that Valentinianus Theodosius and Satyrus were in heaven and enioied eternall rest and neverthelesse even then prayed for their eternall rest But doubtlesse his praiers had beene both vaine and foolish if he should haue praied for that vnto them which they had and enioyed alreadie Hee therefore praied as my observations declare not for the rest and blisse of the soules which thē possessed eternall rest and blisse but that the bodies also may bee pertakers of that place and rest which they wanted them and shall vntill the day of dome And for the better confirmation of this mine assertion saint Ambrose doth in expresse words so expound himselfe For thus he writeth Te quae so summe Deus vt charissimos iuvenes matura resurrectione resuscites immaturum hunc vitae istius cur sum matura resurrectione compenses O high and mightie God I beseech thee to raise vp most deare yong youthes with mature resurrection and to recompence the vnripe course of this their life with mature and ripe resurrection Loe here in plaine and briefe tearmes the compendious explication of that popish obiection and doubt vvhich so troubleth and seduceth many a one And so Saint Ambrose his prayer for the dead was even this and no other God give them a ioyfull resurrection The fourth Conclusion IF popish purgatorie were admitted to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet would it follow by a necessarie consequent that the soules tormented there should perish everlastingly This conclusion is thus proved There is no salvation to be expected out of the church as witnesseth their great councell of Lateran and the holie fathers accord thereunto But soules boiling in purgatorie papisticall bee neither in the church triumphant because there is no neede of purgation neither in the church militant because there is place for merite and satisfaction ergo they be out of the church And consequently without the state of salvation and in the state of eternall damnation And that the best learned papistes stand in doubt of their salvation it cannot with right reason be denied For in their Masses of Requiem the priestes are commaunded to pray in these expresse words Ne absorbeat eas tartarus That hell swallow not them vp and devoure them And doubtlesse if they bee assured of their salvation it is a vaine and ridiculous thing to pray that they be not swallowed vp of hell And consequently their holie Masse is farced with a bundell of vanities Neither wil it helpe the adversarie to say that though the soules in their purgatorie can not satisfy for themselves Yet may the living satisfy for them which is of as much force as if they did satisfy for themselves For as the transgression is personall so must the satisfaction also bee The reason hereof is evident because to accept ones satisfaction for another may well stand with acceptation or mercie but never with iustice For which iustice notwithstanding popish purgatorie was invented and this day is defended as their reverend professor of divinity Dominicus Soto plainly testifyeth in these words Respondetur quod licet tunc moriens satisfacere nequeat culpa sua fuit quod tempus adid antea non elegit ideo poena quae per contritionē nonfuerit ei dimissa in purgatorio est luenda vt ratio divinae iustitiae servetur I answere That although he that dieth can not satisfy for his sins yet was it his owne default because he chose not before time for it And therfore the punishment which was not remitted by contrition and confession must be punished in purgatorie that the order of Gods iustice may be observed The 5. Conclusion IT is euident even by the opinion of great papistes that manie soules in purgatorie shall abide there for ever and yet is that flat against popish religion This conclusion shall bee manifest if I prove three pointes 1 First that everie sinne is mortall 2 Secondlie that no mortall sinne can be remitted or forgiven in popish purgatorie 3 Thirdly that many depart out of this world not having their venial sinnes of the papists so tearmed before remitted or forgiven For first if everie sinne bee mortall and secondly if no mortall sinne be forgiven in purgatorie and thirdly if sundrie be in purgatorie whose sinnes be not all forgiven it must needes follow by a necessarie sequel that such persons must continue in purgatorie eternallie because they cannot come from thence vntill their sinnes be remitted wholy 1 First therefore that euerie sinne is mortall is confessed by three great papistes that is to say Roffensis Gersonus and Michael Baius For these three confesse plainlie that everie sinne is mortall of it owne nature and onely veniall through Gods mercifull acceptation and therefore may it be iustly punished everlastinglie Roffensis writing against Luther hath these expresse words Quod peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia veniale sit in hoc tecum sentio That a veniall sinne is onely veniall through the mercie of God not of it owne nature therein doe I agree vnto you Loe my Lord of Rochester confesseth plainlie that euerie sinne is mortall of it owne nature And Ioannes Gerson sometime chanceler of Paris that famous vniuersitie though otherwise a great papist can not denie this veritie for these are his words Nulla offensa Dei est venialis de se nisitantum modo per respectum ad divinā misericordiā qui nonvult de facto quālibet offensam imputare ad mortem cū illud posset iustissime Et ita concluditur quod peccatū mortale veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsece essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis aliud non No offence of God is veniall of it owne nature but onely in respect of Gods mercie who will not de facto impute euerie offence to death although he might most iustlie doe it And so I conclude that mortal and veniall sinnes as such are not distinguished intrinsecallie and essentiallie but onelie in respect of Gods grace which assigneth this sinne to the paine of death and not the other Manie other sentences to the like effect the said Gerson hath but these may suffice to content anie reasonable mind Other papistes are of the same opinion in verie deed though they do not disclose their mindes in such manifest tearmes Thus writeth our father Iesuit Bellarminus Respondeo omne peccatum esse contra legem Dei non positivam sedaeternam vt Aug. recte docet omnis enim iusta lex siue a Deo sive ab homine detur ab aeterna dei lege derivatur est enim aeterna lex vt malum sit violare regulam I answere that everie sinne is against the lawe of God not positiue but eternall as Augustine rightly teacheth For euerie iust law whether it be made by God or by man is derived from the law of God eternall For
