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
c. Which words they interpret as spoken to Peter onely and consequently to the Pope his successour we to the rest of the Apostles as well as to him Where now doth the Scripture decide this doubt and speake plainely which is the truest sense Mary first in the very place it selfe by the due examination of the circumstances thereof they euidently shew that our sense is the truest for whereas the question is propounded to all the Apostles verse 15. and all the Apostles held the same faith that Iesus is the Sonne of God verse 20. it must needes be that Peter was but as the fore-man of the Quest and answered not for himselfe only but for them all thereby shewing forth not any preeminence of authority aboue the rest but a greater zeale and forwardnesse then the rest And herevpon it followeth that seeing this promise of the keyes is made because of that faith and confession therefore they all beleeuing and confessing the same haue an interest to the promise as well as Peter And this Anselmus in plaine tearmes affirmeth It is to be noted saith he that this power was not giuen alone to Peter but as Peter answered one for all so in Peter hee gaue this power to all 14. Secondly by the conference of another place which is more plaine to wit Ioh. 20. 23. where is a gift and an endowment of that power of the keyes which before was promised for to binde and to loose and to remit and retayne sinnes is all one in effect as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and containâ— the whole vertue of the keyes now here they are all inuested with equall iurisdiction the Holy Ghost is equally breathed vpon them all and equall authority be queathed vnto them all by these words of the Commission As my Father sent me so I send you which exposition is confirmed by the authority of most of the Fathers as Augustine Cyprian Hierome Theophilact Anselme c. and thus the Scripture by a most liuely voyce determineth this doubt and as of this so of all other questions and interpretations the Scripture onely must bee the Iudge which by searching the originals examination of circumstances conference of other places and consulting with the learned Fathers and Expoâ—itors together with feruent prayer to God for inward illumination will giue a most exact and precise satisfaction to all controuersies touching matters of â—aith necessarie to bee beleeued 15. To the third reason that the Scripture is the law and therefore cannot be the Iudge I answere that though the Law and the Iudge be diuers distinct things yet they are subordinate one vnto the other and so may both ioyne in the concurrence of one cause as when our Sauiour saith Call no man Father vpon earth for there is but one your Father which is in heauen his meaning is not to exclude earthly Fathers from their title but to shew that God is the primer and principall Father both in respect of time order and cause and that the other are but subordinate vnto him so in a Common-wealth the Iudge is subordinate vnto the law and the law is the Iudges Iudge and for that cause as the Law is said to be a dumbe Magistrate so the Magistrate is said to be a speaking Law and so in truth the Law is the Iudge primarily and principally and the Magistrate is but the Minister of the law and the Iudge subordinate Now if this be so in a Common-wealth gouerned by humane Lawes which are failing and imperfect in many things being the ordinances of erring men how much more may we deeme it to be so in the Church of God whose Law-giuer is God himselfe and the law the word of God and therefore though the Pastors and Ministers of the Church may interpret the Scriptures yet they must be tyed to this rule to doe it by the Scriptures and to expound the law by the law for shall not a temporall Iudge giue sentence out of his owne braine but secundum leges statuta according to the lawes and statutes of the Realme And shall any Pastour of the Church be it the Pope himselfe giue iudgement in any question out of his owne brest without the direction of Gods word This is to preferre humane lawes before Gods law and to make the state of the Church farre inferiour to the state politike and to haue a more certaine rule for the deciding of ciuill controuersies then for the determining of questions of â—aith so that in a word the Scripture is both the law and the interpreter of the Law the Iudge and the Iudgement 16. Secondly Bellarmine affirmeth and laboureth to proue that the proper and chiefe end of the Scripture was not to be the rule of faith but that it might be commonitorium quoddam vtile A certaine profitable commonitory whereby the doctrine deliuered by word of mouth might be conserued and nourished And to this end and purpose he vseth diuers reasons as first because it containes in it many things which are not necessary to faith as all the Histories of the Olde Testament and many of the New and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles all which were not therefore committed to writing because they were necessary to be beleeued but are therefore necessarily beleeued because they are written Secondly because all things necessary to be beleeued are not contained in the Scripture as by what meanes women vnder the law were clensed from originall sinne wanting circumcision and children that dyed before the eight day and many Gentiles that were saued againe which are the books of Canonicall Scripture and that these are Canonicall and those are not that the Virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin that the Passeouer is to be kept vpon the Sunday being the Lords day and that children of beleeuing Parents are to bee baptized and such like Thirdly because the Scripture is not one continued body as a rule should bee but containeth diuers workes Histories Sermons Prophecies