of this life to bee purged in that purging fire This is also their doctrine Now I would aske of them if all the reliques of sin be wyped away by this annoynting Sacrament then what vse is there of Purgatory and if the reliques of sinne bee to bee purged in Purgatory then what vse of this Sacrament Either therefore this fire doth dry vp the vertue of that sacramentall Oyle or this sacramentall Oyle doth quench that fire They will say peraduenture that eyther all are not anoynted with this Oyle â— or that some that are anoynted by their owne infidelity and impenitency barre out the vertue thereof Or lastly that the sinne being remitted yet the temporall punishment due vnto it is to bee payd in Purgatory To which I reply first that it is against the rule of their owne Religion that none that are anoynted with this Oyle should goe to Purgatory for then a very small number should goe to that place seeing their Priests are so diligent for their owne belly sake that they seldome suffer any to passe away without this Pasport Secondly for them which barre out the efficacy of the Sacrament by their owne infidelity or impenitency not that purging fire of the Suburbs but the deuouring fire of Hell it selfe is prepared as they themselues acknowledge And thirdly if there be not a purging away of some filthy staines of sinnes from the soule by that fire but onely a satisfactory punishment why do they call it a Purgatory Nay and why doeth Bellarmine thus define it to bee a place wherein as it were in a Prison after this life those soules are purged which were not sufficiently purged in this life to the end that being so purged they may enter into heauen whither no polluted thing can haue admittance And thus it remaynes a necessary conclusion that either the reliques of sinne are not clensed away by Extreme vnction and so that Sacrament is of no force or if they be they are not then purged in Purgatory and so that fire must needes be quenched 51. But if this Oyle will not serue to extinguish Purgatorie because the fire burneth so hot let vs adde vnto this the Popes Pardons which will at least evacuate and empty it that there shall be no fuell for that fire For they teach that a Pardon or Indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment due for actuall sinnes out of the dispensation of the Churches Treasury Thus doth Tollet define it and Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia adding onely that it is by meanes of application of the superabounding satisfaction of Christ and the Saints made by him that hath authority there unto Now none hath authority thereunto but the Pope onely and such as are delegated by him to that purpose for the keyes of this Treasury were committed to Peter and his Vicar saith Osorius another Iesuite and from them is deriued to Cardinalls Archbishops Bishops and other inferiour Clarkes And the Pope by his iurisdiction may absolue all that are in Purgatory from the paine and so empty Purgatory at once saith Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence which if it be true then either the Pope is vnmercifull if he can and will not for who would suffer such a number of poore soules to bee so tormented when with a word of his mouth he might release them or if hee would and cannot then their doctrine is false of his absolute Iurisdiction Let them choose whether they will But of this more hereafter Now to the purpose Some of them hold that the paynes of Purgatory hold but ten yeeres some an hundred some two hundred they that stretch them farthest yet say that they must end at the day of Iudgement because then all must bee Sheepe or Goates none betwixt both of middle nature as Beliarmine affirmeth Well then if Purgatory dure no longer then we shall not neede to feare it no more then that fire which the Philosopher calls Ignis fatuus For let any man goe to Venice and say but a prayer of Saint Augustine printed in a table and he shall haue 82000. yeeres pardon that is longer then the world is like to endure by their owne confession and therefore longer then needes This indulgence was granted by Pope Boniface the eyghth Or if Venice be too farre a iourney let him stay at home and but nod the head at the Name of Iesus and hee shall haue twenty yeeres pardon for euery time I would nod twenty times a day if this were true and that commeth to 7300. in the yeere O how a man may disappoint this Purgatory if he haue any wit in his head This Indulgence came from Pope Iohn the two and twentieth Or if this be also too great a matter let a man weare but an Agnus Dei about his necke and thinke onely in his heart on the Name of Iesus at the houre of his death and hee shall haue plenary forgiuenes of all his sinnes And for them that are there already they are helped out daily or at least may bee by the Suffrages and Masses of those that are aliue and if any remaine there the fault is in the Priests that say not Masses fast enough and the reason of that is because they receiue not money fast enough for there is the common Prouerbe most true No penny no pater noster To conclude in the yeere of Iubile a perfect and full pâ—rdou is graunted to all that desire the same or on whom the Pope will bestow it therefore the soules in Purgatory cannot be excluded Now if all these things stand true then Purgatory must fall for who would fall into Purgatory that may thus easily preuent it or who would suffer any of his friends soules and acquaintance to lye burning there one houre when it is in his power thus to redeeme them Either therefore the doctrine of Pardons is false and fayned or else Purgatory is no better then a scarcrow 52. Adde to these that soules onely are tormented in Purgatory and not bodies but bodies sinne as well as soules and some sinnes are committed by the whole man to wit bodie and soule together and therefore the body is not free from the relicks of sinnes no more then the soule especially from obligation vnto temporall punishment How can then these relicks bee purged away in this fire when as the one part of man which standeth in neede of purging as well as the other neuer commeth thither Bellarmine sawe this contradiction well enough and therefore labours to salue it by a false position driuing out one nayle of error with another to wit That sinne is onely an act of free-will and therefore after the dissolution of the body and soule by death remayneth onely in the soule and not in the dead body But this is first false for albeit properly it is the soule that sinneth yet the body also sinneth by being an instrument of the soule in sinning and he himselfe saith
shew also how good workes to wit almse-deedes pilgrimages workes of supererogation vowed chastity voluntary pouerty Monkish obedience which they esteeme the chiefest good workes are made Idols in that they repose the confidence of their heart and the hope of saluation in them through the power of meriting which they ascribe vnto them as also how they turne their Sacraments into Idols by teaching that they conferre grace Ex opere operato by the very worke done and that effectiuely actiuely and immediatly they produce in the heart the grace of regeneration and iustification which is the proper and immediate worke of the Godhead but I passe ouer these many other things because they admit in shew some probable exception though no sound confutation and I insist in those things onely in which euery Ideot and almost Infant may discerne most grosse and palpable Idolatry And those are these fiue in number the bread in the Sacrament Images Reliques Angels and Saints departed And lastly the Crosse and Crucifix of which in order 14. The blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned for a perpetuall remembrance of his death and passion and for the strengthning and nourishing of the soules of the faithfull to eternall life is transhaped by them into a most horrible Idoll For this they teach and practise that that very thing which to all the senses is but bread being but lately moulded and knead by the Baker is to be worshipped and adored with diuine worship because forsooth after consecration it is the true and naturall body of Christ And therefore at the Priests eleuation of the hoast they all fall downe vpon their knees and worship it with great deuotion and expect from it forgiuenesse of their sinnes and all manner of earthly and temporall blessings and whosoeuer refuseth to doe this is an Heretike 15. Their Apologie is that there is a reall and naturall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and therefore not the bread but the body of Christ into which the bread is transubstantiate is worshipped of them and so they thinke to free themselues To which I answere that if that were certaine then their defence was iust and their practice godly and we in calling them Idolaters for this cause should bee slanderers of the truth but seeing the contrary is rather certaine to wit that Christ is not corporally in the Sacrament but in heauen and that the bread remayneth still true bread both for matter and forme after consecration they cannot be excused from notorious Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bakers bread in stead of Christ the eternall Sonne of God for to the outward senses it beareth the shape taste figure and colour of bread This is certaine and to the vnderstanding in reason it is bread because accidents cannot be without a substance this is as certaine and to faith it is bread because the Word which is the foundation of saith so calleth it after the words of consecration neither is there any Scripture to auouch the contrary saue that which may well receiue our interpretation as well yea better then theirs as the best learned amongst them confesse for Bellarmine confesseth that it may iustly bee doubted whether the Text this is my body be cleare inough to enforce transubstantiation And Scotus and Cameracensis thinke our opinion more agreeable to the words of institution and thus they haue against them sense and reason and faith and for them onely a doubtfull Exposition of two or three places of Scripture and therefore three to one but they are guilty of Idolatry 16. Besides graunt that there is a reall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ yet the accidents of bread and wine remaine vnchanged and the forme and shape Now howsoeuer the learned may here distinguish their worship from the outward accidents to the inward substance yet the common people are not able so to doe but worship confusedly the outward accidents together with Christ contayned vnder them and so in that respect are Idolaters also for accidents be creatures as well as substances Yea and Bellarmine also doth allow them so to dâ—e for thus he writeth Diuine worship doth appertaine to the Symboles and signes of bread and wine so farre forth as they are apprehended as being vnited to Christ whom they containe Euen as they that worshipped Christ vpon earth being clothed did not worship him alone but after a sort his garments also Here is a braue straine of Diuinity they worshipped Christ in his clothes therfore they worshipped Christs clothes So Christ is worshipped vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore the formes of bread and wine must be worshipped This is like the Asse which bore vpon his backe the Image of Isis and when men fell downe before the Image he thought they worshipped him but hee was corrected with a cudgell for his sawcinesse and so are they worthy for their folly that cannot distinguish betwixt a man and his garments Christ and the signes of Christ but promiscuously confound the worship of the one with the other Rather therefore may we thus conclude they which worshipped Christ on earth did not worship his garments that he wore therefore they which will worship Christ in the Sacrament must not worship the outward Elements and so it will follow that as it had beene Idolatry in any to worship the garments of Christ so it is in the Romanists to worship the accidents of bread and wine 17. Lastly let it be supposed that there is such a reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome no man can be certaine when it is because it depends vpon the intention of the Priest for thus they teach if the Priest should say the words of consecration without intention to consecrate the bread and wine he should effect nothing or if hee intend to consecrate but one hoast and there chance to be two or more then nothing is consecrated at all and so the intention of the Priest being vncertaine to the people there must needes be an vncertaine adoration and the Priest oftentimes intending nothing lesse then the matter it selfe which hee hath in hand there must needes be certaine and vndoubted Idolatry for if the bread and wine be not effectually consecrated as they are not without the Priests intention then Christ is not really present and so nothing is worshipped but the bare bread for remedy hereof they haue deuised two poore shifts one that the people must adore vpon a condition to wit if the due forme in consecrating bee obserued the other that an actuall intention is not necessarily required but onely a vertuall that is when an actuall intention to consecrate is not present at the very time of consecration by reason of some vagation of the minde yet it was present a little before the operation is in vertue
that some sinnes cannot bee committed but a toto composite by the whole man And if the bodie doe not sinne as well as the soule I wonder why it is punished both in this life with corporall diseases and plagues and after death with putrefaction and depriuation of life and in the day of iudgement with eternall torment in hell fire Secondly if it were so that a dead carkasse had no relique of sinne in it yet in that it was an instrument of sinne it is lyable to temporall punishment which is the chiefe ground of Purgatory as hath beene shewed And therefore I conclude that either the body goeth to Purgatory as well as the soule or else a full satisfaction is not made for the temporall punishment or at least that the fire of Purgatory is but an imaginary and witty conceit to keepe men in some awe and to maintaine their owne pride and pompe 53. Next vnto Purgatory is Prayer for the dead which is both the mother and daughter of that fire for as it is vpheld by Purgatory a weake and imaginary foundation so it vpholdeth Purgatory a paper building neuerthelesse it is ouerturned by it owne poyse and weight For this they teach That the prayers and suffrages of the liuing doe nothing profite those that doe enioy blessednesse as the Martyrs and such like according to that of Saint Augustine Iniuriam facit martyri qui or at pro martyro He doth wrong a Martyr that prayes for a Martyr nor the damned whether they be in the lowest Hell as reprobates or in Lymbo as vnbaptized Infants but onely the soules in Purgatory And yet notwithstanding they both alledge the authorities of ancient Fathers to prooue the prayer for the dead who prayed for those whom they assured themselues to be in heauen and also by their owne doctrine and practice declare that they haue vsed to pray for the damned As touching the Fathers Nazianzene prayed for Cesarius and Ambrose for Theodosius Valentinian and Saint Augustine for his mother And in the ancient Leiturgies of the Church prayers were made for Patriarks Prophets Martyrs and the blessed Virgine Mary her selfe yea for the Popes also as for Pope Leo for example and yet they thought all these to be in the state of blessednesse as it appeareth in the same places where these prayers are expressed and therefore Cassander their iudicious reconciler calleth those prayers Testimonies of charitie towards the dead congratulations of their present ioyes and professions of their faith and hope concerning the immortality of their soules and resurrection of their bodies not supplications for their releasement out of Purgatory as our Romanists imagine Now hence thus we reason If the Fathers prayed for them who were in possession of blessednes then their testimonies serue nothing for their purpose who affirme that soules in Purgatory are onely benefited by such prayers and if soules in Purgatory bee onely benefited by such prayers as they say then they deale impertinently and deceitfully to bring in the testimony of the Fathers for maintenance of such prayers in the one bewraying the imbecillitie of their cause in the other the weaknesse of their iudgements and in both crossing themselues in that which they would build vp as the builders of Babel did Neyther doth this onely bewray their fraude in misapplying the authorities of the Fathers but also it