the lawe eternall is that it is sinue to transgresse the rule And this is the common opinion as I haue proved out of Iosephus Angles Neither will it helpe the papistes to say as the Thomistes doe that veniall sins are praeter non contra legem besides the law but not against the law 1 First because saint Augustine defineth sinne generallie to be a gainst the law of God writing in this manner Peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam dei Sinne is a saying or doing or coveting against Gods eternall lawe Secondly because as Iosephus Angles their owne doctor saith everie venial sinne is against right reason and to doe against right reason is to doe against the law of nature which commaundeth not to depart from the rule of right reason 3 Thirdly because we must give an accompt of euerie idle word in the general day of iudgement as Christ himselfe telleth vs for no-other end doubtlesse must this accompt be made but onely because everie idle word is against the law of God This the papistes can never denie and yet must they likewise confesse that idle wordes bee those sinnes which they tearme venialles and consequently that veniall sinnes be against the lawe of God Secondly that no mortall sinne can be forgiven in purgatorie is confessed of all papistes without contradiction Thus writeth Bellarminus Manet vltima sententia vera catholica purgatorium pro ijs tantum esse qui cum venialib culpis moriuntur rur sum pro illis qui decedunt cum reatupaenae culpis iam remissis The true and catholike opinion remaineth that purgatorie is only for those that die with veniall sinnes and againe for those that die with the guilt of sinne after their sinnes bee forgiven And with Bellarminus doe all other papistes agree that such as die in mortall sinne goe incontinently to hel Thirdly that sundrie having venial sinnes abide the paines of purgatorie appeareth by Bellarminus his wordes before alleaged and by Dominicus So to in these wordes Qui dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum nō remittetur ei in hoc seculo neque in futuro Vbi Gregorius lib. 4. di alogorum adnotavit aliqua leuia peccata remitti in futuro seculo per ignem purgationis He that shall blaspheme the holie Ghost shall neither be forgiven in this vvorld neither in the vvosld to come In vvhich place Gregorius pope of Rome noted certaine light sinnes to be forgiven in the world to come by the fire of purgation And their Aquinas saith thus Secundum enim quod peccata venialia sunt maioris vel minoris adhaerentiae vel gravitatis citius vel tardius per ignem purgantur For veniall sinnes are purged by fire sooner or latter according to their greater or lesser adherence or gravitie And for a full accomplishment of this conclusion Iosephus Angles vttereth the great perplexitie of papistes concerning this their purgative imagination These are his vvords Quo igitur modo remittuntur venialia in purgatorio varij sunt modi dicendi Scotus dicit in instanti mortis idest in primo non esse hominis propter merita quae homo habuit in vita Dur andus dicit remitti quoad culpam in purgatorio propter displicentiam quam habent illic animae venialium cum sint in charitate Soto asserit remitti quoad culpā in purgatorio propter actum chariiatis continuam patientiam quam dum cruciantur habent Hovv then are veniall sinnes forgiven in purgatorie diverse hold diversly Scotus saith they are forgiven in the instant of death that is vvhen man first beginneth not to be by reason of his merits in his life time Durand saith the fault is remitted in purgatorie for the displicence of venials vvhich the soules haue in that place and that because they be in charity Soto saith the sinne is remitted in purgatorie for the act of charitie and continuall patience vvhich they have in ther torments VVhom vvill not this discordant theologie vtterly dissvvade from papistrie The sixt Conclusion THe booke of Machabees which is the sole and onely foundation of popish purgatorie is of no force at all to establish the same This conclusion shalbe evidently prooved when I shall effectually disproove the authoritie of the said booke of Machabees wherewith many have a long time beene most miserably seduced Marke therefore my discourse herein To prove that the 2. book of Machabees out of which prayer and sacrifice for the dead and consequently purgatory is gathered is not Canonicall that is not penned by the assistance of the holy ghost I say first that it is not in the canon of the Hebrewes neither did the Iewes or Hebrewes at any time repute it as a part of holy divine scripture This S. Hierome witnesseth in these wordes Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia sedinter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina legit ad aedificationem plebis non ad authoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam As therefore the Church readeth the bookes of Iudith of Toby and of the Machabees but receiveth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures so doth it read also these 2. volumes for edification of the people but not to confirme any Ecclesiasticall doctrine S. Cyprian hath the very same wordes in effect in Symb. expositione S. Augustine doth testifie the same when he thus writeth Hanc scripturam quae appellatur Machabaeorum non habent Iudaei sicut legem prophetas Psalmos quibus dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis dicens oportebat impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Prophetis in Psalmis de me Sedrecepta est ab Ecclesia non inutiliter si sobriè legatur vel audiatur maximè propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres à per secutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt This scripture which is of the Machabees the Iewes repute not as they do the law the Prophets Psalmes to which the Lord gave testimonie as to his witnesses saying It behoved all things to be fulfilled which are written in the law in the Prophets and Psalmes of me but it is received of the Church not without profite if it bee read or heard soberly especially for those Machabees who for the lawe of God as true martyrs suffred of their persecutors so unworthy horrible torments And their owne deare fryer Bryton telleth vs that neither is it knowne who was the author of these bookes neither did the east Church ever receive them I say secondly that this second booke out of which purgatorie is collected was never in Hebrew and consequently never authenticall among the Iewes I say thirdly that many things found affirmed in the bookes of Machabees proove the same to be of no credit at
