Sacrament which is no lesse palpable 10. It is a principle of their Religion and of the truth it selfe that Christ after his resurrection ascended into heauen and there filleth a place and hath figure forme and disposition of parts and is circumscribed within a certaine compasse according to the nature of a body This is Bellarmines owne assertion and it is consonant to sound doctrine confirmed both by manifest Scripture and vniforme consent of ancient Fathers for Scripture Christ is said to bee like vnto vs and not barely like but like in all things that is both in nature and in the qualities and quantities of nature And to put the matter out of doubt onely one thing is excepted wherin he is not like vnto vs and that is Sinne whereby he is absolutely left to bee like vnto vs in all other things And lest any should thinke that that was true onely whilst he was here vpon earth the Apostle in the forenamed places applyeth it to him being in heauen for hee saith Wee haue not an High-priest which cannot be touched with our infirmities and therefore let vs boldly goe vnto the throne of grace where the Apostles argument were of no force if he were like vnto vs here on earth onely in the state of his humilitie and not also now being in heauen in the state of glory for sinfull man might thus reply True Christ was like our nature whilst he liued amongst vs but now being glorified he hath put off our nature and therefore we dare not presume to come vnto him Yes saith the Apostle he is still like vnto vs and hath not put off our nature but the infirmities of our nature onely which were the sequels of sinne as we also shall doe when we shall be translated into heauen after the resurrection And this Saint Luke more plainely auoucheth when he saith that after he had blessed them he departed from them and was carryed vp into heauen and that whilst they beheld he was taken vp by a cloude out of their sight Where we see plainely a locall motion of Christ from earth to heauen and therefore there must needs be of him a locall situation in the heauens As also Saint Peter in expresse words doeth affirme when he saith that the heauens must containe or receiue him vntill the time of restauration of all things Thus this doctrine is consonant to holy Scripture 11. Now let vs see how it was entertayned by the ancient Fathers thus they write Athanasius When Christ said I goe to the Father he spake of the humane nature which hee haed assumed for it is the propertie of him to goe and come who is circumscribed with certaine limits of places and forsaking that place where it was commeth to the place where it was not Nazianzene saith Wee professe one and the same Lord passible in the flesh impossible in his Godhead circumscribed in body vncircumscribed in deity the same both earthly and heauenly visible and inuisible comprehended in place and not comprehended Againe Christ as man is circumscribed and contayned in place Christ as God is vncircumscribed and contayned within no place Augustine saith Christ as man according to his body is in a place but as God filleth all places Cyril saith Though Christ hath taken from hence the presence of his body yet in the maiestie of his deitie hee is alwayes present Fulgentius saith One and the same Christ a locall Man of a Woman his mother who is the infinite God of God his Father Vigilius the Martyr Christ is in all places according to the nature of his deitie but is contayned in one place according to the nature of his humanity Damascene The difference of natures
merite it and yet to haue it freely giuen if it be any wayes of merite then it is not euery way free Merite in the receiuer and freenesse in the giuer can in no respect stand together 33. Another contradiction in this Article is this that they say a man is iustified by his works and yet for all that he is iustified by grace too Both these propositions they peremptorily defend and take it in great scorne that we charge them to be maintayners of works against grace and call vs loud Lyers in casting that imputation vpon them But by their leaues they maintaine either works against grace or else they breathe hote and cold out of one mouth which the Satyre could not endure and speake contraries let them choose whether for the holy Ghost himselfe placeth these two Works and Grace in diametrall opposition If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it bee of works it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke Here we see a manifest opposition betwixt grace and works so that one doth exclude the other and this in our election and therefore much more in our iustification which is but an effect thereof for election hath nothing to doe with our good works according to our doctrine nor with our euill according to theirs but iustification hath respect vnto our sinnes and euill deeds and therefore much greater must bee the opposition in this then in that greater reason that here works should be excluded by grace then in the other 34 Bellarmines exception is that the Apostle here excludeth onely the works that be of our selues without grace before we be iustified but as for those that come after they are works of grace and therefore be not excluded by grace but may well stand together To which I answere three things First that the Apostle hath no such distinction but speaketh generally of all works and therefore according to the olde rule Vbi lex non distinguit Where the law distinguisheth not there we must not distinguish To say therefore that it is both by grace and works is to confront the Apostle and to fasten vpon him a flat contradiction Yea it is to extinguish grace vtterly for as it hath beene before alledged out of Augustine grace is not grace in any respect except it bee free in euery respect Secondly that the Apostle meaneth works after grace and such as proceed from faith as well as works of nature appeareth