Popish superstition doe say that it is an ordinarie matter A wonderful superstitiō that is nourished by Images so apparent that it cannot be denied Now if this were a scandall taken and not giuen they might in some sort bee excused but it is eūidently not onely occasioned but caused by reason that both the doctrine is inuolued with so many intricate questions and distinctions that it is impossible for an ignorant person to discerne thereof and also because the Image it selfe as the Prophet Habacuck telleth vs is a teacher of lyes For which cause as Polidore Virgil reporteth the Fathers of all vices condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatrie the most execrable vice of all The second offence is to the vnconuerted Iewes who are most zealous in this point of the Law against Images insomuch as Iosephus reports of them they did hate the verie Images of men in their Heathenish Trophees as being forbidden them by God Now it is well concluded by a iudicious obseruer of the Westerne Religions and without doubt is a most true obseruation that there is no one thing in outward respects that doth ingender in the Iewes such a detestation of Christian Religion and keepe them from being conuerted as the worship of Images in the Church of Rome for they and that by good reason may thus dispute If this Religion of Christians were of God then they would not oppose themselues to the expresse Commaundement of God in worshipping Images which he hath so plainly forbidden but they oppose themselues to Gods Commandement and worship Images therefore their Religion cannot bee of God Hence it is as the former learned Relator doth report that at Rome though all the Iewes in the Citie are constrained once a yeere to come to a Christian Church and there heare a Sermon for their pretended conuersion yet when as a Fryer before the beginning of his Sermon holdeth vp a Crucifix and prayeth vnto it in their open sight they are more alienated from the Christian faith by this odious spectacle then all the reasons and arguments that he can vse are able to perswade them to the same Behold two dangerous and fearefull scandals which arise from this doctrine one to their owne weake ones of which our Sauiour saith that it were better for a man that a milstone were hanged about his necke and that hee were throwne into the Sea then that hee should offend one of them the other to the obstinate Iewes whose conuersion shall be so beneficiall to the whole world as that Saint Paul calleth it life from the dead Now our Religion is farre from giuing any such offence to one or other either in this or any other point thereof if it bee not vtterly misconstrued and misconceiued 24. Againe in their worship of Relickes there is no securitie at all both in feare of Idolatrie which may bee well committed to them if they bee true in giuing them a higher measure of adoration then they themselues allow of which is easio to bee done by the ignorant multitude and also in feare of worshipping false relickes in stead of true whereof there is no small number in the Church of Rome as hath bin alreadie declared and lasty in feare of neglecting the true members of Christ by a too sumptuous prodigalitie towards the bones of I cannot tel what dead men or other creatures as is most vsuall in their Church and that in great excesse in which respects it is without question a more safe course that all such Relickes were buried vnder the earth with due honour of Christian sepulture then that they should thus indanger both godly pietie Christian charitie And this is the conclusion of their Cassander who sayth that it is more safe rather honourably to burie those corruptible relickes and to draw the World to the worship of their spirituall relickes which neither time can corrupt nor fraud counterfeit 25. Againe they hold and teach that traditions are to bee honoured with equall affection and deuotion as is due vnto the olde and new Testament and that there are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christianitie which are neyther expressely nor obscurely contained in the Scriptures And therefore by their owne confession they build many doctrines of their Religion vpon tradition onely without Scripture and acknowledge that without tradition many of them would reele and totter The Protestants hold the contrarie and constantly affirme that the Scripture is an all-sufficient directorie and a most absolute and perfect rule for faith and manners and therefore that wee ought not to relye our faith vpon any thing but Scripture alone Now let vs consider and examine whether of these two doctrines are more safe for a man to repose his soule vpon And that our doctrine is so may appeare first by the nature of the question it selfe which is controuerted betwixt them and vs for the question is not whether the Scripture bee the Word of God or no therein wee shake hands as an vndoubted truth but whether traditions bee the Word of God or no the affirmatiue they hold wee the negatiue and that by great and strong grounds which our aduersaries themselues cannot deny but that they carrie great shew of reason and probabilitie Now whether is the safer course to relye our faith vpon those principles that are vnquestionably Gods Word or vpon those that are controuerted disputed and called in question Any man that goeth about to buy a purchase will sooner venture vpon such a title which was neuer called in question nor can indeed bee doubted of then vpon a broken disputable and vndecided title he will looke twice vpon his pennie before he part with it in such a case lest caueat emptor proue him to bee of little discretion and teach him to repent when it is too late This is the case of euerie Christian wee are to buy the truth and not to sell it as Salomon counselleth Now who will not that hath any graine of wisedome in his heart rather lay out his monie that is his soule and conscience which as Augustine calleth it is numisma Dei Godscoyne because his Image is imprinted therein for the purchase of that truth which is without all exception in the holy Scriptures then for that which is said to be in traditions but mixed with many doubts and ambiguities It is a rule in Law that abundans cautela non nocet a man cannot be too warie in making sure his title to any thing whatsoeuer How much more then should it preuaile in cases of conscience where the damage is not of house and land but of our soules which to euery man ought to be more precious then the whole world Here is an euident direction for our choice if we eyther loue the truth or our own soules which must liue by it 26. Secondly it may appeare by the perpetuall certaintie of the holy Scripture and variable
vncertaintie of vnwritten traditions for the Scripture was euer the same since it was Scripture and so shall continue to the end of the World no man daring to alter or change it to adde thereto or detract ought therfrom for feare of the curse denounced against such presumption But Traditions are and haue beene euer most variable and vnconstant some that haue beene held for Apostolical traditions being vtterly abrogated and abolished as threefold immersion or thrice dipping in baptisme for signification of the Trinitie giuing the Eucharist to infants which was vsed 600. yeeres in the Church standing in publike Prayers at Easter and Pentecost and such like and some altered and changed as deferring Baptisme vntill the feasts of Easter and Pentecost into baptizing vpon any occasion fasting vpon Wednesdayes and Saturdayes into Wednesdayes and Fridayes and so many ancient constitutions dispensed withall by the pretended Apostolicall authoritie of the Church of Rome as is confessed by them And that this is an vncontroulable truth that one famous example of the contention betwixt the East and West Churches touching the obseruation of Easter doth euince for the one side pretended a tradition from Saint Iohn and Saint Philip the other from Saint Peter and Saint Paul Now if some traditions bee thus vncertaine subiect to change abrogating dispensing and abolishing all must needs bee of the same nature and if all bee of that nature then there can be no securitie in conscience to suspend our faith vpon them the safest way therefore is to relye vpon Scripture alone the fulnesse whereof Tertullian adored and of the authoritie whereof whatsoeuer was destitute Ierome iudged to bee nothing but vaine babbling and besides the which whosoeuer teacheth any doctrine of faith Saint Augustine pronounceth anathema against him 27. Thirdly and lastly by the infallible truth which shineth in the Scriptures as the Sunne in the firmament wherein no errour euer was found no spots or blemishes as in the Moone of traditions no deceit nor misleading vnlesse in sence peruerted as by Heretikes to their owne destruction but many traditions haue beene as erronious and deceitfull in themselues so the causes of much errour in the Church witnesse Papius who as Eusebius testifieth broched many exorbitant doctrines vnder pretence of tradition from the Apostles and drew manie Ecclesiasticall Doctours moued by his antiquitie for he was Disciple to Iohn into the errour of the Chiliasts and all the ancient Heretikes almost who flying from the Scriptures did shelter themselues vnder the pretext eyther of philosophicall principles fained gospels or forged traditions and hereof many ancient traditions themselues giue pregnant euidence as those alleadged by Clemens Alexandrinus to wit Iustification by philosophie Repentance after death Preaching the Gospell to the wicked in hell which the Romanists themselues condemne or that of Cyprian touching anointing to bee vsed in Baptisme and mixing wine with water which Saint Augustine relected as erronious or that of Iraeneus who saith that it was a tradition that Christ suffered at fiftie yeeres of age which is disallowed by all sound authoritie and conuinced of errour by the Scripture it selfe Of this kind a number more might bee produced if need required but these are enough to inferre the conclusion that traditions are not of that infallible truth as the holy Scripture is but rather subiect to errour and falshood and therefore it can bee no part of Christian wisedome to repose our faith vpon them for it is to build vpon a sandie foundation which will deceiue the building in time of need 28. Auricular confession hath as little securitie in the practice of it as any of the former doctrines for first it implieth inpossibilitie of performance by requiring a perfect enumeration of all particular sinnes both secret and open and that vpon danger of damnation the absolution being frustrate if this condition bee not obserued Now because no man is able to performe this therefore no mans conscience can be assured of the remission of his sinnes by that sacramentall medicine whereas on the contrarie hee that confesseth his knowne sinnes to God and forsaketh them with a generall detestation of all other vnknowne though many escape his remembrance yet by Gods promise is sure to find mercie which is the doctrine of the Protestants This is possible and easie to be done The other impossible and improbable and that many learned of their side haue ingeniously confessed as Cassander Rhenanus with diuers others And albeit the Fathers of the Trent Councell in shew seemed to qualifie the matter with this limitation that other sinnes which do not come into the mind of the partie confessing diligently thinking vpon them are vnderstood as generally included in his confession yet the Iesuite Suarez confesseth that the Priest cannot remit any one sinne except the penitent confesse all that hee ought to confesse and Maldonate another Iesuite that because the Priest can remit no sinnes but such as he heareth confessed therefore hee that must remit all must heare all And it is plaine that whatsoeuer the Councell spake yet it meant no otherwise by the reason which they giue for necessitie of confession which is that the penitent may bee iudged whether he hath sinned or no and if hee haue in what kind and degree to the end that proportionable penance may be ioyned to his offence and therefore it is required that not onely the act of sinne but all the circumstances bee discouered Who what to what end how by what helpes where when which are the seuen circūstances attending vpon euery actiō Now how can the Priest iudge of the nature qualitie quantitie of the sin except he know it with all the circumstances if he know it not how can he enioyne a competent satisfaction And if no satisfaction be enioyned then no remission eyther of the sinne or at least releasement from the temporall punishment thereof can bee obtained What a snare are mens consciences brought into by this intricate doctrine How much freer and securer a course is it to confesse necessarily to God alone voluntarily to the Pastor in cases of distresse of conscience and want of instruction and penally to the Church in publike for satisfaction not of God but of men for some publike offence committed This is the doctrine of Protestants which as it is free from impossibilitie so it is full of safetie 29. Secondly their doctrine leaueth the conscience in doubt whether the sinne bee truly pardoned or no by the absolution of the Priest for the Priest being a man is vnable to search into the heart of a sinner and so consequently may erre in the vse of the key for if the Confessor bee an Hypocrite though he make a true relation of all his sinnes with all their circumstances and be therefore absolued by the Priest yet it is certaine that such an one is not absolued in Heauen but stands lyable to Gods
glory of God and the merits of Christ And therefore the conclusion must needs follow being built vpon an vnmooueable foundation that that Religion which maintaineth such doctrines is not the truth of Christ but the seduction of Antichrist MOTIVE V. That Religion deserueth to be suspected which refuseth to be tryed by the Scriptures as the perfect and alone rule of faith and will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe But such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe first proposition in this Argument though it be most true and cannot without any shew of reason be contradicted yet that it may be without all doubt and exception it shall not be amisse to strengthen the same by sound and euident proofes deriued both out of Gods word and consent of ancient Fathers The Proposition consists of two parts first that it cannot be the true Religion which will not abide the alone tryall of the Scriptures Secondly that it will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe let vs consider of both these seuerally 2. And concerning the first if the Scripture be the fountaine of all true religion the foundation and basis of our faith the Canon and rule of all the doctrines of faith and the touch-stone to trye truth from falshood then to refuse to be iudged and tryed by the Scriptures alone is plainely to discouer that there is something in it which issued not from that fountain which is not built vpon that foundation which is so oblique and crooked that it dares not to be applyed to that rule and which is counterfeit and dares not abide the touchstone Now that the Scripture is such as I haue said let the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture beare witnesse Search the Scripture saith our Sauiour for in them you thinke to haue eternall life and they be they which testifie of me therefore the Scripture is the fountaine of all true religion for what is the Religion of Christians but the right knowledge of Christ Iesus This caused Saint Paul to say I desire to know nothing but Christ Iesus and him crucified Againe the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesus and are profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute and perfect to euery good worke Therefore the Scripture is the onely fountaine of true Religion for what is true Religion but spirituall wisedome and holy perfection the one in contemplation the other in action the one in knowledge the other in practice for these two ioyned together do make a man truly religious but the Scriptures afford both as it is cleare in that saying of S. Paul and may be confirmed by another like speech of Salomon who affirmeth that the commandements of God will make a man to vnderstand righteousnesse and iudgement and equity and euery good path Righteousnesse and iudgement pertaine to knowledge equity and euery good path belong to practice And for this cause Origen compareth the Scriptures to Iacobs Well from whence not onely Iacob and his sonnes that is the learned and the skilfull but his sheepe and cattell that is the simple and ignorant doe drinke that is deriue vnto themselues the waters of life and saluation and therefore where the knowledge of the Scriptures flourished not as among all the Heathen both Romanes Grecians and Barbarians before their conuersion there no true Religion shewed it selfe but their Religion was all false and deuillish for in stead of the true God they worshipped dumb creatures and mortall men yea deuils themselues as Lactantius sheweth All which proceeded from hence that they had not the word of God for their guide which is the onely fountaine and well-spring of true Religion 3. Againe as it is the fountaine from whence so it is the foundation vpon which our faith relieth whether wee take faith for the act of beleeuing or for the matter and obiect of our beliefe Ye are built saith S. Paul vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Christ Iesus himselfe being the chiefe corner stone By the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine as all Expositours that I haue read yea their owne Aquinas and Caietane with one consent auouch and to bee built vpon this foundation is to haue our faith to relye and depend vpon it onely as a house relyeth onely vpon the foundation and without a foundation cannot stand that therefore is no doctrine of faith that is vpholden by any other foundation neither hath that any good foundation which is not built vpon the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine they build vpon sand that build vpon humane traditions euery stormy puffe of winde will shake the house of that faith but they which heare the word of Christ and keepe it build vpon a rocke against which neither the raine flouds nor windes no not the gates of hell are able to preuaile because they are grounded vpon the rocke which rocke indeede is Christ to speake properly as not onely S. Peter confesseth 1. Pet. 2. 7. but euen Christ himselfe that is this rocke Math. 16. 18. when hee saith Vpon this rocke will I build my Church that is vpon this truth that Christ is the Sonne of God yet the word of Christ may also be called the rocke because it is as firme and durable as Christ himselfe And that wee may know that Gods word onely is the foundation of faith S. Paul telleth vs plainely that faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God If any of them say as they doe that the word of God is not onely that which is written in Scripture but that which is vnwritten deliuered by tradition let them shew as good reasons to proue their traditions to be the word of God as we doe to proue the Scripture and we will beleeue them but since they cannot let them beare with vs if we vnderstand the Apostles words as spoken onely touching the written word and the rather because we haue for the warrantize of our interpretation both S. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter verse 8. when he saith This is the word offaith which we preach Where hee sheweth what is that word which is the ground of our faith namely the word preached And S. Peter who hauing magnified the word of God with this commendation that it endureth for euer presently expoundeth himselfe of what word hee spake saying And this is that word which is preached amongst you That is the word of the Gospell which was not in part but wholy and fully as preached by mouth so committed to writing And thus S. Basil also interprets it for he saith Quicquid est vltra scripturas Whatsoeuer is out of the Scriptures diuinely inspired because it is not of faith is sinne for faith is by hearing and hearing by
the word of God Now from hence thus I reason If the word of God written be the onely ground of faith then that Religion which will not acknowledge it dependance onely vpon the word written is not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious but the word written is the onely ground of faith as hath beene proued therefore that Religion which disclaymeth it dependance only vpon the word deserues iustly not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious And in this regard the Romish Religion though it be in our Pater noster to wit vnder the last petition Deliuer vs from euill yet it should neuer come into our Creed to repose our faith and our saluation vpon it 4. Thirdly the Scripture as it is the fountaine and foundation of true Religion So it is the rule of faith and the touchstone of doctrines and the ballance of the Sanctuarie to weigh truth and falshood in that the one may be discerned from the other This the Prophet Esay teacheth when hee calleth vs to the Law and to the Testimonie saying that if any speake not according to that word there is no light in them From which place thus I reason that whereunto we must resort in all controuersies and doubts for resolution that is the rule of faith but such is the Scripture by the testimonie of the Prophet therefore the Scripture is the rule of faith In like manner we may conclude out of S. Peter who saith that We haue a more sure word of the Prophets whereunto wee must take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place till the Day-starre arise in our hearts If the word of the Prophets was a sure direction to the Church of God before the Gospell was written then much more is the whole Scripture contayning the word of the Prophets and of the Apostles together but S. Peter affirmeth the first therefore the second must needs follow For this cause when one asked our Sauiour what hee might doe to bee saued hee referred him to the Scripture for his direction What is written how readest thou And so Abraham referreth the rich gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets and Christ telleth the Saduces that this was the cause of their errour because they knew not the Scriptures Out of all which Texts thus I argue If there were any other rule of faith besides the sacred Scripture our Sauiour and Saint Peter would neuer haue sent vs ouer to the Scripture alone but would haue poynted out vnto vs some other meanes but they send vs to the Scripture alone and therefore that alone is the rule and ballance of our faith 5. And this the very title and inscription of the Scripture doth intimate for why is it called Canonicall but because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life The Fathers with one consent agree in this truth Saint Basil calls the Scripture Canonem recti normam veritatis The Canon of right and the rule of truth Chrysostome sayth that Assertio diuinarum legum c. The assertion of the law of God is a most exact Ballance Squire and Rule Saint Augustine calleth it Statera diuina Gods ballance or a diuine ballance these bee his words Non afferamus stateras dolosas Let vs not bring deceitfull ballances to weigh what we will and how we will saying This is heauie that is light but let vs bring that diuine ballance out of the holy Scriptures as it were out of the Lords treasurie and by it weigh all things or rather acknowledge them being weighed by the Lord. Tertullian giueth to the Scripture the same name so doth Gregory Nyssen and our Countriman venerable Bede to passe ouer all the rest as he is reported by Gratian in his decrees telleth vs in most plaine termes that In sacris literis vnica est credendi pariter viuendi regula praescripta The onely rule both of Faith and Life is prescribed vnto vs in the holy Scriptures Now if this be so as it is meere madnesse to affirme the contrary then that religion which doth refuse to be tryed by this rule and to be weighed in this ballance doth giue iust cause of suspition that it is but light stuffe and crooked ware 6. If a man should offer to his creditor a piece of gold for payment and should refuse to haue it either tryed by the touch-stone or weighed in the ballance he might iustly suspect that it was but either light or counterfeit so may any of good sense rightly suspect that religion to bee both light and counterfet which refuseth to be examined by the rule of Gods word especially which is the second branch of the first proposition if it not onely refuse to be tryed by the Scripture but also will admit no tryall nor Iudge but it selfe for as by reason wee conclude that such a man hath an euill cause in hand who in Westminster Hall refuseth to haue his matter tryed by the law and will admit no Iudge but his own opinion that man to be guilty which standing at the bar of iustice accused of some great crime denyeth to be tryed by the verdict of his Country according to the law so likewise the cause of Religion being called in question that must needs in any equall iudgement bee deemed vnsound and guilty which will not stand to the verdict and sentence of the Prophets and Apostles who are the Iury to trye all cases of conscience and of the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture who is the onely Iudge to heare and determine all questions of doubt which may arise in matters of faith and will be censured and iudged by none but it selfe 7. Against this truth all the Romanists and especially the Iesuites and of the Iesuites chiefly Bellarmine conflict and fight with foote and horse sailes and oares tooth and naile and all they can doe for herein lyeth the very bloud and life of their Religion And if this bee wrung from them that the Scripture is the onely iudge and rule of faith Actum est de regno Pontificio The Romish kingdome goeth to wracke vtterly and therefore they mainely contend to proue first that the Scripture is not the Iudge of controuersies secondly that it is not properly the rule of faith and if it bee a Iudge it is a dumbe one that cannot speake and if it be a Rule it is a partiall and imperfect one not totall and absolute 8. These two positions Bellarmine laboureth to prooue by many sorts of Arguments first from testimonies of the Olde Testament secondly from testimonies of the New thirdly by the authority of Bishops and Emperours fourthly by the witnesse of the Fathers lastly by reason I passe ouer the foure first sorts of Arguments as being sufficiently answered by others and come to the last which are deriued from reason the slightnesse whereof doth plainely discouer the vanity of this their opinion