papist in the towre of London I wote he did Did not olde Sir Iohn in the kidcote at Yorke so agree with Comberforth the priest that they would never keepe companie the one with the other though living both in one little prison and imprisoned for the selfe same cause it was so my selfe was testis oculatus Did not VVright Fletcher and Comberforth imprisoned all together in the blockehouses at Hull upon Kingstone agree in deviding their contributions which were right large ones euen as theeves agree in deviding their spoyles and robberies Their mutuall contumelies filled the eares of countrey-papistes their writings were lamented of the readers Let Padley Norlees and Haversiege say if it be not so VVhat holy amitie is betweene the Iesuite Mushe and other seminarie-priestes Brodell Dakins Butler and others his brother priestes will witnesse with me And that ye may knowe in one worde the perfection of the English Romish seminarie you must vnderstand that by the Iesuites their advise the students in their supplications to the pope in their great conflict with the Cardinall promised that they woulde all be romish priests for the conversion of England to his Romish religion VVhich offer and promise was verie plausible in the popes eares For the better confirmation of which promise all the schollers were shortly after called to their corporall oathes All which was wrought and contrived by the politikes the Iesuites some fewe schollers onely acquainted with the promise and oath vntill the verie instant in which they did sweare VVhich oth as it was ungodlily made so is it and will be ungodlily perfourmed so long as that colledge can stand by all probabilitie I say by all probabilitie because I haue great reason so to thinke though I can not as a God divine of future contingents That it is vngodlily perfourmed too much experience sheweth by so many seminaries sent daily in multitudes oddely and disloyally into this land The like experience we haue in Iohn Gower who so long resisted the Iesuites in refusing to bee made priest and at length was made against his will for feare as also in Humfrey Maxfielde and Thomas Nevvell verie proper schollers for their time who staying in the seminarie untill they were urged to be priestes were at the last expulsed because they would not be priestes But now to dissentions of more importance The second Article BEllarminus auoucheth that it neither is nor ever was lawfull since Christes time for Bishoppes Priestes or Deacons to marrie after taking of their orders as which saieth hee is prohibited by the apostolique law But their Canon law telleth us another tale for thus is it written in their owne decrees Cum ergo ex sacerdotibus nati in summos pontifices supra legantur esse promoti non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione sed de legitimis coniugijs nati quae sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem vbique licita erant in Orient ali Ecclesia vsque holie eis licere probantur VVhen therefore wee reade that they are promoted to the popedome who vvere the sonnes of Priestes wee must not understande that such were bastardes but borne in lawfull wedlocke and legitimate which marriages were lawful for priestes everie vvhere before the prohibition and in the east church they are approoved to be lawfull vntill this day And in other place of the saide Canon-lavve vvee are tolde of many popes that vvere priests sonnes to wit Bonifacius Agapitus Theodorus Sylverius Foelix Deusdedit and others The third article COncerning veniall sinnes hovve they are remitted in purgatorie the dissention is such and so great as of the schoole-men eache one differeth from other Scotus saith they are forgiven in the instant of death that is vvhen man beginneth first not to be by reason of his merites in his life time Durandus sayeth they are forgiven for the displiecence of venials which the soules haue in that place and that because they are in charitie So to sayeth the sinne is remitted in purgatorie for the acte of charitie and continuall patience which the soules haue in their tormentes The like dissention is about their pardons as is said alreadie The fourth article NAvarre telleth vs that wee are onely bounde to confesse our mortall and great sinnes and that a papist comming to their sacramentall confession may confesse some and conceale other some These are his wordes Hoc praeceptum non includit venialia etiam si mixta sint mortalibus Quibus consequens est posse quem si velit confesso uno peccato veniali alterum tacere This precept doth not include veniall sinnes albeit they be mingled with mortals whereupon it followeth that the penitent may if he list confesse one veniall and conceale another Thus Navarre To which I adde that by this doctrine the penitent may dissemble egregiously in confession and deceive his ghostly father and yet not sinne at all But the famous popish Chancellour of Paris Iohannes Gersonus telleth another tale Thus he writeth Omne peccatum pro quanto est offen sa Dei contra legem eius aeternam est de sua conditione indignitate mortiferum secundum rigorem iustitiae à vita gloriae separativum Ratio est quoniam omnis offen sa in Deum potest iustè ab ipso iudice deo puniri poena mortis tâ—n temporalis quà m aeternae imò annihilationis poena est igitur de se mortifera assumptum deducitur ex hoc quod nulla poenâ talis est ita mala quà m mala est ip sa offen sa Et ex alio quia potius toleranda esset omnis mors paenalis annihilatio quà m committenda esset quantumlibet parva offen sa in deum da oppositum iam offen sa Dei licitè fieri deberet in casu Every sinne in that it is an offense against God and his eternall lawe is mortall of it owne condition and indignitie according to the rigour of ivstice and devideth us from the life of glorie The reason is because God may iustly punish every offense done against him as well with eternall as temporall death and with the mult of annihilation It is therefore mortall of it owne nature The assumption is gathered of this for that no such punishment is so evill as the offense as also because every penall death and annihilation both ought rather to be tolerated then the least sinne to be committed Graunt the contrarie and in some case sinne shall be done lawfully and be no sinne at all Thus saith Gerson and this is a true learned and comfortable saying whereof more shalbe said hereafter The fift Article NAvarre saith that one may both denie in word and upon his oth that which the iudge requireth of him so he equivocate and make his owne sense unto himselfe but their lerned doctour Genesius Sepulveda telleth him it may not be so Yet all our politikes our Iesuites I would say holde with Navarre Yea the Iesuites will now and then