by another like place where works are also excluded and opposed to the free gift of God that is to grace and that the Apostle intendeth works of grace appeareth by the reason following in the next verse For we are his workmanship created in Christ to good works Now in this last place works of grace must needs be vnderstood because he saith we are created in Christ Iesus vnto them and therefore the same also must necessarily bee meant in the former vnlesse wee will say that the Apostle or rather the holy Ghost disputes not ad idem Lastly I answere that in Abrahams iustification who was the Father of the faithfull and his iustification a patterne how all his spirituall posteritie should be iustified works of grace are excluded for at that time of which the Apostle there speaketh Abraham was regenerate as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth and yet his works are excluded therefore works of grace are meant by the Apostle I but replyeth the same Cardinall when the Apostle saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by works he excludeth those works which Abraham might doe without faith for they which haue faith yet doe not alwaies worke by faith as when they sinne or performe meere morall duties without relation to God But this is no better then a meere shift without any ground of reason or truth for if it bee true which the Scripture saith that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne then those morall works which hee mentioneth being not of faith are no better then sinnes and so need not to bee excluded by the Apostle for they exclude themselues Besides it is manifestly false that a iust and faithfull man doth any worke which is not sinne wherein he hath not relation vnto God if not in the particular act yet in the generall purpose of his minde for euery morning he prayeth to God for the direction of all his wayes and that all his works may be sanctified by his Spirit And thus it appeareth that in saying wee are iustified by grace and yet by works too they speake contraries 35. A third contradiction in this Article is about their works of Preparation which they say goe before the first iustification these they call vertuous dispositions good qualities good preparations merits of congruitie and that they haue a dignitie of worke in them and yet they say agayne that no good works goe before the first iustification belike then they are both good and not good by their doctrine and therefore thus I argue If they be not good why do they call them good if they bee good then it is vntrue that no good works go before the first iustification of a sinner either in the one or in the other they must needs erre and in holding both the one part of their doctrine crosseth the other 36. Fourthly they say that faith alone doth not iustify and yet notwithstanding they say Fide Catholica Christiana eaque sola hominem iustificari nulli vnquam negauerunt nec â—egant Pontificij That no Papist euer hath or doth deny that a man is iustified by the Catholike Christian faith and that alone This is the assertion of Miletus against Heshusius and it is not condemned by any of the rest but his booke approued as contayning nothing contrary to their Catholike Religion and so it seemes to be one of their Catholike doctrines And Bellarmine insinuates asmuch though not in playne speech yet by necessary consequence when bee saith that faith is the beginning and first roote of iustification Now if it be so then as soone as a man hath faith iustification is begun and taketh roote in him euen before he hath any other grace and if it hath taken roote then it is eyther whole iustification or a peece thereof but a peece it cannot be for it is indiuisible therefore eyther whole or none For grant there be degrees in iustification as they say which neuerthelesse they are neuer able to prooue yet they bee degrees of persection not of essence as a man is a man as soone as hee is borne though not a perfect man before hee come to complete age stature and strength So their supposed iustification is iustification in the roote though not perfect and absolute vntill it come to ripe age I speake in their language because I deliuer their owne doctrine Now how can these two contraries bee reconciled Faith alone doth
that the Spirit of God witnesseth vnto our spirits that wee are the sonnes of God Neither is this witnesse of the Spirit a doubtfull and vncertaine certificate for Saint Paul in the words going before calleth it the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father and not the spirit of bondage to feare any more When therefore God doth shead abroad his Spirit into our hearts crying and making vs to cry Abba Father in faithfull not formall prayer that is a certaine testimony to our spirits that we are the sonnes of God For as Saint Ierome well noteth Wee neuer durst call God our Father but vpon conscience of the Spirit dwelling in vs. Neither doe we euer vpon this ground call God our Father but withall we are or ought to be perswaded that we are his children 15. Againe why doth hee say in another place that all they which beleeue the Gospell are sealed with the holy Spirit of promise Are Gods children sealed and can they not see nor know the Seale Is not this one vse of a seale to confirme a couenant assuring the certainty of the performance thereof to him to whom it is made Yea doth not Saint Iohn say Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in vs because he hath giuen vs of his Spirit And againe doth not the holy Ghost so ascribe this knowledge of iustification and saluation on to a mans selfe that he denyeth it to all others To him that ouercommeth I will giue a white stone and in the stone a new name written which no man knoweth saâ—â— he that receiueth it What is this white stone but the absolution and remission of a sinner what is the new name written in it but the