some one place he leaueth it in suspense in others and vtterly denyeth it in a third as for example in his Enchiriden he speaketh thus waueringly Such a thing is not incredible to bee after this life but whether it be or no it may be doubted and in a sermon hee seemeth vtterly to deny it when hee sayth There are two places and there is not a third we are ignorant of a third yea we finde in the Scripture that there is none such Againe it is to bee obserued that those Fathers which doe patronize this Purgatory yet propound it not as an article of faith but as a free opinion to bee receiued or contradicted as men thought good or saw reason and these also were none of the most ancient For Bellarmine climmeth no higher for it then to Athanasius Basill and Gregory Nazianzene for as for Dyonisius all knew him to bee a counterfeit but those liued after the age of the Primitiue Church as for those Fathers which liued in those purer times there is not a sillable found in them for the defence thereof Lastly it is not to bee forgotten that their owne Roffensis doth auerre that whoseeuer shall read the Greeke Fathers shall finde none or very rare mention of Purgatory and that all the Latine Fathers did not at the first apprehend it and that it was not a long time vniuersally beleeued in the Church but came in by little and little These things laide together doe demonstratiuely shew that Romish Purgatory was not an article of faith in the Primitiue Church but a late deuice brought in by a vaine feare and false and lying apparitions and maintained euer after by the smell of gaine and profit which â—accreweth thereby to the Popes purse and for the maintenance of his pompe and pride which otherwise would soone fall to the ground 67. Lastly to tye vp for breuities sake many points in one bundle prayer for the dead as it is vsed in the Church of Rome hath no ground of antiquity For though it cannot be denyed but that it hath beene an ancient custome in the Church and frequently vsed by the ancient Farthers yet their manner of praying was not of that nature as it is now in the Romish Synagogue For first the Ancients prayed for those whom they were perswaded to bee already in blisse as hath beene formerly declared but the Romanists say that such prayers are auaileable onely for soules tormented in the fire of Purgatory and that wee may not pray either for the blessed or the damned Secondly many of the Ancients suppose that all soules were reserued in a certaine secret place from the presence of God which they called Abrahams bosome Paradise the port of security the outward court of Heauen c. And therefore could not pray for their deliuerance from Purgatory as the Romanists doe Thirdly when the Ancients did pray for the Saints departed they did it as Bellarmine confesseth not in regard of any misery wherein their soules were but for the glorifying of their bodies in the day of the generall resurrection but the Romish prayers are onely for those that are in paines that they might bee deliuered Lastly the Ancients speake of the matter doubtfully as Saint Augustine with a peraduenture and as of a laudable custome receiued in the Church but not as a doctrine of absolute necessity but the Romanists obtrude it as an article of faith and call them Heretikes that deny the same and therefore though in generall prayer for the dead bee ancient yet Romish prayer is an Innouation declining from antiquity both in the obiect and subiect manner and end 68. So auricular confession is of like nature with the former For we confesse that confession was ancient but Auricular Romish confession is but a late vpstart both in respect of the absolute necessity of it which was brought in by Pope Innocent the third beeing before accounted but onely profitable and not necessary as in the Councill of Cabilon secondly in respect of the priuatenesse for Maldonate a Iesuite confesseth that for a long time in the Primitine Church there was none but publike confession thirdly in respect of the exact enumeration of all finnes with the circumstances which implyeth an impossibility for their owne Rhenanus confesseth that this is a deuterosis or late inuention of the Schoolemen neither indeed can a patterne bee giuen of it in all antiquity And lastly in respect of the merite which by the Church of Rome iâ— ascribed to the very act done thereof of which there is not the least mention in any of the Ancients In a word what need wee seeke further seeing wee haue the free confession of their Glosse vpon Gratian who affirmeth that this auriculaer confession is more truely saide to haue beene ordained by a tradition of the Church then by any authority either of the old or new Testament 69. So the exact number of seuen Sacraments which is an article of the Trentish Creede fortifyed with the greatest curse against all that shall say that there are either more or fewer is indirectly confessed to bee a nouelty by the Iesuite Suarez for hee sayth that the Council of Florence did but insinuate this truth and the Councill of Trent did expressely define it by which it is euident that it was but an insinuation in the Councill of Florence and no article of faith till the Councill of Trent and therefore an Innouation And directly by Cassander who sayth that vntill the dayes of Peter Lumbard wee shall scarce finde any author who set downe a certaine and definite number of Sacraments and to put the matter out of doubt it is confessed that this truth as they call it is not found in the Scripture but founded vpon Ecclesiasticall tradition And although Bellarmine laboureth to prooue out of Scripture them seuen none els to be properly Sacraments yet it is with as euill successe as Tyrabosco the Patriarke of Venice did extract the iust number of seuen from the miracle of fiue loaues and two fishes For first his owne Pew-fellowes disclaime some one some another of them as Durand doth Matrimony to bee properly a Sacrament because it hath not the vertue of conferring grace and Bonauenture extreame vnction to bee instituted by Christ and Aleusis and Holâ—ot did the like touching confirmation and also because his proofes are so friuolous oftentimes that a recitation of them is a sufficient refutation as for example to prooue that there is a promise of sauing grace in the conferring of orders he alledgeth 1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6. where Timothy is charged and admonished not to neglect but to stir vp the grace that was in him which was giuen to him by prophecy with the imposition of hands of the Eldership Here indeed is grace giuen to Timothy at his ordination but first it could not bee sauing grace because hee was before that conuerted and beleeued
iudgement because there must be by their doctrine aswell contrition in heart as confession in the mouth or else no pardon can follow but a Priest cannot discerne of the heart Nay further many if not most of their Romish shauelings are vnable to iudge of the nature and qualitie of sin much more of the quantitie and degrees thereof so consequently can neither impose a iust or proportionable satisfaction without which no releasement nor make the partie vnderstand the ease hee standeth in that hee may take vpon himselfe voluntarie penance or if need bee purchase indulgence from the Pope In all which respects it is danger to trust our soules vpon such a slipperie foundation but hee that confesseth to God his sinnes and expecteth pardon at his hand onely is sure that hee discerneth the secrets of the heart and that he shutteth and no man openeth and openeth and no man shutteth and therefore if hee absolue though all the World condemne hee is on a sure ground and if hee condemne though all the World acquite hee is in a miserable case In this doctrine there is no vncertainty but strong comfort to the penitent sinner and terrour of conscience to the obstinate and vnrepentant 30. If they say that the absolution of a Priest is certaine vnlesse there bee a barre in him that confesseth because our Sauiour saith Whosoeuers sinnes you remit they are remitted and whosoeuers sinnes yee retaine they are retained I answer that first de facto the Priest may erre but God cannot Secondly he cannot choose but erre in absoluing if the penitent doe erre in confessing which hee is verie likely to doe and thirdly that when God purposeth to absolute a sinner no barie can hinder the performance thereof yea hee infuseth grace into his soule to hate his sinne and power to forsake it Is it not better then to trust vnto God then to man and safer to confesse our sinnes to him that hath absolute power to pardon them then to a Priest whose pardon depends vpon the vncertaintie of a mans true confession These things be so cleare that no reasonable man can doubt of the truth of them 31. Lastly confession to God hath manifest and vndeniable grounds in holy Scripture but auricular Romish confession to a Priest is by the iudgement of their greatest Clarkes taken vp onely by a tradition of the Church and not by any authoritie of the olde and new Testament witnesse their Canon Law Panormitane Peresius Petrus Oxoniensis Bonauenture Medina Rhenanus Erasmus with many more and though the new Iesuites and Rhemists auouch the contrarie yet they but therein crosse their fellowes as learned and wise as themselues and yet are not able to alleadge any one direct proofe of their opinion Now is it not a safer practice to build vpon Scripture then tradition that is vpon God then man And to chuse that kind of confession which no man doubteth to be warranted from God rather then that which the Patrones thereof themselues are at variance from whom it commeth who that hath eyes seeth not which of these is rather to be chosen 32. Touching Purgatorie it breedeth diuers dangerous consequences as to their holy Pope first who taketh vpon him to haue plenarie power ouer all creatures especially ouer the soules in Purgatorie which the Canonists call peculium Papae the Popes peculiar for it proueth him eyther to bee a lying Prophet or a cruell Tyrant if hee haue full power ouer them why doth hee let so many thousand poore soules lye frying there without release His suffering them to continue in that cruell torment argueth him either to want power to relieue them or mercie to put that power in execution both which are vnbeseeming qualities for Christs Vicar If they reply against this as Antoninus doth and say that in respect of his absolute Iurisdiction he may absolue all that are in Purgatorie but if we regard the orderly execution thereof in that respect the Pope may not nor ought so to doe I say againe But why ought hee not if it bee in his power is it for feare to fill Heauen too soone with Saints but that would be a great blessing for then the consummation of all things would the sooner come or is it for feare lest the iustice of God should be fully satisfied by a proportionable punishment But the Popes indulgence can helpe that for hee hath in his Treasure-house such a surplussage of Saints merits that can serue to make good whatsoeuer is wanting in their behalfe and the Pope by their doctrine hath authoritie to dispence dispose of these merits at his discretion Or is it for feare lest purgatorie should bee emptied and so hee should lose one part of his Kingdome But our Sauiour contented himselfe with heauen and earth to be vnder him and his dominion and Saint Paul attributes to his regiment things vnder earth that is in hell and wil his Vicar needs haue a larger dominion then his Master But indeed this is the true reason For if hee should make a goale deliuerie out of this infernall prison then his chiefest sway were gone yea and his reuenue too It stands vpon him therefore not to bee pleased to deliuer any out of these paines vnlesse he bee well pleased for his paines and if hee bee so then the soules shall flye out of that place to heauen in whole troupes as they say they did at the Prayer of a certaine holy man c. In their leaden Legend this danger lighteth vpon the head of their head the Pope which according to their doctrine can by no meanes be auoided it were better then for him to forgoe his profit which ariseth by purgatorie then to vndergoe such foule discredit 33. Another dangerous consequence ariseth hencefrom to all the professors of Religion in generall that is a feareful presumption and securitie of sinning when they are perswaded that after this life they may be released from the paines of purgatorie by the prayers almesdeeds Masses and other meritorious workes of the liuing for who would bee afraid to sinne or carefull to make his saluation sure in this life with feare and trembling when hee beleeueth that by giuing a summe of monie at his death for Masses and dirges to be sung for his soule he shall be certainly deliuered out of purgatory This must needs cast men into manifest presumption if not of all sinnes yet of veniall sinnes and ordinarie offences which are to be purged by that fire as they teach Is not our doctrine more sound and safe that informeth vs that such as die in their sinnes sinke downe to the lowest Hell as hopelesse after death to bee relieued by anything that can bee done for their sakes by the liuing doth not this teach men betimes to bee wise and to finish vp the worke of their saluation before the night come and make their peace with God whilest they are here in the way of
vero audent cum infimus poene ex nostris vnus comminus cum ijs manus conserere in arenam prouocare non reformidat vnde quid gregum ductores efficere possunt si annitantur par est illos reputare partim etiam quod Pontificiorum suae persuadendo religioni quamplurimos strenuam operam nauasse video Euangelicorum autem qui hoc idem scriptionis genus per certa argumentorum motuumve capita sunt sequuti paucissimos sane recordor ne dicam nulios Vestram igitur in tutelam fratres meas hasce ratiunculas accipite aequis animis atque oculis legite discutite Censuram vestram non recuso dum preces modo vestras amorem mihi non denegetis Hic Romanae religionis septem sacramenta Turpitudinem Impietatem Falsitatem Nouitatem Idololatriam Scripturarum vituperationem Ignorantiae defensionem licet contueri de quibus princeps Impuritas sequentium in rationum prima secunda in tertia autem quarta duodecima Impietas aperietur Nouitas quam nobis obiectant in eos ipsos totam per vndecimam regeretur Falsitas in octaua nona dilucebit Idolorum cultus in septima Scripturarum contemptio simul Ignorantiae defensio in quinta sexta decima patefient Frement frendebunt sat scio Iesuitae caeterique sacrificuli ac omissis forte rationum ipsarum ponderibus momentis hinc atque illinc vt eorum moris est aliquidpiam excerpent quod obtrectent arrodant sed ringantur per me quidem rumpantur invidia nihili illorum siue calumnias moror siue maledicta dum vos modo propitios mihi habeam quorum inprimis vereor reuereor iudicium Quos propterea oro obtestor vt siqua in re de veritatis scopo deflexerim comiter in viam me reducatis si minus ac debui fortiter prudenter hac in arena demicârim imbecillitati id meae condonetis praeuaricationi nequaquam tribuatis Ego certe hoc quantillumcunque est Deo nostro minime displiciturum confido quippe non ignarus seruulum qui duobus extalentis rem fecit Domino suo aeque ac illum alterum acceptum probatumque extitisse qui decem ex quinque lucrifecit Interim fratres mutui amoris vinculo nos inter nos complectamur vt quemadmodum contra sponsam Christi aduersarij nostri vt olim Pilatus Herodes contra Christum ipsum coniunctissimè conspirant consentiunt Sic nos pari voluntatum consensu eademque aut etiam maiore animorum conspiratione aduersus Antichristum illiusque astipulatorum â—ssectatorum omnium vires depugnemus Quod eò vt fortius foeliciusque fiat facessant à nobis precor derebus minutulis lites omnes discordiae quibus nimio plus iam diu assueuimus Reprimamus nunc demum ipsinos ne quam de sui temporis quibusdam Iraeneus habuit querimoniam quod proptermodicas quaslibet causas magnum gloriosum Christi corpus conscinderent quam etiam de suae aetatis consimilibus alijs Nazianzenus quod essent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eadem de nobis ni prouidemus iusta querela esse possit Quin Apostoli illud ad Corinthios de re exgenere indifferentium disserentis potius meminerimus Siquis videtur contentiosus esse nos eiusmodi consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesia Dei eiusdem aliud ad Galatas Si alij alios mordetis deuoratis videte ne vicissim alij ab alijs consumamini Deus pacis lucis ab Antichristi illiusque gregalium impetu insidijs vos omnes protegat defendat ac coelestem suam ad ciuitatem nouam Hierosolymam sartos tectos tandem perducat T. B Motiue I. THat Religion which in many points giueth liberty to sinne is not the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo c. Motiue II. That Religion which maintaynes by the grounds thereof things forbidden by all lawes both of God of Nature and of Man cannot be the true Religion bat such is the Religion of the Romane Church ergo Motiue III. That Religion which imitateth the Iewes in those things wherein ther are enemies to Christ cannot be the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. Motiue IIII. That Religion which derogâ—teth from the glory of God in the worke of our Redemption and giueth part thereof vnto man cannot be the truth of God but such is the Popish Religion ergo Motiue V. That Religion deserueth to bee suspected which refuseth to bee tâ—yâ—d by the Scriptures as the perfect and alone rule of faith and will be iudged â—ryed by none but it selfe But such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo Motiue VI. That Religion doth iustly deserue to be suspected which doth purâ—oâ—â—ly disgrace the sacred Scriâ—tures But such is the Religion of the Church of Rome â—â—go Motiue VII That Religion is to be abhorred which maintayneth commandeth and practiseth grosse anâ— palpable Idolatry but so doth the Religion of the Church of Rome â—rgo c. Motiue VIII That Religion which implyeth manifold contradiction in it selfe and is contrary to it selfe in many things cannot bee the true Religion but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo c. Motiue IX That Religion whâ—se doctrines are in many points apparently opposite to the word of God and tâ—e doctrine of the Gospell cannot be the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo c. Motiue X. That Religion which nourisheth most barbarous and grosse ignorance amongst the people and forbiddeth the knowledge and vnderstanding of the grounds of the Christian saith cannot be the truth but this doth the Romish Religion ergo c. Motiue XI That Religion which was neuer knowne nor heard of in the Apostles time nor in the primitiue Church cannot â—e the truth but such is the Romish Religion in most points thereof therefore that cannot be the truth Motiue XII That Church which maintayneth it selfe and the Religion professed by it and seeketh to dâ—saduantage the Aduersaries by vnlawfull vniust and vngodly meanes cannot bee the true Church of God nor that Religion the truth of God by the grounds whereof they are warranted to act such deuillish practices but such is the practice of the Romish Church and therfore neither their Church nor their Religion can be of God Motiue XIII That Religion the doctrines whereof are more safe both in respect Gods glory Mans saluation and Christian charity is to be preferred before that which is not so safe but dangerous But the doctrine of the Protestants Religion is more safe in all those respects and of the Papists more dangerous ergo that is to be preferred before this and consequently this to be reiected THIRTEENE FORCIBLE MOTIVES DISSWADING FROM COMMVNION With the Church of ROME Whereby is demonstratiuely prooued that the now Romish Religion so farre forth as
it is Romish is not the true Catholique Religion of CHRIST but the seduction of Antichrist THE PREAMBLE THat which Ireneus an ancient and godly Father of the Church speaketh of all Heretickes that all the Helleborus in the world is not sufficient to purge them that they may vomit out their follie may truely be spoken of the Church of Rome and her adherents that it is a difficult matter if not almost impossible to reclaime her from her errors and to heale her wounds All the balme of Gilead will not do it nor all the spirituall phisicke that can be ministred for there are two sinnes which of all other are most hard to bee relinquished Whoredome and Drunkennesse the one because it is so familiar and naturall to the flesh the other because it breedeth by custome such an vnquenchable thirst in the stomacke as must euer anon be watered with both which spirituall diseases the Church of ROME is infected She is the Whore of Babylon with whome the Kings of the Earth haue committed fornication and who hath made drunke with the Wine of her fornications all the Inhabitants of the Earth In regard of the first Ieremie prophecied of her that though paines be taken to heale her yet shee could not be healed And in regard of the second Saint Paul prophecied that GOD would send them strong delusion that they should beleeue lies that all they might bee damned that receiued not the loue of the truth Notwithstanding though the hope bee as little of the reclaiming of most of them as of turning an Eunuch into a man or making a blacke Moore white yet I haue propounded in this discourse a strong potion compounded of ingredients which if they bee not past cure may purge and cleanse them of their disease and reduce them to the sanity of Christian Religion Which if their queasie stomackes shall eyther refuse to take or hauing taken shall vomit vp againe and not suffer them to worke vpon their consciences yet this benefit will arise that God shall be glorified the truth manifested and all that loue the truth confirmed and they also themselues that are so drowned in error that they will rather pull in others ouer head and eares vnto them and so drowne together then be drawne out of the myre by any helpe shall be conuinced in their consciences of their most grosse apostacie With this confidence towards Gods glorie and the good of his Church though with little hope of recouering them from their obdurate blindnesse I enter into my intended taske desiring the Lord to giue a blessing to these poore labours which I consecrate to my Lord and Master Iesus Christ whom I serue and the Church his Spouse of which I professe my selfe to bee one of the meanest members MOTIVE I. That Religion which in many points giueth libertie to sinne is not the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of ROME ergo c. THe first proposition is an vndoubted truth and needs no confirmation especially seeing S. Iames describeth true Religion by these attributes pure and vndefiled And S. Paul calleth it the mysterie of godlinesse and the doctrine according to godlinesse And herein consisteth an essentiall difference betwixt the true Religion and all false ones so that it must needs follow that that Religion which is essentially the cause and occasion of sinne and openeth a wide window to vngodlinesse cannot be the truth of God but must needs fetch it beginning from the deuill who is the author of all euill The Gospell indeede may by accident be the occasion of euill as S. Paul saith The law is the occasion of sinne for it stirs vp contention and strife and discouers the corruptions of Mans heart and by opposing against them as a damme against a streame makes them to swell and boyle and burst forth beyond the bounds howbeit here the cause is not in the Gospell or Lawe but in the corruption of mans heart which the more it is stirred the more it rageth and striueth to shew it selfe But neuer yet was the doctrine of godlinesse the cause of wickednesse nor the pure and vndefiled Religion of Christ Iesus an essentiall procurer and prouoker vnto sinne 3. This therefore being thus manifest all the question and difficultie remaineth in the second proposition to wit that the Religion of the Romish Church is such as openeth a gappe vnto sinne and giueth notorious libertie and scope to vngodlinesse and that not by way of accident or occasion but necessarily as the cause to the effect Qua data necessariò soquitur effectus as the Logicians speake and therefore being an â—npure and defiled Religion and the mysterie of iniquitie not the mysterie of godlinesse it cannot be that true Religion which Christ our Sauiour brought with him from heauen and left here vpon earth blamelesse and vnspotted like himselfe to be the way to lead vs vnto heauen where hee is 4. That the Romish Religion is a polluted and defiled Religion tending to libertie and loosenesse Let the indifferent Reader iudge by these few instances deriued out of the verie bowels of their Church and being articles of their faith and grounds of their Religion And first to beginne with their doctrine of dispensations whereby they teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with the word of God and with euery commandement of the Law and not onely with the Law but with the Gospell and Epistles of Paul to what horrible loosenesse and lewdnesse of life doth it tend for to omit that it containeth in it open blasphemie by their owne rule which is that In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior the inferiour may not dispense with the precept of the superiour by which the Pope dispensing with Gods lawe is not oneâ—y equalled but exalted aboue God what sinne is there bee it neuer so hainous which there is not libertie giuen to commit by this licencious doctrine 5. Incest But Pope Martin the first gaue a dispensation to one to marrie his owne sister and not his wiues sister only as some of the Romish crue would dawbe ouer this filthie wall because it is in Antoninus Cum quadam eius germana for Siluester Prieriâ— Bartholomeus Fumus and Angelus de Clauafio speake more plainely Cumsua germana that is with his owne naturall sister Another Pope dispensed with Henry the eight to marrie his sister in law and with Philip of Spaine to marrie his owne Niece and Clement the 7. licenced Petrus Aluaradus the Spaniard to marrie two sisters at once and no maruaile seeing it is the very doctrine of the Romish Church that the Pope can dispense in all the degrees of Consanguinitie and Affinitie saue onely with the Father and his daughter and with the Mother and her Son Sodometrie But Pope Sixtus the fourth licensed the Cardinall of Saint Lucie and his familie to vse freely that sinne not to bee named in the
vncleannesse and some Angels of the bottomles pit by couetousnes and a little after Not a few of our moderne Priests doe serue the most vild and filthy God Priapus Panormitane a man of great fame in the Councell of Basill after he had shewen the vowe of continencie not to be of the essence of Priest-hood nor by the lawe of God but a constitution of the Church addeth these words I beleeue that it were a wholesome ordinance for the good saluation of soules to leaue it to mâ—ns owne wils to marrie or not because experience doth show that now a daies they doe not liue spiritually and vndefiledly but that they are defiled by vnlawfull copulation whereas they might liue chastly with their owne wiues 37. I could adde vnto these testimonies the report of Iohn Gerson touching his time who complained that some Cloysters of Nunnes were become Stewes of strumpets and whores And of Mantuan a Carmelite Italian Frier whose verses touching this poynt are sufficiently knowne Patrum vita fuit melior cum coniuge quà m nunc Nostra sit exclusis thalamis coniugis vsu The life of the Fathers was better being married then ours to whom marriage is forbidden and of Polidor Virgill who liued in King Henrie the Eights daies whose censure is this that this enforced chastity is so farre from excelling that marriage-chastity that no crime hath brought more shame to the order of Priesthood more euill to Religion nor more griefe to all good men then that blot of the filthinesse of Priests But that I feare I haue too much offeÌ„ded chaste eares already with raking into this dunghill I conclude with the report of Martin Luther he saith that he saw Cardinals at Rome which were accounted holy for no other cause but that they were content onely to commit fornication and adultery with women and did not giue themselues to other vnnaturall lusts Thus as it were in a mappe I haue described the filthy and abominable fruites that proceed from that Romish doctrine of vowed chastitie Is it possible that the spring should be good when the streams are thus corrupt 38. The fift doctrine of Poperie giuing manifest occasion of liberty to the professours thereof is their doctrine of veniall sinnes By which they teach that many acts which are transgressions of the laws of God men yet are not properly sins nor deserue the wrath of God but of their nature are pardonable and therfore he which committeth any such doth neither offer iniury to God nor breake charity in respect of his neighbour and so deserues not hell nor is bound to be sorry for them but that the knocking of the brest going to Church being sprinckled with holy water or the Bishops blessing or crossing ones selfe or doing any worke of charity though we neuer thinke actually of them is a sufficient satisfaction for them This is the doctrine not onely of the Schoolemen but also of the finest and refyning Iesuites euen of Bellarmine himselfe who thus distinguisheth veniall sinnes that some are veniall of their own nature and kind to wit such as haue for their obiect an euill and inordinate matter but which is not repugnant to the law of God and of our neighbour others are veniall by the imperfection of the worke which imperfection ariseth partly ex surreptione that is by vnaduised falling into them without full consent of will and partly ex paruitate materiae by the smalnesse of the matter which is committed as if a man should steale a halfe-peny or some such trifle This is the Cardinals doctrine which as neere as I could I hauâ— word for word set downe And that wee may more fully vnderstand their meaning they affirme in very deede that they are no sinnes but aequiuoce that is so called but not â—o in truth for the word peccatum sinne doth not vniuoce aâ—â—ee 〈…〉 eniall sinnes as it doth to mortall and therefore it is their generall opinion that they are not against but beside the lawe that is in plaine words not sinne for euery sinne is a transgression of the law Now let the Readeriudge whether our doctrine that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall and deserue condemnation except they be repeÌ„ted of or heirs that some are veniall and binde not the offender to condemnation doe more tend to liberty whether we restraine more the people from sinning that thus say vnto them All your sinnes though neuer so small are of their owne nature damnable except by faith in the bloud of Christ they be purged away and by repentance which is a fruite of faith sorrowed for and laboured against or they that say thus to them A number of your ordinarie sinnes are not damnable you neede not faith in Christs bloud to purge them nor repentance to bewaile them nor care and endeuour to preuent them who seeth not that our doctrine pulleth in and theirs letteth out the reynes of libertie to our corrupt nature for when a man beleeueth that he may do many things which are in deed transgressions of Gods lawe without offence to God or hurt to his neighbour or wounding of his owne conscience and that after he hath committed them he needeth not greatly to repent of them or to be sorry for them but that they are done away by saying a Lords prayer or hearing a Masse or creeping to a Crosse or receiuing a little Holy water what neede he make any conscience of these so sleight trifles nay how can hee choose but neglect and make light account of them This is one of the deuils subtile deuices or iuggling trickes which Saint Paul speaketh of where with hee laboureth to seduce simple soules for either hee will aggrauate our sinnes to driue vs to desperation or extenuate and excuse them to draw to presumption the rocke and gulfe whereat many thousand soules suffer shipwracke And this last the most dangerous wherein the Papists shew themselues the deuils agents and factours by this their doctrine of veniall sinnes for what is this but to excuse sinne and to extenuate it and so to make men presume to commit those things which they esteeme of no greater moment 39. The truth of this will more clearely appeare if wee take a suruay a little of those particular sinnes which they account as veniall To sweare by the bloud of God or wounds or bodie of Christ is no blasphemie saith Cardinall Caietane if it be spoken in a brawle or in some perturbation of mind neither is it to be counted any more than a veniall sinne Againe formall cursing saith Gregorie de Valentia although in it owne kinde it be a mortall sinne yet it may be onely a veniall to wit in respect either of the smalnesse of the matter or the want of deliberation in the speaker and hereby saith he Parents cursing their children with bitter words and deuoting them to the deuill may often be excused from mortall sinne