Verses and Epistles These be his three reasons by which the Iesuite would euince that the Scripture is not giuen to this end to be the rule of faith 17. To all which I will answere briefly and distinctly and first in generall secondly in particular In generall if the Scripture be not giuen to be the rule of faith why is it called Canonicall It is therefore called Canonicall because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life this very inscription approued by all doth refute Bellarmines fond cauillation Againe if the Scripture was not giuen to bee the rule but onely a monitorie why were there so many Bookes written seeing fewer would haue serued for monition The multiplicity of Bookes proueth that they serue not onely to put vs in mind of our duty but also as an exact rule to square our faith and frame our life by And lastly if the Scripture was not giuen to be a rule why doth he himselfe
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
Now to proue that the Scripture cannot be the iudge of Controuersies nor the Interpreter of it selfe they vse three chiefe reasons first because it hath diuers senses secondly because it is not able to speake but is mute and dumbe and thirdly because in euery well ordered Common-wealth the Law and the Iudge are distinguished and therefore seeing the Scripture is the law therefore it cannot be the Iudge 9. I answere to the first that it is not onely false but impious to affirme that the Scripture is as it were A nose of wax flexible into many senses as Melchior Canus affirmeth or that it may be dinersly expounded according to the occasion of the time as Cardinall Cusanus auerreth or that it is like a Delphian Sword to be conuerted into many senses as Turrian the Iesuite maketh it for as of one body there is but one soule so of one place of Scripture there is but one true sound sense which is the soule and life of it the words being but the flesh and the skinne that couereth the same and that true sense is that which the Spirit of God intendeth and not that which euery priuate spirit collecteth and deduceth out of the same as for the Tropologicall Anagogicall and Allegoricall senses they are not distinct senses of the Scripture but diuers collections and applications issuing out of one and the same sense all which may bee intended by the Holy Ghost vnder that one literall sense For example when an Allegory is deduced out of a place of Scripture as Saint Paul Gal. 4. 24. doth allegorize that History of Abrahams two Wiues it is not a double interpretation of that History but it is onely an Allegoricall application of it to the illustrating of the matter which he had in hand and so when by a tropologie a morall doctrine is deriued out of a text of Scripture as our Sauiour doth Math. 12. 41. 42. applying to the Iewes the repentance of the Niniuites and the long iourney of the Queene of Saba to see and heare Salomon or when as by a type any thing in Scripture is mystically expounded otherwise then the literall sense doth beare this is not a new sense but an accommodation of the right sense to another purpose which notwithstanding is intended by the spirit of God and this is confessed by diuers of their owne side Cornelius Agrippa thus writeth The Scripture hath but one simple and constant sense in which alone the truth is found And Aquinas thus It is the literall sense which the author of the Scripture intendeth which is God yet it is not inconuenient if in one letter of the Scripture according to the literall sense there bee many senses 10. But grant that there are diuers distinct senses of some few places of Scripture to wit one literall and another spirituall for in the most there is not yet there can be but one literall sense as many of the Iesuites themselues confesse and from that onely a forcible argument may be drawne as Bellarmine acknowledgeth and Vega another Iesuite except the mysticall sense be explaned and authorized by some other expresse place of Scripture as Salmeron Azorius Sixtus Senensis and Polidore Virgil auouch and proue the same by the testimonie of Augustine and Ierome Now then why should the multiplicity of senses barre the Scripture from being the Iudge of controuersies seeing no controuersie can effectually be decided by any other sense but by the literall which is euer one and the same or by the mysticall so farre forth as it is approued and declared by another Scripture which then becomes the literall sense of that place wherein it is expounded though it was spiritually included in the barke of the former from whence it was deriued This therefore is a most vaine and friuolous obiection 11. To the second that the Scripture is dumb and therefore cannot bee the Iudge because the Iudge of controuersies must haue a deciding and determining voyce I answere that this is blasphemy against the sacred word of God for if the Scripture bee an Epistle of the omnipotent God to his creature as Gregory calleth it what doth it but speake to them to whom it is sent He that writes a letter to his friend doth hee not speake vnto him and hee that reades his friends letter doth hee not vnderstand his meaning and intendment because the letter doth not vtter a voyce and he heareth not his friend himselfe Doth not euery man know that there is a double word verbum dictum a word spoken and verbum scriptum a word written the one being Imago cordis the Image of the minde the other Imago oris the Image of the speech True it is the Scripture doth not speake as man speaketh but yet it speaketh as the Law vseth to speake and God himselfe speaketh in the Scripture to them that haue eares to heare him and therefore in the Epistles to the Churches which were all written not spoken it is said Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith vnto the Churches and is there any thing more common then these phrases what saith the Scripture doth not the Scripture say Yea and is not the Scripture called viâ—us Dei sermo the liuely word of God Heb. 4. 