by equivocation denie them selves to bee Christians as their deare brother Iohn Mushe confesseth in his answere to my addition whose wordes Irehearsed at large in my counterblast against him and his adherents The sixt Article ALL the Romish Iesuites and other papistes now adaies avouch obstinately that matrimonie is a sacrament and conferreth grace ex opere operato but their owne Durandus and Gaufridus affirme boldly the contrary Durand hath these expresse wordes Praeter duo praedicta sunt alia duo circa matrimonium circa quae sine periculo haeresis licitū est contraria opinari quorum unum est theologicum videlicet vtrum in matrimonio confer atur gratia ex opere operato sicut in aliis sacramentis novaelegis Secundum est logicum videlicet vtrum matrimonium habeat plenam vnivocationem cum alijs sacramentis Besides these two there bee other two things to bee considered in matrimonie wherein we may without daunger of heresie thinke the contrary The one is theological to wit if in matrimony be conferred grace ex opere operato as in other sacraments of the new law The other is logicall to wit if matrimony be a sacrament properly and univocally so called And Durandus avoucheth Gaufridus with other Canonists to be of his opinion So then matrimony neither giueth grace nor yet is properly a sacrament THE SEAVENTH ARTICLE of their Dissention SYlvester Prieras hath these words Papa est imperatore maior dignitate plus quà m aurum plumho The pope doth more excell the Emperour in dignitie then gold excelleth leade Againe he saith thus Donavit Constantinus papae in vener ationem recognitionem Dominij administrationem temporalem imperij eandem immediatè Papa conceait imperatori in vsum stipendium officij pro gubernatione defensione pacifica ecclesiae The Emperour Constantine gave the pope temporall administration of the Empire in token of his reverence and homage and the pope gaue the Emperour the same againe as the stipend of his service for his peaceable protection of the church And a litle after he hath these wordes Vnde dico quod de plenitudine potestatis ex causa rationabili potest omnes leges civiles evertere alias condere nisi in quantum spectant ad ius naturale aut divinum nec imperator cum omnibus legibus populis Christianis possent contra eius voluntatem quicquam statuere VVhere vpon I saie that of the fulnes of power vpon reasonable cause the pope may dissolve all the ciuill lawes and make others neither can the emperor with all lawes and consent of Christendom determine anie one iote against his mind Archidiaconus and Augustinus de Ancona are of the selfe same opinion with Sylvester But other papists are ashamed now thus to hold and therfore write sharply against this opinion Bellarminus saith thus Christus vt homo dum in terris vixit non accepit nec voluit vllum temporale dominium summus autem Pontifex Christi vicarius est Christum nobis represent at qualis erat dum hîc inter homines vlveret Igitur summus Pontifex vt Christi vicarius at que adeo vt summus Pontifex est nullum habet temporale dominium Christ as man while he lived on earth neither had nor would haue any temporal dominion but the pope is Christes viear and representeth Christ to vs in such sort as he lived here among men therefore the pope as Christes vicar and consequently as pope hath no temporal dominion Victoria hath these words Potest as temporalis non dependet a summo pontifice sicut aliae potestates spirituales inferiores Et paulo post licèt assertores alterius partis communiter dicunt quòd papa instituit omnem potestatem temporalem tanquam delegatam subor dinatam sibi quod ipse constituit Constantinum imperatorem sedtotum hoc est fictitium sine quacunque probabilitate nec innititur vel ratione vel testimonijs vel scripturae vel saltem alicuius expatribus vel verè theologis sed glossatores iuris hoc dominium de derunt papae cum ipsiessent pauperes rebus doctrina Temporall power doth not depend vpon the pope as inferiour spiritual powers doe although others of the other part commonly say that the pope ordeined all temporall power as delegate and subordinate to himselfe and that he made Constantine emperoure But al this is a meere fable and voide of all probabilitie neither hath it any ground either of reason or of scripture or of ancient fathers or good deuine yet the glosses of the canons gaue the pope this preheminence because themselues were beggerlie followes and vnlearned Behold here the liuely originall of popedome euen by the testimonie of the best learned popish doctor The eight article of Dissention THe papistes this day do constantly hold and teach as a necessarie doctrine of faith that there be veniall sinnes which doe not dissolve the amitie betweene God and man because they are not say they contra but praeter legem dei which distinction Thomas Aquinas vttereth verie plainly in these words Peccatum veniale dicitur peccatum secundùm rationē imperfectam in ordine ad peccatū mortale sicut accidens dicitur ens in ordine ad substantiam secundum imperfectam rationem entis non enim est contra legem quia venialiter peccans nō facit quod lex prohibet nec praetermittit ia ad quod lex per praeceptum obligat sedfacit praeter legem quia non observat modum rationis quā lex intēdit A venial sin is termed sin after an vnperfect maner way to a mortal sin euen as accidens is called ens in order to substantia after an vnperfect reason of ens For it is not against the law because hee that sinneth venially doth not that which the lawe forbiddeth neither doth omit that to which the law by precept doth oblige but doth besides the law because it doth not observe the maner of reasō which the law intendeth But this opinion is sharply reproved and flatly confuted by many learned papistes For Michael Baius apud Bellar. Ioannes Gerson de vita spirituali lect 1. circa med Roffensis artic 32. cont Luther affirme that every sin is mortall of it owne nature therefore may iustly be punished eternally Durandus proueth by manie reasons that euerie sin is against the law of God Ioannes Gerson Almain hold the same For thus speaketh Ioseph Angl. of them Tertia opinio est Gerso Almaini asserentium venialia mortalia non differre ex natura rei sed tantum ex divina misericordia eo quod placuit divinae maiestati imputare ad paenam aeternam mortale veniale autem ad temporalē vtrumque tamen ex natura sua cum sit in Deum esse dignum poena aeterna The third opinion is Gersons and Almains affirming that veniall and mortall sinnes do not differ