childe of God This no man knoweth but he that hath it therefore he that hath it knoweth it What can be more plaine And yet this is the exposition almost of all Diuines vpon that place To omit all other testimonies doth not the Scripture now teach this doctrine touching the certainty of saluation 16. I but saith Bellarmine all Gods promises for the most part are conditionall and no man can certainely know whether he hath performed the condition and therefore cannot assure himselfe of the promise To which I answere that albeit in regard of our infirmitie we are not able to fulfill the conditions required in Gods promises yet wee are assured that we shall fulfill them through him that strengthneth vs and so as the Apostle Paul said in one place Wee can doe nothing no not so much as thinke a good thought Yet in another place he saith I can doe all things through Christ that strengthneth me So may we say of our selues We cannot do anything of our selues yet in Christ Iesus wee can doe all things By his might wee can keepe his Commandements though not perfectly yet so as our defects are made vp by his perfection and our endeuours accepted in his mediation for his sake it is giuen vnto vs not onely to beleeue in him but also to suffer for him and by his neuer-fayling grace and euerlasting loue we are assured that we shall perseuere vnto the end And therefore Origen saith that it is impossible that that which God hath once quickned should either by himselfe or any other be killed Thus there is no condition required of the children of God but they are assured that they can performe it though not in full measure and by their owne strength yet in that measure which God will accept and by the strength of his Spirit which dwelleth in them and sanctifieth them to doe his will And thus this third Antithesis is nothing empeached by Bellarmines cauill 17. The Gospell telleth vs that there is but one onely propitiatory Sacrifice in the world which is Christ Iesus the Sauiour of the world who offered vp himselfe once and no more for to take away the sinnes of his people But the Church of Rome teacheth that euery Masse is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quicke and the dead and that euery Priest as often as he saith Masse doth offer vp Christ vnto God the Father as a Sacrifice for sinne 18. Bellarmine here distinguisheth againe and saith that indeede there is but one onely propitiatory Sacrifice in the world to wit that which was once offered vpon the Crosse but yet that one Sacrifice may be reiterated in mysterie by the same high Priest Christ Iesus by the hands of a carnall Priest And againe he in another place distinguisheth this Sacrifice into bloudy vnbloudy saith that there was but one bloudie Sacrifice of Christ and that on the Altar of the Crosse but there are many vnbloudy sacrifices of the same Christ in their dayly Masses And lastly that the sacrifice of the Masse is but an application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse vnto mens soules for the actuall remission of sinnes purchased by Christ vpon the Crosse 19. Here is much adoe to little purpose three distinctions and all not worth a rush for all of them are mutually contrary to each others and vaine and friuolous in themselues first if the sacrifice of the Masse bee a repetition of the sacrifice of the crosse then it is not an application of it for it is one thing to reiterate and another to apply and therefore if the Priest doth reiterate it then hee doth not apply it and if hee doth apply it then hee doth not reiterate for to reiterate is to doe againe that which was done before and to apply is to make vse of that which was done but not to doe it againe Beside if the masse bee a repetition and application of the sacrifice of the crosse then how is it an vnbloudy sacrifice can that bloudy sacrifice bee repeated and applied after an vnbloudy manner that is asmuch as to say it is a sacrifice and yet not a sacrifice especially no propitiatory sacrifice seeing as the Apostle speaketh without the shedding of bloud there is no remissioÌ„ of sinnes Againe if the masse be a repetition of that bloudy sacrifice of Christ on the crosse then it is a repetition of Christs death and a crucifying of him againe for the sacrifice of Christ and the death of Christ is all one and if it bee so then it must needs be bloudy aswell as that for the repetition of a thing is the doing of the same thing againe And lastly if it bee an application of it then it cannot bee a repetition of it nor indeed the same in specie with it for the application of a thing is not the thing it selfe in any reason and thus these distinctions are at ciuill warre with each other and indeed like deadly enemies doe cut each others throats 20. But let one of their own learned masters Peter Lumbard conclude this point for vs who saith that Christ dying vpon the crosse offered himselfe is sacrificed dayly in the Sacrament because in
grace not deluding their soules with a fond expectation of other mens deuotions Sure it is that the opinion of purgatorie and prayer for the dead must of necessitie nourish a presumption of veniall sinnes at the least which our doctrine adiudgeth to hell without repentance aswell as any other and because few are able to distinguish betwixt mortall and veniall sinnes but iudge them veniall which are to Gods iudgement mortall as their Iesuite Coster confesseth when hee sayth that that may seeme a light offence vnto man which is haynous in Gods sight therefore it must needs also bee in danger to breed a secret presumption of mortall sinnes also And so whilest they haue a blind conceit of the suburbes which is Purgatorie they cast themselues into the Citie it selfe which is hell 34. Lastly this may be demonstrated to the conscience of any not preiudiced with a blind zeale to the Romish Church by this reason for that neyther Purgatorie