implyeth a playne contradiction for they teach that though wee ought not to pray for the soules of the Saints that are in heauen yet wee may pray for the resurrection and glorification of their bodies which notwithstanding are not tormented in Purgatory but asleepe in their graues And so it followeth that by their doctrine we may not pray at all for the Saints departed and yet wee may pray for their bodies which are the one halfe of them And againe we may not pray for any that are dead except they be in Purgatory and yet we may pray for the bodies of the dead that are not in Purgatory but in their graues 54. If they reply as Bellarmine doth that we may pray for the Saints in Heauen not for releas of any paine but for increase of their glorie either of their soules presently or of their bodies futurely at the Resurrection then I say they contradict themselues againe For how doe the Praiers of the liuing doe no good to any but those that are in Purgatorie whereas they are meanes to increase the glorie of their soules and to procure the consummation of their bodies glorie also As for their practice in praying for the damned Damascene reporteth that Gregorie the Pope absolued Traiane and a Martyr Falcenilla from the paines of hell and also relateth out of the historie of Palladius that Saint Maehary demanded of the dead skull of an Idolater whether the Praiers of the liuing did good vnto them in Hell or not to whom the skull should answere When thou offerest vp Praiers for the dead we in the meane time feele some refreshing The like wee read of Iudas in the Legend of Saint Branden. Bellarmine indeed reiecteth this Tale of the skull as a Fable but yet he gain-saith not the deliuerie of Traiane by the praiers of Gregorie But Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence approoueth the first as an authenticall Storie so doth Aquinas the last and frameth this answere thereunto that the soules of the damned receiue no mitigation of their paine by the Praiers of the liuing but onely a certaine vaine and deceitfull ioy and the Schoole men deuise strange reasons how this should be brought to passe some saying that Traian by the vertue of Gregories Praiers returned to life and did penance and so obtained pardon and glorie others affirming that his soule was not simply absolued from the guilt of punishment but that his paine was suspended vntill the day of Iudgement others imagining that his soule was not freed from Hell but from the torments of Hell so that he should remaine there but should feele no paine And lastly Bernardine reiecting all these opinions and concluding that Traian was not definitiuely condemned but conditionally to wit the diuine Wisdome fore-seeing that Gregorie should pray for him and therefore to haue deferred his damnatorie sentence Thus they labour in by-paths that forsake the way of Truth and wander they know not whither But to the point either that is false that soules in Purgatorie are onely helped by the Praiers and Sacrifices of the liuing or this that by them the damned may be either released or refreshed 55. Lastly both the Doctrines of Purgatorie and Praier for the dead are directly crossed by their Canon of the Masse for there those dead persons for whom Praier is made are said to rest in Christ and to sleepe the sleepe of peace and yet here they say that none are to be praied and sacrificed for but those onely that are in Purgatorie What is there then any rest in Purgatorie is to
assertion that God can not make those things that bee done to be vndone doth not destroy but build vp the omnipotency of God seing as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth Facere contradictoria non est efficere sed deficere to doe things contradictorie is not to effect and doe but to faile and vndoe and therefore an argument of impotency rather then of omnipotency and for that cause Pererius another Iesuite auoucheth the same doctrine with vs in these words God is said to be omnipotent not onely because he can do whatsoeuer is contained in the world but also because nothing is impossible vnto him except that which to be done implieth contradiction what an impudent flander then is this to say that wee deny Gods omnipotency by affirming that hee cannot make that to bee vndone which is done especially seeing wee say further with Tertullian and Saint Augustine that therefore God cannot do it because he will not do it he cannot therefore deny himselfe not make that to be vndone which is done because hee will not and he will not because it would rather be an argument of weakenes then a power in him so to doe 76. Againe they challenge Caluine of denying the immortality of the soule And why thinke you Because they would make him to say that the soules of the iust are kept in certaine secret receptacles till the day of Iudgement and doe not till then inioy the presence of God Another palpable slander for first Caluine doth not say so secondly if hee did yet it doth not follow thereupon that hee denyeth the immortality of the soule for the first let Caluine first speake for himselfe and then let his aduersaries also speak for him Touching the place where the soules of the iust remaine after death he affirmeth plainely in diuers places that they liue with God and enioy the happy felicity of his kingdome though their perfect happinesse is deferred till the second comming of Christ when their bodies and soules shal be re-united and made partakers of the same blessednes This he testifieth not in one or two but in many places how therefore can they lay to his charge that opinion touching secret receptacles where soules are reserued till the day of the resurrection 77. Mary sayth Bellarmine in two respects first because he maketh Christ alone to haue entred into the Sanctuary of heauen and there to present the prayers of the people resting in the vtter court to God secondly because he sayth that the Saints departed are ioyned together with vs by faith therefore sayth Bellarmine He must needs deny that they see God seeing where faith is there is not sight But his conclusion in both is false though the premises be true for as the Atrium or vtter Court of the Temple to which Caluine alludeth was a part of the Temple so by proportion the vtter Court of Heauen is a part of Heauen witnesse their owne Ribera expounding that place of Exodus whereunto Caluine alludeth and therefore Caluine if hee did say so doth not banish the iust soules out of Heauen but onely placeth Christ our high Priest betwixt God and them But what if hee speake onely of the Saints liuing and not departed and meane by the vtter Court not any part of Heauen but the Church militant heere on earth If this be true what shamelesse slaunderers are these fellowes to wring a sense out of Caluine whereof there is no show in the words let the place be consulted and viewed and their malice and impudency will appeare most notorious 78. Againe that faith which hee speaketh of in the second place is nothing else but their stedfast beliefe and expectation of the resurrection of their bodies which liueth in the faithfull soules separated from this mortality vntill the full accomplishment of their happinesse aswell as in the Saints militant neither can I conceiue any absurdity in this that the Saints departed should haue faith in this respect seeing they must needs haue hope which two Theologicall vertues are so perplexed together that one cannot bee without the other and therefore Clemens Alexandrinus calleth hope the blood of faith and Saint Paul sayth 1. Cor. 13. that faith and hope shall cease together when charity shall suruiue and remaine If then the Saints departed hope for the resurrection of their bodies why may they not bee said also to beleeue it and yet for all that be in heauen too 79. Neither is the other place obiected out of Caluine by Bellarmine any whit repugnant to this doctrine for though he sayth that it is a foolish and rash part to dispute curiously what the place is that the Saints possesse in Heauen and whether they inioy the full ioyes of heauen or no yet in the very same place hee affirmeth that they are in the presence of Christ in Paradise and that they onely expect the fruition of that promised glory which their bodies also shal be possessors of at the comming of Christ 80. Thus we haue heard Caluine speake for himselfe Let vs now heare his enemies speaking for him in this case then which there cannot be a stronger argument of his innocency and in this two may stand for all Bellarmine is the first hee directly confesseth that Caluine placed the soules of the Saints in heauen euen before the comming of Christ and to him subscribeth Fenardentius another Iesuite who affirmeth that this was Caluines opinion that the faithfull when they should depart out of this world doe behold God neere vnto them and as it were set before their eyes And thus Caluine is quit from this enditement by the witnesse of his profest aduersaries 81. Secondly let it be granted which neuerthelesse can no wayes be prooued that Caluine held this opinion touching the residence of soules in some secret place yet it doth not follow that therefore he denyed the immortality of the soule For then Origen Iustine Martyr Tertullian Irenaeus Lactantius Victorinus Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Ambrose Bernard and diuers others of the ancient godly Fathers should be enwrapped within the same errour who all held that opinion touching soules departed and yet were as farre from gain-saying or once imagining any opposition to the soules immortality as these backbiting Shemiâ—s are from charity and truth 82. Another lowde and lewde slander of theirs against our Religion is that it maintaineth and warranteth rebellion and disobedience against lawfull Princes Which if they could prooue wee would confesse that our Religion was naught seeing Gods word commandeth euery soule to be subiect to the higher powers but yet not worse then theirs which is without all contradiction guilty of this crime which they impute vnto vs as hath beene prooued but let vs heare their proofes they are of two sorts first from the doctrines of some of our learned writers and secondly from the practice of our professors In the first kind they obiect Caluine Beza Luther Knox Buchanan
him my grace is sufficient for thee And besides what is it but a teÌ„pting of God to refuse the ordinary remedy which God hath ordained which is marriage and to flye to extraordinary meanes as if a man should refuse all bodily sustenance on earth in hope that God will feed him extraordinarily from heauen at his deuout request because he hath promised that those which feare him shall want nothing and whatsoeuer we aske in the name of Christ shall be graunted Let Saint Augustine determine this doubt whose resolution is this concerning all things which men pray for which are not necessary to saluation Aliquando Deus iratus dat quod petis Deus propitius negat quod petis Sometimes God granteth in anger and sometimes denyeth in mercie that which thou desirest And let Origens practice put it out of all doubt who to auoid incontinencie and to quench the fiery lusts of the flesh offered violence to his own flesh by cutting off those parts wherin concupiscence raigneth If he had beene persâ—aded that by fasting and prayer he could haue obtained that gift from heauen surely he would haue macerated his body with the one and brawned his knees with the other rather then to haue fallen to that desperate and vnnaturall remedy 28. But to leaue this their vaine obiection and to come a little neerer to the poynt how can that doctrine choose but lead to loosenes which crosseth not onely the ordinance of God who was the first ordainer of Marriage but also the instinct of nature for this was naturally instilled into all liuing Creatures especially Man at the first creation that he should encrease and multiply by vertue of which institution of nature a desire is engrafted in all the posterity of Adam of the propagation of their kind that they may as it were liue in their succession And whereas Bellarmine obiecteth that these words Encrease and multiply containe not a precept but an institution of nature and a promise of fecundity because the same words are vttered to other Creatures which are not capable of precepts and also because if it were a precept it should bind all to encrease and multiply and so imurie should be offered to Christ to Marie and other holie virgines I answere that aâ—beit one member of his reason is vnsound to wit that beasts are vncapable of precepts for God spake to the Fish and it cast vp Ionah on the dry land which sheweth that beasts in their kind vnderstand Gods precepts and obey yet we do not say that this is an absolute precept binding all without exception to marriage but onely a liberty granted to all that will to marrie that thereby mankind may be still propagated and therefore they which take away this liberty from all ecclesiasticall persons and monasticall Votaries offer iniury to nature and tyrannize ouer the bodies and soules of men For whence ariseth this necessary conclusion that the vow of single life is repugnant to nature and therefore none may take it vpon them but those either in whome nature is defectiue which our Sauiour saith were borne chaste from their mothers belly or that are endowed with a supernaturall gift as our blessed Sauiour the blessed Virgin his mother and other holy men and women and so by consequent it followeth because this gift is rare and extraordinary that most of them which by a rash vowe binde themselues from marriage should fall into fornication and promiscuous lust The course of nature in man-kind is like the source of a running streame which by no dammes nor artificiall barres can bee stopped but it will runne either the naturall course in the channell or some other by-passage and that the more it is stopped the more violently it rageth except the fountaine and spring be dryed vp So except the fountaine of concupiscence in incontinent persons be dryed vp by a supernaturall and extraordinary worke the more it is interrupted the more outragiously it fometh Therefore if the ordinary channell of marriage be dammed vp it must needs burst ouer the bankes of lawfulnes and spread it selfe ouer the pastures and medowes of adioyning neighbours This is the very case of our Romish shauelings being barred from marriage they burst sorth like wilde Bulls into other mens grounds and defile their beds by adultery and fill their houses with bastardy 29. If they challenge to themselues the supernaturall gift of continency experience sheweth that their challenge is vaine for not one of an hundred of them liueth chastly and besides as God hath giuen that gift often to the heathen and reprobate as Histories report so very often yea most ordinarily doth he deny it to his own children for ordinary grace doth not abolish but sanctifie nature so that this iâ— no gift of ordinary sauing grace but a superordinary worke aboue grace and that also many times without grace If then it be not in the power of any to quench the instincts of nature if â—t be not a worke of ordinary grace to abolish nature but it requireth extraordinary grace for the effecting thereof if the course of nature be stopped one way it will burst forth another then we may by sound reason conclude that the vowe of chastity and single life and the prohibition of marriage in the Church of Rome doth open a wide gappe to all loose and licencious liuing 30. Lastly that all this is true let the lamentable effects and fruits of this their doctrine stand vp for witnesse and vmpâ—ers in this matter for how shall a man better iudge of the goodnesse of the cause then by the effects a good â—ree cannot bring forth euill fruite nor an euill tree good fruit euery tree is knowne by his fruit and albeit often that which is not the cause is put for the cause and by the accidentall failing of the medium or instrument the cause may misse of his proper effect Yet when the effects are not rare but frequent yea infinite and such as are so like that they seeme as it were of one stampe and as it were all egges of one bird then it must needs follow that parentem sequitur sua proles like childe like parent such as the effect such must the cause needs be To beginne with Nicholas one of the seuen Deacons the prime Authour of the sect of the Nicholaitans condemned by Saint Iohn Apoc. 2. Let Epiphanius tell vs what his opinion was and what fruites issued there-from This Nicholas hauing a beautifull wife when hee sawe others in admiration for their single life that he might not seeme inferiour to them vtterly renounced the company of his wife and determined neuer to haue fellowship with her againe But when hee was not able to represse any longer the flame of concupiscence and being ashamed to returne to his wife lest he should be condemned of inconstancy he chose rather to giue ouer himselfe to all manner of vnlawfull lust yea to that which