a small neither shalt thou haue in thy house diuers measures a great and a small but thou shalt haue a right and a iust weight a perfect and a iust measure Let no man oppresse or defraude his brother in any matter How contradictory these plaine precepts and enunciatiue propositions of Gods word are vnto the positions of the Cardinall no man can but discerne that is not bewitched with the soâ—cerie of Iezabel either therefore let him shew out of holy writ some exception from these generall rules or let him acknowledge his Doctrine and Religion to be the vpholder of most grosse and palpable theft 22. If any man say that these be the opinions of priuate men and not the doctrine of the Church I answere that this is a most friuolous conceit for none of their bookes are admitted to the presse before they be examined by certaine Censurers deputed to that purpose by the Church and if any thing dislike them or seeme to sauour of heresie as they call the trueth presently it is either gelded out or corrected at their pleasures And that which goeth for currant hath his allowance subnexed That it containeth in it nothing contrary to the Catholike faith of the Church of Rome These positions then of these Iesuites standing thus approued by the common consent of their Censurers and priuiledged to be both printed and read of all men as containing nothing contrary to wholesome doctrine cannot be thought to be the vnaduised opinions of priuatemen but euen the doctrine and religion of their Church 23. Lastly that I may conclude this second argument they maintaine also the prophanation of the Sabboth which the Lord hath enioyned to be sanctified with so great and vrgent a precept Remember that thou keepe holy the Sabboth day Adding â— mâ—menâ—o before and fencing it with so many reasons after that it might not seeme a light matter but a coÌ„mandement of great consequence yet these impudent preuaricators make it a matter of no moment yea giue liberty to the open breach and transgression of it For thus writeth Cardinall Tollet Homo tenetur c. A man saith he is bound vpon paine of a mortall sinne to sanctifie the Sabboth but is not bound vnder the same paine to sanctifie it well As if forsooth it could be sanctified at all if it be not well sanctified or as if the prophanation of the Sabboth were the sanctifying of it for not to sanctifie it well is nothing else but to prophane it howbeit if this were all the iniurie hee doth to Gods Sabboth it might be borne withall but the bold Cardinall taketh vpon him to breake in pieces the barres thereof and to expose it being the Lords day and therefore fit to bee employed onely in the Lords worke to most vile and base offices for thus hee writeth in the same booke Licet iter facere c. It is lawfull to take a iourney on the feast day with this caueat that diuine seruice be first heard It is lawfull to hunt and doe such like things It is lawfull for Iudges especially rurall to giue iudgement on the feast day it is no sinne for a Barber to exercise his trade on the feast day for commodity if he had no leasure to doe it at another time they are excused also which sell flesh kill beasts and sell necessary victuals on holy dayes And if the occasion of a great gayne would otherwise bee lost as in fishing for Herring and Tunnes which come not but vpon certaine dayes it is lawfull to fish on the holy day In publique solemnities it is lawfull to prepare the wayes and to build for spectacles This is the doctrine of that renowned Cardinall whose writings are so approued of the Church of Rome that whatsoeuer hee speaketh is held for trueth But here it may be answered that he nameth not the Sabboth but the festiuall or holy day to which I answere First that the title of that Chapter is de Sabbathâ— and therefore if he meaneth not that hee swarueth from his purpose Secondly that the expresse words and drift of the whole Chapter demonstrates that vnder the name of the festiuall or holy day he includeth also the Sabboth And thirdly how could he giue instructions touching the cases of the Sabboth if he intended not the Sabboth seeing all his rules runne vnder this generall terme on the festiuall or holy day This therfore is but a mist to blinde mens eyes that they might not see their impietie 24. Can this Religion thinke you be of God which in thus many points crosseth and trampleth vnder foote the law of God Doth not the head of that congregation euidently shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that outlaw which S. Paul speaketh of 2. Thess 2. that is such an one as opposeth himselfe to the law of God Doe not the necke and shoulder which are supporters of that head I meane the Cardinals and Bishops shew themselues to be of the same nature and disposition with it and the whole body which is quickned by the life of his doctrine to be meerely Antichristian He that seeth not this is blinde and cannot discerne a farre off hee that seeth it and confesseth it not is carelesse of his owne saluation Let vs leaue them therefore either to bee conuerted which God graunt for Christ his sake or to bee confounded if they continue in their errours MOTIVE III. That Religion which imitateth the Iewes in those things wherin they are enemies to Christ cannot bee the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe malice of the Iewes towards Christ our Sauiour and his Church from the beginning vnto this day is so notorious that the whole world is witnesse thereof Saint Paul witnesseth of them that they killed the Lord Iesus and their owne Prophets and persecuted the Apostles and were contrary to all men and forbad them to preach vnto the Gentiles that they might be saued to fulfill their sinnes alwaies and that the wrath of God was come vpon them to the vttermost And as it was at that time so euer since they haue not any whit remitted but increased in their rancour for still they crucifie vnto themselues the Lord of Life though not in his person which is at the right hand of God yet in his meÌ„bers whoÌ„ they persecute vnto death asmuch as in them lyeth and in his Gospel which they still pursue with a deadly hatred Yea so great is their malice that many times they haue taken Christian children vpon their preparation day to the Passouer and nailed them vpon the Crosse loaded them with reproaches and scornes in disgrace of Christ and miserably tormented them to death as was done by the Iewes of Inmester a Towne scituate betwixt Chalchis and Antiochia as witnesseth Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall History and in Germany at Fretulium as also in England at Lincolne and Norwich as our Chronicles testifie Yea it
they deuide the word of God into verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written and vnwritten their vnwritten word is nothing but orall Traditions deliuered as they say by Christ himselfe to his Apostles alone and not to his common Disciples because it contayned the high mysteries of the Kingdome of God and by them conuayed to their successours Bishops and Elders of the Church Secondly they affirme also with them that these orall Traditions are of equall authority and necessity with the word written yea that the word written is of no authority at all quoadnos in respect of vs except it bee authorized by the tradition of the Church And thirdly they teach that the word written is imperfect vnlesse the vnwritten Cabala bee added vnto it and that not one alone but both together make a perfect rule both for faith and manners Doe they not now Iudaize in all these points Yes the Romish Apologers to proue their doctrine of traditions fetch an argument from the Iewes Cabala as may bee seene in a late tractate falsly called the Catholike Apologie which is so much the more strange because their own Sixtus Senensis professeth that the Iewish Thalmud is fraught with innumerable blasphemies against God and his Christ our Sauiour and impieties against the law of Moses besides other infinite fopperies Is not this then a good patterne for them to imitate and is it not a sound argument that is deduced from such premises Surely their traditions which they build all their superstition vpon thus symbolizing with the Iewish Cabala can be of no better credit then it is and what credit that hath not onely their Senensis before bâ—t Galatinus another stout champion of theirs acknowledgeth when he saith that it is mere madnesse to approue all their vnwritten traditions which they bragge to haue beene deliuered in mount Sinai and from thence orderly to haue descended to posterity Now that which he speaketh of the Iewes Cabala may as truly be affirmed of the Romish traditions let them therefore goe arme in arme together since they will needes haue it so â—â— ioynt enemies to Christian Religion 18. Againe the Iewes ascribe so much credit and faith to their Cachamim or illumined Doctors that whatsoeuer they teach be it right or wrong they must not enquire into the truth thereof but receiue it as an article of their Creed and build their faith and saluation thereupon Thus writeth one of their owne Rabbines to wit Rabbi Isaac that died in Portugall Anno 1493. Wee are bound saith he to giue no lesse credit to euery Rabbine in their sermons and mysticall or allegoricall explications then vnto the Law of Moses it selfe and if there be found in their words any thing hyperbolicall or contrary to nature and sence we must ascribe the fault thereof to our owne defectiue vnderstanding and not vnto their words And the same is the doctrine of their Thalmud Their speeches saith it are the speeches of the liuing God neither doth one word of theirs fall to the ground in vaine and therefore we are bound to beleeue all things whatsoeuer are written of them or in their name for it is the truth neither must any man laugh at them neither in his countenance nor in his heart for whosoeuer shall doe so shall not escape punishment and his punishment they say shall be this that he shall be tormented in hell in boyling excrements And in another Booke the Iewes are commanded to say Amen not onely to their Prayers but also to all their Sermons and alleÌ„goricall expositions Yea if two Rabbines contend and contradict each other yet they are bound to beleeue both of them because the words both of the one and the other are the words of the liuing God though they vnderstand not each other And in a word so great is their madnesse that they are not ashamed to say That the words of their Rabbines are more to be regarded then the words of Moses law and that if they teach that the right hand is the left and the left the right yet they are bound to beleeue them 19. And is not the Church of Rome paralell to them in this case I will not condemne them but let their owne words be their Iudges Thus write the Rhemists in their Annotations vpon Acts 17. 11. The hearers must not try and iudge whether their Teachers doctrine be true or no neither may they reiect that which they find not in Scripture The same is the tenent of Cardinall Hosius Andradius and all other of that stampe Bellarmine affirmeth that the people must beleeue what soeuer their Passors teach except they broach somenew doctrine which hath not beene heard of in the Church before and if they do so yet they must not Iudge of them but referre them to the definitiue sentence of the Pope to the which they must yeeld full consent without further examination Yea he impudently concludeth in another place That if their ordinary Pastor teach falshood another that is not their Pastor teach the contrary truth yet the people ought to follow their Pastor erring rather then the other telling the truth And another blasphemous Cardinall giueth a reason thereof Because saith he if a man did not beleeue that Christ is very God and man and the Pope thought the same hee should not be condeÌ„ned For saith a third Cardinal the iudgement of the Pope is the iudgement of God and his sentence the sentence of God As if the Iudgement and sentence of God could bee erronious which the first Cardinall supposeth concerning the Pope or as if the Popes sentence being erronious could be the sentence of God as the second affirmeth Obserue their blasphemous absurdities Siluester Prierias concludeth this poynt when hee sayth That whosoeuer resteth not on the doctrine of the Romane Church and Bishop of Rome as the infallible rule of God is an Heretike And the Canonists sticke not to say that the Pope is subiect to no law but that his iudgement is in stead of law and that his actions are not to bee enquired into neither may a man say vnto him though hee lead thousand soules into hell with him Sir why doe you thus and that it is not better then sacriledge to call in question the Popes fact or to iudge of his actions Thus an insallibility of iudgement and an impossibility of erring is ascribed vnto the Bishop of Rome so that whatsoeuer hee propoundeth bee it right or wrong must bee receiued vpon paine of damnation Neither is it ascribed onely vnto him the worlds high Priest but also to their Councills and inferiour Pastors animated by his spirit whose doctrine is to be heard and not examined as they teach And therefore it is esteemed a great sin amongst them for a man to make question of any doctrine brought vnto them by any Romish Iesuite Fryer or Priest
teaching for doctrines precepts of men 32. The Iewish Pharises would not conuerse with any of a different Religion especially the Samaritanes whose bread they thought it as vnlawfull to eate as to eate Swines flesh and for Christians they account it a sinne to keepe faith and promise with them to afford them any succour yea not to doe them any mischiefe that lyeth in their power and therefore in their prayers one part of their deuotion is most direfully to curse all those that professe Christian Religion The Romish Pharises doe likewise they damme all to hell that are not of their Religion they denie faith to bee kept with Heretikes they hate all that are not subiect to their Pope but aboue all the poore Protestant him they curse with Bell Booke and Candle and abhorre him more then a Iew or a Turke yea once a yeere ordinarily and in publike they curse vs to the pit of hell which I take it to be vpon euery good Friday They say that the Father may not nourish his owne childe if he be an Heretike nor the childe honour his Father nor the Prince defend his Subiect nor the Subiect obey his Prince all bonds of nature policy religion are pulled in pieces by these Romish Pharises 33. The Iewish Pharises vsed not to fast without a disfigured face nor giue an almes without a Trumpet nor seldome pray but in the corners of the streetes and high-wayes that they might bee seene of men all for shew nothing for substance And are not our Romish Pharises their equals in this Is not their religion all in ostentation doe they hide themselues when they fast and pray doe they not blow a trumpet before their deedes of charitie their hypocriticall abstinence from flesh on set dayes when as in the meane while they farse themselues with dainty fish and delicate iunkets their mumbling vp so many Aue Maries and Pater Nosters in the streetes and Market-places their crowâ—hing at euery Crosse and lastly their Almes-deeds extorted by feare either for penance of sinnes committed or in hope of meriting the kingdome of Heauen and imployed for the most part to the feeding of a multitude of idle Drones Monkes and Fryers fatted in a Cloyster like Bores in a stye doe proue this to be true which I haue said 34. The Iewish Pharises vnder colour of long prayers great deuotion deuoured widowes houses the Romish Pharises by the same pretext of holinesse sucke downe into their panches not the Cottage of some poore widdow but the rich and faire Patrimonies of seduced Gentlemen Noblemen and others the Iewish Pharises compassed sea and land to gaine a Proselite to their profession our Romish Pharises trauell all Countries labour by all possible means to winne soules to their religion and to reconcile men to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome and when they haue wrought their purpose as those so these make them two-fold more the children of hell then they were before 35. Lastly the Iewish Pharises like hypocrites made cleane the out-side of the cup and platter but within were full of bribery and excesse and therefore are compared by our Sauiour to whited Tombes which appeare beautifull without but within are full of all filthinesse So our Romish Pharises come to vs in sheepes clothing giuing a bright luster of holinesse and austerity in their externe behauiour but inwardly are rauening Wolues deuouring the flocke and haue their hearts fraught with all manner of villany as lying for aduantage equiuocation couetousnesse ambition vncleane lusts and other inordinate affections as the secular Priests boldly obiect against the Loyolian Sect and are taxed backe againe by them as guilty of the same crimes 36. This subiect might be enlarged by many more particulars but that I forbeare to stirre this sinke any further and weary the Reader and my selfe hauing a long iourney yet to trauaile This that hath beene spoken I suppose to be sufficient to prooue the truth of the proposition that the Romanists imitate the Iewes in those things wherein they are enemies vnto Christ both in respect of the legall Ceremonies which are vanished by the appearance of the Sunne of righteousnes and also in respect of their Thalmudieall traditions which were neuer found in Gods Booke but are the foppish dotages of their superstitious Rabbines And is it not strange that notwithstanding all this they should bragge themselues to be the onely Catholikes of the world and their Church the onely Noahs Arke out of the which there is no saluation Siâ—ia quà m similis turpissima bestia nobis Tam Rabbinorum â—â—bulis Romana cathedra Not liker is to Man the Ape a filthy Creature Then is the Romish Church vnto the Iewish feature MOTIVE IIII. That Religion which derogateth from the glory of God in the worke of our Redemption and giueth part thereof vnto man cannot be the truth of God but such is the Popish Religion Ergo. THe first proposition as it is infallibly true of it selfe so is it without all question and controuersie betwixt vs and the Romanists for both confesse that the end of true Religion is that God might be glorified and therefore whatsoeuer doth rebate from that end cannot possibly be the truth Especially seeing the Lord himselfe protesteth that he will not giue his glory to another Esay 48. 11. And Paul affirmeth that the end of all our actions should bee the glorie of God 1. Car. 10. 31. Therefore passing ouer the Maior with silence it is necessary that the Minor or second proposition bee strengthened and confirmed whereon the hinge of the Controuersie hangeth the whole pith substance of this fourth Argument doth consist which by the assistance of Gods good spirit whose ayde I humbly implore and of my Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus whose glory I now labour to maintaine I doubt not but to make so cleare as is the Sunne at Noone-day all cloudes mists and fogges being vtterly dispersed 2. That the Romish Religion doth derogate from the glory of God in the worke of our redemption may by foure maine and fundamentall doctrines of their Religion most euidently be demonstrated besides many other poynts of lesser consequence to wit their doctrines of Free-will of Iustification of merite and of satisfaction 3. For the doctrine of Free-will this is the generall determination of the Church of Rome that in the act of regeneration and conuersion mans will doth naturally cooperate with the grace of God and that it is not meerely of supernaturall grace that a sinner is regenerate but partly of naturall free-will and partly of grace whereas we on the contrary defend that the regeneration and conuersion of a sinner is wholly of the grace of God and that mans will in that great worke is meerely passiue and not actiue yea starke dead vntill it be excited and quickned by the grace of God This in briefe is the difference betwixt the Romanists and vs
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
In the act of iustification wee say that workes haue no roome because both they are imperfect and also are not done by our own strength but being once iustified we must needs repent and become new creatures walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit And this is the doctrine of our Church concerning Iustification 16. Now let vs heare what they say and then weigh both doctrines in the ballance of the sanctuary that wee may see which of them bringeth most glory to the merits of CHRIST and to the power of his satisfaction I will plainely and sincerely God willing set downe the summe of their doctrine First therefore they teach that there is a double iustification the first whereby a man ex iniusto fit iustus of an vniust and wicked man is made iust and good and of a sinner is made righteous the second wherby a man being iust is made more iust and doth encrease in iustice and sanctity according to that Reuel 22. 11. He that is iust let him be more iust Concerning the first iustification some of them affirme that it is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent workes others that it is merited by congruity but not by condignity but of the second they say that it is gotten and merited by our workes But before both these they make certaine preparations and dispositions whereby a man by the power of his owne free-will stirred vp by grace doth make himselfe fit for iustification namely by the acts of faith feare hope loue repentance and the purpose of a new life all which a man must haue before hee receiue the first grace of iustification and for the obtaining whereof he needs not any grace internally infused but onely offered externally Whereupon they are bold to affirme that the act of Iustification doth emane and proceed Simul ab arbitrio à Deo Both from free-will and from God Now the causes of iustification the Councill of Trent maketh to be these the finall cause Gods glory and mans saluation the efficient Gods mercy the meritorious cause Christs merits the instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme but the formall cause which is the chiefest and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dat esse rei giueth being to the thing as the Logicians speake they make to be an inherent righteousnes wrought in vs and inspired into vs by the Spirit of God And this in briefe is the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the iustification of a sinner 17. Wherein let vs obserue three maine and fundamentall differences betwixt their doctrine and ours in all which they raze the foundation and dedignifie the merits of Christ and the mercy of God to extoll the dignitie of man The first in their preparations wee hold that a man cannot any wayes dispose himselfe vnto grace but is wholly fitted and prepared by God and that those acts of preparation as they call them are not fore-runners of iustification but rather fruites and effects thereof they teach the contrary as I haue shewed The second difference is that the workes of a man iustified do not merit increase of grace which they terme the second iustification but as the beginning of grace is from gods mercy alone so the increase and augmentation thereof and perseuerance therein is onely to be ascribed to the worke of Gods spirit according to that of Saint Paul Phil. 1. 6. He that hath begunne this good worke in you will performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ this we hold they the contrary The third difference is in the formall cause of our iustification which they maintaine to be an inherent righteousnes within vs euen the righteousnes of Sanctification We on the other side affirme that the formall cause of our iustification is the righteousnes of Christ Iesus not dwelling in vs nor proceeding from vs but imputed vnto vs by the mercy of God 18. Hauing thus layd open both our doctrines let vs examine and trye which of them giueth most glory vnto God and most exalts the merites of Christ for that must needs be the truth and which lifteth vp highest the proud nature of man for that must needs be falshood and errour especially seeing that Gods dignity and the dignity of man Christs merits and mans are as it were two skales of a ballance whâ—reof the one rising the other falls the one lifted vp the other is pressed downe First therefore touching the workes of preparation whether doe they more magnifie Gods mercie that say a man cannot prepare and dispose himselfe at all to grace but is wholly disposed and prepared by God or they that affirme that a man can prepare himselfe by his owne endeuour assisted outwardly with the grace of God the one makes Gods mercy the sole cause of iustification the other but the adiâ—vant and helping cause And whether doe they aduance most the dignity of man that say that a man can do nothing of himselfe for his owne iustification or they that say that a man can doe something to the preparation of himselfe to that great worke the one attributeth some dignity to man the other none at all we affirme the one part the Romanists the contrary and therefore our doctrine tends more to the debasing of mans worth and consequently to the exalting of Gods glory then theirs doth 19. True it is like Ferrimen that looke East and go West they with their great Grand-father Pelagius talke of grace when they meane nothing but nature and so deny indeede that which they affirme in word if the matter bee examined according to truth For Pelagius confessed a necessity of grace in all spirituall actions and yet was condemned for an enemy to grace by the Church of God because hee vnderstood not by grace the sanctifying worke of Gods spirit but an outward moouing and perswading power assisting mans free-will to the effecting of his owne saluation The very same is the doctrine of the Romanists as hath beene declared and therefore wee may iustly condemne them as enemies to the grace of God whatsoeuer they bragge and vaunt to the contrary 20. Secondly touching the second iustification which standeth as they say in the augmentation and encrease of our iustice let the most partiall Reader iudge whether tends most to the magnifying of Gods glory their doctrine which teacheth that wee merite the encrease of our iustice by our owne workes or ours which teacheth that both the seed and the growth both the roote and the fruite both the beginning and encrease of all righteousnesse is the worke of Gods spirit alone preuenting assisting and vpholding vs to the end and that these seuerall workes of grace are bestowed vpon vs not for any merites of our owne but simply and entirely for the merits of Christ Iesus I but they will say works doe not merit iustification because they are ours but because they are works of grace which grace floweth from the fountaine of
God that hee cannot doe all these things by himselfe without them but rather of his omnipotencie in that hee was not onely able to doe these things himselfe but also to giue power to those creatures to doe them so it is an argument of greater power in Christs merits to giue strength to our workes to merit heauen then if hee did it for vs without our workes I but by Bellarmines leaue that I may speake with all humble reuerence to the diuine Maiestie the power of God had beene more manifest and his omnipotencie more conspicuous I doe not say had beene greater if he should doe these things immediatly by himselfe then it is by the glasse of the creatures As when the Lord came downe in person vpon mount Sinai and gaue the children of Israel the law from his owne mouth his glory was more famous and fearefull then when hee sent it them after by the hand of Moses though written with his owne finger as the other was spoken with his owne mouth And therefore it is said Exod. 20. that the people were so astonished at Gods voyce that they desired that hee would speake no more vnto them in his owne person but by his seruant Moses Adde herevnto that God in his wisedome ordayned those creatures to that end and purpose and therefore we must not dispute as Bellarmine doth whether it should haue beene a greater token of his omnipotencie if hee had or if hee had not created them but humbly submit our selues to his wisedome knowing that his thoughts are not like ours nor his counsels like ours but as the heauens are higher then the earth so are his wayes higher than ours and his thought aboue our thoughts but for the merits of Christ he hath reuealed in his word that in them onely wee are to finde saluation and therefore wee must beleeue that he is most glorified by that doctrine which teacheth vs to rely onely vpon them and as for the power in them to cause vs to merit it is no where to be found in Scripture and therefore not to be thought to be for the aduancement of his glory besides to say that Christs honour is encreased by mans merit is plaine blasphemie for who hath giuen any thing to God Rom. 11. 25. He standeth not in neede of our good decdes Psal 16. 2. Indeede we doe glorifie God by our good workes but that is not by encreasing but by publishing and proclaiming of his glory but the Romanists say that the glory of Christs merits is augmented by our merits which must needes be a most blasphemous speech In a word seeing we doe not finde in Scripture that Christ died to giue merit to our workes but to purchase pardon to our sinnes and obtaine life for vs wee must bee content to thinke that this serueth most for his glorie and that the contrarie is derogatory thereunto 35. Lastly where did we euer read that wee must be like vnto Christ in meriting we read that wee must bee holy as he is holy and humble and meeke as hee was humble and meeke and patient as he was patient to wit in quality not in quantity in imitation not in perfection but to merit as he did is no where to be found nay it is a thing impossible for it is an infinite and omnipotent worke of righteousnesse that can deserue any thing at the infinite iustice of the omnipotent God and it must bee of infinite valew that can purchase that infinite reward And therefore it was necessarie that he which should be our Redeemer should also be God because neither Angell nor Archangell nor any creature else could performe a worke of that price which might be sufficient to merit the kingdome of heauen It is therefore a most grosse blasphemie to say that we must be like vnto Christ in the point of meriting for it maketh euery man a Iesus that is a Sauiour and Redeemer to himselfe Therefore to conclude I say with S. Bernard Let the glory remaine to the Lord vntouched he hath triumphed ouer the enemie alone he hath freed the captiues alone hee hath fought and conquered alone and with S. Augustine To whom we are endebted for that we are to him we are endebted that wee are iustified let none attribute to God his being and to himselfe his iustifying for it is better which thou giuest to thy selfe than that which thou giuest vnto God thou giuest the lower thing vnto God and the higher to thy selfe giue all to him praise him in all This wee doe by our doctrine and they the contrary and therefore it is most manifest that by this doctrine of theirs mans glory is exalted and Christs defaced mans merits lifted vp and Christs pulled downe which cannot stand with the truth and sincerity of Christian Religion 36. The fourth doctrine which tendeth directly to the dishonor of God the abasing of Christs glory in the worke of our redemption is their paradox of humane satisfactions by which they teach that Christ by his death hath made satisfaction for the guilt of our sinnes and the eternall punishment due vnto them but wee our selues must satisfie the iustice of God for the temporall punishment either in earth or in Purgatory whereas we on the contrary teach and beleeue that by Christs death and passion a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction is made to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men and for all the punishment thereof both eternall and temporall As for our doings or sufferings we acknowledge the one to be sabordinately required as fruites of our faith and the other necessary to be sustained as meanes of our mortification And touching offences against our brethren we hold it necessary that we make satisfaction to such whom we haue wronged any wayes either by confession restitution or punishment as the case shall require yea wee acknowledge that a Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall satisfaction is to be made to the Church or any part thereof when as we haue giuen iust scandall and offence there vnto But in all these wee denie that there is any vertue or power to expiate our sinnes or to make satisfaction to God for the punishment thereof either temporall or eternall that to do is only proper and peculiar to the Crosse of Christ for as the disobedience of the first Adam brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments but also temporall so the obedience and merit of the second Adam hath made satisfaction to God for both 37. And herein we agree both with the holy Scripture in many expresse places as 1. Iohn 2. 2. He is the propitiation for our sinnes And Rom. 5. 18. For the eternall punishment of them And Esay 53. 4. For the temporall for there it is said that he tooke vpon him our infirmities and bore our sicknesses And with the holy Fathers for Saint Augustine plainly affirmeth That temporal afflictions before forgiuenes are the punishments of sin but after forgiuenes