12. how can it speake if it bee dumbe how can it giue life if it be dead 12. This manifest truth Stapleton striueth to elude by a witty as he thinkes but indeed a witlesse distinction God saith he speaketh indeed by the Scripture but hee speaketh not vnto vs by them the Scripture is indeed the word of God but the Church is the voyce of God Which fond obiection our famous Country-man the scourge of Poperie Doctor Whitaker thus wipeth away If God speake in the Scripture then hee doth it either with himselfe or vnto some other but not with himselfe therefore to some other and if to some other to whom but vnto man for hee neither speaketh to Angels nor Deuils nor dumb creatures therefore onely to man as when he saith Thou shalt not kill or Loue your enemies there is no man so simple but hee perceiueth that God speaketh vnto man And therefore the Apostle saith that whatsoeuer things are written aforetime are written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might haue hope And so it is cleare that God by the Scripture not onely speaketh but speaketh vnto vs and so the Scripture is not onely the word of God but the voyce of God in it selfe as it proceeded from God the voyce of God to vs as we haue it by writing the word of God and the Epistle of the great King to his poore subiects whereby they are enformed of his will and pleasure and directed in the wayes of saluation 13. I but when the question is about the sense of a Text as of that Math. 16. 19. To thee will I giue the keyes
confesse afterward that it is indeed a rule but not a total and entire rule but a partiall and imperfect one If it bee any waies a rule then it was giuen by God and written by the men of God to that end to be the rule And so Bellarmines goodly reasons hang together like a sicke mans dreame the one part wherof ouerthroweth the other 18. But to answere in particular to them seuerally To the first I say that it is not farre from blasphemy to affirme that there is any thing in holy Scripture that is vnnecessary for though all things are not of equall necessity and profit yet there is nothing in the whole Booke of God from the beginning of Gen. to the end of the Reuel but may haue most profitable and necessary vse in the Church of God if not for the essentiall forme of faith yet for the adorning and beautifying of it and this may truely bee verified euen of those things which he excepteth against to wit the Histories of the Olde and New Testament and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles out of all which how many excellent doctrines may be deriued both for the confirmation of faith and edification of manners And therefore as in mans body God by nature hath not disposed all parts to be alike necessary but some haue no other vse but ornament and comelinesse so hath Almighty God mingled the parts of holy Scripture in that manner that some are as it were bones and sinews to our faith some flesh and bloud and some againe but exteriour beautie and fashion yet as in nature nothing is made in vaine so much lesse in Scripture is there any thing to be accounted superfluous and redundant nay in this diuine body there are no excrements that may be cast out and separated as it fareth in our earthly carkases but all is entire sound and perfect as the Prophet Dauid teacheth Psal 19. 7. when hee saith that the Law of God is perfect conuerting the soule and our Sauiour Math. 5. 18. when he auoucheth that till heauen and earth perish one iote or title of the Law shall not c. 19. To his second reason I answere three things first that it is entirely false that the Scripture doth not contayne all things necessarily required to the Essence of faith for if the Scripture be perfect and giueth wisedome to the simple if nothing may bee added to it nor taken from it if to teach any thing besides the Scripture deserueth the fearefull Anathema if it be able to make the man of God perfect to euery good worke if in them onely wee may finde eternall life if the Church of God be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and lastly if our faith and hope doe arise from the Scriptures then there is nothing necessary to saluation but is fully and plenarily contained in them but the first is true as appeareth by all those testimonies before alledged and therefore the latter must by necessary consequence be true also 20. Secondly I answere that Bellarmine by that assertion crosseth the whole streame of the Fathers for most of them affirme the flat contrary Tertullian saith that when we once beleeue the Gospell Hoc prius credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus This we beleeue first that there is nothing besides which we ought to beleeue Iraeneus saith that the Apostles committed to writing the Gospell which they preached Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum To be the foundation and pillar of our faith Basil saith Quicquid extra diuinam scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne Cyrill saith that all those things were written in holy Scripture which the Writers thought sufficient Tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata As well touching conuersation as doctrine Augustine saith that those things were chosen out to be written Quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue And againe he saith in another place Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith or life we will not say if we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed Chrysostome saith Si quis eorum If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost doe speake any thing of him selfe and not out of the Gospell beleeue it not Ierome speaking of an opinion touching the