when at any time they are conferred withall about their Religion presently not being able to answer their refuge is to referre vs ouer to their Priests of whose learning and iudgement they haue such a perswasion that though Scripture and reason be against them yet their opinions preuaile more with them then either of these So that hence it is most euident that as the Iewes are bound to beleeue all that their Cachamim teach and not to stand to examine what it is that they teach so the Romanists are bound by their Religion to entertaine into their Creed whatsoeuer is taught them by their ordinary Pastours without all enquirie and search into their doctrines whether they bee true or false And as this is one chiese cause of the Iewes obstinacie against Christian Religion so is it also of that miserable superstition which raigneth in the Church of Rome for if the people were but perswaded that their learned Doctours might erre and deceiue they would certainely suspect their doctrines and try them by the touchstone of the holy Scriptures and so at length might be reclaimed from their errours thus they march together in this point also 20. Againe the Romanists are like vnto the Iewes in their doctrine and practice of praying for the dead for they hold and teach that prayer sacrifice is to be offered for the dead grounding their opinion partly vpon the example of Iudas Maccabeus who as they affirme procured sacrifice to bee offered by the Priests for the dead that had trespassed by taking to themselues the idolatrous iewels of the Iamnites and partly vpon the Thalmudical traditions of diuers of their ancient Rabbines but they haue no ground nor warrant for the same in the word of God for as concerning the bookes of the Maccabees they themselues acknowledge that they are not Canonicall Scripture and for the Scripture we finde no such precept or example in the whole volume of the olde and new Testament neither is it likely that God would haue omitted in the law that kinde of sacrifice for the soules of men where he prescribeth sinne-offerings for bodily pollutions and euery light trespasse if he had thought it necessarie That this is the opinion and practice of the Iewes their practice at this day beareth witnesse for they vse to say ouer the dead bodies a certaine prayer called Kaddish by the vertue whereof as they thinke they are deliuered out of Purgatory especially if it bee said by the sonne for his father and if hee haue no sonne by the whole Congregation on their Sabboth dayes And that this also is the doctrine and vsage of the Church of Rome besides their Bookes their Masses for the quicke and the dead their Diriges and Trentals doe sufficiently testifie And that they fetch this custome from the Iewes may appeare by two reasons first because one mayne argument of theirs which they call a demonstration to proue the lawfulnesse hereof is deriued from the example of the Iewes as we may see both in Galatinus Coccius and our late English Apologists And secondly because as it is confessed by their owne Bredenbachius it is not found in all the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists in the new Testament and we may adde hereunto neither in the olde vnlesse by distorted and misalledged texts which are not worth the answering except onely that fore-named passage of the Maccabees which notwithstanding is corrupted both by the Translatour and also the Relatour Iason Cyreneus as is vnanswerably proued by our famous Country-man Doctour Reynolds the word Dead being cogged into the Text by some cunning Iuggler which is not in the Originall wherein lyeth the pith of the argument And therefore it must needes follow that the Romanists doe merely Iudaize herein And for the Fathers which they alledge for the proofe of this article let their owne Cassander giue satisfaction who affirmeth that the ancient Church vsed prayers for the dead either as thankfull congratulations for their present ioyes or esse as restimonies of their hope and desire of their future resurrection and consummate blessednes both in their bodies and soules and this hee proueth out of Cyprian Augustine Epiphanius Chrysostome and ancient Leiturgies 21. Againe they Iudaize in their doctrines of Limbus Patrum and Purgatorie for Purgatorie it hath beene alreadie touched in the former section and for Limbus Patrum it is coâ—sessed by our aduersaries themselues that it is the tenent of the Iewish Rabbines warranted as they say onely by a Text in Ecclefiasticus which being both corrupted in the translation as our worthy Champion Doctour Whitaker hath proued and being also no part of Canonicall Scripture doth plainely shew that it is a mere Rabbinish conceit hatched in their brainsick Thalmud and not bred in holy writ Yet our Romanists lay fast hold on the same opinion without any other certaine ground to build it vpon For as touching the places of Scripture collected by them to proue this assertion they are either so impertinent or distorted that the meanest iudgement may easily discry their weaknesse for either they are deriued from a word of an ambiguous signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the speach of Iacob Gen. 37. 35. which signifieth sometimes the graue and sometimes hell by the confession of their great Bellarmine or from a Parable as that place in Luke 16. concerning Abrahams bosome confessed by Maldonate to be parabolicall because bodies are not yet tormented in hell but here is mention of a finger and a tongue or from an allegorie as is that place of Zacharie 9. 11. where is mention made of loosing Prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water which both Salmeron and Bellarmine acknowledge to make more for Purgatory then for Limbus but in truth for neither it signifying literally nothing else but the deliuerance of the Israelites out of the Babylonish captiuity and tipically the redemption of the Elect from the bondage of Sathan and hell which they are liable vnto or lastly are merely impertinent as those places Heb. 11. 39. 4. 1. Reg. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 19 the first whereof intendeth the consummate and perfect blessednesse of body and soule which the Fathers had not attayned vnto The second meaneth not the true Samuel but the deuill in his shape and likenesse and the third is to bee referred not to Christs dâ—scension into hell but to the operation of his Diuinitie which he exercised from the beginning of the world preaching by the mouthes of iust men as both S. Augustine and Aquinas expound the place How can any sound conclusion now be drawne from Texts that are either equiuocall or allegoricall or parabolicall or impertinent and all by their owne confessions Therefore it must needes follow that seeing this doctrine hath no sure foundation in Gods word but is founded vpon the Iewes prophane Thalmud that it is no better then a mere Rabbinish
common receiued doctrine of the Church of Rome 8. Now out of all these their opinions three materiall obseruations doe arise first that that Helena of theirs the merit of congruity though in word it be reiected by some of the finer Iesuites yet in substance and in truth is still retayned for whereas the Schoolemen say grosly that a man by doing what he is able by the power of his nature doth of congruity merit effectuall grace the Councill of Trent and the later Diuines choose rather to say that hee doth dispose and prepare himselfe to grace which indeede is in effect all one for to merit grace and to dispose a mans selfe to grace is in diuersity of words but one and the same sense and this Bellarmine ingenuously confesseth when he saith that a man not yet reconciled may by the workes of penance obtaine and deserue ex congruo of congruity the grace of iustification Thus they say and vnsay what they list and gainesay each other and indeede are in such a labyrinth that they know not what to say Secondly that howsoeuer they magnifie the grace of God in word and affirme nothing more frequently then that without Gods grace preuenting assisting and following vs we can doe nothing yet in very deede they ascribe well-neere as much power to free-will as to the grace of God yea more for they make the efficacie of the first grace to depend vpon the free consent of our will and make it as it were the Porter to let in or shut out grace at it pleasure which is one of the most presumptuous conceits that euer was vttered by the mouth of man and full of blasphemy Thirdly and lastly that this first grace which they say doth work with free-will in the first act of our new birth and help assist it is not intrinsicall and inhabitant but barely outward prouocant In respect whereof Coster compareth grace to a staffe in a mans hand which at his owne will he either vseth for his helpe or throweth away and to a friend who finding a man in a deepe pit perswadeth him by diuers reasons to be willing to be pulled out And in expresse words the same Iesuite saith that this grace is onely the impulsion and motion of the holy Ghost being yet without and standing knocking at the doore of our heart not being as yet let in And Bellarmine auoucheth the same when hee saith that it is but onely a perswading which doth not determine the will but inclineth it in manner of a propounding obiect And thus vnder colour of the name of grace they insinuate into mens soules the poyson of their doctrine attributing in word all to grace when indeede they meane nothing lesse 9. These things being thus discouered let vs now come to see how by this doctrine the glory of God is defaced which that it may more clearely appeare two grounds are to be laid the first whereof is that God is so iealous of his glory that he cannot endure any copartner or sharer with him therein The second is that in cases where grace nature seeme to worke together the godliest course is to magnifie the grace of God and to debase the nature of man yea to ascribe all to grace and nothing to nature because this sauours of humility whereas the contrary hath a manifest taste of pride These grounds being setled in our mindes let vs come to the examination of their doctrine And I pray you touching the first ground doth not this doctrine of theirs make man to part stakes with God In his glory whereas our doctrine doth ascribe all the glory in solid and whole to God onely let any man iudge whether ascribe more glory vnto God wee that affirme that God is all in all to the effecting of our regeneration or they that say that our will doth cooperate with his grace or else it can doe nothing we that say that we are starke dead to Godward till God put life into vs by his spirit or they that say wee are but sicke and halfe dead and are but onely helped and assisted by his spirit wee that teach that a man can no more prepare himselfe to his owne iustification then a dead man to life or they that teach wee may by our naturall powers either merit of congruity or prepare our selues to our iustification Lastly wee that ascribe the whole worke of our saluation to God onely or they that attribute some part thereof to their owne free-will If this bee not to derogate from Gods glory what can be for apparently they share the great and glorious worke of our regeneration betwixt God and man grace and nature 10. Would it not thinke you be a great impeachment to Gods glory if in the worke of our creation any should teach that God alone did not create vs but that we our selues were coadiutors with him so in the worke of regeneration which is a second creation to attribute part to Gods spirit and part to free-will is it not a great blemish to the glory of God for either it must be said that God could not doe it of himselfe alone or that he would not If the first then they blaspheme in derogating from his power if the second then they dote in saying God is not willing to maintaine his owne glory or that he is willing to impart it vnto others contrary to his owne word and will reuealed in the Scripture which way so euer they turne themselues they fall into the pit of impiety and make themselues guilty of high treason against the diuine Maiestie 11. Againe when our Sauiour raised vp Lazarus from the graue where he lay stinking foure dayes if it bee true which some write that Lazarus life was stil remaining in him and that his soule and body was not parted and so our blessed Sauiour did but excite and stirre vp that life which was as it were asleepe and did not inspire into him a new life and couple together his soule and body againe being deuided is not the glory of this miracle mightily darkened and extenuated This is our very case wee say that a man is starke dead and buried in the graue of sinne and till a new life of grace be inspired into his soule he cannot moue the least haires bredth to heauen-ward our aduersaries say that he is not dead but maymed and wounded like the man that betwixt Iericho and Ierusalem fell among theeues and therefore needes not to be reuiued but onely to be healed and helped with the oyle and wine of grace powred into his wounds he himselfe cooperating with his owne free will who seeth not that by this doctrine of ours God is more glorified and by theirs more debased for the lesse and easier the worke is the lesse is also the glory of the worke-man and the greater and harder the worke the greater his glory but it is a lesse worke to heale a man wounded then to raise a man
Now to proue that the Scripture cannot be the iudge of Controuersies nor the Interpreter of it selfe they vse three chiefe reasons first because it hath diuers senses secondly because it is not able to speake but is mute and dumbe and thirdly because in euery well ordered Common-wealth the Law and the Iudge are distinguished and therefore seeing the Scripture is the law therefore it cannot be the Iudge 9. I answere to the first that it is not onely false but impious to affirme that the Scripture is as it were A nose of wax flexible into many senses as Melchior Canus affirmeth or that it may be dinersly expounded according to the occasion of the time as Cardinall Cusanus auerreth or that it is like a Delphian Sword to be conuerted into many senses as Turrian the Iesuite maketh it for as of one body there is but one soule so of one place of Scripture there is but one true sound sense which is the soule and life of it the words being but the flesh and the skinne that couereth the same and that true sense is that which the Spirit of God intendeth and not that which euery priuate spirit collecteth and deduceth out of the same as for the Tropologicall Anagogicall and Allegoricall senses they are not distinct senses of the Scripture but diuers collections and applications issuing out of one and the same sense all which may bee intended by the Holy Ghost vnder that one literall sense For example when an Allegory is deduced out of a place of Scripture as Saint Paul Gal. 4. 24. doth allegorize that History of Abrahams two Wiues it is not a double interpretation of that History but it is onely an Allegoricall application of it to the illustrating of the matter which he had in hand and so when by a tropologie a morall doctrine is deriued out of a text of Scripture as our Sauiour doth Math. 12. 41. 