are the fights exercises of the iust And Origen That which is to the iust the exercise of vertue is to the vniust the punishment of sin And Tertullian The plagues of the world are to one for punishment to the other for admonition aduertisement and this is the very substance of our doctrine 38. As for our aduersaries they blush not to affirme euen the Councill of Trent it selfe that when God forgiueth a sinner yet he forgiueth not all the punishment but leaueth the party by his owne workes to satisfie till it bee washed away and that the bloud of Christ doth not serue to acquite vs from the temporall punishment but that we must acquite our selues either by our owne works as prayer almes fasting c. or by our suffrings either in this life or in Purgatory Yes some of the chiefest of them are bold to auouch that the recōpence made by satisfaction respecteth not only the temporall punishment but some part of the offence also and the wrath of God And others say That a sinner by the grace of God may satisfie for his sinne condignely and equally and by that satisfaction obtaine pardon And that which is more then all the rest some of them affirme without blushing that Christ by his sacrifice on the Crosse satisfied onely for originall sinne and not for actuall after Baptisme Bellarmine indeed is ashamed of this doctrine as he might well bee but yet it is plainely maintained by Gregorie de Valentia And this in briefe is the dunghill of Popish satisfactions from whence steame forth like vapours their Purgatorie and Pardons and Penance and much more such like trumpery 39. But let vs leaue them to their manifold errours and come to the examination of this one poynt whether they or we bring more dishonour to the Crosse of Christ And to the purpose first the very nature of satisfaction which as they affirme is the yeelding of a sufficient recompence to God for a trespasse committed is inough to prooue that their doctrine tends to the singular impeachment of the Crosse of Christ for if Christ hath made a full and perfect satisfaction vpon the Crosse as without all doubt he did he himselfe contesting in that his last speech It is finished then what neede any addition of humane satisfactions If there be such a necessity of humane satisfactions as they make then Christs satisfaction must needs be imperfect and so no satisfaction at all for an imperfect satisfaction is no satisfaction as the very word it selfe implyeth importing a sufficient recompence to be made to the party offended And if it be perfect it must be full and absolute that is such as needeth nothing else to be added vnto it But they require something to be added to Christs satisfaction and therefore must needs hold that it is not a full perfect and absolute satisfaction for it implyeth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a full and perfect cause of it selfe alone and yet to adde another to it as a ioynt cause to produce the same effect 40. But they will answere that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs but to apply it vnto vs and to fulfill his will and ordinance for Christs satisfaction say they is of infinite value and might aswell haue taken away the temporall punishment as the eternall but that God will haue it otherwise for the mortifying of sinne in vs and making vs conformable to Christ our head This answere of theirs may seeme to carry a shew of sound reason but in very deed it is but a shift and a golden couer to blanch the vglinesse of their doctrine for it were odious for them to say plainely that Christs satisfaction stood in need of a supply or was any wayes imperfect and therefore they would not haue men to thinke so of them though in truth they both thinke and speake so of Christ when they a little forget what they are a doing and by infallible consequence their doctrine concludeth no lesse for plaine speech thus writeth Gabriel Biel Though the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which the grace of God and the opening of heauen and the glory thereof be giuen yet it is neither the sole nor totall meritorious cause but alwaies there concurreth some worke of him that receiueth the grace And Miletus Christ indeed is the generall cause of our saluation but yet particular causes are to be added to this and so he is not the totall and whole cause And Bellarmine himselfe by consequence confesseth as much when he saith that a righteous man hath right to the Kingdome of heauen by a two-fold title one of the merits of Christ another of his owne merits These bee plaine speeches and shew what their meaning is so that howsoeuer they gloze ouer the matter with goodly words yet it is nothing but poyson in a painted boxe wherewith the ignorant may be infected but the skilfull are able to discerne their fraud And here obserue the contrariety of Bellarmines speech to another saying of S. Bernard to the same purpose Christ saith Saint Bernard hath a double right vnto the kingdome of heauen one by inheritance as he is the Sonne of God another by purchase as he bought it by his death the first he keepeth to himselfe this latter he imparts to his members This by S. Bernards Diuinitie is all the right that a faithfull man hath to the kingdome of heauen by Christs purchase and vpon this onely doth that good man and all other of Gods children relie but Bellarmine giueth him another title to wit by purchase of his owne merits which as it is a straine of his owne wit so let him keepe it to himselfe and make merry with it for wee will haue nothing to doe with it 41. As for that which they say that our satisfactions serue not to supply the want but to apply the efficacie of Christs vnto vs is a more ridiculous and shifting deuice then the other for first how can that be when as sinne is first pardoned which is by the satisfaction of Christ and then long after commeth our satisfaction if not in this life yet sure in Purgatorie The applying of a thing is a present act arising betwixt the agent and the patient therefore if our satisfaction doe apply Christs vnto our soules then it followeth that Christ hath not satisfied for our sinnes till wee haue satisfied for the temporall punishment of them which is flat contrarie to their owne principles Secondly that which applieth hath relation to that which is applied as to the obiect but our satisfaction hath no relation to Christs satisfaction as the obiect but is onely referred to the temporall punishment and to the iustice of God as they affirme therefore it cannot apply it vnto vs. And lastly how dissonant is it vnto reason that a satisfaction should apply a satisfaction as if one medicine
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
the end whereof for the most part is neuer agreeable to the beginning And this is that which the Philosopher teacheth when he saith that Mendacium de seipso duplex est A lye is double of it selfe And as Chrysostome noteth Mendacia si non habent quem deciptant ipsa sibi mentiuntur Lyes if they haue not one to deceiue they deceiue and beguile themselues So that it must needes follow that that Religion which infoldeth in it selfe contradictions and contrarieties cannot be the truth but must of necessitie be lying and erronious 3. I therefore leaue the Maior thus cleared and come to the proofe of the Minor or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome is replenished with many contradictions and is at variance and discord in it selfe and therefore cannot stand as our Sauiour concludeth of an house or a kingdom And to shew this to be true let vs first begin with the Sacrament in the doctrine whereof are enwrapped many absurd contradictions as for example 4. It is a ground and principle of their Religion and of ours and of the truth that Christ our Sauiour tooke verily and truely flesh of the Virgine Mary and had a true humane body like to vs in all things sinne onely excepted and therefore that this body of his had all the demensions and circumscriptions of a body and all the properties and qualities naturally belonging thereunto This ground of truth the Church of God hath euer defended against all Heretikes of former and latter times that impugned the same to wit the Marionites the Manichees and the Eutychians with diuers others that thought and taught erroniously concerning the humanity of Christ affirming that he had no true but a fantasticall body Now this error is in outward appearance condemned by the Church of Rome and adiudged as a damnable heresie But if we looke into other of their doctrines and necessary consequences that may be deriued therefrom we shall fiâ—de that they crosse their owne positions and hold in substance as much as the olde Heretikes did 5. For in their doctrine of the Sacrament they teach that Christ gaue his owne naturall body with his owne hands to his Apostles when he said This is my body by which it must needs follow that he both kept his body to himselfe sitting at the Table and also gaue it to his Apostles so that at this first Supper there were thirteene bodies of Christ for euery one by their doctrine had the true naturall body of Christ wholly communicated vnto him Now how is Christs bodie heere a true naturall body being in thirteene places at once From hence thus I reason A true naturall body is circumscribed and can be but in one place at once but by the Popish doctrine of transsubstantiation Christs body was in diuers places at once therefore it was no true naturall body And so the doctrine of Transubstantiation doÌ„th contradict and ouerthrow the doctrine of the truth of Christs humane nature and that not onely after it was glorifyed whereof peraduenture there might be some better shew of reason but euen whilst it was here vpon the earth subiect to all humane sinlesse infirmities yea to death it selfe And this conclusion is not ours but S. Augustines that is Take away from bodies saith he space of place and they will bee no where and because they will be no where therefore they will not be at all And againe in the same Epistle he saith speaking of Christ that â— We must take heed that we do not so build vp the Diuinitie of Christ a man that we take away the truth of his body But the Romanists destroy the truth of Christs humanitie by giuing vnto it an essentiall being and subsisting in many distant places at once and make it no body in truth by denying vnto it a certayne circumscription of one singular place at one time which â—s a necessary accâ—slarie to all quantitiue bodies 6. Bellarmine to salue this contradiction labours mainely stretching all the strings of his wit to the highest straine euen till they cracke againe but all his labour is not worth a rush euery childe may say that he doth but tryfle for first hee saith that Christs body is but in one place locally but in many places sacramentalâ—y Secondly that it is in the consecrated hoast definitiuè and not circumscriptiuè definitely and not circumscriptiuely Thirdly not satisfying himselfe with this euasion neither he saith that it is in the Sacrament Tanquam Deus est in loco As God is in a place that is by a supernaturall presence onely Lastly he flyeth to Gods omnipotency and disclayming all naturall respect saith it is a miracle so that in truth he knoweth not what to say one part of his speech thwarting and crossing another 7. For if the body of Christ bee in the Sacrament sacramentally onely then it is not either definitely as Angels and Spirits are said to be or diuinely as God is for sacramentally to be in a place is to bee there by way of relation and not by corporall existence as all know and so we say that Christs body is there present Againe if it be definitiuely then it cannot be a substantiall body subsisting of parts and members and quantitie as they say Christs body doth in the Sacrament because it is proper to Spirits and intellectuall essences to bee in a place after that manner and not to bodyes as their learned Aquinas telleth vs and if it bee there after the manner of Gods presence then it cannot bee there after the manner of a body vnlesse with the Anthropomorphites he will impiously ascribe a body vnto God And lastly touching Gods omnipotency and the miracle arising therefrom Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth that God cannot doe that which doth imply contradiction for that is to bee vnlike to himselfe and to deny himselfe but these things are contradictories a body with quantity that is with iust length bredth proportion sitting at the Table and at the same time the same body without length bredth or proportion hidden in the bread a body visible and yet the same inuisible at the same instant a body with position and situation of parts and yet the same without position and situation of parts included in euery crâ—mme of the hoast Yea lastly one body sitting at the Table with his Apostles speaking breathing spreading his hands and full of infirmitie the other in the stomacks of his Disciples neither speaking nor breathing nor stirring noâ— subiect to infirmitie Now compare the termes together Sitting and not sitting visible and inuisible with situation and without situation one and not one and all at the same instant and moment of time are grosse contradictions which as Bellarmine confesseth Almighty God himselfe cannot reconcile who by his omnipotent power is able to doe all things but this is nothing and therefore is rather to be accounted a defect of impotency then
in Christ is not taken away by their vnion in one person but the proprietie of each nature is kept safe Leo one of their Popes Christ hath vnited both natures together by such a league that neither glorification doth consume the inferiour nature nor assumption doth diminish the superiour To these I might adde many more but these are sufficient to prooue that this doctrine touching the truth of Christs humanitie now glorified in the heauens that he hath retained our nature with all the proprieties sinne onely and infirmities excepted is concordant both with holy Scripture and with the voited opinions of all reuerend antiquitie 12. Now this doctrine is crossed and contradicted by that other doctrine of theirs touching Transubstantiation and the carnall and corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for this they teach that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament with the whole magnitude thereof together with a true order and disposition of parts flesh bloud and bone as he was borne liued crucified rose againe and yet they say that the same body in the Eucharist though it hath magnitude and extention and disposition of parts agreeable to the forme of an humane body neuerthelesse doth not fill a place neither is to bee extended nor proportioned to the place which it possesseth here be pregnant and manifest contradictions Christ hath one body and yet many bodies euen as many as there are consecrated hoasts in the world that is it may be a thousand bodies at once and so his body is one and not one at the same time Againe this body is in heauen in a place and the same body at the same instant is on the Altar without being compassed about with place to be in heauen and to be in earth at one instant are contradictory propositions being vnderstoode of finite substances and not of that infinite essence which filleth all places for they imply thus much to be in heauen and net to be in heauen to be in earth and not to be in earth which be the rules of Logicke and Reason the mother of Logicke cannot be together true Againe at one moment of time to be aboue and yet below to bee remooued farre off and yet bee neere adioyning to come to one place and yet not to depart from another are so meerely opposite to each other that they cannot be reconciled And lastly a body to haue forme magnitude extention and disposition of parts and yet not with these to fill a place is as much as to say it is a body and yet not a bodie it is in a place and yet not in that very same place these are contradictions so euident that it is impossible for the wit of man to reconcile them 13. Notwithstanding the aduocates of the Romish Synagogue labour might and maine in this taske and by many arguments endeauour to reunite these oppositions first by Gods omnipotency secondly by the qualities of a glorified body and thirdly by arguments from the discourse of reason From hence they thus argue All things are possible to God and therefore this is possible neither is there any thing excepted from the omnipotency of God saue these things Quae facere non est facere sed deficere as Bellarmine speaketh that is which to doe is not to doe but to vndoe and doe argue rather impotency then potency of which sort that one body should be in many places at once is not saith he because it is not in expresse words excepted in Scripture as to lye and to denye himselfe are To this I answere first that albeit the Scripture doth not expresly except this from Gods omnipotency to make one body to bee in two places at once yet implyedly it doth for it denyeth power or rather weaknesse to God to doe those things which imply contradiction of which kinde this is for one body to be in many places at once And Bellarmine himselfe saith that this is a first principle in the light of nature euery thing is or is not which being taken away all knowledge faileth Secondly I answere that the power of God is not so much to be considered as his will nor what he can doe but what he hath reucaled in his word that hee will doe for if wee argue from his power to the effect Wee may deuise God saith Tertullian to doe any thing because he could doe it And therefore the same Authour saith Dei posse velle est Dei nonposse nolle God can of stones raise vp Children vnto Abraham saith Iohn Baptist Now if any should hence conclude that any of Abrahams children were made of stones in a proper speech all would thinke him to haue no more wit then a stone And to this accordeth Theodoret when hee saith That God can doe all things which hee will but God will not doe any of these things which are not agreeable to his nature But for to make a body to be without quantity and a quantity to be without dimension and dimension without a place that is as much to say a body without a body and quantity without quantity and a place without a place is contrary to Gods nature and therefore cannot bee agreeable to his will and so hath no correspondence with his power And lastly I answere that it is no good reason to say God can doe such a thing therefore he doth it but rather thus God will doe such a thing therefore he can doe it and thus the Scripture teacheth vs to reason Whatsoeuer pleased the Lord that did hee in heauen and in earth and not whatsoeuer hee could doe but whatsouer it pleased him to do and the Leper said to our Sauiour Christ Master if thou wilt thou canst make me cleane no◠if thou canst thou wilt but if thou wilt thou canst 14. Secondly whereas they obiect that Christs bodie after his glorification is indued with more excellent qualities then any other naturall body by reason of that super-excellent glory wherewith it is adorned aboue all others and thereby as he came to his Apostles the dores being shut and rose out of his graue notwithstanding the stone that lay vpō it and appeared vnto Paul on earth being at the same time in heauen so he is in the Eucharist after a strange and miraculous manner and yet is in heauen at the same time I answere first with Theodoret that Christs bodie is not changed by his glorification into another nature but remaineth a true bodie filled with diuine glory And with Augustine that Christ gaue vnto his flesh immortality but tooke not away nature and in another place That though Christ had a spirituall body after his resurrection yet it was a true bodie because he said to his Disciples Palpate videte feele and see and as his body was then after his resurrection so it is now being in the heauens Secondly that when hee came out of the graue the Angell remoued the stone
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
not iustify and yet faith alone doth iustify If they say that they speake of one kinde of faith and we of another they say nothing to the purpose for euen that any faith alone should iustify is contrary to their owne positions who affirme that the former cause of our iustification is the inherent righteousnes of works and not the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith And thus I leaue the Article of iustification at farre with it selfe to be atoned by their best wits if it be possible 37. Let vs come to their doctrine of workes and see how that agreeth with it selfe and here first they hold that works done before faith and regeneration are not good workes but sinnes This is proued by them out of Saint Augustine who affirmeth that the workes of vnbeleeuers are sinnes and if the workes of vnbeleeuers then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate seeing as the same Father else-where speaketh Impij cogitant non credunt the wicked doe not beleeue but thinke they haue but a shadow of faith without substance It may be prooued also by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith and therefore are no better then sinnes in the sight of God be they neuer so glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men Or as Gregorie Nazianzene saith As faith without workes is dead so workes without faith are dead and dead workes are sinnes as appeares Heb. 9. 41. Besides Bellarmine confirmeth the same by reason because they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God whome they are ignorant of To which I adde another reason drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth Mat. 7. Because an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruit but euery man til he be ingrafted into Christ is no better then an euill tree and therefore cannot doe a good worke 38. This is their doctrine and it is sound diuinitie but see how they crosse it ouer the face with a contrary falshood for the same men that teach this notwithstanding affirme that the workes of Infidels are good suo genere in their kind so they are good and not good sinnes and yet good works but this is in their kind say they that is Morally and not Theologically I but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are by their owne principles sinnes how then can they be good any waies Can sinne which is a transgression of Gods law and simply in it owne nature euill be in any respect good as it is sinne But to take cleare away this scruple another of them auoucheth that they are not onely morally but euen Theologically good for he saith that such works as are done by the light of nature onely without grace doe dispose and make a man in some sort fit to iustification though it be longè valdèremotè remotely and a farre off for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes is thereby lesse vndisposed and repugnant to diuine grace Now how can sinnes dispose or prepare a man for iustification is God delighted with sinnes Either therefore they are not sinnes or they doe not dispose to iustification neither farre nor neere or which is the present contradiction they are sinnes and not sinnes good and not good at one time and in one and the same respect And to put the contradiction out of all question the Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon of the sixt Session enacteth as much and denounceth Anathema to all that say the contrarie the words are these If any man shall say that all the works which are done before iustification by what meanes soeuer they are done are truely sinnes or deserue the hatred of God let him be Anathema And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill authorised by the Fathers of the same doth more perspicuously explaine the meaning of that Canon when hee saith that men without faith destitute of the spirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthinesse free from all fault and defiled with no sinne and by which they may obtaine saluation then which what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are sinnes be they neuer so glistering with morall vertue or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iustine Clemens and Epiphanius who affirmed that Socrates and Her aclitus were Christians because they liued according to the rule of reason and that the Grecians were iustified by Philosophie and that many were saued onely by the law of nature without the lawe of Moses or Gospell of Christ 39. Againe their doctrine of doubel merit the one of Congruity the other of Condignity as they terme them is not onely contrary to the truth but to it selfe For this they teach that the merit of congruity which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and dispositions to iustification is grounded vpon the dignity of the worke and not vpon the promise of God but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke and the promise of God to bee grounded vpon or else it is no merit This is Bellarmines plaine doctrine and is consonant to the residue of their Doctours both Schoole diuines and others for thus they define the merit of congruity It is that by which the subiect is disposed that it may receiue grace according to the reason of Gods iustice Here is onely iustice required and not any promise to the merit of congruity though I must confesse Gabriel Biel somewhat crosseth this definition when â—e saith that when a man doth what in him lyeth then God accepteth his worke and powreth in grace not by the due of Iustice but of his liberalitie And Aquinas who affirmeth that when a man vseth well the power of free-will God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy But yet they all agree in this that the merit of congruity is not grounded vpon any promise as the merit of condignity is but onely vpon the worthinâ—s of the worke done Now here lurketh a flat contradiction for by this it should follow that the merit of congruity should bee more properly a merit then that of condignity Which Bellarmine denyeth in the same Chapter because this dependeth vpon it owne dignity and hath no neede of a promise as the other hath and so should bee also more meritorious and excellent then the other being neuerthelesse but a preparation and beginning to iustification and the other the matter of iustification it selfe And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him but onely outwardly mouing him nor is yet iustified should haue more power to deserue and merite then he that is fulfilled with grace and fully iustified Thus error like a Strumpet bringeth foorth a monstrous brood of absurdities but let vs proceede 40. Their