when they come to remembrance which yet al papists require as necessarie to salvation 5 Fiftly because it followeth herevpon that penitents are bound to confesse their sinnes very many times which the Popes law requireth but once in the yeere I proove it because if they stay any time from confession they may forget their sinnes through their owne default and so make frustrate their absolution 6 Sixtly because the priests are often so ignorant that they can not distinguish mortall and veniall sinnes which yet is necessarie in absolution 7 Seaventhly because the priest standeth often excommunicate and often dealeth with reserved cases and a thousand such like things chance in absolution Yea the archpapists this day perceiving this matter to be so intricate and dangerous partly by reason of the cases so reserved partly by reason of innumerable excommunications and partly by reason of ignorance in their priests have invented this poore shift for an helpe if it may be to wit that the Pope shall give to every seminarie priest full authoritie to absolve from all excommunications and reserved cases what soever so that now we have so many virtuall Popes in England as seminarie priests For every one of them hath plenitudinem potestatis and it is a world to consider how this power is vsed For because neither the penitent nor the priest can tell howe often the partie is excommunicate the priest for securitie pronounceth every time over every person these words I absolve thee from every bond of excommunication so farre foorth as I can and thou standest neede and this is done in latine All which frustrate the same and open to the penitent the gate of desperation That this manner of confession is neither commanded by Christ nor practised by his Apostles may be evidently prooved by their owne canon-law as their owne doctours testifie Thus writeth the great Thomist Sylvester Prieras Quarto vtrum ad confessionem teneamur divino iure vel humano dico quod canonistae videntur tenere quod sit de iurepositivo ad hoc est glossa de pen. dist v. in summa quae vult quod instituta sit à quadam vniversali traditione ecclesiae ideo infert quod confiterinon tenentur infideles nec similiter graeci ex quo non acceptaverunt huiusmodi constitutionem sicut nec votū castitatis It is demanded fourthly saith the great papist Sylvester whether we be bound to popish confession by the law of God or by the positive law of man and I say the canonists holde that we are but bound by the lawe of man And of this opinion is the glosse which is of this minde that confession was institute by a certaine vniversall tradition of the Church whereupon the said glosse inferreth that infidels are not bound to confession neither the Greekes in like manner since they did never approove such constitution no more then the vow of chastitie Yea the Popes own decrees admit no lesse for these are the words of his canōs Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationū firmamēt is vtraque sentētia satisfactionis confessionis nitatur in medium breviter exposuimus cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris iudicio reservatur vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes religiofos viros Vpon what authorities of foundations of reasons either opinion is grounded I have briefly shewed Nowe to whether of them the reader should adhere I leave it to his owne discretion For either opinion hath wise and religious men for the patrons of the same Behold here gentle reader that not onely the Popes doctours but his owne canon-law and the commenters vpon the same doe all confesse that confession after popish manner is onely grounded vpon mans law Yea the glosse addeth that both wise and religious men doe so think though some others hold the contrarie Martinus Navarrus though he hold a contrarie opinion to the canonists confesseth plainly that their solemne glosse commonly received and approoved of all canonists holdeth confession to be commaunded by the Church The famous Canonist and honourable Archbishop Panormitanus was of the same opinion with the glosse as confesseth Covarruvias in these words Quam ex nostris plerique secuti sunt maximè Panormitanus ex ea asserentes confessionem sacramentalem quae sacerdotibus fit iure humano institutam esse Which glosse many of our canonists have followed especially Panormitan affirming out of that glosse that sacramentall confession which is made to priests was ordeined by the law of man This to be true S. Christome confirmeth in these words Non tibi dico vt te prodas in publicum neque apudalios te accuses sed obedire te volo Prophetae dicenti revela domino viā tuam antedeū ergo tua confitere peccata apud verum iudicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuncia non lingua sed conscientiae tuae memoria tunc demum spera te misericordiam posse consequi I doe not bid thee come forth in publike neither to accuse thy selfe before others but I would have thee to obey the Prophet when he saith reveale thy way to God Before God therefore confesse thy sinnes before the true iudge in prayer pronounce thine offences not with thy tongue but with the memorie of thy conscience and then hope to have mercie And in another place the same S. Chrysostome hath these words Peccata tua quotidie dicito vt deleas ea sed si confunderis alicui dicere dicito ea quotidie in animo tuo non dico vt confitearis ea conservo tuo vt tibi exprobet dicito deo qui curat ea Confesse thy sinnes daily that thou maist blot them out But if thou be ashamed to confesse them to an other confesse them daily in thine heart I doe not bid thee confesse them to thy fellow servant that he may vpbraide thee Confesse them to God who can cure the same Saint Augustine is very plaine in this point for these are his expresse words Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus vt audiant confessiones meas quasi ipsi sanaturi fint omnes languores meos curiosum genus ad cogno scendam vitam alienam desidiosum ad corrigendam suam quid a me quaerunt audire qui sim qui nolunt à te audire qui sint vndesciunt cum à meipso de meipso audiunt an verum dicam quandoquidem nemo scit hominum quid agatur in homine nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est What have I therefore to doe with men that they must heare my confessiōs as though they shold heale al my diseases a curious kinde to know an others mans life and sluggish to correct their owne VVhy seeke they to heare of me what I am who will not heare of thee what them selves are And how know they when they heare me tell of my selfe that I say truely since no man knoweth what is done in man but