death of Zacharias the father of Iohn Baptist saith Hoc quia ex Scripturis non habet authoritatem This because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued I supersede for breuity sake the residue of the Fathers who with full consent conspire in the same opinion yea not onely the Fathers but many also of their owne most learned Authors as Thomas Aquinas Antoninus Durandus Peresius Clingius and diuers others by all which we may see how little reckoning Bellarmine maketh of the ancient Fathers where they make for him hee magnifieth and exalteth them to the skies but when they are opposite to him he reiecteth them as drosse and the like account he maketh of his owne Doctors 21. Lastly I answere that of those things which he affirmeth not to be contayned in holy Scripture and yet to be of necessity of beliefe some of them are farre from either necessity or profit as that of the meanes whereby women vnder the Law were purged from originall sinne and how the Gentiles were partakers of the couenant hauing not the Sacrament and that Easter is to be celebrated vpon the Lords day If these things be of that necessity of beliefe which hee maketh them how many thousand then haue sinned greatly in being ignorant thereof for at this day not the hundreth part of Christians euer heard these things once named and yet by this ignorance they neither offended God nor hindered their owne saluation And what shall we thinke of Iraeneus and other godly Bishops in the East that held that Easter was not to bee celebrated euer vpon the Lords day Againe the other things nominated by him as that the books of the sacred Bible are the Canonicall Scripture and the word of the liuing God that the children of beleeuing parents are to be baptized that Christ descended into hell may easily be proued out of Scripture either by expresse testimonie or by necessarie consequence and deduction which is all one for Perinde sunt â—a quae ex Scripturis colliguntur atqueâ—a quae scribuntur c. saith Nazianzene 22. Thirdly being driuen by the power of truth to acknowledge the Scripture to be a rule he commeth in with a leaden distinction to wit that is not a totall but
vnto it by the Prophet Dauid in the 19. Psalme and doe necessarily appertaine vnto it being immediately deriued from that cleare and sole fountaine of all goodnesse and perfection For howsoeuer the holy Prophets were the penne-men thereof yet those were all and in euery parcell and particle inspired by the Holy Ghost as Saint Peter informeth vs when hee said That no Prophecie in the Scripture is of any priuate motion but that holy men of God spake as they were mooued by the holy Ghost For as the heathen Oracles were conceiued and vttered by the immediate instigation of the Deuill who guided both the hearts and tongues of his Priests to bee the instruments of his malice So the Oracles of Christians to wit the holy Scriptures proceeded from the sacred inspiration of Gods Spirit mouing the hearts and directing the pens of the Prophets Apostles his Secretaries to commit to writing that only which they receiued from God both in respect of matter and manner To this purpose is that notable saying of Hugo In the holy Scripture whatsoeuer is taught is truth whatsoeuer is commanded is goodnesse whatsoeuer is promised is happinesse And he addes the reason Because God is truth without deceit goodnesse without malice and happinesse without misery 3. I need not stand to prooue this position That the Scripture is the infallible word of the eternall God it is a grounded truth and a receiued principle of all that professe themselues to be Christians And as Saint Basil saith Like as of euery Science there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnquestionable Principles which are beleeued without further demonstration so in the Science of Sciences Theologie This is one of those vnquestionable principles that the Scripture is the word of God and therefore of diuine both purity and authority Adde hereunto that if any should doubt thereof the purity and perfection of the matter the maiestie and the statelinesse of the stile the power and efficacy ouer the conscience the certaintie of Prophesies fulfilled in the duenesse of time the strangenesse of the miracles the antiquity of the writings before all other the admirable prouidence of God in preseruing them from the teeth of time and rage of Tyrants the sweet harmony consent of euery part with each other the iudgements of God against the contemners therof and lastly the bloud of so many thousand Martyrs which hath beene shed in the defence thereof doe sufficiently conuince and proue that this Booke is the Booke of GOD and euery line and title therein the Word of God 4. This being so then secondly it must needs follow that either to denie the Scripture to bee the Word of God or to abuse it with vnreuerent termes and reproches or any wayes to diminish the credit and authority thereof is not onely plaine blasphemy but also open and notorious Atheifme and so in both high treason against the Maiestie of God for if it be treason to vse contumelious speeches against the Kings person or either by word to reuile or by deede to resist his decrees and proclamations how much more doth that deserue the name of the highest treason when the sacred word of God which is a diuine Law issuing from his owne mouth is blasphemed and the maiestie of God most clearely shining therein abused It is an olde and a true saying in ciuility Qui contemnit legem contemnit Regem He that despiseth the Law despiseth the law-giuer So much more then in Diuinitie hee that reprocheth the word of God reprocheth God himselfe How can they then bee lesse than Atheists Blasphemours and Traytours to God that are guilty of all this iniurie to the holy Scripture 5. Celsus against whom Origen wrote and Lucian and