42. applying to the Iewes the repentance of the Niniuites and the long iourney of the Queene of Saba to see and heare Salomon or when as by a type any thing in Scripture is mystically expounded otherwise then the literall sense doth beare this is not a new sense but an accommodation of the right sense to another purpose which notwithstanding is intended by the spirit of God and this is confessed by diuers of their owne side Cornelius Agrippa thus writeth The Scripture hath but one simple and constant sense in which alone the truth is found And Aquinas thus It is the literall sense which the author of the Scripture intendeth which is God yet it is not inconuenient if in one letter of the Scripture according to the literall sense there bee many senses 10. But grant that there are diuers distinct senses of some few places of Scripture to wit one literall and another spirituall for in the most there is not yet there can be but one literall sense as many of the Iesuites themselues confesse and from that onely a forcible argument may be drawne as Bellarmine acknowledgeth and Vega another Iesuite except the mysticall sense be explaned and authorized by some other expresse place of Scripture as Salmeron Azorius Sixtus Senensis and Polidore Virgil auouch and proue the same by the testimonie of Augustine and Ierome Now then why should the multiplicity of senses barre the Scripture from being the Iudge of controuersies seeing no controuersie can effectually be decided by any other sense but by the literall which is euer one and the same or by the mysticall so farre forth as it is approued and declared by another Scripture which then becomes the literall sense of that place wherein it is expounded though it was spiritually included in the barke of the former from whence it was deriued This therefore is a most vaine and friuolous obiection 11. To the second that the Scripture is dumb and therefore cannot bee the Iudge because the Iudge of controuersies must haue a deciding and determining voyce I answere that this is blasphemy against the sacred word of God for if the Scripture bee an Epistle of the omnipotent God to his creature as Gregory calleth it what doth it but speake to them to whom it is sent He that writes a letter to his friend doth hee not speake vnto him and hee that reades his friends letter doth hee not vnderstand his meaning and intendment because the letter doth not vtter a voyce and he heareth not his friend himselfe Doth not euery man know that there is a double word verbum dictum a word spoken and verbum scriptum a word written the one being Imago cordis the Image of the minde the other Imago oris the Image of the speech True it is the Scripture doth not speake as man speaketh but yet it speaketh as the Law vseth to speake and God himselfe speaketh in the Scripture to them that haue eares to heare him and therefore in the Epistles to the Churches which were all written not spoken it is said Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith vnto the Churches and is there any thing more common then these phrases what saith the Scripture doth not the Scripture say Yea and is not the Scripture called viâ—us Dei sermo the liuely word of God Heb. 4. 12. how can it speake if it bee dumbe how can it giue life if it be dead 12. This manifest truth Stapleton striueth to elude by a witty as he thinkes but indeed a witlesse distinction God saith he speaketh indeed by the Scripture but hee speaketh not vnto vs by them the Scripture is indeed the word of God but the Church is the voyce of God Which fond obiection our famous Country-man the scourge of Poperie Doctor Whitaker thus wipeth away If God speake in the Scripture then hee doth it either with himselfe or vnto some other but not with himselfe therefore to some other and if to some other to whom but vnto man for hee neither speaketh to Angels nor Deuils nor dumb creatures therefore onely to man as when he saith Thou shalt not kill or Loue your enemies there is no man so simple but hee perceiueth that God speaketh vnto man And therefore the Apostle saith that whatsoeuer things are written aforetime are written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might haue hope And so it is cleare that God by the Scripture not onely speaketh but speaketh vnto vs and so the Scripture is not onely the word of God but the voyce of God in it selfe as it proceeded from God the voyce of God to vs as we haue it by writing the word of God and the Epistle of the great King to his poore subiects whereby they are enformed of his will and pleasure and directed in the wayes of saluation 13. I but when the question is about the sense of a Text as of that Math. 16. 19. To thee will I giue the keyes
confesse afterward that it is indeed a rule but not a total and entire rule but a partiall and imperfect one If it bee any waies a rule then it was giuen by God and written by the men of God to that end to be the rule And so Bellarmines goodly reasons hang together like a sicke mans dreame the one part wherof ouerthroweth the other 18. But to answere in particular to them seuerally To the first I say that it is not farre from blasphemy to affirme that there is any thing in holy Scripture that is vnnecessary for though all things are not of equall necessity and profit yet there is nothing in the whole Booke of God from the beginning of Gen. to the end of the Reuel but may haue most profitable and necessary vse in the Church of God if not for the essentiall forme of faith yet for the adorning and beautifying of it and this may truely bee verified euen of those things which he excepteth against to wit the Histories of the Olde and New Testament and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles out of all which how many excellent doctrines may be deriued both for the confirmation of faith and edification of manners And therefore as in mans body God by nature hath not disposed all parts to be alike necessary but some haue no other vse but ornament and comelinesse so hath Almighty God mingled the parts of holy Scripture in that manner that some are as it were bones and sinews to our faith some flesh and bloud and some againe but exteriour beautie and fashion yet as in nature nothing is made in vaine so much lesse in Scripture is there any thing to be accounted superfluous and redundant nay in this diuine body there are no excrements that may be cast out and separated as it fareth in our earthly carkases but all is entire sound and perfect as the Prophet Dauid teacheth Psal 19. 7. when hee saith that the Law of God is perfect conuerting the soule and our Sauiour Math. 5. 18. when he auoucheth that till heauen and earth perish one iote or title of the Law shall not c. 19. To his second reason I answere three things first that it is entirely false that the Scripture doth not contayne all things necessarily required to the Essence of faith for if the Scripture be perfect and giueth wisedome to the simple if nothing may bee added to it nor taken from it if to teach any thing besides the Scripture deserueth the fearefull Anathema if it be able to make the man of God perfect to euery good worke if in them onely wee may finde eternall life if the Church of God be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and lastly if our faith and hope doe arise from the Scriptures then there is nothing necessary to saluation but is fully and plenarily contained in them but the first is true as appeareth by all those testimonies before alledged and therefore the latter must by necessary consequence be true also 20. Secondly I answere that Bellarmine by that assertion crosseth the whole streame of the Fathers for most of them affirme the flat contrary Tertullian saith that when we once beleeue the Gospell Hoc prius credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus This we beleeue first that there is nothing besides which we ought to beleeue Iraeneus saith that the Apostles committed to writing the Gospell which they preached Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum To be the foundation and pillar of our faith Basil saith Quicquid extra diuinam scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne Cyrill saith that all those things were written in holy Scripture which the Writers thought sufficient Tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata As well touching conuersation as doctrine Augustine saith that those things were chosen out to be written Quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue And againe he saith in another place Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith or life we will not say if we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed Chrysostome saith Si quis eorum If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost doe speake any thing of him selfe and not out of the Gospell beleeue it not Ierome speaking of an opinion touching the death of Zacharias the father of Iohn Baptist saith Hoc quia ex Scripturis non habet authoritatem This because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued I supersede for breuity sake the residue of the Fathers who with full consent conspire in the same opinion yea not onely the Fathers but many also of their owne most learned Authors as Thomas Aquinas Antoninus Durandus Peresius Clingius and diuers others by all which we may see how little reckoning Bellarmine maketh of the ancient Fathers where they make for him hee magnifieth and exalteth them to the skies but when they are opposite to him he reiecteth them as drosse and the like account he maketh of his owne Doctors 21. Lastly I answere that of those things which he affirmeth not to be contayned in holy Scripture and yet to be of necessity of beliefe some of them are farre from either necessity or profit as that of the meanes whereby women vnder the Law were purged from originall sinne and how the Gentiles were partakers of the couenant hauing not the Sacrament and that Easter is to be celebrated vpon the Lords day If these things be of that necessity of beliefe which hee maketh them how many thousand then haue sinned greatly in being ignorant thereof for at this day not the hundreth part of Christians euer heard these things once named and yet by this ignorance they neither offended God nor hindered their owne saluation And what shall we thinke of Iraeneus and other godly Bishops in the East that held that Easter was not to bee celebrated euer vpon the Lords day Againe the other things nominated by him as that the books of the sacred Bible are the Canonicall Scripture and the word of the liuing God that the children of beleeuing parents are to be baptized that Christ descended into hell may easily be proued out of Scripture either by expresse testimonie or by necessarie consequence and deduction which is all one for Perinde sunt â—a quae ex Scripturis colliguntur atqueâ—a quae scribuntur c. saith Nazianzene 22. Thirdly being driuen by the power of truth to acknowledge the Scripture to be a rule he commeth in with a leaden distinction to wit that is not a totall but
for to restraine a common good to a particular vse is an open wrong to the good it selfe which the more common it is the better it is and the lesse common the lesse good for bonum est sui diffusiuum good inclineth naturally to spreade it selfe and therfore the restriction thereof is violence and force offered to the nature of it and truth cannot abide to bee imprisoned but loueth liberty This is true in all naturall good and true things but much more in this supernaturall good and truth which as Origenâ— well noteth was not written for a few as Platoes Bookes were but for the people and multitude yea for the veriest Ideots and women and children as the Fathers affirme 20. And yet these presumptuous Romanists forbid the reading of the Scripture among the people one of them affirming That it was the deuils inuention to permit the people to reade the Bible Another That he knew certaine men to be possessed of the deuill because being but Husband-men they were able to discourse of the Scriptures All teaching that it is the ground of Heresie and that Lay men are no better then Hogs and Dogs and therefore these precious pearles not to be committed vnto them and that the Scripture to a Lay man is as a sword in a mad mans or a knife in a Childes hand Thus they practise to imprison the Scriptures within the Priests cells or Monkes cloysters which were giuen by God to be the light of the world and yet which is to be noted in Queene Maries bloudy and blinde daies such as could dispend a certaine summe of mony by the yeare might reade the Bible without any speciall dispensation as if heresie builded her nest rather in the brest of the poore man then of the rich or as if the rich were lesse carnall then the poore and thus these saucy fellowes handle the sacred Scripture at their pleasure being rightly to be branded with the name of Heretikes whom Epiphanius generally calleth Lucifugae because they cannot abide the light of the Scriptures but fly from them as Owles and Bats from the light 21. Another practice of theirs is against the sense of the Scripture as the two former were against the letter that neither the body nor the soule thereof might be left vnuiolated and this is in respect of the learned to bar them vp from controuling their errours as the other were in respect of the simple to keepe them from once looking into them Their policy in this is to interdict all senses and expositions of the Scripture saue such as agree with the Church of Rome and are allowed by the Pope of Rome this is the interdiction of the Councill of â—rent and is grounded vpon a false interpretation of that article of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church for as Stapleton saith The literall sense of that article is that thou beleeuest whatsoeuer the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth And Cardinall Hosius If any man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome though he know not whether and how it agreeth with the words of the scripture notwithstanding he hath Ipsissimum verbum Dei Now by the Catholike Church they meane the Romane Church or rather the Romane Bishop as I haue shewed for as Siluester sayth The power of the Catholike Church remaineth onely in him And as Stapleton The foundation of our Religion is of necessity placed vpon the authority of this mans teaching and therfore one â—aith that the Pope may change â—he Gospell and giue to it according to place and time another sense Yea a blasphemous Cardiâ—all is bâ—ld to say That if a man did not beleeue that Christ is very God and Man and the Pâ—pe thought the same he should not be condemned This is a tricke pâ—ssing all other whereby they not onely make sure worke with the Scripture that it neuer doe them hurt but also fashion the sacred and diuine sense thereof vnto their fond and foolish fancies and make it speake not what the Holy Ghost intendeth but what they imagine Nay they are so impudent as to say That the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood the sense thereof being one while this and another while that according as it pleaseth the Church to change her iudgement Can there be a greater disgrace to the Scripture then this is 22. Adde to these yet another deuice which is far worse then all the rest that is a grosse and palpable wringing and wresting out of the holy Scripture a sense contrary to the true intendment of the place fitting it strangely to their own purpose This is a practice of theirs so coÌ„mon as that their Books swarme with nothing so much as such fond and foolish interpretations and so ridiculous withall that it would make euen Heraclitus himselfe to laugh if he were aliue I wil here report some few of these strange wrested Expositions that the Reader may haue a taste of them and so iudge of the whole caske 23. And to beginne at the beginning of the Bible Genes 1. 16. It is written God created two great Lights the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night that is saith Innocentius the third one of their owne Popes And also Molina the Iesuite God ordained in the Firmament of the Catholike Church two dignities to wit the Pontificiall dignitie and the Regall But that to gouerne the day that is the Spiritualty and is the greater and this to rule the night that is the Carnalty and is the lesser so that how great difference is betwixt the Sunne and the Moone so great is there betwixt the Bishop of Rome and a King that is according to the Glosse vpon the same place seuen and fiftie times So in the 3. of Genesis whereas the words of the Text are plaine Hee shall breake thy head or tread vpon thy head which is the first and principall promise of the Messiah they contrary both to the Hebrew and Septuagint translate and expound it Ipsa She shall applying vnto the Virgin Mary that which properly belongeth vnto Christ euen the worke of our Redemption And this interpretation and translation of that place is approued by the Councill of Trent in approuing the vulgar Latine Bible for authenticall and by Bellarmine also who calleth it a great mysterie that in the Hebrew a verbe of the Masculine gender is ioyned with a Nowne of the foeminine to signifie that a woman should breake the serpents head but not by her selfe but by her sonne and is also so translated by our Doway Translatours in English 24. So againe that place in the Psalme Psal 91. 13. Thou shalt walke vpon the Aspe and the Cockatrice and shalt tread vpon the Lion and the Dragon Pope Alexander the third interpreted it of himselfe and the Emperour applying the promise made to Christ principally and in him to all the Elect vnto himselfe as Pope and