voluntarie that as Saint Augustine truely saith if it vvere not voluntarie it should not be mans and yet our afflictions or passions considered as they proceed from our free will are not worthie of the glorie to come by Lyraes ovvne graunt Againe when the holie ghost and man worke both one and the same acte that vvhich the holie ghost doth can no more be reputed mans act then that which man doth can be demed Gods acte But so it is that that vvhich mā doth can not be demed the holie ghosts deede ergo neither that vvhich doth the holie ghost can be demed mans deed The assumption wherein consisteth the difficultie if there be any at all is proved by mans sinfull actions For the most cruell and wicked fact that can bee imagined is not done vvithout the concourse of the holy ghost as all learned papistes doe and must confesse and yet are mans sinfull actes so farre from being deemed Gods actes as the deformities and irregularities thereof bee onely mans and neuer Gods and yet doth God concurre more to those vvicked actes in that he is the principall agent of the real and positiue entities of the same then man doth or can concurre to anie act of Gods that is to say to any good act that hee himselfe doth For as S. Iames saith euerie good thing that man doth is of God Thirdlie because great absurdities do follovv vpon this opinion to wit that many sinnes freelie remitted and forgiuen in this life should be punished eternallie in the vvorld to come greater then vvhich no absurditie can be thought vpon the reason of the consequent is yeelded by Thomas Aquinas Dionisius Carthusianus Dionysius Areopagita and others VVho all do hold neither is holy writ dissonant to their opinion that the deuils concurre if not to all yet to the greater part of sinnes committed in this life by sinfull mortall men vvhereupon I inferre first that the Deuils sinnes are mans and mans sinnes the Deuils if Lyraes distinction vvere of force the reason of the consequence is euident because the deuill and man doe both one and the selfe same acte I inferre secondlie that the sinnes forgiuen to penitent sinners in this life are punished in the Deuils world vvithout ende For vvhat replie so euer the adversary can make or vvhat euasion so euer he shall vse in this point the same can I make and the same shall I vse against himselfe in the passions and merites of Saintes Let vvhat papist as vvill beginne when hee vvill to make triall thereof For no effectuall disparitie doubtlesse can euer bee yeelded in that behalfe Another absurditie is that God should hereby bee the author or partaker of sinne The reason hereof is euident because as mans actes be meritorious for that God concurreth to them in like maner Gods actes must bee demeritorious for that man concurreth to the same For God and man concurre no lesse to that selfe same act vvhich is sinne then they doe to that acte vvhich the papistes terme of condigne merite that there is no comparison betvvene mans deserts and glorie eternall Saint Bede shevveth pithilie and plainelie in these vvords Ipse dicit qui patiebatur sciebat pro quo nomine patiebatur quo fructu patiebatur non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis appendo quod patior contra id quod spero hoc sentio illua credo tamen plus valet quod credo quam quod sentio He saith vvho suffered and vvho knevv for vvhose sake he suffered vvith vvhat fruit hee suffered the sufferings of this life are not vvorthie of the future glorie vvhich shall be reuealed in vs. I vveigh in the ballance that vvhich I suffer against that vvhich I hope for this I feele that I beleeue and yet that is of more force vvhich I beleeue then that vvhich I feele yea as their ovvne durand telleth thē Christ himselfe could not satisfy in rigore iustitiae as he vvas man but only in respect of hipostaticall vnion therfore is it impossible that satisfaction of pure man I say of corrupt and sinful man shall any way be equivalent or perfect for as the popes deare monke Dominicus So to granteth Perfecta satisfactio est illa cuius valor pretiūtotū emanat a debitore nulla vel preueniente vel interveniente gratia creditor is taliter visit redditio aequiualentis alias indebiti voluntarie Perfect satisfaction is that vvhose valoure and price vvholly proceedeth from the debtour vvithout either preuenting or interventing grace of the creditour so as the reddition be of that vvhich is equiualent and not othervvise due This is truelie said of Soto vvhich Aristoteles perceiued by very natural discours teaching that vve cānot make condigne satisfaction to God and our parents in the description of our Frier Soto vve haue to note 4. things First that the valour of satisfaction must proceed vvholy from the debtour Secondly that ther must be no preuenting or interventing grace of the creditor Thirdlie that there must be equiualent restitution Fourthly that that equivalent reddition must be a worke othervvhise not due which four vvhen any papist in the vvorld can proue to be in any satisfaction made by pureman neither shall the popes holines be excepted I vvil be a papist once againe For our satisfaction is so vnperfect indeed as no one of the 4. condicions here required cā be found and approoued therein For first vvhat act soeuer proceedeth from our selves as of our selues is lothsom in Gods sight according to this say-ing of the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All our righteousnesse is as a filthie cloute nothing pure or cleane 2 Secondly what acte so euer proceedeth from vs without Gods preuenting grace cannot possiblie be void of sinne for as the apostle saith Non sumus sufficientes cogit are aliquid a nobis quasi ex nobis sed sufficientia nostra ex deo est VVe are not able to thinke one good thought of our selues as of our selues but all and euerie parte of our sufficiencie is of God And againe hee saith Nemo potest dicere dominus Iesus nisiin spiritus sancto No man can say Lord Iesu but by the power of God VVee owe of dutie to God more then possiblie we can euer performe and therefore can not iustlie nay therefore can not without the note of intollerable pride smelling of more then pelagianisme terme anie of our best workes a worke not due to God or a worke of supererrogation For Christhath taught vs another lesson Cum fecerit is omnia quae precepta sunt vobis dicite servi invtiles sumus quod debuimus facere fecimus vvhen yee haue done all thinges which are commaunded you say wee are vnprofitable seruants wee haue done that which we were bound to doe 4 Fourthly concerning equivalent satisfaction their owne angelicall D. Aquinas shall answere them vvhose wordes are