nor Prayer for the dead can directly be proued out of Scripture as hath bin proued before concerning Purgatory and is apparent concerning prayer for the dead there being neither precept nor promise nor direct example in the whole volume of Gods Booke for the same as is confessed by their owne Bredenbachius and besides hauing no sound foundation in the consent of ancient Fathers as hath beene also prooued but being founded vpon vaine apparitions and strange reuelations of soules departed which many of the Fathers were of opinion could not bee as testifieth Maldonate one of their owne Iesuites for feare lest vnder that colour we should be drawne to superstitions and others thought that Deuils did faine themselues to be the soules of dead men as witnesseth Pererius another Iesuite yea and some of their owne Doctours haue beene perswaded that all apparitions about Churches are eyther demoniacall or phantasticall whereas on the contrarie our doctrine of two places is direct in Scripture and was neuer denied by any authoritie either of olde or new Diuines I meane possitiuely that there is a Heauen and a Hell wherefore this wee may safely beleeue and repose our soules vpon but to entertaine the beliefe of the former is as dangerous to the conscience as doubtfull to the vnderstanding seeing hee that doubtingly vndertaketh any action is condemned as a sinner because hee doth it not in faith Faiths obiect being Gods Word alone and not the vncertaine coniectures of humane opinions much lesse the vaine apparitions of dead ghosts 35. Againe their doctrine of the absolute necessitie of baptisme excluding thereby infants from Heauen and confining them to a Prison in the brimme of Hell there to indure the euerlasting punishment of losse is a dangerous doctrine both in respect of pietie towards God and charitie towards our neighbour and certaintie to a mans conscience and consequently our doctrine that holdeth the contrarie is more safe in all those respects For touching pietie it is a great imbasing to Gods mercie and a detracting from the glorie of his grace to thinke that Almightie God should in iustice cast away the infinite myriades of vnbaptized infants or that his sauing grace is so tyed to the outward Sacrament that he cannot or at the least will not saue any without it the first of these is confessed by many of the learned Romanists themselues to be à Dei misericordia alienum not agreeable to the mercie of God which exceedeth not onely the deserts but euen the hopes of men The second is confirmed by a due comparing of the olde couenant of the Law with the new couenant of the Gospell for if it be true that children dying vnder the Law vncircumcised were saued by the faith of their Parents as Saint Bernard thinketh yea and is also agreeable to the tenure of the Scripture for many children dyed in the Wildernesse without the Sacrament of Circumcision it being omitted for those fortie yeeres by Gods own allowance and Dauid hearing of the death of his childe before hee had receiued the outward character of Circumcision as may be gathered out of the Text. did solace himselfe with this confidence that the childe was saued Then it must needs follow if the same priuiledge be not granted to the children of Christian Parents that the couenant of the Gospell is not so large as the couenant of the Law nor Gods mercie so bountifull to Christians as to Iewes nor the merits of Christ so effectuall after his comming in the flesh as they were before by all which the glorie of the Gospell and grace of Christ is much defaced and the vnbounded Ocean of Gods mercie limited and stinted 36. Touching charitie is it not an vncharitable conceit to despaire of the saluation of poore infants dying without Baptisme and that both towards the infants themselues who though they are borne in originall sinne yet are innocent from actuall transgressions and towards the Parents who being themselues within the couenant hereby are depriued of that chiefe comfort of the couenant which is that God is not onely their God but the God of their seed and towardes the Church that hereby is robbed of a great part of her children and made vnable to present young infants to her Husband Christ Iesus Children are little beholding to them for this doctrine Parents lesse and the Church the mother of the faithfull least of all And indeed so farre is it from charitie that it is full of damnable crueltie 37. Lastly touching the perilous consequences that follow vpon this doctrine I need name but these three to wit first that it maketh God more mercifull to men of yeeres then vnto tender infants for they teach that men of yeeres as Valentinian the Emperour may be saued by the Baptisme of the Spirit or by the Baptisme of bloud which is Martyrdome though they want the Baptisme of water but infants albeit they may haue the Spirit of sanctification euen in the wombe as Iohn Baptist had and may be Martyrs according to their opinion as the children that Herod caused to be slaine yet if they want the Sacrament of water they adiudge them peremptorily to be banished from Gods presence for euer Now then children and men being in the same predicament either the one must be admitted to Gods fauour aswell as the other or it must needs follow that God is partial and more fauourable to the one then the other If they say that men though they haue not the act of Baptisme yet they haue votum a desire vnto it which being intercepted by some sodaine accident is supplied by inward grace I answere with Bellarmine that as another mans sinne was the cause of the damnation of infants so other mens faith sufficeth them vnto baptisme Why should then the desire of one man be of more efficacie to his saluation then the desire and purpose of the Church for the saluation of infants To this purpose their owne learned Schooleman sayth 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