to some puritie doth approoue and confirme all these grosse opinions of the Schoole Diuines for thus it decreeth that it is good and profitable humbly to inuocate the Saints and to fly to their prayers and succour for the obtayning of blessing from God in Christ And that wee may see the meaning of this Decree the Romane Catechisme which was made by the commaundement of the Bishop of Rome doth more expressely affirme that the Saints are therefore to be called vpon because they pray continually for the saluation of men and God bestoweth many benefits vpon vs for their merit and grace sake and that they obtaine pardon for our sinnes and reconcile vs into the fauour of God And for the refining Iesuites they haue not yet refined this errour for Coster writeth that the Saints are to be inuocated both that they may mediate our cause to God and also that themselues may helpe vs. Viega another Iesuite saith that they are as it were the dores by which an entrance is opened to vs vnto the most holy places in heauen Osorius another of the same stampe affirmeth that God giueth vs all good things by the intercession of the Saints And lastly to make vp the messe Bellarmine himselfe that is more wary then all the rest doth not blush to say that Gods predestination is helped supported by the prayers of the Saints because God hath determined to vse their prayers for the effecting of mans saluation Behold here a Map of the Romish doctrine Who can now choose but account them Idolaters when they thus teach the people That all blessings descend vpon them by the meanes of the Saints and so encourage them to repose their confidence in their merits 69. But from their doctrine let vs come to the practice of their Church and we shall see this more cleerely and heere some few examples shall serue for a taste for to propound all in this kinde would bee both tedious and needlesse Thus therefore in their publike Seruice Bookes Rosaries and Breuiaries they pray vnto the Saints To Saint Paul Vouchsafe to bring thy humble suppliants to heauen after the end of this life to whom thou hast reuealed the light of truth To Saint Iames the greater Haile ô singular safeguard of thy pilgrims bountifully heare the prayers of thy seruants helpe them that worship thee and bring them to heauen To Saint Thomas thus Vouchsafe to establish vs thy suppliants in his faith by handling of whoÌ„ thou deseruedst to acknowledge to be God To Saint Iohn Haile ô holy Apostle of our Lord Iesus Christ I intreat thee by his loue who chose thee out of the world that thou wouldest deliuer me thy vnworthy seruant from all aduersitie and from all impediments of body and soule and receiuing my soule at the houre of death wouldest bring me to life euerlasting To Saint George thus Hee saue vs from our sinnes that wee may rest with the blessed in heauen Here Saint George is made a Sauiour and that from sinne and so either Christ is cleere put out of his office or George ioyned with him in his office Againe to Saint Erasmus Graunt that by thy merits and prayers we may ouercome all the snares of our enemies and be freed from the pouerty of body and minde and from eternall death To Saint Christopher O glorious Martyr Christopher bee mindefull of vs to God and without delay defend our body sense and honor thou that deseruedst to carry in thine armes ouer the Sea the Flower of heauen cause vs to auoid all wickednesse and to loue God with all our hearts To Saint Cosmus and Damianus O most holy Physicians who shine in heauen most cleerely by your merits preserue vs both from bodily plague and disease and also from the death of the soule that we may liue in grace vntill we enter into heauen To Francis the Fryer thus O Francis sunnes light singular crucified Saint c. beâ— thou to vs the way of life make satisfaction for vs alway shew to Christ the marks of thy wounds This Frier Francis they make equall to Christ and therefore they say that Christ imprinted his fiue wounds vpon him as if he also were to suffer for the world and redeeme mankind and that they were alike in all things as those blasphemous Verses of two shamelesse Iesuites Turselline and Bencius doe declare 70. What should I trouble thee gentle Reader with any more of this trumpery their Bookes are full of such-like prayers if any please to read them and that we may plainely see that they put their trust and confidence in them not onely the words doe sufficiently signifie but also the liberall indulgences their Popes haue annexed to the deuout sayings of such Orisons As Pope Sixtus hath promised eleuen thousand yeeres pardon to them that shall say a certaine prayer before the Image of the Virgine Mary beginning thus Aue sancta Mater Dei c. But to leaue the rest of the Saints and to come to the blessed Virgine whom with Epiphanius we blesse and honour but in â—â— casâ— worship it is a wonder into what an abominable Idoll they haue translated not her for shee abhorres their impietie but the Idea and fancy of her which they haue deuised in their owne braynes for they call her the Queene of heauen the Mother of mercy the Gate of Paradise the Life and hope of a sinner the Light of the Church the Lady of the world the Aduocatresse and Mediatrix of mankinde yea they say that the death and passion of Christ and the holy Virgine was for the redemption of mankinde and that she also must come betwixt God and vs for the remission of sinne and that her Sonne and she redeemed the world with one heart as Adam and Eue sold the world for one apple And thus they ioyne the Virgine Mary with Christ in the office of our redemption and so make her equall with him which were somewhat tolerable if they could stay there but they climbe higher in impudency and not onely match her with Christ but set her aboue him For they tell vs of a vision How Christ preparing to iudge the world there were two Ladders set that reached to heauen the one red at the top whereof Christ sate the other white at the top whereof the Virgine Mary sate and when the Friers could not get vp by the red Ladder of Christ but euermore fell downe Saint Francis called them to the white Ladder of our Lady and there they were receiued And a late Iesuite hath set forth to the view of the world certaine Verses wherein he preferres the milke of our Lady in many respects before the bloud of Christ yea they subiect Christ now raigning in the heauens to his Mothers command as it is sung in some of their Churches O happy Virgine that our sinnes dost purge Eâ—treate thy Mother and thy Sonne doe
vrge Command him though Redeemer that â—e be By right of Motherhood which is giuen to thee 71. And this the Rosarie of the Virgine Mary doth more euidently manifest for Dominicke who was the first inuentor of it ordayned that fiftie Ane Maries should be recited and at euery tenth one Pater noster which together make a Rosarie and for this purpose the same Dominicke framed fiue and fiftie Stones or Beades and hung them together on a string betwixt euery ten little ones one great one and called them Patriloquia as it were prayers to the Father which he might more properly haue called Matriloquia prayers to the Mother for here are ten Aues to each Pater noster And this was the originall of praying vpon Beads Now out of these Rosaries sprung there Mary Psalters for three Rosaries to wit an hundred and fifty Aue Maries and fifteene Pater nosters make one Mary Psalter because forsooth the Psalter of Dauid consists of so many Psalmes and to the fraternitie of this Psalter and the sayers thereof were giuen by diuers Popes as Sixtus the fourth and Innocent the eighth threescore thousand yeeres of indulgence and plenary remission both from the punishment and fault one in the time of life and one in the houre of death Is not heere I pray you the worship of the Virgine Mary exalted aboue the worship of Christ who can doubt of it seeing the proportion is ten to one fifty to fiue an hundred to ten an hundred and fifty to fifteene And no maruell if it bee thus in their prayers seeing it is as euill or worse in their deeds for whereas wee haue one Church or religious house dedicated to Christ we shall finde ten dedicated to Mary the Mother of Christ and so the Mother is aduanced aboue the Sonne and yet she but a woman of flesh and bloud saued by her Sonne and blessed by that faith which shee had in him and hee the Sonne of God as well as the Sonne of Man the Sauiour and Redeemer of mankinde 72. But the most horrible Idolatrie and blasphemy of all the rest is to be found in another Mary Psalter of theirs compiled as they say by Bonauenture and authorised in the Church of Rome wherein they apply all the whole Psalter of Dauid to the Virgine Mary and wheresoeuer they finde the name Dominus Lord they put in Domina Lady as for example in the third Psalme for Lord how are my foes increast they say Lady how are my foes increast and in the sixt Psalme for O Lord correct mee not in thy wrath they say O Lady correct me not in thy wrath And in the 31. Psalme for Blessed are they O Lord whose sinnes are forgiuen they say Blessed are they whose hearts loue thee O Virgine Mary for their sinnes shall be forgiuen them by thee and so cleane through the Psalter If any desire to see the gulfe and dunghill of Superstition and Idolatrie practised in the Church of Rome vnder the Inuocation of Saints let him but read this one Psalter which alone if there were no other argument is sufficient to conuince their whole Church of open and notorious Idolatrie and that Cassander himselfe confesseth in the place aboue quoted 73. Thus they exalt the Virgine Mary aboue Christ and equall her with God yea which is horrible to speake and fearefull to be recorded they place her aboue God himselfe for they teach that a man may appeale to the Virgine Mary not onely from a Tyrant and from the Diuell but euen from God himselfe This writeth Bernardine de Busto about 120. yeeres since and his booke was authorised by Pope Alexander the sixt and yet remaines so farre from all disallowance that it is approoued by Posseuine as a learned and godly booke Out of which it must needes follow which I tremble to vtter that by their doctrine the Virgine Mary is greater then God because euery appeale is from the lesser to the greater 74. But no maruell if they preferre Mary to Christ that is the Mother before the Sonne seeing they doe as much to two Fryers Francis and Dominicke He that would see how Francis is matched and exalted aboue Christ let him read the booke of his Conformities and hee will bee astonished at their madnesse Also of Dominicke they write most strange things and such as Christ neuer did the like as for example Christ raysed but three dead saith Antoninus but Dominicke raysed three at Rome and forty that were drowned in a Riuer neere to Tholosse Christ being made immortall after his resurrection entred twice into the house the dores being shut but Dominicke being a mortall man entred into a Church in the night the dores being shut that he might not waken the brethren Christ had all power committed vnto him in heauen and earth and Dominicke did partake the same power with him for the Angels serued him the Elements obeyed him the Diuels trembled at him Christ was the Lord absolutely and by authority but Dominicke principally and by possession Christ was laid at his birth in a Manger and wrapped in clouts to keepe him from cold but Dominicke being an infant would often get out of his bed and as if hee abhorred all delights of the flesh lye vpon the bare ground Christ neuer prayed but hee was heard if he would except in the Garden when hee prayed that the Cup might passe away from him where praying according to his sensuall part would not be heard according to reason but Dominicke neuer desired any thing of God but it was graunted vnto him Christ being borne a Starre appeared in the East which directed the Wise-men to him and foreshewed that he should be the light of the world but Dominicke being borne and ready to bee baptized his Godmother saw a Starre in his forehead foretelling a new light of the world Lastly Christ loued vs and washed away our sinnes by his bloud so did Dominicke for hee whipt himselfe thrice euery day with an Iron chayne and drew bloud each time out of his sides once for his owne sinnes which were very small the second for those that were in Purgatory and the third for those that liue in the world Is not Dominicke heere in some things equalled and in others preferred before our blessed Sauiour Iesus Christ 75. And thus to passe ouer all their false and counterfeit Saints which eyther neuer were in rerum natura or were not such as they make them as Christopher George Catherine and such like For it is a true saying of Augustine or of some other Multorum corpora honorantur in terris quorum animae torquentur in inferno The bodies of many are honoured on earth whose soules are tormented in hell And to omit that the Pope may erre in the canonizing of Saints it being grounded vpon false miracles as Caietane acknowledgeth and others though Bellarmine be of another minde and laboureth to prooue the contrary but God wot with
with Hierome and Iustine Martyr and when he entred into the house the dores being shut that the dores and walls yeelded vnto him a passage as vnto their Creator with Theodoret and Cyrill and that when hee appeared vnto Paul going to Damascus if it was in the aire or on the earth as it may be doubted that then this body was not in heauen at the same instant for farre bee it from vs so to pin vp our Lord in the Heauens that he cannot be where he pleaseth And this is Thomas Aquinas opinion in expresse words which Bellarmine as expresly contradicteth 15. Thirdly by discourse of reason hee thus laboureth to reconcile these contradictions and thus disputeth God being but one simple and inuisible essence is in infinite places at once and he might create another world and fill it with his presence and be in two worlds at one instant and the soule of man is wholy in euery part of the body and God is able to conserue the soule in a part that is cut off from the body therefore it implieth no contradiction to be in two places at once againe one place may containe two bodies and yet be not two places but one as when Christ rose out of the graue the Sepulchre being shut therefore one body may be in two places at once and yet not two bodies but one Lastly there be many other mysteries of religion as strange and difficult to be conceiued as this and yet are beleeued therefore this also is to be beleeued as well as they 16. A miserable cause sure that needeth such defences the weakenesse of these reasons argueth the feeblenesse of the cause for who knoweth not but that there is no similitude betweene the infinite God and a finite Creature nor any proportion betwixt a Spirit and a body and that à posse ad esse from may bee to must bee is no good consequence Adde that one place cannot hold two bodies nor euer did except they were so vnited that in respect of place they made but one And lastly that all those mysteries of Religion which he nameth to wit the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection the Creation and Annihilation c. haue their foundation in holy Scripture and therefore are to be receiued as doct ines of truth though transcending the spheare of nature and reason but this strange mysterie of Transubstantiation hath no ground in Scripture as he himselfe confesseth and therefore it is not to be beleeued as the other are without better reasons then he bringeth for the defence thereof but like lips like lettuces such as the cause is such are the defences both nought and weake as any man may see that is not muffled with errour and thus this second contradiction remaines irreconciliable 17. A third contradiction is also in and about the Sacrament which is this they teach that the matter in Sacrament is partly the outward Elements and partly the thing signified and represented by them and that betwixt these there is a certaine relation and similitude as in Baptisme the outward signe which is water and the thing signified which is the bloud of Christ make the matter of that Sacrament or the outward wasting by water and the inward by the Spirit and the relation is as the water washeth and purgeth away all filthinesse of the body so Christs bloud purgeth away both the guilt and filth of sinne from the soule and so in the Eucharist the Elements of Bread and Wine together with the bodie and bloud of Christ are the matter of the Sacrament and the relation is as those elements doe feed nourish and strengthen and cheare the bodie of man so the body and bloud of Christ doe seed nourish and strengthen and cheare the soule vnto eternall life and as those elements must