Porphery and Apelles were Whelpes of this Litter and therefore remaine to this day branded with the note of infamy to these succeeded many others in after-ages for the world hath neuer beene without such monsters God permitting them for the further demonstration of his truth and declaration of his iust iudgement in their deserued and strange destruction yea that which is most strange many of those that haue vaunted themselues for Christs Vicars here on earth haue beene taynted with this infection as Pope Leo the tenth who as Writers report mocked at the promises and threats of the Scripture and told Cardinall Bembus that that fable of Christ had brought vnto him and his great profit Such another was Iohn the twelfth who vsed to blaspheme God and call vpon the deuill at his dice and Iulius the third who asked why he should not bee as angry for the eating of a colde Peacock as God was for the eating of an Apple And Benedict the eight alias the ninth whose custome was in Woods and Mountaines to sacrifice to the deuill and diuers others which for breuity sake I forbeare to name Is it possible that such Athiests and blasphemous wretches and worshippers of deuils should be chosen of Christ to be his Vicars here on earth to whom hee might commit the gouernment of his Church Will a mortall man commit the gouernment of his family especially if he loueth his wife and children to a knowne Ruffin and a notorious villaiue Now Christ so loueth his family his Church that to purchase and redeeme it hee gaue his owne pretious bloud for a ransome for it and will hee now ordaine in his roome such notorious Wolues to bee the ministeriall heads and guides thereof As for the rest of the Popish crue both learned and vnlearned though they bee as I must needes confesse for the most part more infected with superstition then with Atheisme albeit neuer did any Country more swarme with that generation then doth Italy at this day yet in blaspheming and debasing the holy Scripture they cannot be farre from not onely giuing-way and opening a wide dore to that horrible sinne but also from making an open profession thereof 6. Thus we see both what the Scripture is and also what they are that oppose against the Scripture which two considerations serue much for the clearing of the first proposition Now I come to the confirmation of the assumption or second proposition which euery Romanist will denie in this argument and therefore stands in neede of stronger fortification the proposition is this that the Religion of the Church of Rome doth purposely disgrace the holy Scriptures and is at enmity with it that is that both by doctrine practice and bitter and blasphemous speeches the holy Scripture is disgraced defaced and vilely slandered by the chiefe professours and maintayners of that Religion yea and by the grounds of the Religion it selfe I will begin with their doctrine and secondly come to their practice and in the last place their slanderous and bitter speeches shall be discouered 7. Amongst many of their doctrines whereby they offer open iniurie and wrong to the sacred Scriptures these foure are the most principall First that which hath beene
at large discoursed in the former Chapter touching the chiefe Iudge of controuersies for when as they disable the Scripture from that office and exalt the Church that is the Pope as I haue shewed into the highest throne of iudgement what doe they else but debase the Scripture in subiecting it to the Popes wil and making it a vassall to wayt vpon his pleasure and giuing a greater certainty and infallibility to the determinations of his mouth speaking out of his chayre then vnto the infallible and certaine light of truth shining in the Scriptures This is open wrong to the Scriptures and not onely to it but also to the Spirit of God the Author and Enditer thereof for they which set vp the Pope as an all-sufficient and most competent Iudge and pull downe the Scripture as non-sufficient and incompetent as the Romanists doe doe they not aduance the one and disgrace the other as on the contrary we which ascribe all conâ—petencie of right and sufficiencie of power to the Scripture and denie the same to the Pope doe we not disgrace him and aduance it This is the difference in this poynt betwixt them and vs and their Religion and ours and that men may see how little estimation they haue of the Scripture compared with their Pope though the Pope be a man vtterly vnlettered ignorant euen of the grounds of Grammar much more of the grounds of Diuinitie as some of them were though he be a childe of tenne yeeres of age as Bennet the ninth or a mad Lad not past eighteene yeeres old as Iohn the twelfth though he be an Atheist as was Leo the tenth or a Coniurer as Iulius the third Lastly though hee were a man destayned with all manner of filthy and lewd conuersation as a number of them were yet his iudgement must bee heard and preferred because forsooth quatenus Papa as he is Pope he cannot erre though quatenus homo as he is a man hee be an Heretike or an Atheist or a wicked wretch or because Papa est doctor vtriusque legis authoritate non scientia The Pope is Doctour of both lawes in authority and not in knowledge And thus by their Religion the holy and sacred Scripture must giue place and bow the knee to an vnholy sacrilegious and ignorant Pope oftentimes and acknowledge him as Iudge and submit it selfe to his sentence and censure 8. The second doctrine of theirs whereby they disgrace and wrong the Scripture is that touching the insufficiency and imperfection thereof for they are not ashamed to say that the Scripture is imperfect and vnsufficient of it selfe and that in it are not contained all things needfull to saluation but that a great part yea the greatest part of true Religion is grounded vpon tradition without the which the Church of GOD could