sinnes be as redde as scarlet yet shall they be made white as snow The second Conclusion VVE must confesse our sinnes one to an other when we offende one an other Which fraternall reconciliation done vpon earth God promiseth to ratifie in heaven To this confession holy writ doth seriously exhort vs in many places Si offers munus tuum ad altare ibi recordatus fueris quod frater tuus habuit aliquid adversum te relinque ibi munus tuum ante altare vade prius reconciliari fratri tuo tunc veniens offeres munus tuum If thou offer thy gift before the altar and shall remember that thy brother hath some matter against thee leave there thy offering before the altar and goe first to be reconciled to thy brother and then come and make thy offering This offering saith the glosse is the sacrifice of a good worke the altar is Christ to whome we must offer our good actions by faith And another glosse saith Vade non pedibus sed animo humili te ei prosternas in conspectu illius cui oblaturus es vel petendo veniam si praesens est Goe not with thy feete but fall prostrate with an humble heart before him to whome thou makest thy offering or aske forgivenesse if the partie be present Christ saith in an otherplace Si septies in die peccaverit in te septies in die conversus fuerit ad te dicens poenitet me dimitte illi If thy brother shall offend thee seaven times a day and shal seven times a day be converted to thee and say it repenteth me for give him Confitemini altervtrum peccata vestra inquit apostolus orate pro invicem vt salvemini Confesse your sinnes one to another saith the Apostle pray one for another that ye may be saved The third Conclusion THere is yet a third kinde of confession commended in holy writ which is a generall confession of our sinnes not onely internally before God but also externally before the ministers of his worde and sacraments but this kinde doth not include in it a total and specifical enumeration of our sinnes This manner of confession made king David before the Prophet Nathan when he reprooved him for his offences Peccaui domino I have sinned vnto the Lord saith David And the Prophet answered Dominus quoque transtulit peccatum tuum the Lord hath forgiven thee thy sinne In like manner the sinnefull woman of whome S. Luke maketh mention confessed her sinnes generally in teares signes and gestures and received incontinently absolution at Christs handes for he said vnto her Remittuntur tibi peccata thy sinnes are forgiven thee Which manner of confession is fitly described in the booke of Nehemias in the 8. and 9. chapter For when Esdras and the Levites did interpret the law vnto the people then the people acknowledging their offences and the offences of their forefathers did lament weepe confesse their sinnes before the Levites and the whole congregation and that done the Levits repeated their confession and desired pardon of God for the same So this day in the Church of England the people confesse their sinnes generally before the minister and in the face of the whole congregation Yea in Germanie they confesse such speciall sinnes as grieve and clogge their consciences for which they stand in most neede to have advise and counsell Which libertie is graunted in England also for such as list may confesse their sinnes to the minister privately and have both his advise and absolution if he finde them penitent Which confession and absolution would God it were more in practise then it is because instruction and consolation might redound vnto the penitent by vertue of the same This kinde of confession was much frequented in the primitive Church at such time as the zeale of Gods people was great and their devotion fervent then did all confesse their sinnes generally then were none commanded to confesse specifically then did Christs ministers execute their functions duely then did S. Iohn Baptist in zealous manner reproove vice extoll vertue thunder out Gods wrath and ire against wicked and impenitent sinners with all promise free pardon and remission of sinnes to all such as would lament their sinnes amend their lives reforme their manners and beleeve in Christ Iesus the innocent lambe that taketh away the sinnes of the world Then the Scribes Pharisies and great multitudes of people were inflamed with compunction at S. Iohns preaching bewayled their former lives confessed generally their sinnes and desired baptisme for the same Then the holy vessel of God S. Paul wrought great miracles by the power of God in so much that many of the faithfull came vnto him confessing their sinnes and such as had followed magicall arts brought their bookes together and burnt them in the presence of the people The fourth Conclusion THE Popish specificall enumeration of all our sinnes is both impossible to man and neither commanded by Christ nor practised by his Apostles That it is impossible to be performed by man the Prophet prooveth when he saith Delicta quis intelligit ab occultis me is munda me Who doth vnderstand his offences clense me from secret faults Quis potest dicere mundum est cormeum purus sum à peccato Who can say my heart is cleane I am free from my sinne Neither will it serve their turne to say as Cardinall Caietan doth that confession is taken two waies to wit absolutely and as it is the act of man To confesse all sinnes absolutely is to leave no sinne vnconfessed but to confesse all sinnes as confession is the act of man is to confesse all those sinnes which are in the power of man that is which man doth or may remember after diligent examination of his conscience And therefore saith Caietan when the Gospell requireth the confession of all sinnes in the Sacrament of penance it is not meant of all sinnes absolutely but of all sinnes which are in mans power to confesse This distinction I say will not serve 1 First because this distinction is not mentioned in the Gospell 2 Secondly because there is no more reason for the confession of one then for the confession of all 3 Thirdly because this notwithstanding a man shal alway remaine perplexe as who can never tel when he hath vsed sufficientinquisition in that behalfe 4 Fourthly because one mortall sinne can not be remitted without another as all papists confesse and consequently either the secret not confessed mortalls are remitted with the confessed mortalls or none at all be remitted by the absolution if they answer that none are remitted because some are not confessed then shall the penitent never have absolution because he can never confesse al as is prooved if they say the secret not confessed mortals be remitted with the other then is it not needefull to confesse them after