be eaten and digested or else they nourish not so Christ must also be eaten and as it were digested and after a sort conuerted into our substance or else he is no food vnto our soules This is the very doctrine of the Church of Rome and it is agreeable to the truth for Bellarmine thus speaketh Species illae significant quidem cibum spiritualem sed non sunt ipsae cibus spiritualis that is The signes in the Scrament signifie our spirituall foode but they are not the spirituall foode it selfe And in another place he saith that signum in Sacramento reisignatae similitudinem gerit The signes in the Sacrament doe beare the similitude of the thing signified And in the same Chapter hee sayth more plainely that God would neuer haue ordained one thing to signifie another vnlesse it had a certaine analogie or similitude with it And herein he accordeth with the Master of sentences who defines a Sacrament thus To be a visible forme of an inuisible grace bearing the Image of that grace And with Hugo who saith That a Sacrament is a corporall or materiall element propounded outwardly to the senses by similitude representing and by institution signifying and by Sanctification containing some inuisible and spirituall grace And that this relation is in eating and nourishing Bellarmine in another place confesseth in direct words when he saith that That same outward eating in the Sacrament doth signifie the inward eating and refreshing of the soule but is not the cause thereof and that that is so necessarie a condition that without it we should not be partakers of that diuine nourishment And to this agreeth Saint Augustine who plainely affirmeth that if Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were not Sacraments at all And what this similitude is he declareth in another place where hee saith that We receaue visible meate in the Sacrament but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And Thomas Aquinas giueth this as a reason why Bread and Wine are the fittest matter of this Sacrament because men most commonly are nourished therewith his words are these As water is assumed in the Sacrament of Baptisme to the vse of spirituall washing because corporall washing is commonly made by water so bread and wine wherewith most commonly men are nourished are taken vp in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the vse of the spirituall eating By which it followeth that if water did not wash it was no fit element for the Sacrament of Baptisme so if bread and wine doe not nourish they are no fit signes for the Lords Supper and for this cause our Sauiour at the institution of this Sacrament gaue this commandement to his Disciples that they should take and eate and the Apostle calleth it the Lords Supper and the Lords Table 18. This therefore is their own doctrine and it is grounded vpon the truth But listen a little how they contradict this by their miraculous monster Transubstantiation for when they say that the substance of the bread and wine is vtterly
changed into the body and bloud of Christ and that onely the accidents remaine I would faine know of them how these outward signes doe nourish the bodie can the accidents of bread and wine nourish the substance of the bodie must there not be a similitude and proportion betwixt the nourishment and the thing nourished but betwixt accidents and a substance there is no similitude nor proportion Aristotle telleth vs as much when he saith that Foode doth nourish as it is a substance and not as an accident Now if the outward signes doe not nourish the body what analogie is there betwixt them and the things signified or why were they ordayned to represent the spirituall refection of our soules by Christ if they minister no corporall refection vnto our bodies or how can they represent that where of they beare no similitude for as in Baptisme if the nature and substance of the water were taken away and onely accidents did remayne so that it could not wash nor clense the body without doubt it could be no fit signe to signifie the inward ablution of the soule by the bloud of Christ So they that take away the nature and substance of the Bread and Wine and leauâ— bare accidents make it without all question a dead and liuelesse Sacrament not fit to represent so high a mystery 19 Behold now the contradictions first accidents without a substance that is to say accidents and no accidents for therefore they are called accidents because they adhere and are ioyned to a substance in which they haue their subsistance vpon which they haue their dependance so that take away their substance and they presently â—urcease to bee accidents For Aristotle saith Accidentis esse est in esse The essence of an accident is to bee in a subiect Secondly two parts of the Sacraments the visible elements and the inuisible grace yet but one part of the same Sacrament for the elements bee taken away and accidents onely remayne therefore two parts and not two parts Thirdly the externall matter of the Sacrament is the outward elements and yet there are no elements at all and so elements and no elements matter and no matter Fourthly the outward elements are signes of the inward grace and the same by their doctrine being but accidents are signes of the outward elements which are signes of the inward grace and so they are signes of the signes rather then of the thing signified Lastly the outward feeding by bread wine represents the inward feeding by the body and bloud of Christ yet there is no outward feeding by bread and wine because there is no bread and wine except they will make accidents to â—eede a substance which is against all reason for the Philosopher saith that Ex iâ—sdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus wee are nourished by the same things of which we consist but we do not consist of accidents but of substances 20. Out of this snare they seeke to ridde themselues by a double euasion first they say that accidents may be without a subiect though not naturally yet by the supernaturall power of God This is Bellarmines and hee prooueth it by two instances first because Saint Basil affirmeth that That light which was created the first day was without a subiect and secondly because as the substance of Christs humanitie had no subsistance in it selfe but in the word so though an accident naturally doth inhere in a subiect yet supernaturally it may bee and yet not inhere To this I answere first that though Saint Basil be of that opinion yet Saint Augustine is not for he thought it to be a spirituall and no naturall light Nor Beda Lyranâ—s and the master of sentences who supposed it to be a bright and lightsome cloude which was carried about and gaue light vnto the world Nor Damascene who supposed that this light proceeded from the element of fire as an effect thereof Nor yet the Fathers who though they differed in their opinions touching this light yet none of them were of Saint Basils mind to thinke that it was an accident without a subiect Now why should we beleeue Saint Basil herein more then S. Augustine venerable Bede Damascene or the rest This therefore is but one priuate mans opinion crossed by many others and so maketh little for his purpose 21. Secondly I answere that though the humanitie of Christ had no subsistance in it selfe yet by reason of the vnion with the God-head it was sustained and vpholden by it but there is no such vnion betwixt the accidents in the Sacraments and the body and bloud of Christ that the body and bloud of Christ should sustaine and vphold those accidents and therefore they themselues say that they are not sustained by the body of Christ but by the extraordinary power of God and so this instance maketh nothing for this purpose neither Lastly I answere that we are not so much to consider what God can doe by his omnipotent power as what he hath done heretofore or what he hath said hee will doe hereafter let them therefore shew that accidents haue beene without a substance in times past or that God hath said hee will haue them so to be and then wee will yeeld vnto them but till then wee haue more reason to hold conclusions of nature not crossed by religion then to relye vpon supernaturall imaginations 22. The second euasion is by Aquinas who affirmeth that supernaturally the accidents of bread and wine may nourish because they receaue miraculously the strength and vertue of a substance and that they doe nourish he proueth because by the same reason they may be turned into the substance of the body by the which they are turned into ashes wormes and also because wee see by experience that the body is nourished by the signes in the Sacrament to which a short answere will suffice for first that there should be such a miraculous nourishing by accidents hath no ground either in experience or in Scripture And secondly he should rather conclude because the body is nourished by outward elements and they are often conuerted into ashes and wormes therefore they are not bare accidents but substances then that therefore bare accidents may nourish for let the reader iudge whether concludes more reasonably we when we say the elements doe nourish the body therefore they are bodily substances or they that thus reason the elements do nourish the bodie therefore accidents without a substance may nourish and thus the snare is not broken neither are they escaped 23. A fourth contradiction and that about the Sacrament they hold that the wicked and reprobate receaue the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament and yet reape no benefit thereby to their owne soules but rather iudgement and damnation as if the merits grace and vertue of Christ could be separated from his person or as if a man could receaue life and yet not
Religion to the experience of euery mans owne conscience But I leaue this to others who haue or shall meddle in this argument my taske is to shew how it contradicteth both it selfe and other doctrines of their Religion 44. It selfe thus They teach that works of supererogation grounded vpon Euangelicall Counsels are as you haue heard more excellent perfect and meritorious then those which are done in obedience to the law of God and that in three respects First comparing seuerall Counsels with seuerall Precepts which concerne the same matter As to sell all and giue to the poore is a more excellent worke then any commanded in that Precept Thou shalt not steale And the Counsell of Single life is more perfect then the Precept Thou shalt not commit Adultery As if men could bee more perfect then God had commanuded or then Christ himselfe was whose righteousnes consisted in this in being obedient to his Fathers will Or then the Angels whose perfection consisteth in executing the Commandements of God Or as if the law of God was not a perfect rule of righteousnes Secondly comparing the state of men obseruing Euangelicall Counsells with the state of them that onely yeeld obedience to Precepts as if a man could be in a higher and happier estate then they are which loue God with all their heart and their Neighbour as themselues which is the summe of the Law And thirdly marke this comparing Counsells with any precept whatsoeuer euen with that great Commaundement of the Law Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength As if a man could loue God more then with all his heart and with all his strength Gods children labour for so much let them take the more for their shares Hence they conclude that in respect of matter the Precept is good but the Counsels better and in respect of the end the fulfilling of Precepts hath a reward but the execution of Counsels hath a greater reward This is their plaine doctrine And yet neuerthelesse the same men teach that the perfection of a Christian man consisteth essentially in the obseruation of Precepts and instrumentally in the obseruation of Counsels And secondly that the Precepts of charitie are the ends whereunto Counsels are ordayned and the works of Counsels are but the way and meanes for the better keeping of the Precepts Now to the purpose How can works of supererogation bee more perfect then works of obedience Counsels then Precepts seeing perfection consisteth in the one instrumentally and in the other essentially and Precepts are the end of Counsels and not Counsels of Precepts Is an instrumentall perfection greater then an essentiall or the meanes more perfect then the end This is contrary to naturall reason for Aristotle saith Maius bonum est finis quà m quod finis non est The end is a greater good then that which is not the end and the instrument is neuer so perfect as the essence of a thing 45. Againe it crosseth another of their doctrines thus They teach that though the law of God bee possible to bee kept by the regenerate the works of the faithfull be simply and absolutely iust yet they are mixed with many veniall sinnes and therefore there is none so iust but that sinneth sometimes and hath neede to vse that petition in the Lords Prayer daily Forgiue vs our trespasses According to that generall axiome of Sain Iames In many things wee sinne all Yea Bellarmine himselfe affirmeth that the regenerate may fall into many deadly sinnes and that hee cannot possibly auoyd veniall sinnes Nisi priuilegio singulari But by a singular priuiledge Which priuiledge hee cannot instance to haue beene granted to any man liuing or dead except Christ only who was God man Obserue now the contradiction to omit that this necessitie of sinning doth ouerthrow the possibility of fulfilling the law and doth imply an impossibilitie how can these two extremes be reconciled The regenerate cannot performe all they should do yet do performe more then they should do They cannot auoyd veniall sins and yet can supererogate It is as much as to say that a man is not able to pay his owne debts but must aske pardon for them yet hath ability to pay another mans far greater then his owne Or an Archer cannot by any means shoot home to the marke yet with the same Bow Arrowes sent forth by the same strength of his arme he can shoote farre beyond the marke He that is tainted and stained with many veniall sinnes in that respect is not perfect but hee that doeth supererogate is more then perfect For so they say when they giue a higher degree of perfection to these works then to the perfect obedience of the law If they say that veniall sinnes doe not hinder the perfection of good works I answere that neuerthelesse they hinder the perfection of the worker if they stick fast to the worke it selfe they hinder that also as the least spot of inke blemisheth the whole face and the lightest disease disableth the health of the whole body Eyther therefore they must deny them to be sinnes and so spots defects in the soules of the regenerate or they must confesse that they are not so perfect as they should be And how then can they be more perfect then they should be 46. Further they teach that one degree of superero gating perfection is the vow of Monasticall pouerty renouncing all propriety in worldly goods and holding in Common the vse of temporall things and yet they say that the state of Bishops who possesse lands and goods and enioy the propriety of them is more perfect then the state of Monks who depriue themselues thereof because Bishops haue alreadie atchiued this perfection and Monks are but in the way to it From which ground a man may thus argue If perfection consist in voluntary pouerty which is an alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods then Bshiops possessing Lordships and reuenues are not more perfect then Monks that haue renounced all and if Bishops possessing be more perfect then Monks not possessing then perfection consisteth not in the alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods One or the other must needes bee false except hee will place perfection in two contraries to wit possessing and not possessing And the rather may this absurditie appeare because aske them why Monks are more perfect then other men they will answere because they remooue from them all impediments of their loue to God in which ranke they place worldly wealth and consecrate themselues wholly to Gods seruice By which reason Bishops cannot bee more perfect then either they or other men because they retayne those impediments and so by their doctrine doe not wholly consecrate themselues to Gods seruice 47. From their actions let vs come to their passions to wit their Satisfactions or as Melanchton calleth them Satispassions