be tormented restlessely in those burning flames which in their iudgement are equall for extremitie and anguish excepting onely continuance to the paines of Hell to be at rest and to sleepe in peace is Purgatorie become a Paradise and the skirts of Hell the suburbes of Heauen this is new strange Doctrine and yet this must needes bee if both their practice of praying for the dead in their Masse and their doctrine of the same in their bookes bee true 56. Concerning inuocation of Saints it is intangled with diuers absurd contrarieties for first if it bee true which the former Doctrine requires that wee must pray for the Saints which are in blisse that their glorie may bee increased then it is false that wee must pray vnto them For if they stand in need of our Praiers as they doe if by them their glorie is increased then they should pray vnto vs aswell as wee vnto them and if they stand in need of our helpe being in Heauen how can they helpe vs being on Earth if we be Mediatours for them how are they Mediatours for vs True it is that here below one man prayeth for another because they stand in need of one another but by another Doctrine which is also the truth the Saints enioy the sight and presence of God and therefore are most blessed for in him they enioy all sinnesse of ioy and glorie so that nothing can bee added to that happinesse which in their soules they enioy and therefore one of these two necessarily are false either we must not pray vnto them or we need not pray for them 57. Againe they a leage testimonies out of the olde Testament to prooue the inuocation of Saints as that Praier of Moses Remember O Lord Abraham Isaac and Iacob thy seruants and Ier. 25. If Moses and Samuel stand before mee my soule should not bee to this people and Gen. 48. 16. and Iob the 51. 2. Machabees 15. with diuers others and yet they teach that before Christ there was no Saint in Heauen but all in Lymbo Now if they were in Lymbo and could not help themselues vntil the Mediatour came how could they help others and if they did not enioy the presence of God themselues how could they be certified thereby as by a glasse of the necessities and Praiers of the liuing so that it must needes follow that either the Saints were not praied vnto or else if they were then they were in Heauen and not in Lymbo Especially seeing Bellarmine confesseth that the Saints in Lymbo did not ordinarily know the necessities of the liuing that being a prerogatiue of perfect blessednesse neyther tooke care of humane affaires nor were protectors of the Church as the Saints in Heauen are Bellarmine indeede seeing this absurditie acknowledgeth that for the reasons afore alleaged it was not a custome in the olde Testament to direct their Praiers purposely to the Saints but in their praiers to God to alleage the merits of the Saints but herein hee both crosseth himselfe and all his fellowes for if it be so why doth he and they produce testimonies out of the olde Testament to prooue their inuocation which is made directly vnto the Saints 58. Lastly they affirme that no Saints may bee worshipped publikely that is in the name of the Church vnlesse hee be canonized by the Pope for the auoiding of misprision and yet they confesse that none were canonized till 800. yeeres after Christ by Pope Leo the third and also that it is lawfull priuately to worship any of whose sanctity I haue an opinion now I would gladly know if this bee a way to auoide mistaking why was it forborne so long or why is it not vrged priuately aswell as publikely if canonization were necessary 800. yeeres after Christ to auoide mistaking then there was much mistaking before or else this remedy would not haue beene hatched and if it was necessary in the publicke seruice then is it much more in priuate deuotions seeing priuate men are more propense to false suppositions then a whole congregation is and so this new doctrine of canonization not onely condemneth the Idolatry offormer times in the inuocation of Saints but also openeth a wide doore to priuate superstition in that kind and so indeed crosseth and vndermineth it selfe for Bellarmine confesseth out of Sulpitius that the people did long celebrate one for a martyr who after appeared and tolde them that hee was damned and Alexander the third reprehendeth certaine men for giuing the honour of a martyr to one that dyed drunke and no doubt but many such Saints are in their Martyrologe at this day notwithstanding their canonization so that by canonizing they preuent mistaking by giuing liberty to priuate inuocation they giue occasion if not cause of mistaking then which what can be more contradictory 59. Againe when they barre all children that are vnbaptized out of Heauen and confine them to Limbo there to endure the punishment of losse for euer doe they not contradict another doctrine of theirs which teacheth that men dying without the baptisme of water if they haue baptismum flaminis vel sanguinis that is either suffer martyrdome for Christs sake or bee regenerated by his Spirit and so haue a desire to bee initiated by that Sacrament but are preuented by some meanes may notwithstanding goe to Heauen for if want of baptisme bee a sufficient cause to keepe from Heauen then it is so as well in men growne as in infants and if it bee not a sufficient cause to shut vp Heauen gates against men of yeeres then how can it be to yong infants especially seeing infants by their doctrine are equall to men in two things first that they may bee martyrs as well as they as the children whom Herod slew in Bethlâ—em are celebrated in their leiturgies and secondly that they may bee sanctified as well as they as Iohn Baptist was in his mothers wombe and in these two are precedent vnto them first that they are void of actuall transgressions with which men of yeeres are infinitely stayned and so neerer to Heauen then those and secondly though they haue no desire of baptisme in themselues yet they are deuoted thereunto both by the desire of their parents and by the purpose and intent of the Church And therefore all considerations being equall in the persons and the oddes remaining if there be any on the infants side it can bee no lesse then a direct contradiction that children vnbaptized cannot bee saued and men vnbaptized may bee saued for it implieth thus much in effect that the outward baptisme of water is necessary to saluation and yet the outward baptisme of water is not necessary to saluation 60. Againe concupiscence in the regenerate is denyed by them all to bee in it owne nature sinne and yet they all confesse that it is malum an euill and vitium a vice Is any thing naturally euill which is
not sinne or a vice in Philosophy that is not a sinne in diuinity This is strange diuinity The name of euill we know is vsed of annoyances crosses and afflictions but these are naturall euils and not morall but to doe euill can bee said of nothing but sinne and howsoeuer ti bee true that vice is rather the habit then the act of sinne yet because it is the habit is it therefore lesse sinfull then the act noy is it not more sinfull seeing it groweth out of many actes and is confirmed by custome and almost turned to nature In this therefore they are most contrary to themselues when they grant concupiscence to bee of it owne nature an euill and a vice and yet not a sinne for nothing is naturally euill but that which swarueth from good nor any thing vice but that which is contrary to vertue Now all morall good and vertue is within the compasse of the Law of God and all morall euill and vice a transgression of that Law therefore it cannot but follow that concupiscence being a morall euill and vice and therefore a transgression of the Law of God should bee cleared from being sinne of it owne nature especially seeing as Origen saith This is the nature of sinne if any thing bee done which the Law forbiddeth and Bede that all that swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse sinne and Caesarius Gregory Naianzens brother that sinne is euery assay to resist and euery resistance it selfe against vertue And Saint Augustine that therefore a thing is sinne because it ought not to bee done and that to doe any thing amisse is to sinne but euery moral leuill and vice is forbidden by the Law swarueth from the rule of righteousnesse is a resistance against vertue and a thing that is done amisse and ought not to bee done therefore is also sinne in it owne nature They haue no wayes to helpe themselues out of these briers but by the distinction of properly and improperly which they say they fetch out of Saint Augustine as if concupiscence in the regenerat should be sinne improperly and not properly by which the contradiction is not taken away for they say that it is not sinne at all in it owne nature but onely euill now if it bee improperly sinne of it owne nature then it is some way sinne and so that proposition is false that it is not sinne at all and besides therefore it is said by that distinction in Saint Augustine to be improperly sinne because it is not come to so high a perfection as other sinnes are by being without consent of will neuerthelesse hee neuer meant but that it was a transgression of the Law of God and so a sinne in it owne nature as may appeare by almost infinite places in his bookes as for instance one for all Concupiscence saith he is not onely the punishment of sinne and cause of sinne but euen sinne it selfe because there is in it a rebellion against the Law of the minde and therefore hee calleth it a concupiscentiall disobedience which dwelleth in our dying members and in other places an euill quality vitious desires vnlawfull lusts c. Therefore Saint Augustine when he called it â—in improperly neuer dreamt that is was not a transgression of the Law but either that it was not so high a degree of sinne as those which are done with consent of will or that because the guilt of it is taken away by baptisme in the regenerate as hee speaketh in another place Concupiscence is not called sinne in such manner as sinne maketh guilty because the guilt thereof is released in the Sacrament of regeneration And thus this distinction rightly vnderstood standeth them in no stead to keepe their doctrine from manifest contradiction 61. This subiect might bee prosecuted in many more points of their Religion but I conclude with these two Antichrist and the Bishop of Rome which I ioyne together in this discourse because in truth they are all one and though they differ in name yet they agree in nature one egge is not liker to another nor milke liker to milke then the Pope is to Antichrist As touching Antichrist therefore thus they confesse that by mysticall Babylon in the Reuelation is meant ` Rome and by and by with an other contrary blast they puffe away that againe and affirme that Rome is not Babylon The first is auouched in plaine termes both by Bellarmine and Viega and Ribera two other Iesuites and the whole colledge of the Rhemists and diuers others conuicted by the euidence of truth and the second is insinuated by a necessary consequence out of another position for they say that Ierusalem shall bee the seat of Antichrist and in so saying they inferre necessarily that Ierusalem is mysticall Babylon and not Rome because the whore of Babylon is set foorth in the Scripture to be the seat of Antichrist and it must needs bee so seeing shee is called the mother of all fornications that is of Superstition and Idolatry of all Atheisme and heresie and seeing shee maketh drunke the kings and inhabitants of the earth with the golden cup of her fornication and is died red and made drunke with the bloud of the Saints and of the martyrs of Iesus And lastly seeing Antichrist must bee one of the seuen heads to wit the last of the Romane beast and the last King of the Romane Empire though not called the Romane Emperour as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth All these things considered and laide together it must needs bee inferred by necessary consequence that the whore of Babylon cannot choose but bee the seat of Antichrist and if it bee so then either Ierusalem is not the seat where this man of sinne must raigne or by Babylon is not meant Rome but Ierusalem let them choose which one of these is apparantly false 62. Againe when by Babylon they vnderstand Rome they restraine it to heathenish Rome vnder the persecuting Emperours and say that it is not meant of Rome Catholicke and Christian but of Rome Ethnick and Heathenish Now if Rome be Babylon and Babylon the seat of Antichrist as hath beene proued out of their owne confession how can Rome heathenish vnder the Emperours be it when as they all agree that Antichrist shall not come vntill a little before the end of the world That state of Rome which they speake of is past aboue a thousand yeeres since and Antichrist is not yet come according to their doctrine Necessarily therefore it followeth that either Antichrist sate there then and so is come long agoe or else that Rome was not Babylon whilst it was vnder the heathen Emperours but is or shall be after it hath receiued the Christian faith 63. Againe the Romane Empire must bee remoued before the comming of this great enemie this all our aduersaries yeeld vnto and most of the ancient fathers so interpret that place When he that hindereth shall be taken
Peters successor must be in the same case that is neither to erre personally nor iudicially or if he erre one way then also to bee subiect to error the other Lastly experience hath taught that Popes may erre euen as they are Popes and that iudicially yea and also haue beene condemned for Heretikes As Honorius the first whom three generall Councils condemned for a Meâ—othelâ—te And Iohn the two and twentieth who was constrained to recant his iudgement touching the soule by the Vniuersitie of Paris And Iohn the three and twentieth who was condemned for an Heretike by the Council of Constance for denying the immortality of the soule And diuers others who not onely in their priuate opinions but in their publike doctrines haue taught and maintained notorious errours 67. Another doctrine of theirs is that the Pope is the head of the Church and yet they denie not but sometimes the Pope is no true nor sound member of the Church how can hee be the head of the Church that is no sound member thereof nay no member at all not so much as the taile as the Iewish Rabbines call the Bishop of Rome in disdaine except their last distinction helpe them quatenus Papa and quatenus homo I know not how they will rid themselues out of this snare and yet that will not helpe them neither in this case for is it likely that Christ will make a reprobate the head of his Church and commit the cuâ—â—â—dy of the same to an Atheist an Heretike or an Epicure or a Necromancer or a monster of nature as all stories â—all Iohn 12. and as many of them haue beene Surely either as he is a Pope he is not the Churches head or as hee is a man hee must needs be a member of the same If they say that wee giue vnto a King the same title of head and gouernor of the Church who notwithstanding is often a tyrant and waster of the Church and a very reprobate I answere that in attributing these titles of dignity to Kings wee doe not positiuely set downe what euery one is for if hee bee a destroyer of the Church hee is not an vpholder of it but what euery one ought to bee in regard of his office but the Romanists absolutely set it downe that though the Pope be a wolfe wasting the flocke of Christ and though hee lead by his doctrine and example infinite soules with him to hell yet hee is still actually the head of the Church quatenus Papa and no man may say vnto him Why doe you so 68. Againe it was decreed by two Councils and those assembled authorized and confirmed by Popes themselues that the Councill was aboue the Pope and yet the Councill of Laterane vnder Pope Leo the tenth decreeth peremptorily that the Pope is aboue all Councils so also most of the moderne Romanists affirme Now if the decrees of Councils lawfully assembled and approoued by Popes bee the doctrines of the Church then here is one doctrine quite contrary to another one Councill opposite to another yea one Pope to another which is no new nor strange thing but ordinary in the Church of Rome As witnesse Pope Iohn the two and twentieth and Pope Nicholas about the question of our Sauiours manner of possessing earthly goods and Pope Celestine and Pope Innocent the third in the question of diuorce in the case of heresie and Pope Pelagius and Pope Gregory the first in the question of putting away the wiues of Subdeacons one of these crossing the other iudicially and one gain saying what the other defended And most notorious is that which diuers Chronologers testifie of Pope Stephen the sixt how hee decreed in a Councill that they who were ordained Bishops by Pope Forâ—â—sus his predecessour were not ordained lawfully because the man was wicked by whom they were ordained therfore he did vnordain them and reordaine them againe thus Stephen iudicially crossed Formâ—sus and hee againe was crossed and condemned by Pope Iohn the ninth euen for this fact and his new ordainings marched with new baptizings 69. Lastly they constantly maintaine that the Pope is not Antichrist and yet they affirme that hee is the Vicar of Christ heere on earth a flat contradiction for the word Antichrist signifieth not onely an enemie vnto Christ but also one that taketh vpon him the office and authority of Christ the prâ—position 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affording naturally and properly both significations as appeareth in these two wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an opposite and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Proconsull in the first whereof it signifieth opposition and the second substitution Now then if the Pope bee Christs Vicar generall on earth then he is in the last sense Antichrist and beeing so in the last sense it is most likely that hee is also the same in the first because the Antichrist spoken of in the Scripture is described to be such a one as is not an open and outward but a couert and disguised enemie hauing two hornes like the Lambe that is counterfeting the humility and meeknesse of Christ and making a glorious profession of religion with a shew of counterfeit holinesse when notwithstanding hee speaketh lyes in hypocrisie and vttereth wordes like the dragon and is the greatest enemy to Christ Iesus and his Gospel that euer was so that in that hee is Christs Vicar hee is Antichrist by their owne confession in that sense and being so is probably Antichrist also in the other because the true Antichrist must bee both the one and the other And so for the conclusion of this point wee haue not onely the mystery of iniquity that is Antichristianisme in the manifold contradictions and oppositions thereof but euen Antichrist himselfe lurking in his den professing himselfe and his followers to bee the onely true Church of God and pretending himselfe to be the Prince of the couenant as Saint Ierome speaketh that is asmuch as to say the Vicar of Christ and without doubt as the sweet harmonie in Christian Religion and euery part thereof with it selfe is a pregnant argument of the infallible truth thereof so the miserable opposition and contrariety in the Religion of the Church of Rome and that most of the doctrines therein contained either with themselues or with other as I haue in part here shewed leauing a fuller demonstration thereof to some other that shal more deeply search into them doe euidently euince that it is the Religion of Antichrist and therefore not onely to be suspected but euen to bee abhorred of all them that loue the truth or that desire the saluation of their soules The IX MOTIVE That Religion whose doctrines are in many points apparently opposite to the word of God and the doctrine of the Gospell cannot bee the trueth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome ergo c. 1 IN the Chapter going before I haue shewed how the Romish Religion is contrary to it selfe
it 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
to the ground And this indeed is the very ground of this blasphemous doctrine 66. Doctour Bishop misliking this distinction as it seemeth flyeth to another In sinne sayth hee there are two things the one is the turning away from God whom wee offend The other is the turning to the thing for the loue of which wee offend Now the turning away from GOD both the sinne and the eternall paine due vnto it are freely through Christ pardoned but for the pleasure we tooke in sinne wee our selues are to satisfie and according to the greatnesse thereof to doe penance Thus dreameth Doctor Bishop but let his owne fellow Doctor waken him and he of greater credit then himselfe Aquinas it is who reiecteth this distinction as nothing worth and giueth this reason of his reiecting because satisfaction answereth not to sinne but according as it is an offence to God which it hath not of conuerting to other things but of auerting and turning from God And surely his reason is passing good for to vâ—â— the Creatures and to loue the Creatures is not sinne but to vse them disorderly and to loue them immoderately which disordered vse immoderate loue is the very turning and auersion from God and therefore to say that wee satisfy not for our auersion from God but for our conuersion to the creatures is to say either that wee satisfy for that which is no sinne or els that some part of sinne is not an auersion from God both which are equally absurd and Doctor Bishop cannot giue a third and therefore his distinction is a meere foppish dreame without head or foote 67. The Gospell teacheth that there is giuen no other name vnder Heauen whereby wee must bee saued but the name Iesus But the Church of Rome propoundeth vnto vs other names to bee saued by as the Virgin Mary the Saints and Martyrs yea Francis and Dominick c. For they make them Mediatours of intercession to God for vs which office belongeth only vnto Christ as hath been shewed and they teach that we are saued by their merits aswell as by the merits of Christ and that as there are diuers mansions in Heauen so among the Saints there are diuers offices some haue power ouer one thing some ouer another as Saint Peter against infidelity Saint Agnes for Chastity Saint Leonard for Horses Saint Nicholas against ship-wracke Saint Iames for Spaine Saint Denis for France Saint Marke for Venice c. Yea they would make men beleeue if a man being otherwise a vyler sinner dye in the habit of Saint Francis or Saint Dominick c. must needes goe straight to heauen without any more adoe and that as it may seeme though he hath neyther faith nor repentance 68. Lastly they are not ashamed to say that the death and passion of Christ and of the holy Virgine together was for the redemption of mankinde and as Adam and Eue sold the world for one Apple so Mary and her Sonne redeemed the world with one heart and therefore as they called him Sauiour so her Sauiouresse as him Mediator so her Mediatresse as him the King of the Church so her the Queene If this be not to repose the confidence of our saluation vpon other names besides the Name of Iesus let the world be iudge 69. Yet for all this they thinke to couer this their filthinesse by a distinction for they say that they doe not flye to the Saints as authors and giuers of good things but as Impetrators and Intercessors To which I answere that to omit their doctrine which hath at large beene discouered before the very forme of their prayers doth extinguish this distinction for when they cry and say O Saint Peter haue mercy on me Saue mee Open mee the gate of heauen Giue mee patience Giue mee fortitude c. And to the blessed Virgine O Mediatrix of God and men ô Fountaine of mercy Mother of grace Hope of the desolate Comforter of the desperate c. receiue this my humble petition and giue me life euerlasting And to Saint Paul Vouchsafe to bring vs whom thou hast caused to know the light of truth after the end of this mortality thither where thou thy selfe art Doe they not make them authors and giuers of these things Yes in word saith Bellarmine but not in sense for the meaning of these petitions is that by their prayers and merites they would obtaine of God these good things But alas how should the common people vnderstand their meaning seeing the sound of their words are so playne to the contrary Againe why doe they not propound their sense in playner termes but leaue it thus inuolued vnder darke riddles to the great offence of thousands And lastly how harsh an interpretation must this needs be in the eares of all men Giue me euerlasting life that is Pray to God that he would giue mee it If a man should speake so in his common talke no man would vnderstand him otherwise then his words sound how much lesse can these spirituall matters be otherwise vnderstood then they are spoken Surely this shift is so filly that if it might stand good what might not a man speake and yet excuse it sufficiently after this manner And though the Councill of Trent seeme to graunt to the Saints the power onely of intercession as Bellarmine also doth yet the Romane Catechisme set foorth by the commandement of the Pope and decree of the same Councill doth cleerely and expressely attribute vnto the Saints the power of Mercy Grace and Donation of benefits Whereby it appeareth that this is not the opinion of some priuate men but the receiued and approoued doctrine of the Church And thus this distinction vanisheth before the truth as snow against the Sunne 70. The Gospell teacheth that euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers and that we submit our selues vnto all maner of ordinance for the Lords sake whether vnto King or vnto Gouernours c. And our Sauiour himselfe confesseth that Pilate had power euer him from God when he faith Thou couldest haue no power at all against me except it were giuen thee from aboue But the Church of Rome teacheth that neyther the Pope himselfe nor any of his Clergie are subiect to the temporall power of Princes eyther to be iudged of them or punished by them no not in cases of fact when they are guilty of haynous crimes as of Treason Murther Theft c. 71. This doctrine though it bee contradicted by many learned Doctors of their owne side as Occham Marsilius Pataninus Barclay a late French Lawyer and others yet is maintayned by their Popes and Cardinalls Iesuites and Canon Lawes which are the very synewes of Popery as not onely true but necessary to saluation and therefore we may well call it The doctrine of their Church For Popes Iohn the two and twentieth commaunded Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona to write a Booke wherein he maintaineth this position
thinke it fit for vs to say so for humility sake but also that wee were so in truth and indeede Let Saint Bernard for an vpshot wipe away this distinction Wilt thou saith he say that Christ hath taught thee to say so for humility sake true indeed it was for humility but what against truth And thus none of these shifts and distinctions can deliuer this doctrine from opposition to the Gospell for it followeth ineuitably if the best be no better then vnprofitable seruants then none can worke such works whereby hee may not onely merite for himselfe eternall life but hauing a surplusage of redundant merits bestow some of them for the supplying of others wants 100. And thus wee haue a short view of the cleere and manifest oppositions that are betwixt the doctrines of the Gospell and the doctrines of the Church of Rome And we see with what subtill and intricate distinctions they labour to reconcile them together but truth is naked and needeth no such shiftings Both the one and the other therefore namely their direct opposition to the Gospell on the one side and their elaborate diflinctions to make good their cause on the other doth euidently euince the conclusion of this ninth demonstration that that Religion which is built vpon such desperate and dangerous principles cannot be the truth of Christ but the doctrine and Religion of Antichrist The X. MOTIVE That Religion which nourisheth most barbarous and grosse ignorance amongst the people and forbiddeth the knowledge and vnderstanding of the grounds of the Christian faith cannot be the truth but this doth the Romish Religion ergo c. 1. IN the first proposition of this Argument the Romanists hold the Wolfe by the eares not knowing whether it be better to graunt or to deny it for if they graunt it to bee true it will flye in their faces because they are guilty of the contents thereof and if they deny it it will bite them by the fingers for all men will condemne them of shamelesse impudency for denying so apparant a truth Therefore as the beast which Pliny calleth Amphisbaena so it stingeth both wayes But of two euils the lesser they must of necessitie deny it or else they must condemne their owne practice of impietie which sure they will not doe though for their labour they gaine to themselues that name which so frequently and imperiously they impute vnto vs Shamelesse Heretikes they speake it of vs in the spirit of malice but it shall be prooued of them by sound reason and that in this demonstration ensuing by Gods assistance 2. For the confirmation therefore of the first proposition a word or two though whatsoeuer can be spoken thereof is but to adde light vnto the Sunne First therefore the Scripture standeth foorth and condemneth ignorance so plainely that nothing can be more euident Salomon telleth vs That they which hate knowledge loue death And the Prophet Esay That the people were carryed into captiuitie because they had no knowledge And the Prophet Hosca That they were destroyed for lacke of knowledge Our Sauiour affirmeth that the cause of erring in the Sadduces was the ignorance of the Scripture And Saint Paul coupleth these two together in the Gentiles Darkned cogitations through ignorance and strangers from the life of God where he plainely sheweth that ignorance and destruction are inseparable companions as sanctified knowledge and saluation are And to omit infinite other passages of holy writ our Sauiour directly concludeth that he which knoweth his Masters will and doth it not shall bee beaten with many stripes and he which knoweth it not and therefore doth it not shall be beaten too but with fewer stripes By which he giueth vs to know that though some kinde of ignorance may extenuate and lessen the fault yet none especially if it bee of matters which we are bound to know and may be attayned vnto doth excuse from all fault but is blame-worthy and punishable by Gods iustice 3. Thus speakes the holy Ghost in the Scripture and doubtles in reason it must needs be so for wherin doth a man differ from a beast but in reason and vnderstanding and wherein doth one man differ from another but in the enlightning of reason by diuine knowledge which is the matter subiect of true Religion Religion being nothing else but the knowledge and profession of the diuine truth the want whereof must needs be a subuerter and destroyer thereof A Physicion that is ignorant of the grounds of his Arte we account a Mountebanke and Imposter And what I pray you can they be lesse that professe ignorance and that in the most difficult Art of all other the Art of Christianitie Besides all confesse that ignorance is a defect and blemish of the soule and that the more knowledge a man hath the neerer he is vnto perfection because hee is the more like vnto God but the chiefe end of Religion is to purge away the blemishes to make vp the breaches of the soule to renue Gods Image defaced therin that so we may be made like vnto him euen perfect as he is perfect How can then true Religion teach ignorance which is such an enemy vnto perfectiō or how can that be true religion which nourisheth ignorance inioyneth it vnto most of her professors followers 4. Let the fathers bee Iudges of this cause Saint Augustine sayth in one place that Ignorance as a naughty mother bringeth forth two wicked daughters falshood and doubting And in another that the knowledge of God is the engine by which the structure of charity is built vp Saint Bernard sayth that both the knowledge of God and of a mans selfe is necessary to saluation For as out of the knowledge of a mans selfe commeth the feare of God and out of the knowledge of God the loue of him so on the contrary from the ignorance of a mans selfe commeth pride and from the ignorance of God desperation Saint Chrysostome sayth that knowledge goeth before the imbracing of Vertue because no man can faithfully desire that which hee knoweth not and euill vnknowne is not feared The like song sing all the rest of the Fathers whose testimonies I thinke needlesse to accumulate being so wel knowne to all men 5. And that they may bee vtterly without excuse heare what their owne Doctours affirme Aquinas confesseth that omnis ignorantia vincibilis est peccatum si sit eorum quae aliquis seire tenetur All vincible ignorance that is which may bee auoided is sinne if it bee of those things which a man is bound to know But such is the ignorance maintained in the Church of Rome not onely vincible but affected wilfull and voluntary Bellarmine also acknowledgeth that ignorance is a disease and wound of the soule brought in as a punishment of originall sinne And confesseth out of Saint Augustine that it is the cause of errour For Two euils are