the spirit of man that is in him These are S Augustines owne words so plaine and effectuall against popish vnchristian foolish and execrable confession as nothing more needeth to be said therein The fifth Conclusion ALbeit Popish auricular confession be so magnified with Papistes that every one is commanded vnder paine of damnation to beleeve the same as instituted by Christ himselfe yet was it not an article of popish faith for the space of one thousand and five hundred yeeres after Christ. This conclusion because it is very important I shal desire thee gentle Reader to ponder deepely with me my discourse Iosephus Angles Valentinus a popish fryer and bishop of Bosana in the second tome of that worke which he dedicated to the Pope himselfe Sixtus Quintus hath these expresse words Ante concilium Later erat haereticum negare necessitatem confessionis negantes tamen non erant haeretici ratio est quia nondum erat ab ecclesia declaratum Before the councell of Lateran it was hereticall to denie the necessitie of confession but yet they were not heretikes that denied it The reason is because the Church of Rome had not yet declared it to be an article of faith Loe these words conteine effectually the exact proofe of this conclusion if they be well marked 1 We must therefore observe first that who soever beleeveth not stedfastly every decree of the Church of Rome in matters of faith is holden of that Church for an heretike 2 We must observe secondly that the councell of Lateran whereof this fryer speaketh was holden in time of Pope Iulius the second and Pope Leo the tenth that is 1500. yeeres after Christ. 3 VVe must observe thirdly that vntill fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ were expyred they that beleeved not popish auricular confession to be ordeined by Christ were no heretikes For so as you see this fryer teacheth and the Pope him selfe graunteth 4 VVe must observe fourthly that the Church of Rome hath no authoritie to coyne any new article of faith 5 VVe must observe fiftly that the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of faith but the very same which it had in the Apostles time both which latter observations their owne deare Canus telleth vs in these words Omnia siquidem fidei dogmata ab Apostolis accepit ecclesia vel scripto vel verbo quoniam ij ministri fuere sermonis nee vllas in fide novas revelationes ecclesia habet For the Church received all doctrines of faith from the Apostles eyther by word or writing Because the Apostles were the ministers of the word neither hath the Church any new revelations in faith Now out of these observations which are evident it followeth necessarily that confession this day ought not to be an article of faith no not in the Church of Rome 1 For first during the time of fifteene hundred yeeres after Christ it was no article of faith in the Church of Rome 2 Secondly the Church of Rome can not make that an article of faith now which was no article of faith in the Apostles time 3 Thirdly the Church of Rome hath no new revelations in matters of Christian faith For so as you have heard hath their owne Melchior Canus avouched Neither will it helpe to say that auricular confession was an article of faith in the Apostles time but not then revealed to the Church For as Canus hath told vs plainly the Church receiveth no newe revelations of faith This doctrine is confirmed by their famous Cardinall Caietan who avoucheth two speciall grounds against popish auricular confession For first although Christ by his opinion instituted confession yet did he make it voluntarie and left it in mans election whether he would confesse or not confesse Againe he telleth vs that the manner of popish confession to wit to confesse secretly in the priests eare was not ordeined by our Saviour Christ. Out of which assertion I inferre a double conclusion against the Papistes The one that confession is not necessarie to salvation For that which is voluntarie as to be a Monke a Nunne a Priest a Iesuite is not necessarie to salvation as every papist graunteth but is as a counsell worke of supererogation The other that popish lawe vrging men to auricular confession is flat against Christs institution And thus I weene I have prooved this conclusion The sixt Conclusion IF Popish confession were ordeined by Christ as the papists falsely and grossely imagine yet would it followe by a necessarie consecution that every Pope should be in daunger of his salvation This conclusion may seeme somewhat strange but I proove the fame By popish doctrine every man and every woman of lawfull yeeres are bound vnder paine of damnation to the said confession and consequently the Pope beeing either man or at least woman as is thought of pope Iohn is strictly bound vnto the same Now syr how our Pope his holinesse shall come to confession and have absolution of his sinnes hoc opus hic labor est And that the reader may fully vnderstand the difficultie herein it is to be noted that no priest can absolve any person from his sinnes over whome he hath not superioritie and iurisdiction but his holines hath both the swords his power is above Kings and Emperiours and over him no mortall creature no not an Angel of heaven hath any iurisdiction at all as holdeth popish faith The Pope then being subiect to none must yet be absolved of some which some must haue iurisdiction over him standeth doubtles in great perplexitie and in no small danger of his saluation Let us therefore find some poore shift to helpe his holines if it may be What if we say that the Pope hath no mortal sinne so is not bound to popish absolution But alas all Popes are not Saints as is prooved and so some must perforce have absolution Let us say that he may absolue himselfe as well as he may graunt pardons to him selfe But alas that implyeth contradiction because so he remaining one and the same man should be both superiour and inferiour to himselfe superiour as he did absolve and inferiour as absolved Let vs say that he voluntarily submitteth himselfe and so receiueth absolution But alas so shall his holines still be inferiour to the silly priest because as S. Paul discourseth to the Hebrewes he that blesseth is greater then he that is blessed Let us say that the Pope giueth to the priest power ouer him for that time onely But alas that would be a rare and strange metamorphosis with an impossibilitie annexed therevnto For first by this meanes the simple priest should be Pope in time of absolution as having then greatest power upon earth Secondly after absolution he that was pope should cease to be pope and he that was not pope should without election or consecration be pope again Which is a thing impossible euen by popish proceeding Let vs say that some other