this Sacrament there is a cōmemoration of that sacrifice of the crosse which was once offered this he spake conuicted by the truth And the Councill of Trent also in another place doth almost if not fully speake asmuch when it sayth that Iesus Christ left to his Church a sacrifice by which that bloudy sacrifice which hee made vpon the crosse might bee represented and the memory thereof continued which if it be true then being conuicted by their owne consciences and confessions it remaines that that doctrine which holdeth that the masse is a true reall propitiatory sacrifice is opposite to the doctrine of the Gospell which teacheth the contrary and so this fourth Antithesis is safe and sound for all that Bellarmine can say against it 21. The Gospell teacheth that both parts of the Sacrament are to bee ministred to all Christians and of the cup it sayth expresly Drinke ye all of this but the Church of Rome hath decreed that none should drinke of the cup but the Clergie and that the people should content themselues with the other part of the Sacrament 22. Bellarmine distinguisheth of the word All and saith By it is not to be vnderstood all the faithfull but the Apostles onely which hee prooueth by Saint Marke who sayth that they dranke all of it that is all the Apostles which sate at table with our Sauiour Christ and not all the Christians that beleeued in him 23. But to his distinction not all Christians but all Apostles I answere that this is Bellarmines conceit or rather deceit and hee borrowed it of Andradius the famous expositer of the Councill of Trent but it is a miserable glosse woe bee to it that so soully corrupts the text first the fathers vnderstood by the vniuersall All all the faithfull and that the Apostles heere in this great action were not Pastors but sheep Christ himselfe the great shepheard beeing the distributer and diuider of this Sacrament I shall not need to repeat their words they are so euident and ordinary Let the margent direct the Reader to them if they desire satisfaction in this point 24. Secondly many of their owne Doctors so interprete it as Thomas Aquinas Durand Biel Alphonsus de Castro Lorichius the author of the glosse and diuers others Cassanders testimony shall stand in stead of all the rest he sayth plainly that the Westerne Church beleeued for a thousand yeeres that our Sauiour Christ gaue this Sacrament to his disciples representing the persons of all the faithfull and he addeth reasons why the wine as well as the bread was to bee receiued both for a more full representation of the passion of Christ and signification of our full spirituall nourishment in Christ and also the full and perfect redemption of our bodies and soules by the body and soule of our Sauiour This Cassander repeats to haue beene the opinion of the Latine Greeke Church for the space of a thousand yeeres What an vpstart distinction then is this of Bellarmine who notwithstanding ceaseth not to bragge that they haue all antiquity on their side 25. Thirdly wee haue Saint ` Paul thus interpreting the words of his Lord and Master who spake nothing but by the direction of the Spirit for whereas our Sauiour sayth Drinke yee all of it Saint Paul sayth Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. But all must examine themselues before they come to the sacrament therefore all are enioyned to drinke of the Sacramentall cup let vs chuse then whom wee will beleeue whether Saint Paul or Bellarmine for Saint Paul interprets this All one way and Bellarmine cleane contrary 26. Lastly reason it selfe disapprooueth this exposition for first I would aske him whether that which our Sauiour commanded to bee done at his last Supper were to bee done once and no more or often euen to the end of the world If hee say once and no more the words will confute him which say Doe this in remembrance of me if often then by All he meant not the Apostles onely for the Apostles liued not till the end of the world Againe if by All was intended the Priests onely then not onely the people should bee excluded from the cup but from the bread also for if in these words Drinke ye all of it hee speaketh to Priests onely then in these words Eat ye all of it hee speaketh to none but Priests for they are both spoken to one and the same persons And thus the people should haue no part of the Sacrament at all for the same All that is in one is in the other And to conclude if the Apostles stood heere in stead of Pastors or Priests why did they not minister the Sacrament It is the part of a Priest as hee is a Priest to minister the Sacrament to others and when hee receiueth it himselfe then hee standeth for a common Christian and not for a Priest for a sheepe not for a shepheard But they did not minister but receiue therefore they stood not here for Priests but for the whole body of the faithfull And thus this distinction being battered by the testimony of fathers confession of their owne Doctors authority of Saint Paul and strength of reason doth fall to the ground like Babel and this fift Antithesis is nothing weakened by Bellarmines Sophistrie 27. The Gospell teacheth that true repentance or conuersion to God is an earnest sorrow of heart for sinnes committed and faith perswading that they are certainely remitted for Christs sake But the Church of Rome teacheth that contrition indeed is one of the parts of repentance but they faine that it meriteth a remission of sinnes and to it they adde auricular confession not commaunded by God satisfaction or voluntary workes by which they say that the punishments of sinne are satisfied that these also may be redeemed by money and purse-penance All which whole doctrine is very blasphemous against the merit of the Son of God who onely made satisfaction for our sinnes 28. Bellarmine heere from distinguishing falleth to rayling and accuseth vs of manifest lying and falshood in laying that to our charge which wee are not guilty of but whether is the lyar hee or wee let the Reader iudge First therefore that true repentance is not a bare sorrow of heart for sin but such a sorrow as is ioyned with and ariseth from faith appeareth by this because contrition without faith leads to desperation and not to saluation as the wofull examples of Cain Esau and Iudas declare and therefore the Romanists themselues doe not exclude all manner of faith from repentance but onely that faith which apprehendeth remission of sinnes by Christ which speciall faith whereby remission of sinnes is beleeued and obtained is ioyned with repentance Luke 24. 47. Act. 26. 18. This is our doctrine and it is warranted by the holy Scripture though it pleaseth Bellarmine to say that it is a
bare assertion without Scripture 29. As touching their crossing of it wee need fetch no other proofe then from the Councill of Trent which in expresse words denounceth Anathema to those that make this faith whereby wee beleeue the remission of our sinnes a necessary ingredient into true repentance and yet it propoundeth reconciliation and remission of sinnes to such as doe repent let all the world therefore know to the eternall shame of the Romish Religion that remission of sinnes and reconciliation by their doctrine may bee obtained by repentance without faith then which what can bee more opposite to the Gospell of Iesus Christ 30. If they reply that they make faith the foundation of repentance I answere why doe they then exclude it out of repentance is the foundation no part of the house yes it is the chiefest part either therefore it is not the foundation of repentance or els it is necessarily required to the essence of it one or the other must needs bee false but heere is the mystery of this iniquity by faith they meane nor a beliefe of the remission of our sinnes by the bloud of Christ which is the true Euangelicall faith but a generall perswasion of the truth of their Religion and a particular conceit that he which performeth the worke of penance in the three parts thereof shall thereby obtaine pardon of his sinnes and reconciliation with God 31. Secondly whereas hee sayth that wee doe not satisfie for the eternall but for the temporall punishments of our sinnes either heere in this life or in Purgatory hee speaketh nothing for the clearing of their doctrine from opposition to the Gospell for the Gospell teacheth that Christ our Redeemer hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for the sinnes of all the world yeelding a sufficient and worthy recompence and contentment to God for them and therefore they which say that wee must giue any manner of satisfaction our selues whether for the temporall or eternall punishment due vnto them doe euidently crosse the doctrine of the Gospell And this Aquinas one of their owne illumined Doctors doth in effect confesse when hee sayth that the passion of Christ was a sufficient and super abundant satisfaction for the sinne and guilt of punishment of mankind his passion was as it were a price or paiment by which we are freed from both these obligations to bring in then the foggy mist of humane satisfactions is to eclipse and darken the glory of Christs all-sufficient redemption 32. Thirdly whereas hee findeth fault with Chytraus for saying without proofe that auricular confession is not commanded of God and yet hee himselfe doth not proue it is we might driue out one naile with another and returne vpon him his owne answere but I reply further that diuers of his owne fellow Doctors haue auouched asmuch for Maldonate Erasmus the glosse in Gratian and Gratian himselfe and Rhenanus with diuers others are of the same minde as may appeare in the texts quoted in the margent whose wordes I forbeare to set downe because I shall haue occasion to handle the same in a more proper place one thing I cannot omit that the testimony of Rhenanus is so plaine that our aduersaries not able to giue answere sufficient vnto it haue by their peremptory authority said Deleatur let it bee blotted out as they deale also with Polidore Virgill in the like point and with all other that stand in their way 33. Lastly the redeeming of penance by the purse though Bellarmine shuffle it ouer neuer so cunningly yet is so palpable an abuse and so contrary to the doctrine of the Gospell that the very naming of it is a sufficient declaration of the foulnesse of that Religion which maketh a mart of sinne and setteth repentance which is the gift of God to sale for a little earthly drosse and exchangeth punishment due to the body and soule for a little pinching of the purse 34. The Gospell teacheth that marriage is permitted and set free for all men both Priests and people and that the prohibition of marriage and meats is a doctrine of Deuils But the Romish Religion forbids marriage to a great part of men to wit Priests and Monkes and commands to abstaine from certaine meates vpon certaine dayes 35. Bellarmine excepteth and saith by a distinction that when the Apostle sayth Marriage is honourable amongst all men hee meaneth not all in generall for then it should bee honorable betwixt the father and the daughter the brother and the sister but onely those that are lawfully ioyned together which they that are bound with a vow cannot bee 36. It is a strange fore-head but no maruaile seeing it is the fore-head of the whore of Babylon when the Scripture sayth Marriage is honorable amongst al men to exempt their Votaries from this honour as if they were not in the number of men but beasts and as the assertion is strange in impudency so the reason is more strange in folly for though the father may not marry the daughter nor the brother the sister without incest yet the father may marry and the daughter may marry and the brother and the sister also so that they take those that are not prohibited by the Law of God and nature Now let him shew that Gods Law forbiddeth Votaries to marry and then hee sayth something to the purpose but by his owne confession together with many of his pew-fellowes the prohibition of marriage is no diuine but humane ordinance and institution yea the Councill of Trent it selfe calleth it but an Ecclesiasticall Law and therefore not a Law of God but a decree of the Church 37. Adde to this impudency and folly his crossing of all antiquity for in the Councill of Nice Paphnutius alleadgeth this place of Scripture against those that went about to take away the vse of marriage from the Clergie and in the sixt generall Synode it is expressely applied to the same purpose And Ierome in defence of Charterius a married Bishop produceth the same text 38. As touching Chrysostomes speech to Theodorus the Monke alledged by Bellarmine though it seemeth a little to fauour them at the first view yet in another place he cleereth himselfe from that suspition for he saith plainely that Marriage is so honourable and precious that a man with it may ascend into the sacred Chaire of a Bishop What hath Bellarmine got now by Chrysostomes testimony Surely this If all that Chrysostome saith bee sound doctrine then it is an error in the Church of Rome to inhibite all that are consecrated by holy Orders from the vse of the marriage bed For by Chrysostome Bishops may marry Saint Augustines testimonies alledged by him in the one and twentieth Chapter are little to the purpose for in the first he saith plainely that the Church of God doth not forbid marriage but onely preferre virginitie before it as a greater good and in the second hee approoueth onely abstinence from
it had bene a truth vpon so fit an occasion neuer preferred Peter but exhorteth all and so Peter also to equality and humility yea not onely so but expressely forbad all king-like and monarchicall superiority amongst them and not onely tyrannicall as Bellarmine would haue it as may euidently appeare by comparing Luk. 22. 26. with 1. Pet. 5. 3. 52. Thus hee confesseth their doctrine next he commeth to distinguish of it namely that their Apostolicall power was equall in respect of the people but yet not equall betweene themselues in which respect Peter was not onely a common Pastour with his fellow Apostles but extraordinarily pastor pastoruÌ„ a Pastour of the Pastours that is of the Apostles theÌ„selues this is his distinction but it is idle and vaine as may appeare by this reason because if he were the chiefe Pastour of the Apostles then he either ordained them to their offices or fed them with his doctrine or gouerned them by his authority or did some part of the office of a Pastour vnto them but hee neither ordained them for Christ himselfe did that norâ—ed them with doctrine for they were all taught of God and equally receiued the holy Ghost which did lead them into all truth nor gouerned them for they sent him hee did not send them and called him to an account he did not call them and therefore was no wayes to be esteemed their Pastour and super-intendent but their equall and Co-Apostle 53. And whereas hee defendeth the extrauagant of Pope Boniface which is so rightly termed for containing a most extrauagant doctrine from the truth hee must needs defend this double iurisdiction by the speech of Peter to our Sauior Ecce duo gladii behold heere are two swords and his answere to the same It is enough with how absurd a collection it is let his owne fellowes bee Iudges Franciscus de Victoria Stella Maldonate Arias Montanus and Suares the Iesuite All which with many others reiect this collection of theirs as most absurd and impertinent I conclude if Pope Boniface did extrauagate in that extrauagant in the application of this place why doe they hold that the Pope cannot erre iudicially If hee did not whydoe so many learned men of his owne side contradict him Either sure the Popes two swords are ruâ—â—ie and cannot bee vnsheathed or els hee would neuer suffer his authority to bee thus diminished not onely by his enemies but euen by those that fight vnder his owne banner And thus this Antithesis also stands vnblemished for all that is yet said to the contrary 54. The Gospell teacheth that there is but one Mediator betwixt God and man euen the God-man Iesus Christ and that hee beeing the onely Propitiatour is also the onely Mediatour But the Church of Rome teacheth that as many Saints as are in Heauen so many Mediatours and Intercessours wee haue to God and among the rest the blessed Virgin the mother of our Lord whom they call their Aduocatresse Deliueresse Mediatresse Sauiouresse and Comfortresse 55. Bellarmine seeketh to escape from this Contradiction by a threefold distinction first hee sayth that Christ indeed is the onely Mediatour of redemption because hee onely made reconciliation betwixt God and vs by paying the ransome for our sinnes but neuerthelesse the Saints are Mediatours of intercession by praying for vs. This he barely affirmeth without any proofe and therefore it seemeth he would haue vs take it vpon his word for current coyne