doe so yet they must iudge of them no otherwise then by referring them to their ordinary Pastour which is the Pope to whose definitiue sentence they must yeeld full consent without further examination Nay he most shamefully affirmeth that if their ordinary Pastour teach a falshood and another that is not their Pastour teach the contrary truth yet the people ought to follow their Pastour erring rather then the other telling the truth And thus the poore people must rely al their knowledge vpon their Pastours and may not in any case examine and try their Spirits whether they be of God or no cleane contrary to the Precept of our Sauior Ioh. 5. 39. Search the Scriptures And to the practice of the Bereans who examined Pauls doctrine by the Scriptures And to the counsell of Saint Iohn to all To try the Spirits Now who seeth not that this confirmeth and cherisheth the people in ignorance For if they may not dispute about any matter of faith themselues nor heare others that are learned so to doe nor examine the doctrine of their ordinary Pastours but beleeue whatsoeuer they teach bee it true or false what remaineth but that they should lye and tumble in ignorance and superstition seeing the ordinary meanes of getting knowledge and finding out the truth is taken from them For when they are bound to swallow downe all the doctrines on the one side and may not so much as heare or read the reasons of the other nor weigh them together in the Ballance of iudgement how is it possible that they should euer finde out the truth 22. Wee confesse with Saint Paul that the weake are not to bee admitted to controuersies of disputation But what disputations Mary about needlesse questions touching matters indifferent as meat and drinke and difference of dayes as the Apostle explaineth himselfe in the same Chapter Or foolish and vnlearned questions that ingender strife and are not profitable to edification But if the disputation bee concerning matters of saluation and disquisition of a necessary truth then are none to bee excluded either from reasoning or hearing For Saint Peter requireth of euery man that hee be able to giue an answere to euery one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in him And therefore to dispute for what is to dispute but to giue a reason And our Sauiour disputed with the Pharises and Sadduces in the audience of the people touching the resurrection and the greatest Commandement of the Law and his humane and diuine nature And so likewise did Saint Paul with the Grecians and with the Iewes conuincing them by arguments out of the Scripture That Iesus was the Christ and that there was no way to saluation but by saith in his Name From such disputations as these none was debarred but euery one was and is bound to seeke a firme resolution that hee bee not carried about with euery winde of doctrine True it is euery simple man and woman ought not presently to rush out into arguments of disputation nor too peremptorily to talke of deep mysteries in Religion for then it may bee said vnto them as Saint Basill is reported to haue answered the Emperors Cook Tuum est de pulmentis cogitare non diuina dogmata concoquere It is thy part to looke to thy sauces and dainty dishes and not to boyle in thy shallow wit heauenly mysteries And therefore they must as Saint Ierome speaketh not lacerare Scripturam teare in pieces the Scriptures by their ignorant interpretations and applications of it Nor docere antequam didicerunt Teach others before they haue learned themselues But like Pythagoras schollers keepe silence long till they be wel grounded in knowledge neuerthelesse all this while they must not be barred from hearing others discourse of these high matters nor from reading their arguments pro contra nor at length also when they are come to some perfection from arguing and reasoning with the aduersary For this is the high way to knowledge and vnderstanding the Lord hauing promised to all those that pray vnto him and doe his will whether they bee Priests or people the illumination of his Spirit and power to discerne of doctrines They that deny therefore this liberty vnto the people doe barre them out from all sound knowledge and imprison them in a gaole of ignorance blindnesse and superstition 23. Lastly their braue doctrine touching Implicite faith doth tend to the same end and bring forth the fame effect and that more effectually then any of the rest For thus they teach that it is not necessary for a Layman to know anymore by a distinct knowledge saue some few capitall heads of Religion as that there is one God and three persons That Christ is come in the flesh and redeemed vs from our sinnes and shall com againe to iudge the quicke and the dead c. As for the rest it is sufficient to giue assent vnto the Church and beleeue as it beleeueth though they know not what it beleeueth yea that they are not bound expresly to beleeue all the Articles of the Apostles Creed which is notwithstanding nothing els but a briefe summe and Epitome of Christian Religion and one of the principall grounds of the Catechisme And this is the Colliers faith spoken of before so much commended by many of their greatest Clarks Now how can this but nourish most groffe ignorance For when the people are perswaded that such a short scantling of knowledge is sufficient and that it is enough for their saluatioÌ„ if in a reuerence to the Church they beleeue as it beleeueth what reason haue they either to labour to get any further knowledge or to increase and grow vp in that which they haue attained vnto Surely in matters of Religion so great is the auersenesse of our nature that wee are all so farre from endeuouring to get more then is needfull that few seeke for so much And therefore they that bound our knowledge within so narrow limits cherish this corruption and by speaking pleasing things vnto it lull it asleepe in the bed of ignorance But in the meane time how contrary is this to the word of God let the world indge seeing the Apostle prayeth for the Colossians that they might bee fulfilled with the knowledge of Gods will in all wisedome and spirituall vnderstanding and that they might increase in the knowledge of God Whereas these fellowes would haue Gods people to bee empty of knowledge and in stead of growing to stand at a stay resting vpon the supposed knowledge of the Church And whereas the same Apostle saith vnto the Thessalonians I would not haue you ignorant brethren speaking in the same place of very high and deepe mysteries as the state of the dead the resurrection and ast iudgement they on the contrary say to their people Wâ—e would haue you ignorant brethren These things are so grosse and shamefull that if the Church of
within holy Orders were accused of any crime hee must bee iudged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges and if he were conuict he should lose his Orders and so being excluded from Ecclesiasticall office and benefice if after this he incurred the like fault then might he be iudged at the pleasure of the King and his Officers This was that proud Archbishops challenge against his Soueraigne Henry the Second for defence whereof as also for other trayterous demeanors being tumultuously killed hee was canonized a Saint at Rome 20. And that you may see that this practice of theirs is agreeable to their Doctrine Bellarmine himselfe concludeth That Kings are not Superiours vnto Clarkes and therefore that they are not bound either by Gods or mans Law to obey them saue onely in respect of Lawes directiue and that the Imperiall Law ought in matters criminall to giue place to the Canon Law which is as much as to say that not the King but the Pope is the Lord of the Clergie Did Peter euer doe the like No he both in his owne person submitted himselfe to the temporall power when he paid Tribute at his Masters Commandement and when he vnder-went stripes and imprisonment for the Gospels sâ—ke without making any such challenge of exemption and also when he gaue in charge to all others euen his fellow Elders to submit themselues to Kings and Superiours for the Lords sâ—ke Sure it is that hee which payd a Tribute of monie much more ought to pay a Tribute of obedience and he which commanded others to obey would not in any wise bee refractorie himselfe lest that olde Prouerbe should be returned vpon him Phisician heale thy selfe and lest his practice should looke one way and his doctrine another which was vnfit for any much more for an Apostle 21. Lastly did euer Peter challenge to himselfe any such power and preeminence aboue the Scriptures as to dispense with the Law of GOD at his pleasure and to take away and abrogate what hee list in the same But the Pope taketh vpon him this also for these be their owne positions That the Pope may dispense with the Law of God and against the Apostle and against the new Testament vpon a great causâ— and that he may take away the Law of God in part but not in whole Yea that hee can ex iniustitia facere iustitiam turne sinne into righteousnesse and de facto Some of them haue dispenst with diuers Commandements of the Law with Incest with Murther with Theft with Treason Adulterie and such like as hath beene before sufficiently declared and may further be prooued if it were not a thing both knowne and confessed To shut vp the poynt certaine it is that Peter neuer exercised any such Iurisdiction eyther in part or whole as here is claimed by the Popes and if hee had it and did not shew it eyther by doctrine or practice he was not so carefull of the Church of God as hee should bee to hide from them so necessarie a truth but if he had it not then doe the Popes both vniustly deriue it from his chaire and wrongfully vsurpe that which by no right belongeth vnto them Now in that which I say Peter neuer did the like let Paul and Iames and Iohn and all the rest of the Apostles yea the whole Primitiue Church be included within the same proposition and it is as fully true as in that one particular and therefore it must necessarily follow that the Romish Iurisdiction hath no footing nor founding in the whole Primitiue Church but is like a Monster borne out of time deformed and mis-shapen in euery part thereof 22. In the third place if we coÌ„sider the outward ceremonies now vsed in the Church of Rome we shall yet more cleerely foe their declining from the Primitiue antiquitie for a taste whereof I instance first in their Latine Seruice which Bellarmine himselfe confesseth was not in vse in the Apostles times and Lyranus goeth a step further and sayth that in the Primitiue Church and long after all things in the Church were performed in the vulgar tongue the same is acknowledged by Aquinas and Caietan writing vpon the same place and Cassander as learned and iudicious a Papist as their side affordeth yea Platina himselfe pointeth out the very time when and person by whom this was first commanded to wit by Vittalianus the first about the yeere sixe hundred threescore ten What need we more to euince the noueltie of this Ceremonie seeing wee haue so many of their owne confessions and no maruell if they confesse it seeing else they should haue contradicted most of the ancient Fathers whose testimonies are so cleere in this point that they admit no exception as the places quoted doe manifestly declare 23. Secondly I instance in their praying vpon beades which came in as Polidore Virgil affirmeth in the yeere of our Lord 1040. being the deuice of one Petrus a French Eremite but the Rosarie was deuised by Fryer Dominick long after that is fiftie Aue Maries fiue Pater nosters for which purpose he framed fiue fiftie stones which were so hanged together on a string that betwixt euery tenne small stones one big one was interposed this he called a Patriloquie Out of which as yet a later inuention sprung the Marie Psalter for three Rosaries that is an hundred and fiftie Aue Maries and 15. Pater nosters make a Psalter because forsooth Dauids Psalmes were so many in number these are confessed nouelties and therefore I neede not to insist any longer in them 24. Thirdly I vrge their festiuall dayes which as they are full of superstition so are they of nouell and late institution as for example the feast of the conception of the Virgin Marie not that whereby shee conceiued Christ but whereby she was conceiued by her Mother and also the feast of her assumption and of her visitation and of her presentation the first whereof their Iesuite Suarez confesseth not to haue beene clearely knowne in the world fiue hundreth yeeres since nor receiued by generall consent till almost three hundreth yeeres after so that by his confession it is not much aboue two hundreth yeeres old and indeed it was publikely inioyned by Sistus quartus Anno 1480. The second their Sixtus Senensis confesseth that it was not found among the Latine Fathers and Baronius that it is not confirmed either by Canonicall Scriptures or by the writings of ancient Fathers and in a constitution of the Council of Mentz where it is named this addition is with all sound in the bookes of Charolus Magnus Touching the assumption of Mary wee leaue it to bee questioned Now this Councill was in the yeere 800. whereby it is euident that all that time it was no publike ordination of the Church The third was instituted by Vrbanus Sextus which though Antoninus affirmeth was neuer receiued nor kept yet it was the inuention of a Pope and that of no
medicines and cold by hot light by darkenesse and darkenesse by light Now trueth and falshood good and euill godlinesse and vngodlinesse are thus contrary and therefore naturally expelling each other they cannot bee meanes of each others preseruation that cannot then bee the trueth which secketh to with-hold it selfe by falshood nor true Religion which is a doctrine according to godlinesse which maintaineth it selfe by vniust vngodly and wicked practices this is natures voyce to which reason subscribeth when it concludeth that it is not onely improbable but impossible that Vertue should seeke for Vices helpe to fortifie it selfe withall or trueth for falshood to maintaine it seeing the chiefe essence of Vertue is to fly Vice and of Trueth to bee free from Falshood Plntarchs Morals Aristotles Ethicks Tullies Offices and all practiâ—ke of Philosophy auoucheth this to be true but if from nature and reason the hand-maides wee ascend to Religion the Mistris wee shall finde in Scripture this vndeniable maxime Euill is not to bee done that good may come of it and therefore they which shall doe so Saint Paul sayth Their damnation is iust whence it followeth that deuilish and mischieuous practices vndertaken for defence of Religion and warranted by the grounds thereof doe both argue a rotten Religion for like mother like daughter according to the Prouerbe and also prooue the professours and practicers thereof to bee lyable to the iust damnation alloted by the Spirit of God to such wicked persons there is no cuasion from this conclusion except they say that their practices are not euill which whether they bee or no the particulars of the second proposition shall propound to the iudgement of him that will with an indifferent eye looke vnto them and so I leaue this first proposition fortified with three strong rampiers of Nature Reason and Religion and come to the second wherein the pith and marrow of the argument consisteth 3. That the Church of Rome is guilty of such vngodly courses for the maintainance of it selfe and their Religion though miserable experience doth sufficiently prooue yet because whilst things are considered in grosse they hide much of their worth and weight therefore it shall not be a misse to display them in particular and to offer them by retaile to such as haue a minde to apprehend the true value of their counterfeit wares In these sixe particulars therefore to omit many other I arraigne them as guilty before God and men first of horrible treason secondly of cruell murther thirdly of damnable periury fourthly of grosse lying fift of impudent and malicious slaundering and lastly of apparent forgery and these be the propps and pillars of their Religion by these they labour to procure credit to themselues and disgrace to vs and with these weapons they fight against all that oppose themselues against their damned opinions 4. Touching their treasons periuries and cruelties they are sufficiently discouered in the first and second reasons before going to which I referre the Reader for his full satisfaction onely note that as their practices haue beene notorious in these kindes so they are deriued fundamentally from the grounds of their Religion notorious I say for who hath not heard of the soule treacheries and conspiracies practised by Popes and their Agents against Kings Emperours some they haue deposed some prisoned some murthered some expelled their kingdomes some betrayed into the hands of their enemies some persecuted and vndermined and that by treacherous plots and hellish deuices to omit all others and to confine my speach to our owne Countrey the pretended Spanish inuasion in the yeere 1588 by that great Armado compounded of 138 great ships addressed by the Popes instigation who blessed and Christened it with the name of an inuincible Nauie and way made by the Iesuites and Seminaries who like Pioners and secret spies indeauoured to vndermine the state to spie out all conueniences for the enemies and to prepare mens hearts and hands to giue assistance to them The Irish rebellion blowen by the bellowes of Rome animated by Doctour Saunders and other Priests sent to incourage the rebels against their lawfull Prince or as Coster the Iesuite confesseth to be helpers to them in matters of conscience and lastly the last horrible hellish neuer sufficiently to bee detested Powder-treason which if it had come to execution as it was neere to the point would haue beene enrolled for euer amongst the wonders of the world and now the wonder is that nature could afford such monsters to deuise such a villany or that any should bee so besoâ—ted as to approoue of that Religion which was the mother of such a monster This I say in which Romanists onely were actours Iesuites Plotters and the Pope the Abâ—tter for Catesby Percie Rookwood Winter Grant and the rest were ranke recusants Garnet alias Walley alias Roberts alias Darcie alias Farmaâ— alias Philips was euer any honest that had so many names Hall alias Oldcorne Tesmond alias Greeneway and others were professed Iesuites and Baynham was sent to Rome to giue notice to the Pope of this bloudy practice whereupon solemne prayers and supplications were made by his direction for the good successe thereof These I say doe witnesse sufficiently that treason is an ordinary practice amongst that generation for the maintenance of their Religion pompe and that they thinke it a lawfull and laudable act so to doe it being the common doctrine of the Iesuites and Canonists that if a King be excommunicate either ipso facto as he is if hee bee an Heretike by their doctrine or by denunciation from the Pope then his subiects are no further to obey him but to rebell against him yea depose and kill him if by any meanes they can and though they dispence with their allegiance during the necessity of time yet it is with this limitation quoad vntill they bee of sufficient power and haue fit opportunity to worke their purpose This pernicious doctrine flowed from the mouthes and pens of Sunancha Creswell alias Philopater mariana Lupus Tresham Bellarmine Emanuell Sa and almost all the rest of that treacherous generation 5. Againe their periuries are also so notorious that I need not to insist vpon them for who knoweth not that Canon of the Councill of Constance which decreeth that faith is not to bee held with Heretikes and that sentence of a Pope reported by Guicâ—ardine that the Church is not bound with oathes and that common doctrine of the Iesuites that a subiect is not tyed by his oath to obey his King excommunicated and who hath not read of Pope Eugenius with his Legate Iulian animating the King of Hungary to breake his league with Amurath the Turke and of Atto Archbishop of Mentz perfidiously against his oath betraying Albert Count of Franconia into the Emperour Lodowick the fourths hands and of Rodulph Duke of Sueuia instigated by the Pope to falsifie his oath of alleageance to Henry the Emperour and of Burghard Archbishop of
a sinner in the acting of his sin by his powerfull prouidence and not onely foreseeth but decreeth disposeth and determineth in his wisedome all the sinnes of men according to his will and by his secret working blindeth their minds and hardneth their hearts that they cannot repent This we confesse is our doctrine if it be rightly vnderstood for we teach that God doth not barely permit sinne to be done but decreeth before to permit it and in the act worketh by it and ordereth and disposeth it to his owne ends yet so that he neither approueth of it nor is in any respect the cause of the malignity thereof and herein we consent both with the ancient Fathers and with most of their owne Doctors 69. Touching the Fathers Saint Augustine shall be the mouâ—h of all the rest thus writeth he Sinne could not be done if God doth not suffer it and he doth not suffer it against but with his will and being good as he is he would neuer suffer any thing to be ill done but that being also Almightie he can do well of that which is euill And in the next Chapter God doth fulfill the good purposes of his owne by the euill purposes of euill men And in another place God doth worke in the hardening of the wicked not onely by his permission and patience but also by his power and action through his mightie prouidence but yet most wise and iust And in another place Who may not tremble at these iudgements where God doth worke in the hearts of wicked men whatsoeuer he will rendring to them notwithstanding according to their deserts And againe in another place As God is a most holy Creator of good natures so hee is a most righteous disposer of euill wills that whereas those euill wills doe ill vse good natures he on the other side may well vse the euill wills themselues Thus Augustine is our Patrone in this Doctrine and if we be Heretikes he is one too 70. But let vs heare their owne Doctours speake When God doth good and permitteth euill sayth Hugo his will appeareth seeing he willeth that which should be both which he doth and which he permitteth both his operation and his permission are his will God worketh many things sayth Pererius within him that is hardened by which he is made worse through his owne fault he stirreth vp diuers motions either of hope or feare lust or anger and sendeth in diuers doubtfull and perplexed imaginations by which he is pusht forth vnto euill A sinner saith Medina when he sinneth doth against the will and law of God in one case and in another not he doth indeed against his signified will but against the will of his good pleasure he doth not nor against his effectuall ordination No sinne falleth out besides the will and intention of God say Mayer Durand Aquinas and other God sayth Canus is the naturall cause of all motions yea euen in euill men but not the morall cause for he neither counselleth nor commandeth euill Lastly to conclude with two famous Iesuits Vega and Suarez the first sayth that though God doth not command counsell approue or reward sinne yet he doth will and worke it together with vs and the second that God worketh the act of sinne but not the malice thereof This is the very doctrine of Caluine and Martir and all Protestants so that if wee be guilty of this blasphemous consequence to make God the author of sinne they also must needs be in the same case but Saint Augustines distinction will cleere vs both When God deliuered his Sonne and Iudas his Master to be crucified why is God iust and man guilty sayth he but because though the thing was the same which they did yet the cause was not the same for which they did it or if this distinction will not suffice their owne Iesuites will helpe vs out In sinne there are two things to be considered sayth Vasques the act and defect the act is to be referred to God but not the defect in any case which ariseth from the corrupt will of man or the act and the malignity thereof as sayth another Iesuite or the materiall part of sinne which is called by the Schoolemen subiectum substratum the vnder-laide subiect and the formall which is the prauity and anomy of the action the one of these from God the other from man or lastly if none of these will serue the turne yet our owne distinction will acquire vs to wit that Almighty God doth so will decree mans sin not as it is sin but as it is his owne iust iudgement vpon sinners for their punishment and the demonstration of his iustice And thus our doctrine is free from the conception of this vile Monster their calumniation is as vnrighteous against vs as the dealing of God about the sins of men is most righteous and iust And thus those some what too harsh sayings I contesse of Luther Swinglius and Melancthon are to bee vnderstood and no otherwise that the treason of Iudas came from God aswell as the conuersion of Paul charity will construe the wordes according to the speakers intendement and not stretch their intendement to the strict tenter of euery word and syllable 71. Fourthly they accuse vs of blasphemy against the Sonne of God for denying as they say that hee is Deus ex Deo God of God against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed and this they call the Atheisme of Caluine and Beza a palpable slander for neither Caluine nor Beza did euer imagine much lesse vtter the same in that sense which they lay to their charges for let Bellarmine their sworne aduersarie speake for them Caluine and Beza teach sayth he that the Sonne is of himselfe in respect of his essence but not in respect of his person and they seeme to say that the essence of the Deity in Christ is not begotten but is of it selfe which opinion sayth he I see not why it may not be called Catholike Heere Bellarmine telleth vs truely what their opinion was and doth acknowledge it to be a true Catholike doctrine and yet in the same Chapter hee contemneth Caluine for his manner of speaking of it and of intolerable saucinesse for finding fault with the harshnes of the phrase vsed by the Nicene Councill God of God Light of light Marke I pray you his absurdity it is Catholike and yet it may not bee spoken it is true and yet it is to be blamed May not a Catholike doctrine bee spoken then or must the truth bee smothered This is such an inconsequence as neither reason nor Religion can any wayes beare withall and for his saucy dealing with the Nicene Councill all that euer he sayth is that it is durum dictum a hard phrase yet so that hee confesseth it may receiue a good and commodious interpretation if it be vnderstood in the concrete that Christ who is God is of the