not bee sufficiently instructed either in faith or manners this is their goodly doctrine whereas we on the other side hold and maintaine that the Canonicall Scripture containeth in it sufficiently plainely and abundantly all doctrines necessary to be knowne for the attainment of saluation whether they be positions of faith or directions for godlinesse and that thereis no neede of any vnwritten traditions for the suppliance of any want or defect which is found therein And herein we haue not onely all the ancient Fathers of the primitiue and purer times of the Church our Abbetters as Iraeneus Origen Athanasius Basil Chrysostome Cyril Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Hierome as you may see in the places quoted in the Margent but also the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures plainely and directly affirming the same 9. That this imputation of imperfection and insufficiency is layd by them vpon the Scripture let vs heare themselues acting their owne parts and first Bellarmine the Ringleader He in his fourth Booke De verbo Dei and fourth Chapter sets downe this position that the Scriptures without traditions are not simply necessary nor sufficient and throughout that whole Chapter doth nothing else but labour to prooue the same by many arguments and reasons as if hee were not content barely to affirme so high a blasphemy but euen as the Poet sayth Cum ratione insanire To be madde with reason and so are all his reasons there vsed in very deed mad reasons which my purpose is not to spend time in confuting that being sufficiently performed by our great and learned Champions of the truth which as yet remaine vnanswered onely it is inough for my intent to discouer to all men his notable blasphemy against the holy Scriptures which not onely in that place but in many other euidently and impudently sheweth it selfe 10. Next vnto him comes in another great Iesuite Gregorie de Valentia and he playeth his part and sayth That the most fittest way of deliuering the doctrine of faith to the Church was this not that all should bee committed to writing but that some things should be deliuered viua voce that is by tradition But Cardinall Hosius more plainly and boldly affirmeth That the greatest part of the Gospell is come to vs by tradition and that very title of it is committed to writing Yea it is reported of him that he should say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesia si nullum extaret scriptum Euangelium That it had beene better for the Church if there were no written Gospell extant O blasphemy and yet wisely spoken if so be by the Church hee meaneth the Church of Rome as without doubt hee doth But let vs heare another of the same stampe Eckius I meane that peremptory Bragadochio he steps forth and shoots his bolt in a moment The Lutherans are dolts sayth hee which will haue nothing beleeued but that which is expresse Scripture or can be prooued out of Scripture for all things are not deliuered manifestly in the Scriptures but very many are left to the determination of the Church Coster another Stage-player of theirs comes in and diuides the word into three parts to wit That which God himselfe writ as the tables of the Law that which he commanded others to write as the Olde and the New Testament and that which he neither writ himselfe nor rehearsed to others but left it to themselues as traditions the decrees of Popes and Councils And then he concludeth blasphemously that many things of faith are wanting in the two former neither would Christ haue his Church depend vpon them but this latter is the best scripture the Iudge of controuersies the Expositor of the Bible and that whereupon we must wholly depend His words are these Omnia fidei mysteria ccaeeraque credita scitu necessaria â—n corde Ecclesiae sunt clarissimè exarata in membranis tamen tam noui quam veteris Testaments multa defiderantur that is All the mysteries of faith and other things necessary to bee beleeued and known are most clearely engrauen in the heart of the Church but in the leaues of the Olde and
not effectiuè as the cause thereof which distinction first implieth a contradiction for the authority of a thing is quoad extra in respect of others not quoad intra in respect of it selfe that is rather to be termed dignitie and excellencie then authority secondly that being granted yet it importeth a falshoode in them and concludeth directly our purpose for by it the last resolut on of our faith should not bee into the Scripture but into the authority of the Church which is contrary both to truth and to their owne principles For why doe they attribute that infallible authority to the Church but because the Scripture saith so as they themselues acknowledge And then to affirm that the Church is of greater authority in respect of vs is sufficient to â—uince that in respect of vs they preferre the Church before the Scripture What is this but to offer open iniury and disgrace to the holy Scripture especially seeing a Iesuite of their own is bold to say that a man may mordicus tenere and propugnare acerrimè strongly hold stoutly maintaine a doctrine contrary to the word of God and yet bee no Heretike vnlesse the opposite to that opinion be defined by the Church in his time 16. The fourth and last doctrine whereby they offer iniurie to the Scripture is this That the Pope may dispense with the Law of God This the Popes vassals do not onely affirme but euen confirme and auouch For thus they teach Potestas in diuinas leges ordinariè in Romano Pontifice residet Power ouer the lawes of God remaineth ordinarily in the Pope of Rome and that the Pope may dispense against the Apostles yea against the new Testament vpon great cause and also against all the precepts of the olde Testament The reason whereby they confirme this braue doctrine is this that