without any tryall but wee haue learned out of Gods word to try the spirits and to weigh all such ware in the balance of the Sanctuary and therefore finding by the Scripture that Christ did not onely pay the ransome for our sinnes but also that hee maketh request for vs. and not finding in all the booke of God that the Saints in Heauen either doe present our prayers vnto God or make request for our particular necessities wee haue iust cause to reiect this distinction as too light ware and as counterfeit coyne 56. I but sayth hee the Saints triumphant pray for the Saints militant therefore they are their Mediators I answere Though it be granted that they do pray for them in generall which indeed is not denyed and in particular which can neuer be proued yet the argument hath no good consequence that therefore they should bee our Mediatours for as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth A Mediatour must bee a middle-man differing from each party at variance after some sort but the Saints triumphant are not mediâ— betwixt God and vs both because in presence they are alwayes with God and neuer with vs and also in semblance more like to God then vnto vs for they are perfectly happy holy and righteous we beeing miserable sinfull and wicked and in knowledge they are satisfied with heauenly obiects and haue no participation with humane affaires being therefore thus far remooued from vs and so neere knit vnto God in all these by his owne rule they cannot any wayes bee our Mediatours neither of redemption nor intercession 57. His second distinction is that Christ is called the onely Mediatour because hee is the Mediatour not onely in regard of his office but also of his nature for that hee is in the middest betwixt God and man hee himselfe beeing God and man To which I answere that it is most true which hee sayth but yet it is both contrary to that which hee himselfe hath deliuered elsewhere and also ouerthroweth that which hee holdeth heere for the first he laboureth to proue in another place that Christ is the Mediatour onely in respect of his humane nature and here hee sayth in respect of both natures how can these bee reconciled mary by another distinction It is one thing sayth hee to bee a Mediatour in respect of person and another thing in respect of operation in the first Christ is the Mediatour by both natures in the second by his humane nature onely As if hee did not operate and worke the Mediation in the same respect that hee is Mediatour I but hee will say the chiefe worke of our redemption was the death of Christ but the God-head cannot dye therfore c. I answere Though Christ died as he was man yet the person that died was God and man for as Tolet his fellow Iesuite and Cardinall obserueth Christ dyed not as other men in whose power it is not either to hold the soule in the body or to recall it backe againe being expelled but Christ ioyned his soule and body together at his pleasure as hee that holding a sword in one hand and a scabbard in another puls it out or thrusts it in at his pleasure By which it is plaine that though Christ dyed in respect of his man-hood yet the author of his death was his God-head so he is our Mediatour in both natures Secondly he ouerthroweth his own positioÌ„ by this distinctioÌ„ for first if Christ bee the only Mediatour in respect of office and
of God A dead man cannot moue the members of the body nor vse the naturall saculties of the soule no more can the vnregenerate mooue one haire bredth to Heauen-ward nor vse any graces of the Spirit A dead man hath no sense nor feeling though hee bee neuer so sharply handled seeth not though the Sunne shineth neuer so bright heareth not though a trumpet be sounded in his eare no more can the vnregenerat feele the wounds of Gods Lawes heare the sound of the Gospell nor see the cleare light of truth that shinethround about him Lastly in a dead man there is a separation of the soule froÌ„ the body so in the vnregenerate there is a separation of Gods Spirit from the soule which is the soule of the soule For this cause S. Aug. likened the vnregenerate man to the Shunamites sonne beeing dead whom the Prophet Elizeus raised from death to life and others to Lazarus stinking in the graue or to the widowes sonne of Naiâ—â— lying dead vpon the beare or to Iairus daughter that was dead in the house noting three degrees of sinnes one more notorious then the other yet all in the state of death vntill Christ by his Spirit shall inspire life into them and this is the perfect analogy and proportion betwixt a dead man and a sinner and therefore Bellarmines exception is false that they doe not agree in all things for there is nothing wherein they doe agree not if the comparison bee rightly proportioned 82. Secondly if they did disagree in other things yet in this wherein lyeth the life of the similitude they must needs agree that as a dead man hath nothing whereby he can helpe himselfe for the recouery of his life so man spiritually dead hath nothing in him no faculty or power of the soule whereby he can any way further the obtaining of his coÌ„uersioÌ„ And this was Saint Augustines opinion agreeable to the Gospell for his words are plaine concerning Pauls conuersion that he was called from Heauen and by that mighty and effectuall calling conuerted Gratia Deisolaerat It was onely the grace of God And no otherwise did Iustine Martyr conceiue thereof when hee sayth That as to haue beeing at the first when wee are created was not of our selues so to choose and follow that which is pleasing to God is not by vs but by his perswading and mouing vs to the faith In this therefore which is the point of the question the similitude holds most strongly and so Bellarmines exception is nothing to the purpose 83. Thirdly and lastly it is most absurd of all which hee sayth that because a sinner liueth naturally therefore he moueth towards grace more then a dead carkas to nature which hath no life at all for in respect of grace it is all one to haue no life at all and to haue no life of the Spirit For nothing can worke aboue the compasse of it owne beeing Naturall life cannot tranicend the Spheare of nature nor any way moue to the Spheare of grace For as Plants that liue the vegetatiue life cannot arise to the sensitiue life which is in beasts nor they to the rationall which is in men So neither can these arise vp any whit to the life of the Spirit which is in Gods Saints till a new life bee inspired into them which new life as it is the conuersion of the soule to God so it is the foundation of all spirituall actions seeing life in euery kinde is the foundation of all the actions in that kind For vntill there bee life in a plant it doth not grow vntill it bee in a beast it doth not moue nor feele vntill in a man hee doth not thinke speake or remember and so vntill this life of the Spirit bee in the soule it cannot will nor worke any thing that is good Therefore I conclude that though a sinner liue naturally yet beeing dead to grace that that life doth no more helpe to his conuersion then the sensitiue life of a beast doth to the obtaining of reason or the vegetatiue life of a Plant to the obtaining of sense 84. The Gospell teacheth that all should read the Scriptures for so our Sauiour chargeth and his Apostles Paul and Peter and Iohn charge not Priests onely but all others And Abraham sendeth the rich Gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets And the Eunuch is not rebuked but approued by Philip for reading the Prophesie of Esay And the Bereans are commended for examining Pauls doctrine by the Scripture which should neuer haue beene if it had not beene lawfull for them to doe it This is the doctrine of the Gospell most plaine and euident But the Church of Rome teacheth that all men must not read the Scripture to wit Laymen except they bee permitted by their Ordinary because pearles are not to bee cast amongst swine nor a sword or a knife put into a childes hand nor occasion of errour offered to the ignorant nor matter of offence to the weake as also because they are more obscure then can bee vnderstood of the Laicks and common sort of people Thus they paint ouer the foule wrinkled face of Iezabel with false colours but yet the contrariety is plaine All ought to read the Scriptures and some ought not to read the Scriptures The one is the doctrine of Iesus Christ The other of the Pope and his Church 85. But Bellarmine distinguisheth two wayes First that there is a double way of knowing the Scriptures one by hearing and another by reading The first is commanded to all and therefore necessary to be vsed of all But this last is not commanded to any but to the Clergie and those whom they shall thinke fit to read them with profit and without danger But who seeth not that when our Sauiour willeth to search the Scriptures hee speaketh of reading And when the Bereans examined Pauls sermon by the Scriptures they did it by reading And when Abraham remitteth Diues brethren to Moses and the Prophets hee sendeth them to reading For Moses and the Prophets were dead in their persons and liued onely in their writings And lastly when the Apostles wrote their Epistles to the seuerall Churches they wrote them to this end that they might bee read of all For so Saint Paul chargeth the Colossians after they had read the Epistle that they themselues would cause it also to bee read in the Church of the Laodiceans Besides if it bee a dangerous thing for the ignorant to read the Scriptures for feare they should peruert the sense so fal into heresie or impiety then much more dangerous is the hearing of it seeing there is no preaching so pure as the word it selfe man euer mixing some dregs of his own corruption with the pure wine of the word nor any preacher so sincere but he doth often erre and so the hearer being debarred from trying his doctrine by the touchstone of the Scripture must needs irrecouerably fall into
haue no colour of defence And so this doctrine doth not onely vphold ignorance in the simple but also herefie among the learned As for example to prooue the intercession and patronage of the Virgine Mary they alledge that text of Genesis falsely translated Ipsa conteret caput Serpentis She shall bruise the Serpents head whereas the Hebrew truth hath most euidently He or It meaning the Seede of the woman and not Shee Againe to prooue their Masse Sacrifice they alledge that of Gen. 14. 18. Melchizedek obtulit panem vinum erat enim sacerdos whereas in the Hebrew text is no word that signifieth to offer but to bring foorth and the coniunction causall is also wanting They extenuate originall sinne by the corrupt translation of that text Gen. 8. 21. For whereas in the originall it is Figmentum cordis est tantum malum The frame of the heart is onely euill their translation hath The cogitation of mans heart is prore vnto euill To prooue their inuocation of Saints they obiect that of Iobs thus translated Ad aliquem Sanctorum conuertere which in the Hebrew is not an affirmatiue proposition but an Ironical Interrogation thus To which of the Saint wilt thou turne To proue that no man can be sure of the remission of his sinnes and saluation they alledge that corrupted text Eccles 9. 1. Nescit homo vtrum amore vel odio dignus sit whereas in the originall it is nothing but thus No man knoweth loue or hatred all things are before him That their Church cannot erre they labour to prooue by the promise of our Sauiour Ioh. 14. 26. where their translation thus speaketh Spiritus sanctus suggeret vobis omnia quaeâ—unque dixerâ— vobis but in the originall it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quaecunque dixi vobis Whatsoeuer I haue told you That Matrimony is a Sacrament they prooue by that place Ephes 5. 32. where their translation hath a Sacrament for a Mysterie So for their Merite of works they produce Heb. 13. where in their translation the word Merite is vsed which is not extant in the Greeke So to prooue that after Baptisme there remaine no Relikes of sinne they vse that text Heb. 9. 28. Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata now where all is drawne out there nothing remaineth and yet in the originall there is no such word Lastly the Councill of Trent it selfe to prooue that the Church may dispense with the Sacraments contrary to Christs institution and alter them abuseth that text 1. Cor. 4. 1. where the Ministers are called Dispensatores mysteriorum Dei whereas the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth no such matter Thus wee â—ee great cause why they should stand vpon this vulgar Latine onely because it affoords vnto them such pregnant proofes for the defence of their grosse errors It defends them and their errors therefore they haue reason to defend it And thus by forbidding the Scriptures to bee read of the people they multiply ignorance and by allowing onely their Latine translation for authenticall they hatch heresie 14. Secondly their doctrine which commandeth Prayers to be made publikely and priuately in an vnknowne tongue tendeth to the same end for though touching priuate prayers they agree not amongst themselues some affirming that the people ought not to say their Pater noster Aâ—e Maria and Mattens in any tongue but the Latine because this hath beene the ancient custome of the Church as they pretend Others that it is lawfull to pray in our natiue tongues but yet if we doe pray in Latine it is not vnfruitfull Notwithstanding their continuall practice sheweth their most approoued opinion for among them all you shall hardly finde one in an age that vseth any other but Latine prayers but as for publike prayers in the Church it is the doctrine of the Councill of Trent armed with a curse that no part of the Diuine Seruice and publike Leiturgie bee celebrated in a knowne tongue Now how can this but noozle the people in ignorance when they are taught to babble out in their deuotions like Parrats without vnderstanding what they say Surely this must needes bee a blinde deuotion and an ignorantzeale when the tongue shall pray or rather prate and the heart not vnderstand what it vttereth for if true deuotion be a religious offering vp of the whole man both body and soule and euery facultie and part of both to God by way of spirituall sacrifice then certainely that cannot bee true deuotion but blinde delusion when the affection and the tongue shall bee lifted vp in prayer and in the meane while the vnderstanding shall be idle not knowing what the affection and tongue doth seeing the proper worke of the intellectiue part of the soule is to know and vnderstand which by this meanes it is depriued of And this is that which both Aquinas their Angelicall Doctor purposely confesseth and Rabbi Bellarmine also himselfe though vnawares for the one saith that he which vnderstandeth not what he prayeth is depriued of the fruit of his deuotion and the other that except the prayer be vnderstood no consolation at all can be reaped thereby Ignorance therefore must needes bee cherished by this doctrine seeing the vnderstanding which is the seat of knowledge is muffled and the best fruit that can arise hence-from is blinde zeale and ignorant deuotion by which the Iewes crucified Christ the Gentiles persecuted the Church of Christ and taught that in so doing they did God good seruice for deuotion without zeale is like an Arrow shot out of a childs Bow which falleth to the ground without doing hurt or good and zeale without knowledge is like a Shippe carryed with full winde and displayed Sailes without a Pilot to sterne and guide it in the right course 15. Thus for the maine doctrine Now the accessarie attending vpon it is more dangerous then the maine it selfe for they are taught not onely thus to pray but that these prayers are meritorious of saluation and that hee which saith a certaine number of them shall haue thus many dayes and thus many yeeres pardon as 3000. dayes for saying a short prayer in the Primer ten thousand dayes for saying fiue Pater nosters before the Vernacle twenty thousand dayes for saying a short prayer at the Leuation yea a hundred yeeres for saying our Ladyes Psalter euery Saturday yea fiue hundred yeeres for saying a short prayer which Saint Gregory made and a number such like as hath beene before sufficiently discouered Now if pardon of sinnes and saluation may be merited by mumbling vp euery day on their Beades these short and vncouth prayers what need any seeke for further knowledge in the word of God If these bee sufficient as they make the people beleeue then all further instruction must needs be thought vnnecessary and so it cannot choose but follow that a deluge of blindnesse