Goodman yea and Munster also with his Anabaptists all which let vs briefly examine and begin with the last and so goe backward 83. Munster with his Anabaptists maintained indeed such rebellious doctrines but were they Protestants or did euer any Protestant giue credit coūtenance or allowāce vnto thē No Bellarmine himselfe confesseth the contrary when hee sayth that the opinion of the hereticall Anabaptists was abhorred not onely of Catholikes but also of Caluine Yea Caluine and Luther wrote each of them a booke against their impieties It is impious wickednesse then for any to obiect to Protestants the opinion of those rebellious and giddy Anabaptists 84. Touchng Goodman Knox and Buchanan we ingeniously confesse that the two last went too farre in diminishing the authority of Princes and that the first was impious in animating subiects against their Soueraignes but withall wee giue them to know this that they are condemned of all good men in this their rebellious assertion and that by a publike Act of Parliament in Scotland Buchanans books was called in and censured as contrary to sound doctrine and the like censure is giuen by all godly Protestants against Knox or any other that maintaine the like 85. And now I would faine vnderstand of these fellowes what are these three in comparison of the whole Church of Protestants that they should blemish our Religion by their exorbitant opinions and to the many hundred of Protestant writers that abhorre all such doctrine and clearely auouch the contrary If it be a good plea in them to say that the opinion of some priuate men ought not to preiudice the Religion of the whole Church then it may also by good right serue our turnes in the case of these three seeing the rule of equity requireth vt feras legem quam fers that euery one should bee subiect to that Law which hee himselfe maketh In sum here are with vs but three that can be touched but with them are multitudes not onely of inferiour Priests and Iesuites but of Cardinals and Popes that are guilty of this crime ours are priuate men condemned by all others with them publike persons authorized by their places and chayres and priuiledged from errour with vs writings of no authoritie with them Bulles decrees and bookes with priuiledge and publike allowance Lastly with vs the whole streame of our Religion tendeth to the maintenance of obedience and condemning of all treason and rebellion but with them the very grounds of their Religion doe warrant and vphold the contrary as is manifestly prooued heretofore 86. Concerning Luther Caluine and Beza how farre they were from this pernicious doctrine let their owne words and writings testify Luther first Gouernment sayth he is a certaine diuine vertue and therefore God calleth all Magistrates gods not for creation but for administration and gouernment which belongeth onely to God therefore he that is a ruler is as it were a god incarnate Againe in another place We doe not flatter the Magistrates when we stile them most gracious and most mighty but from the heart we reuerence their order and their persons ordained to this office And in another place Though some thinke sayth he the gouernment of man ouer man to bee a tyrannous vsurpation because all men are naturally of like condition yet we that haue the word of God must oppose the commandement and ordinance of God who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate whom therefore the Apostle calleth Gods Ministers 87. Caluine in diuers places deliuereth this doctrine that not onely good and godly Kings are to be obeyed but also wicked ones because in them is stamped and ingrauen the image of diuine Maiestie neyther can any one sentence be picked and culled out of all his bookes yea though it be strayned to the vttermost and wrung till it bleed that but sauoureth of rebellion except that may perhaps which hee speaketh concerning an impious King that riseth vp against God and seeketh to rob him of his right how such a one doth bereaue himselfe of his authoritie and is rather to be spit at then obeyed But this also being rightly vnderstood maketh nothing to that purpose for first he doth not say that such an one is to be bereaued of his authoritie but that he bereaueth himselfe and secondly he meaneth that hee is rather to bee spit at and defiled then to be obeyed in that particular wherein he commandeth any thing contrary to the dignitie and maiestie of God What hurt now I pray you is in this doctrine Or rather what sound truth is not in it saue that there is a little harshnesse of phrase which might haue beene well omitted and yet this is all that the Romish aduersaries can charge Caluine withall 88. Lastly for Beza if I should produce all his excellent sayings whereby he doth maintaine the authority of Princes and obedience of subiects I should trouble the Reader too long let this suffice that his greatest enemies cannot obiect against him any one thing tending to the impeachment of Royall authoritie except they grossely bely him which is no new thing with them lyes and slanders being one of the chiefe props of their Kingdome Thus our doctrine affordeth them no hold for this accusation 89. Againe they challenge Caluine for imputing vnto our Lord and Sauiour some staine of sinne not by expresse words but by consequence because he said that when in the garden he prayed Father if it be possible let this cuppe passe from me neuerthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt hee corrected and revoked his prayer suddenly vttered therefore say they he must be tainted with sinne seeing he did something that might be corrected the like crime they lay to the charge of Luther and all other learned Protestants for saying that in Christs humane nature there was some ignorance residing and that he grew vp and increased in knowledge and had not the full measure of knowledge at his birth as they would haue it We grant the premises to be true to wit that this is the doctrine of Caluine Luther and other learned Protestants but neuerthelesse we say that the conclusion is a malicious slander for first many of the fathers yea most were of the same opinion with vs as also some of the popish Doctors themselues that there was ignorance in Christ and that his knowledge grew and increased together with his age according to that of Saint Luke Hee increased in wisedome and stature and in fauour with God and men And yet none of them did once imagine that this was in him either a sinne or a fruit of sinne grounding vpon that text of Scripture Heb. 4. 15. that Christ was like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted nor euer was that errour imputed vnto them for that cause Heare some of them speake in their owne words Ambrose sayth thus How Christ increased in wisdome the order of the words doth
but incourage men to deferre their repentance conuersion seeing it is in their power to accept it when they list 94. Secondly how can the doctrine of iustification by faith alone tend to loosenesse seeing we teach that faith is neuer seuered from good workes nor iustification from sanctification nor a right beliefe from an vpright life as hath beene shewed and that they which seuer and part those things which God hath coupled together seuer themselues from the mercie of God and merit of Iesus Christ With what brow of brasse then can they call this a solifidian portion and a doctrine of libertie I but manie take libertie hereby to lead a loose and wicked life building vpon this ground that they are iustified by faith alone and so they neglect all good workes True indeed many such there are but is it from our doctrine is it not rather from their mistaking of it So the Capernaites tooke offence at our Sauiour Christs heauenly doctrine Ioh. 6. touching the spirituall eating of his flesh and drinking his bloud insomuch that many of them departed from him was his doctrine therefore erronious or were not they rather ignorant in misconstruing impious in peruerting the same So is it with this mysterie of iustification which is the verie doctrine of Iesus Christ if any by mistaking it or by taking vp one piece of it and leauing another doe animate themselues vnto sinne is the doctrine to be blamed and not they rather that distort it to their owne shame and confusion In a word if this were a iust exception against this doctrine then no doctrine either of their or ours or the Gospell it selfe might bee freed from this challenge For as there is no herbe so sweet and wholsome but the Spider may sucke poyson out of it aswell as the Bee hony so there is no truth so sacred and holy but an vngodly minde may peruert and make it an occasion of his impietie Thus the grace of God is turned into wantonnesse by many as Saint Iude saith the word of God is the sauour of death vnto death Yea Christ Iesus our blessed Lord and Sauiour is a falling and a stone to stumble at and a rocke of offence so the doctrine of Iustification by faith alone may be an occasion of libertie and no otherwise that is not properly or by any effect issuing from itselfe but accidentally and by the malignitie of the obiect whereupon it worketh 95. Thirdly our doctrine of perseuerance though rayling Wright sayth of it that Epicurus himselfe could not haue found a better ground to plant his Epicurisme nor Heliogabalus haue better patronized his sensualitie nor Bacchus and Venus haue forged better reasons to inlarge their dominion yet to any single eye for his eyes are double-sighted with malice as Witches eyes are said to be it is rather a strong bridle to restraine from sensuality and Epicurisme and a bond to bind to obedience then a provocation vnto sinne for when men are perswaded that sincere faith true charitie and sauing grace cannot be lost it will cause them to take heed how they fall away lest they proue themselues to haue beene hypocrites before and their faith and charitie not to haue beene true but fained for he that falleth from God whom he pretend d to serue to the Deuil by an actual Apostasie into sinne plainly proueth that hee had neuer the seed of the spirit sowne in him nor the habit of charitie in his soule this is then a bridle to withhold men from sinne and not a spurre to pricke them forward vnto it And therefore whereas they say that men will thus reason If I be the child oâ— God I cannot fall away therefore I will doe what I list The contrarie is rather true that euery child of GOD yea euery one that is perswaded that hee is the childe of GOD will reason thus from the grounds of this doctrine I will not doe what I list neither will I giue my selfe ouer vnto sinne lest I proue my selfe by my falling into sinne not to be the child of God but an hypocrite Adde hereunto that as we teach that true faith and charitie cannot bee vtterly extinct in the elect So also we teach that this faith and charitie must bee nourished and preserued by the practice of all holy Christian duties and therefore they which neglect the conseruation of their faith and charitie and seek to extinguish them by the lusts of the flesh it is a signe that they neuer had these graces in grafted in their soules And what perswasion can be more effectual I pray you to stirre vp men vnto godlinesse then this is 96. So we may truly answere concerning the fourth doctrine obiected namely the impossibilitie of keeping Gods Commandements which though it be true in some part albeit not as they slanderously impute vnto vs. For wee hold that the regenerate person is able in some measure to keepe Gods Commandements though not to that perfection which the Law requireth exacting of euery one of vs the loue of God with all our heart soule and strength yet this openeth not but rather stoppeth the gap vnto fleshly libertie For is any man so madde as to say I will giue ouer all care of keeping Gods Law because I am not able fully and exactly to performe it rather euery one that hath but a reasonable soule will thus determine Because I am not able to performe perfect obedience to God therefore I will indeuour to doe what I can that my imperfections and wants may bee made vp by the perfect obedience of my Sauiour All men will account him a wilfull wicked wretch who being greatly indebted because he is not able to discharge the whole summe therfore will take no care to pay any part thereof which he is able to doe but lay all vpon his sureties backe so we condemne him for a desperate and damnable person that because he is not able to satisfie the whole debt of Gods Commandements therefore will not indeuour to pay as much as he can besides we teach withall that though this perfection be not attained vnto in this life yet there must be a continuall growth and increase in grace and goodnesse in all that belong to God that at length after this life ended they may doff off the olde man with the inabilities and corruptions thereof and attaine to the highest degree of perfection in the life to come the fruit of this doctrine then is not sensuall libertie but Christian humilitie not a prouocation to sinne but an incentiue and spurre vnto godlinesse 97. Thus I haue propounded vnto the view of the Christian Reader a short Epitome of the great volume of their slanders darted forth by them both against our persons our gouernment and our Religion it selfe all which indeed is but a taste and say of that which might be spoken in this subiect and which requireth an entire worke for the discouering of ther
they done it to gaine any thing thereby in disputation but onely to keepe the common people from infection whereas they spare none neither Fathers nor Councels nor moderne Writers and that not so much lest the common sort should bee infected as that the learned might be depriued of those weapons wherewith they might fight against them and wound their cause Seeing the case now so stands that hee which can muster vp together the greatest armie of Authours to fight vnder his colours is thought to haue the best cause their dealing then with vs is like that of the Philistims against the Israelites who despoyled them of all weapons and instruments of warre that they might dominiere ouer them with greater securitie but ours is not so towards them And therefore both in this and all the former respects it is a miserable vntruth and a desperate cuasion to say that wee are more guiltie of this crime then they are 107. Lastly whereas in his first answere hee pleadeth the lawfulnesse of the fact let vs heare his reasons to moue thereunto and in the interim remember that in prouing it to bee lawfull hee confesseth it to bee done But why is it lawfull Mary first because the Church being supreme Iudge on earth of all Controuersies touching faith and Religion hath authoritie to condemne Heretikes And therefore also the workes of Heretikes and if this then much more to correct and purge their Bookes if by that meanes shee can make them profitable for her vse and beneficiall to her children To which I answere two things First that it is not the Church that doth this but the sacred Inquisitors to wit certaine Cardinals and Lawyers deputed to that office who for the most part are so farre from being the Church that they are often no sound members thereof Iâ— it be said that they haue their authoritie from the Pope who is vertually the whole Church why doe they then speake so darkly and say the Church hath this authoritie when as they might in plaine termes say that the Pope hath it but that hereby they should display the feeblenesse of their cause and the fillinesse of this reason for thus it would stand Why is it lawful for Books to be purged because the Pope thinkes it lawful And must not he needs think so when the Authors crosse his triple crowne and speake against his state and dignitie Adde hereunto that it is a fallacie in reasoning when that is taken for granted which is in question For we deny their Synagogue to be the true Church and much more the Pope to bee the supreme Iudge and therefore till those things be proued the reason is of no effect 108. Secondly most of those things which are purged by them are so farre from being heresies or errours that they are the most of them sound doctrines of faith grounded vpon the authoritie of Gods sacred truth for they blot out many things in both olde and new Authours that they themselues dare not accuse to bee hereticall as that place in Saint Cyril before mentioned touching the power of faith which is no more in direct termes then that which is said in the Scripture Act. 15. 15. that faith purifieth the heart and that in the Basil Index of Chrysostome The Church is not built vpon a man but vpon faith and those propositions which are commanded by the Dutch Index to be wiped out of the Table of Robert Stephens Bible to wit that sinnes are remitted by beleeuing in Christ that he which beleeueth in Christ shall not die for euer that faith purifieth the heart that Christ is our righteousnes that no man is iust before God and that repentance is the gift of God with a number of like nature These they purge out of Stephens Index which notwithstanding are directly and in as many words recorded in the Booke of God and so it may iustly be thought that they are so farre from clenfing Bookes from the drosse and dregs of errour that they rather purge out the pure gold and cleare wine of truth and leaue nothing but dregs and drosse behind 109. His second reason is because nothing is more dangerous to infect true Christian hearts then bad Bookes Therefore it is not onely lawfull but needfull and behoouefull to the Church of God that such Bookes should bee purged and burned too if it bee so thought meete by the Church to the end that the sinceritie of one true faith and Religion might be preserued I answere all this is true which he saith but are they heresies which they purge no they are sound and orthodox opinions for the most part as hath beene proued in the answere to the former reason And doe they it to keepe Christian men from infection no their chiefe end and drift is to depriue their aduersaries of all authorities that make against them that so they might triumph in the antiquitie of their Religion and noueltie of ours which is one of their principall arguments which they vse though with euill successe for defence of their cause dealing herein as Holofernes did with the Israelites at the siege of Bethulia breaking the Conduits cutting the pipes and slopping the passages which might bring vs prouision of good and wholsome waters out of the cisternes of olde and new Writers this is their purpose and no other whatsoeuer they pretend for if they meant any good to Gods people for preuenting of infection they would haue purged their lying Legends of infinite fables their Canon Law of horrible blasphemies and their Schoolemen of many strange opinions Yea they would haue condemned the Bookes of Machiauel and of that Cardinall that wrote in commendation of the vnnaturall sinne of Sodomie and a number such like filthy and deuillish Writings which are printed and reprinted among them without controulement And againe is it vnitie in the true faith and religion that they seeke no it is conspiracie in falshood and consent in errour and not vnitie in the truth till the Romish Religion bee proued to bee the true Religion which can neuer be this reason is of no force to iustifie their proceedings Lastly is it Christian policy no it is deuilish subtletie and craftie forgerie for the case so stands betwixt them and vs as in a tryall of land betwixt partie and partie wherein hee that bringeth best euidence and witnesse carrieth the cause now if one partie either suborne false witnesses or corrupt true or forge euidences to his purpose or falsifie those that are extant all men will count him as a forger and his cause desperate and iudge him worthie the Pillorie so betwixt vs the question is who hath the right faith and the best title to the Church Our euidences are first and principally Gods Word then the writings and records of godly men in all ages now then they that shall purge pare raze blurr falsify or corrupt any of these must needs bee thought to bee subtle and craftie companions and not honest
foreheads 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is not so safe as ours may appeare by comparing our principall doctrines together and first to begin with the Sacrament That the bodie of Christ is truely really and effectually present in the Eucharist both they and we hold grounding vpon that text of Scripture this is my bodie but concerning the maner of this presence the Romanists hold that it is by transub stantiation we by a spirituall presence which notwithstanding is true and reall both in relation to the outward signes and to the faith of the Receiuer Now see the dangers that arise from their doctrine which are not incident to ours 2. First if there be not a corporall presence of Christ and a reall Transubstantiation as they suppose then this doctrine leadeth to horrible and grosse Idolatrie for they must needs worship a piece of bread in stead of Christ And this not onely if their doctrine bee false but being supposed to bee true in case hee that consecrateth be not truly a Priest or haue not an intention to consecrate as oftentimes it falleth out for in both these cases by the grounds of their owne Religion there is no change of substances and therefore as much danger of Idolatrie as eyther of a false Priest or of a true Priests false intention But in our doctrine there is no such danger and yet as true reall and powerfull an existence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament as with them if not more seeing the more spirituall a thing is the more powerfull it is according to the rules of reason for wee are not in danger to worship a creature in stead of the Creatour but wee worship the Creatour himselfe euen Iesus Christ our Redeemer who is there present after a spirituall manner and that as reuerently deuoutly and sincerely as they doe a piece of bread 3. Secondly by this doctrine our aduersaries incline to fauour the Capernaites who had a conceit of a corporall and fleshly eating of Christs bodie and giue iust cause to the Pagans to slander Christian Religion to bee a bloudy and cruell Religion Whereupon the Fathers to crosse the one and stop the mouth of the other taught that Christs speech in the sixt of Iohn was to be vnderstood spiritually and not carnally and that it was a figure and not a proper speech But our doctrine doth giue no such occasion eyther to the Heretikes on the one side or to the Pagans on the other neyther hath it any consanguinitie with the Capernaites and yet wee retaine as certaine and powerfull a participation of our Sauiours bodie and bloud as they doe I know they thinke to escape from this rocke by a distinction of visible and inuisible eating as if the Capernaites dreamed that Christ would haue his bodie to bee eaten visibly but they inuisibly that is say they spiritually which indeed is no cuasion for an inuisible eating is a true eating As when a blind man eateth or a seeing man in the darke and cannot therefore be called a spirituall eating but a corporall neyther doth this free them from approching neere to the Capernaites though they somewhat differ from them nor from giuing iust cause of offence to the Heathen from both which our doctrine giueth full and perfect securitie 4. Thirdly and lastly their doctrine of transubstantiation doth not onely countenance but confirme the ancient heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and Eutychians that impugned the truth of Christs humane nature for they taught that he had not a true but a phantasticall bodie and what do our aduersaries but approue the same indeede though they seeme to detest it in word when they teach that his bodie is present in the Sacrament not by circumscription nor determination but by a spirituall and diuine presence quomodo Deus est in loco as God is in a place which is asmuch as to say that his bodie is not a true bodie but a spirituall bodie that is indeed a phantasticall bodie Againe the bread which they say is the bodie is not bread in truth but in shew after it is consecrated for there is nothing of bread but the mere accidents without a substance according to their doctrine and so it is in all reasonable construction no better then a phantasticall thing seeming to the outward sense to bee that which in truth it is not Why may not those Heretikes then reason from these doctrines thus If Christs bodie be a spirituall bodie in the Eucharist and the bread be phantasticall bread then why might not his bodie be so also when he was on the earth But the former is true by your doctrine O ye Romanists therefore why may not the latter which is our doctrine be also true But none of these Heretikes can haue any such aduantage from our doctrine which teacheth that Christ in respect of his humane nature is resident in the heauens circumscribed by place and that hee is present in the Sacrament by the efficacie of his inuisible and powerful grace after a spirituall manner as Saint Augustine speaketh and that both the bread remaineth bread after consecration and the bodie of Christ remaineth still a naturall bodie after the resurrection retaining still the former circumscription as Theodoret auoucheth this taketh away all aduantage from Heretikes which their doctrine doth manifestly giue vnto them For these causes Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinall doth confesse that from our doctrine no inconuenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And Occham that it is subiect to lesse incommodities and lesse repugnant to holy Scripture Thus wee see that in this first doctrine touching the Eucharist there is more securitie and lesse danger in our doctrine and Religion then in theirs 5. I come to a second point which is touching the merits of works whereby the Romish Religion doth cast men into three eminent dangers which by our doctrine they are free from First of vaine glory for when a man is perswaded that there is a merit of condignitie in the worke which hee hath wrought how can he choose but reioyce therein and conceiue a vaine-glorious opinion of his owne worthinesse as the proud Pharise did when he bragged that he had fasted and prayed and payd his tithes seeing it is impossible but that the nature of man which is inclinable vnto vaine-glory and selfe-loue if it haue a conceit of any selfe-worthinesse should bee puffed vp with a certaine inward ioy and pride and therefore Chrysostome taketh it for wholesome counsel to say that wee bee vnprofitable seruants lest pride destroy our good workes 6. Secondly of obscuring and diminishing Gods glorie and Christs merits For where merit is there mercie is excluded and where something is ascribed to man for the obtaining of saluation there all is not ascribed vnto Christ and although they colour the blacke visage of this doctrine with a faire tincture to wit that all
the child before it bee baptized is in some sort partaker of the Sacrament of Baptisme euen by the faith of the Church which hath vowed him thereunto And Bonauenture as hee is reported by Cassander sayth that infants are disposed vnto Baptisme not according to any act of their owne but according to the act of other because the mercie of God imputeth to them as their owne will the will of another Insants therefore stand still in as good case in euery respect as men of yeares if not in better both being vnbaptized and the one dedicated to God by their owne desire the other by the purpose desire of the Church and therefore either these may bee saued aswell as they or else God is not so mercifull to them as to these which is no lesse then impietie to thinke and blasphemie to pronounce 38. Another wicked consequence that followeth vpon this doctrine is that it maketh God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost euen that blessed Trinitie that is the fountaine of all truth and goodnesse to be lyars and teachers of vntruth For God the Father sayth to Abraham I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed And that this is not to bee vnderstood of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh onely to wit the Iewes but much more of his seed according to the Spirit which are faithfull Christians may appeare both by that which is in the verie same place where it is called an euerlasting couenant and by Saint Pauls testimonie who affirmeth that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Christ Iesus aswell as on the Iewes God the Sonne sayth Suffer little children to come vnto me for of such is the Kingdome of Heauen plainly affirming that the Kingdome of Heauen is pertaining to little children and not barred vp against any as our Romanists teach it is against such little ones as dye without baptisme Our Sauiour saith without exception that the Kingdome of Heauen belongeth vnto them they as it were to make him a lyar bring in an exception and say that except they bee baptized not Heauen but Lymbus belongeth vnto them And the holy Ghost by the mouth of Saint Paul sayth That the children of beleeuing Parents are holy the reason is because the root is holy and therefore the branch must needs be holy and if children may be holy before they be baptized then by the same rule they may goe to Heauen before they be baptized for as no man without holinesse can see God so with holinesse none can be banished out of the sight of God And thus this doctrine giueth the lye to euery person of the blessed Trinitie 39. If they say that it is our Sauiours doctrine that except a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost hee cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen and therefore all those generall promises are to bee restrained by this exception if they bee baptized I answere out of Bellarmine that God is not tyed to his Sacraments but can saue them by his especiall grace as also witnesse diuers others of their learned Doctours And therefore whereas our Sauiour saith Except a man be borne againe c. it must needs be vnderstood by another exception to wit of cases of necessitie where Baptisme cannot be obtained and is not contemned for not the want but the contempt of Baptisme is damnable 40. The third and last inconuenience that ariseth from this doctrine is that it is the mother of diuers strange paradoxes and grosse absurdities as not onely of Lay mens Baptisme yea of Pagans and that in scorne but also of changing the true element into lee or broth or puddle water and that which is most strange of baptizing the childe in the mothers wombe before it bee borne or ripping vp the mothers belly in case the child be in danger of death c. some of all which absurdities are held by them all and all by some Is it not then more safe to hold that opinion which is more respectiue to Gods glorie agreeable to Christian charitie and free from all these dangerous consequences 41. To conclude omitting many other of their doctrines which might easily bee shewne to stand in the same case of dangerous tenure and hath in part alreadie beene manifested as their doctrine of set fasts implicite faith veniall sins dispensations with others more I propound for the last instance that doctrine of doctrines the verie groundcell of their ruinous Religion touching the veritie authoritie and singularitie of their Church which they vaunt and bragge to be the onely true Catholike Church of Christ and to haue a preeminence ouer the Scriptures and without the which to be no possibilitie of saluation that there is no safetie in these positions many reasons will euince as first if it should bee true that out of the bounds of that Church none could bee saued then those famous Churches of Asia which were in Pope Victors time that opposed themselues against the predominance of the Church of Rome were all damned wherein flourished many holy Martyrs that gaue vp their liues for the testimonie of Iesus Then Saint Cyprian and all the Bishops of Carthage to the number of fourescore that in a Councell at Carthage set themselues against Pope Stephen and his Councell were damned and Saint Cyprian must bee no longer a Martyr but a Schismaticke and then S. Augustine with the whole Church of Africa and troupes of Martyrs and Confessors should not bee crowned with blisse but tormented in hell for they reiected the yoke of the Bishop of Romes authoritie and would not admit that any should make appeales from them to Rome This horrible and vncharitable inconuenience doth arise from that dismall doctrine The Church of Rome is the onely Catholike Church and out of it there is no hope of saluation now that these holy and heauenly Martyrs and Confessors of Iesus Christ were out of it appeareth by their most receiued definitions of a Catholike and a Schismaticke A Catholike faith Bellarmine is he that is subiect to the one Pastor the Pope whereby hee makâ—th the essentiall forme of a Catholike to be his vnion and coniunction with his head the Pope and a Schismatike sayth Tollet is hee that doth separate himselfe from the head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ I assume but Cyprian Augustine and those other famous Bishops did not acknowledge any subiection to the Pope but separated themselues from his dominion therefore they were by their doctrine no Catholickes but Schismatickes and consequently out of the Church and so out of saluation a damnable conclusion 42. Secondly they peremptorily auouch that none of vs being not members of their Church can bee saued we on the contrarie charitably beleeue that many of them that are ignorantly members of their Church if they hold the foundation of Iesus Christ and depend vpon his merits not their owne