where the reason of the law faileth there the Pope may dispense but the reason of the law always faileth where he iudgeth it to faile for speaking definitiuely he cannot erre therefore the Pope may dispense with the precepts of the Olde New Testament where and when he list Now what can be more iniurious to the Scripture then this for first they set the Pope aboue the scriptures because he that taketh vpon him to dispense with the law of another challengeth to himselfe a greater authority then the other according as their owne rule is In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior The inferiour may not dispense with the commandement of the superiour Secondly they equall him to God himselfe for whereas there is no exception nor exemption from the law of God but this Nisi deus aliter voluerit Except God otherwise appoynt they instead thereof put in this exception Nisi Papa aliter voluerit And lastly they make the law of God a maimed an imperfect law in that as their diuinity is it cannot giue sufficient direction to mans life for practice of duties and auoyding of sinnes in all cases without the Poprs dispensation and the interposition of his superwise authority 17. From their iniurious doctrines lâ—t vs come to their malicious practice against the Scripture that both by their precepts and practice their enmity to the Scriptures may fully appeare First therefore whereas the language wherein the Scriptures were originally written is indeed the true Scriptures because that is the immediate dialect of the holy Ghost and the translations of it into other tongues are no farther to bee regarded then as they agree with the originall yet the Church of Rome in the Councill of Trent hath canonized the vulgar Latine aboue the Hebrew and Greeke and hath â—nâ—oyned it onely to be vsed in all readings disputations sermons and expositions and not to be reiected vnder any pretence whatsoeuer vpon paine of Anathema Yea Bellarmine with the rest of that crue accuse the Greeke and Hebrew of many corruptions and iustifie the vulgar Latine aboue them as most free from corruptions whereas notwithstanding for one corruption which they would saine fasten vpon them there are to be found twenty in this and that by the confession of many learned of their owne side 18. Besides those corruptions which are supposed to be in the originals are either none at all as may easily be prooued and is already sufficiently by our learned Diuines or else such as are not of that weight to derogate from the perfection of the Scripture in things pertaining to faith and good manners as Posseuine and Sixtus Senensis confesse or at least are but errours of the Writers which no Booke is free from growing either from humane infirmity or from the mistaking of the letters in the Greeke and prickes in the Hebrew which last is but a late inuention of the Massorites and no essentiall part of the Text whereas on the contrary the errours which are extant iâ— the vulgar Latine are many of them contrary to the grounds of faith as that one for all in the third of Genesis where the Latine readeth ipsa conteret caput tuum she shall bruise thy head which they apply vnto the Virgin Marie being in the originall ipse his and in the Septuagâ—nt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Hee vnderstanding Christ our Sauiour Here wee see a fundamentall poynt of saith ouerthrowne not onely in accommodating a Prophecy of Christ vnto the Virgin his mother but also in ascribing vnto her the worke of our RedeÌ„ption signified by the bruising of the Serpents head And as in this so in many other places which I willingly for breuitie sake â—uerpasse And yet for all this by their doctrine and practice their Latine Translation is onely authenticall Yea so impudent is a Bishop of theirs that setting forth the Bible in diuers Languages he placeth the vulgar Latine betwixt the Hebrew and the Greeke as Christ betwixt two theeues as blasphemouslâ— he speaketh This is therefore a notable iniuricus practice of theirs against the Scripture 19. To which adde second no whâ—t inferiour to the former which â—â— their forbidding the Scripture to bee translated into the mother tongue of euery Nation to the end that it may be to the common people as a Booke sealed vp and that they might not reade nor be exercised therein This prohibition is both contrary to the practice of all the Saints of God both vnder the Law and the Gospell for it was their daily exercise to meditate vpon the Law of God continually and to search the Scriptures whether those things which they heard were so or no and to the plaine precept of Christ and the Apostle bidding vs to search the Scriptures and to haue the word of God to dwell plentiously in vs and to the doctrine of all the ancient Fathers who with one consent exhort and perswade to the diligent reading of them as may appeare by the places quoted in the margent And beside is most iniurious to the Scriptures themselues
call the Scripture a dumbe Iudge some a dead Letter and without a Soule others dead Inke others a Nose of Waxe to be wreathed this way or that way others say that it is no better then Aesops Fables without the authority of the Church all of them ioyne in this that it is not simply necessary that it was written not to rule our faith but to be ruled by it and that Christ neuer commanded his Apostles to write any Scripture and that it is subiect and inferiour to the Church all these and many other bitter and blasphemous speeches they belch out against the Scripture whereby they plainely bewray their cankred hatred against the Scripture and all because they finde it contrary to their humour and an enemie to their Religion 33. Thus the Minor proposition in this demonstration is I hope sufficiently prooued to wit that the Religion of the Church of Rome doth professedly disgrace the holy Scripture as both by their doctrine their practice and their blasphemous speeches against it doth manifestly appeare and so the conclusion is of necessary and vndeniable consequence that therefore it deserueth to be suspected and reiected of all those that professe themselues to be friends to the Scripture and hope from it either consolation in this life or saluation in the life to come MOTIVE VII That Religion is to be abhorred which maintaineth commandeth and practiseth grosse and palpable Idolatry but so doth the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo c. WHen I consider the fearefull Idolatry of the Church of Rome which for that cause is called The Whore of Babylon and The Mother of fornications Reuel 17. 