so that their ignorance be simple and vnaffected may bee saued And hereupon they conclude that it is safer to bee of that Church wherein by our owne confession a man may be saued then of that to which they denie all hope of saluation but it is a conclusion made by confusion For who seeth not that that is more likely to be the true Church which is animated with charitie then that which is void of charitie and that it is safer to harbour vnder her wings that is charitably affected euen towards her enemies then vnder her that is so miscarried with enuie that she committeth all to the pit of Hell that are not of her fellowship and profession especially seeing Saint Paul chargeth the Thessalonians that If any man obey not the Gospell they should note him with a letter and haue no companie with him that hee may bee ashamed yet they should not accout him as an enemie but admonish him as a brother If then it be safer to thinke charitably of those that are without then vtterly to condemne them all then it must be also safer to bee a member of our Church then of theirs And to make the matter more cleare Saint Augustine is flat of our mind to thinke more Christianlike of Heretikes as they repute vs then they doe for writing against the Donatists thus he sayth They that defend their false doctrine without obstinate boldnesse especially if they be not such as haue beene authors of those errours but either receiued them from their Parents or were seduced by others and doe carefully seeke the truth being readie to be reformed assoone as they shall see their errours such men are not to be esteemed as Heretikes Thus writeth Saint Augustine whereby hee condemneth the practice of the Church of Rome and iustifieth ours as more agreeable to the rule of charitie and thus that reason whereby the Iesuites seduce many ignorant persons falleth to the ground and maketh more against them then for them 43. Thirdly if the Churches authoritie bee aboue the authoritie of the Scriptures then are men to bee preferred before God and that which is subiect to errour before that which can neither erre nor deceiue for the Church consists of men but the Scripture is immediately from God and the Church may erre though not in fundamentall points but the Scripture cannot erre no not in the least titte the truth of this allegation is grounded vpon those reasons First because euery particular Church may erre as is confessed and therefore the whole Chuchin generall may erre also for such as is the nature of the parts is the nature also of the whole Secondly Councels which are their Church representatiue haue erred as is notoriously knowne to all and confessed by Saint Augustine who sayth that the decrees of prouinciall Councels are subiect to reprehension Yea former generall Councels may be corrected by them that follow as the Councell of Arimine by the Councell of Constantinople the second of Ephesus by the Councell of Chalcedon the Councell of Carthage by the first of Nice and the second of Nice by the Councell of Franckeford Thirdly the Pope that is the Head of the Church hath erred this is also confessed therefore the bodie can claime no better priuiledge but sayth the same Augustine There is no doubt of the truth of any thing which is contained in the Scripture Therefore who can doubt to place the resolution of their faith as the safest course on the Scripture rather then on the Church especially seeing no particular writer of the holy Scripture can be taxed with the least errour but many particular parts of the Church whether we respect the imagined head which is vertually the whole Church in their estimation or the chiefe members in grosse as the Councels or the deuided ioynts as particular Congregations may iustly be challenged as tainted with diuers errours in doctrines of faith 44. Lastly the Church of Rome may be the whore of Babylon and so the See of Antichrist if not necessarily as wee auouch yet coniecturally as no man can denie because spirituall Babylon is said to bee a Citie situate vpon seuen hils and not onely so but that raigned ouer the Kings of the earth both which notes directly agree to the Citie of Rome but the Church of Protestants cannot by any likelihood bee that whore seeing neither of those markes doe in any respect belong vnto it Is it not safer then to rest our selues in her bosome which by al probabilitie is an honest Matrone then in her armes which is a suspected harlot If Caesar would haue his wife to bee without suspition then euerie Christian had need to looke to his faith whereunto he is as it were married by the Spirit of God wherby he is married vnto Christ that it be not onely sincere but also free from all suspition or likelihood of errour 45. Thus we see in these few maine points of the Romish Religion compared with our contrarie assertions that it is a farre safer course to bee a Protestant then a Papist let all indifferent persons iudge and discerne betwixt vs and I pray God direct them by his Spirit to choose the truth 46. There is one thing yet remaining whereby this may further appeare and so and end of this whole discourse and that is that there is no one point of doctrine wherein they differ from vs but is contradicted by some of their owne learned Writers shaking hands with vs and crossing their owne Pew-fellowes whence from ariseth not onely another strong argument of greater securitie in our Religion then in theirs which hath the suffrages of the greatest enemies to vphold it but also of vnresistable truth which worketh so vpon the consciences of the aduersaries thereof that it forceth them will they nill they to acknowledge it now and then as the Deuill himselfe was constrained to confesse Christ Iesus to be the Sonne of God I might write a whole Volume of this point alone but I will propound here onely some few instances and so shut vp this Treatise 47. Protestants teach that a man is iustified by faith alone whereby the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto him and not by the inherent or adherent righteousnesse of his owne workes the same is confessed by Thomas Aquinas who sayth that no man is iustified with God by his workes but by the habit of faith infused and againe that there is in the workes of the Law no hope of iustification but by faith onely and by Pighius who holdeth that there is in vs no inherent righteousnesse whereby wee may bee iustified but that our iustification is by Christs righteousnesse imputed vnto vs and by the Diuines of Collen who affirme That the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs and apprehended by faith is the principall cause of our iustification and by Cassander who approueth of our doctrine of iustification by faith alone and imputed
righteousnesse So that wee exclude not from this faith repentance amendment of life new obedience c. Lastly by Ferus Stapulensis Peraldus and diuers others yea almost all of them when at the point of death they come to the point of try all flye to this sacred anchor of Christs righteousnesse alone renouncing all righteousnesse in themselues as the famous example of Stephen Gardiner declareth who lying on his death-bed reposed himselfe on the righteousnesse of Christ only for his saluation and being told that it was contrarie to his former resolution answered that though it was the truth yet that gappe was not to bee opened to the people 48. The Protestants hold that our best workes are stayned with so many imperfections that they cannot merit any thing at Gods hand except it be hell fire and damnation and that though God of his mercie reward good workes with eternall life yet it is not for any condignity that is in them but for Christs sake into whom the partie working is ingrafted and made a member Many learned Romanists are of the same opinion Bellarmine sayth that in regard of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse and danger of vaine glorie the safest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercie and goodnesse of God Waldensis writeth Hee is a sounder Diuine a faithfuller Catholicke and more agreeing to the Scriptures that simply denieth merits and sayth that the Kingdome of Heauen is from the mere grace and will of the giuer not from any desert of the Receiuer Of the same opinion was Albertus Pighius as witnesseth Bellarmine Ferus sayth Whatsoeuer God giueth vs is of grace not of debt If therefore thou desire to hold the grace and fauour of God make no mention of thy merits The same hold Gregorius Ariminensis Durandus Stella with many more renouncing all the new Rhemish doctrine of merits of condignitie taught by the Schoole fourbished ouer by the Councell of Trent and refining Iesuites All these being sworne subiects to the Church of Rome yet being constrained by the conscience of the truth doe as fully and perfectly maintaine our doctrine as if they were the rankest Protestants in the World 49. Protestants denie all free will to grace before it bee quickned and liued by Gods Spirit Many learned Romanists teach the same doctrine Laurentius Valla as Bellarmine reports wished that the name of free-will were vtterly taken away The Master of Sentences auouched that free-will before grace repaire it is pressed ouercome with cōcupiscence hath weaknesse in euill but no grace in good and therefore cannot but sinne damnably Dom. Bannes affirmeth that it is false and worse then false that any man without the speciall and supernaturall helpe of God can be able to doe a supernaturall act Ariminensis calleth the Romish doctrine of free-wil Pelagianisme The Iesuite Suarez sayth that diuers Romanists say that it is a rash and hereticall opinion to affirme that when grace is equally offered to two that one of them could be conuerted and not the other What could any Protestant say more 50. Transubstantiation circumgestation and subtraction of the Cuppe are denyed by many of their owne side as well as by vs. Durand sayth It is great rashnesse to thinke the bodie of Christ by his diuine power cannot bee in the Sacrament vnlesse the bread be conuerted into it and therefore that he holdeth the contrarie onely for the Churches determination So also sayth Scotus There is no Scripture to enforce Transubstantiation except ye bring the Church of Romes exposition Occham sayth that that opinion that the substance of the bread remaineth is subiect to lesse inconueniences and lesse repugnant to reason and holy Scripture The custome of circumgestation of the hoast sayth Cassander may be left with greater profit to the Church if it bee wisely laid downe both because it is but a new inuention as also because it seruethrather for pompous ostentation then for any godly deuotion and so as Albertus Crantzius sayth is contrary to Christs institution Pope Gelasius witnesse Gregorie of Valintia said that the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist doe not lose their nature Touching abstraction of the Cuppe their learned Cassander acknowledgeth that for the space of a thousand yeeres after Christ the people communicated in both kindes and that in Greece and Armenia they doe still and the best Catholickes earnestly desire a reformation of this matter in the Church of Rome And Durand their Schooleman that the receiuing in one kind onely is not a full sacrament all receiuing for though that in the consecrated hoast Christs bloud bee contained yet it is not there sacramentally in that the bread signifieth the bodie and not the bloud and the wine the bloud and not the bodie Of the same mind were Alexander Alensis Albertus magnus Biel with others more this last affirming that in the Apostles times all did receiue the wine aswell as the bread because God is no respecter of persons The second that it is of greater vse and profit to the faithfull and the first that it is a matter of greater merit Thus all these Schoolemen doe protestantize in this point 51. Auricular confession is denied by Protestants to be necessarie for the remission of sinnes and to bee commanded by God The same is auerred by Panormitane Peresius Bonauenture Medina Rhenanus Erasmus Caietane c. all of them concluding with one voyce that it is a doctrine deriued onely from a positiue Law of the Church and not from the Law of God yea and the last that is named to wit Cardinall Caietane is bold to say that it is so farre from being commanded that euery one should be shriuen before hee come to the Communion that the contrarie is insinuated by the Apostle where hee sayth Let a mantry himselfe And Gratian confesseth that Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers thought that secret confession was not necessarie And lastly Acosta a famous Iesuite auoucheth that it would be well for the Indians if the bond of confession might bee taken away lest they should bee constrained to commit so many and so grieuous sacriledges 52. So the Romish doctrine of satisfactions is vtterly condemned by Protestants and not onely by them but by many of their owne learned Doctours for the Diuines of Louaine as Bellarmine witnesseth of them and others did certainly defend that the sufferings of Saints cannot bee true satisfactions but that our punishments are remitted onely by the personall satisfaction of Christ And Panormitane sayth that a man may be inwardly so penitent and contrite that he shall need no satisfaction at all but may bee absolued presently without any penance doing And another that the treasure of Indulgences doth consist onely of the merits of Christ and not of the satisfactions of Saints because the merits of Christ are of infinite valew 53.
should apply another to the patient It is the hand that applieth the medicine and not another medicine so it is faith that applieth Christs satisfaction vnto our sinnes and not our satisfaction Nay except the merits of Christ be applied to our best works and sufferings they cannot stand before Gods iustice neither can they be meritorious as they themselues confesse so that it will follow by this doctrine that our satisfactions are both the hand to apply Christs and the thing to which it is applied All which is most repugnant not only to Religion but euen to reason it selfe 42. Lastly when as Bellarmine affirmeth that ad maiorem c. that is for the greater glory of God who is satisfied and the greater honour of man satisfying it pleased Christ to ioyne his satisfaction to ours He plainely discouereth the scope of their doctrine to bee the aduancement of the dignity of man whereunto indeede he ioyneth the glory of God for else all men would cry fie vpon such a Religion but yet it both detracteth greatly from the glory of God in ascribing some dignity vnto man and peruerteth the true end of the Gospel which is not the partial but the entire honor glory of God For as S. Paul saith Gods power is most clearly seene in our weaknes and his righteousnes in the confession of our shame his glory in our basenes and vilenes that no flesh might reioyce in his presence but that he onely might be exalted at that day But by this Romish doctrine euery iust maÌ„ may reioyce in his own dignity may lift vp himselfe in the presence of God as if he were the ioynt cause of his own saluation together with Christ and that Christs satisfaction had beene nothing auaileable to him except he had applied it to himselfe by his owne satisfaction 43. Thus they deuide saluation as it were party parpale betwixt Christ and man and paralell them together And whereas they say that we must be like vnto Christ as in meriting so in satisfying what doe they but intrude man into the fellowship of Christs office for our imitation of Christ standeth in a conformity to his conuersation and life and of those things onely which concerne his person and are imitable but not in being like vnto him in his office and therefore when they say that we must be like vnto Christ in satisfying they make euery man that is saued a Iesus and Sauiour to himselfe because they make him to imitate him in those things wherein consisteth his being our Christ Then which what can be more contrary to the honour of Christ 44. These bee the foure principall poynts whereby the glory of Gods mercy and Christs merits and the holy Ghosts grace is greatly defaced and in stead thereof mans nature and merits exalted Besides these there are diuers other doctrines of the Church of Rome which bring forth the same fruit some of which I will onely name and so conclude this thâ—â—â— argument And first by the doctrine of the Popes supremacie they detract from the power of Christ and consequently from his glory for both they endow the Pope with those titles which properly belong to Christ as to be the Father in Gods family the vniuersall Pastor the head of the Church the husband and bridegroome of it and all other names which are giuen to our Sauiour Christ in holy Scripture whereby it is shewne that he is aboue the Church and also they attribute the same power to the Pope which belongeth properly to Christ as to pardon sinne to dispense with the law of God to open and shut the gates of heauen not ministerially but absolutely and iudicially to depose Kings and to dispose of Kingdomes and such like Now what a dishonour is this to him in whose thigh is written this glorious title The King of Kings Hee must not be the onely head of the Church but the Pope must be a ioynt head with him nor hee the sole Gouernor but the Pope must be his Vicar nor the sole husband of the Church but the Pope in his absence must be her husband in his roome Could a mortall man endure this iniurie And doe wee thinke that the Sonne of God will beare it Either Christ is not able to gouerne alone or not willing they will not say not able lest their blasphemy should be too too odious and if they say not willing how can hee not be willing to maintaine his owne glory or not bee vnwilling to be confederated with a sinfull Pope for so often they are in the disposition of his Kingdome Let them make the best that they can of it yet it appeareth that Christs gouernment is diuided betwixt the Pope and him and so must the glory also needs be diuided 45. Secondly by their doctrine of the Inuocation and Intercession of Saints what doe they but diuide the office and so the glory of the Mediatour-ship betwixt Christ and them for they teach that Christ is our Mediatour of Redemption but the Saints Mediatours of Intercession whereas we with the Scripture make Christ Iesus to be the onely and sole Mediatour both of Redemption and Intercession Wee honour the Saints but wee pray vnto God alone in the name of his Sonne they adore the Saints and make their prayers vnto them as well as vnto God yea more prayers do they powre out by numbers vnto them then vnto God What is to dishonour God and Christ if this be not 46. Thirdly by their doctrine of traditions they derogate greatly from the glory of Gods mercy towards his Church for they hold that the written word is not sufficient for a Christian man to saluation without the helpe of Ecclesiasticall traditions whereby they plainely insinuate that either God had not that care of his family the Church as he might haue had seeing hee left not for it a perfect and certaine rule for the gouernment thereof but sent it ouer to vncertaine traditions or that wisedome which all Law-giuers labour to attaine vnto seeing hee could not at the first prouide for all future occasions or that loue that he would not one of these doth necessarily follow from their doctrine 47. Lastly by their doctrine of worshipping of Images whereby they giue vnto stockes and stones part of that religious worship which is due vnto God We teach that all religious worship is due vnto God alone They on the contrary maintaine that latria that is diuine worship is Gods due but dulia that is seruice is to be giuen to Images Yea that the Crucifixe is to be worshipped with diuine worship which is due onely to God Who seeth not what manifest iniury they offer to Gods glory by this superstitious worship of dumbe and dead Images 48. And thus omitting many other like poynts which might be inserted in this place I hope that the Minor proposition is sufficiently demonstrated that the Church of Rome doth by many doctrines derogate from the
a partiall rule and that the word of God written and not written by this last meaning traditions is the totall and perfect rule To this I answere in a word that by this distinction he plainely ouerturneth that which before hee had confessed for if it bee the rule of faith then it must needes be totall and perfect if it be not totall and perfect then is it not the rule for a rule must be proportioned to the thing whereunto it is applied If then our faith be either longer and larger then the Scripture then cannot the Scripture bee any wayes called the rule thereof Besides as Theophilact saith Regula et amussis neque appositionem habet neque ablationem A rule doth neither admit addition nor diminution and that is the definition of a rule according to Varinus Regula est mensura quae non fallit quaeque nullam vel additionem vel detractionem admittit A rule is saith hee a measure which deceiueth not and which admitteth no addition nor detraction Therefore if it be the rule of faith either it is perfect and absolute or none at all if it standeth in neede of traditions to supply it want then why doth hee call it the rule and why doe all the Fathers giue it the same name and why hath it that inscription in the forehead the Canonicall Scripture Lastly if God would giue vs a rule for our faith and life in the Scripture then by the same reason hee would make that a perfect rule for shall any imperfect thing proceede from the authour of all perfection When an imperfect creature is borne wanting either limmes or forme we ascribe it to a defect and errour in the particular nature from whence the creature is deriued or to the indisposition of the instrumentall causes not to the generall nature which tendeth alwaies vnto perfection How much more then ought this Iesuite be afraid to ascribe an imperfect creature to the all-perfect Creatour especially seeing it is the worke of his owne hands without the intermingling of all second causes and proceedeth immediately from his owne spirit the Prophets and Apostles being but as Baruch to Ieremie writers and engrossers of that which the spirit did dictate vnto them And therefore I may boldly and firmely conclude that as the vncreated word of God begotten of the Father before all time is perfect God and can neither receiue augmentation nor diminution so the word of God pronounced first by the mouth of the Prophets and Apostles and after by them committed to writing which is called the Scripture is absolute and perfect and can neither be encreased nor diminished to make it more or lesse perfect and so is the onely true sound and sacred Rule whereby both our Faith and life is to be directed towards the Kingdome of Heauen 23. And thus I hope the first proposition remaineth sound and firme notwithstanding all that can be sayd to the contrary Now I come to the confirmation of the assumption or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome refuseth to be tryed and iudged by the Scriptures alone and will be tried and iudged by none but it selfe which if it be euicted then the conclusion must necessarily follow that therefore it is not onely to be suspected but vtterly reiected and abhorred 24. That this is so though it hath already in the precedent discourse beene sufficiently demonstrated yet that the matter may appeare more plaine and their impudency may be more notorious let vs search deeper into this wound and discouer the filthinesse thereof from the very bottome and first that they renounce the Scripture from being their Iudge and then in the second place that they admit of no other Iudge but themselues 25. Concerning the first let vs heare Bellarmine the Achilles of Rome speake foremost hee affirmeth in expresse words that the Scripture is not the rule of faith or if it be that it is a partiall and imperfect rule and vtterly insufficient of it selfe without the helpe of Ecclesiasticall traditions This assertion is well-neere the whole matter subiect of his third and fourth Bookes De verbo Dei which he laboureth to strengthen by all meanes possible Yea in the third Chapter of his third Booke he saith peremptorily that the Pope with a Councill is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scripture all controuersies Now in setting vp the Pope or a Councill into the supreme throne of Iudgement he must needes pull downe the Scripture the Spirit of God speaking therein from that throne and despoyle it of that authority But what need I draw this consequence from his words seeing throughout that whole Chapter he doth almost nothing else but striue to proue that the Scripture is not the Iudge doth reproue the Protestāts for saying that all the iudgements of the Fathers and all the decrees of Councils ought to be examined ad amussim Scripturarum according to the rule of the Scriptures Next vnto Bellarmine commeth in Gregory de Valentia and hee most boldly auoucheth that the Scripture is not a sufficient Iudge or rule of all controuersies of faith and that the Scripture alone defineth nothing at all no not obscurely of the chiefe questions of faith and where it doth speake it speaketh so obscurely that it doth not resolue but rather increase the doubt Cardinall Hosius is no whit lesse audacious when he affirmeth that the Scripture in it selfe is not the true and expresse word of God which we ought to obey vnlesse it bee expounded according to the sense and consent of the Catholike that is in his opinion the Romane Church The Iesuites Salmeron Turrian and Coster doe not onely barely affirme as much but also confirme it by reason The Scripture is dumbe saith Salmeron but the deciding voyce of a Iudge must be quicke The Scripture is a dead letter saith Turrian and a thing without life saith Coster but a Iudge must be liuing who may correct such as erre therfore that Scripture cannot be the Iudge It is as it were a Nose of wax saith Melchior Canus flexible into euery sense and as it were a Delphian Sword fit for all purposes saith Turrian therefore cannot be the Iudge And therefore two other Iesuites to wit Tanner and Gretzer impudently conclude that no heresie can be sufficiently refuted by Scripture alone and that by no meanes it may be graunted that either the holy Scripture or the Holy Ghost speaking by the Scripture should be the supreme and generall Iudge of Controuersies and hee addes his reason because the Scripture cannot dicere sententiam giue sentence on one side as a Iudge should doe Nay one Vitus Miletus as Pelargus reporteth is not ashamed to say that wee read that an Asse spoke in the Scripture but that the Scripture it selfe euer spoke we neuer read And thus this fellow makes the Scripture it selfe to be more mute then Balaams