1. 2. I cannot choose but wonder that any should be so bewitched with the sorceries of this Iezabel or made drunke with the wine of her fornication that they should take her marke vpon their forheads and right hands and ioyne with her in her abominations and not rather come out of her with all speed as they are admonished by the Angell lest they bee partakers in her sinnes and haue a share also with her in her plagues but then againe remembring that which S. Paul faith that the comming of Antichrist should be in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse and that God should send vpon them strong delusion to beleeue lies I turne my wondering at their sottishnesse into the admiration at Gods Iustice and Truth the one in punishing their contempt of his Gospell with such a giddinesse of spirit and the other in making good his owne word after such an euident and manifest manner that there by it most clearely appeareth that the Pope of Rome is that Man of sinne and Sonne of perdition there spoken of euen that Antichrist which exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God and sitteth in the Temple of God as if he were God As this appeareth in many grosse errors which they hold so in none more then in the horrible idolatry practised and preached defended in this Antichristian Church of which I may truely say as Plutarch said of the heathen that they mingle heauen with earth because they made Gods of men men of Gods So these whilst they giue diuine worship to earthly creatures as the crosse pictures of Christ and to the Saints in heauen or attribute earthly affections to heauenly creatures make a plaine mixture of heauen and earth spoyling the Creatour of his honour due vnto his Dietie and adorning the creature therewith and ascribing that vnto men which is onely proper vnto God That the Church of Rome is guilty of this impiety I hope by Gods grace so to proue in this Motiue that no Iesuite though neuer so subtill shall bee able with any shew of sound reason to hisse against 2. The first proposition in this Argument though it be of so euident a truth that it needeth no further demonstration yet because S. Paul saith that an Idoll is nothing in the world and thereupon some may peraduenture conclude that Idolatrie is a matter of nothing and a small and triuiall sinne I will therefore very briefly shew the greatnesse and haynousnesse of this sinne and how odious and abominable it is in the sight of God As touching therefore that phrase of Saint Paul An Idoll is nothing it is not to bee vnderstood either in respect of matter for euery Idoll hath a materiall being and subsisting as the matter of the Calfe which the Israelites made in the Wildernesse was gold and of the brazen serpent which was abused also as an Idoll was brasse and of those Idols which the Prophet Esay declameth so against were wood nor yet in respect of forme as Bellarmine and Caietane would haue it As though the Apostle should meane thus that an Idoll though it hath matter yet it hath no forme that is to say is the representation of such a thing as hath no being in nature for many of the Idols of the Gentiles were of such things as truly were but the Apostles meaning is as Tertullian obserues and many other both of ancient and late Writers that an Idoll is nothing in respect of that which it is intended to bee that is that it is no God nor hath any part of the Diuinitie in it which deserueth to bee worshipped or that it is nothing in regard of efficacie and power that is as the Psalmist speaketh is not able to doe either good or bad to hurt or to helpe to saue or to kill and this interpretation is authorized by S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome the one saying thus There are Idols indeede but they can doe nothing neither are they Gods the other thus Sunt Idola sed ad salutem nihil sunt There are Idols but they auaile nothing to the attaynement of saluation and it is also approued by many other Expositors both ancient and moderne Protestants and Papists and is most agreeable to the whole current of the Text. This then that S. Paul saith That an Idoll is nothing is both so farre from extenuating the sinne of Idolatrie that it aggrauateth the same and also so farre from clearing the Church of Rome from the guilt of that crime that it rather layeth a greater stayne thereof vpon it 3. As for the greatnesse of the sinne it may appeare by three considerations first of the precept for there is no one commandement of the Law so frequent in the whole Scripture and so strictly vrged and mounded and fenced about with so many reasons as that is against Idolatrie as we may see in the Decalogue Secondly in respect of the punishment denounced against and inflicted vpon the committers thereof to wit not onely eternall death from the iustice of God which is the wages of all sinne vnrepented of but also temporall death from the iustice of man as being vnworthy to breathe this common ayre or to tread vpon the earth that thus sinne against the Maiestie of God and that
merite it and yet to haue it freely giuen if it be any wayes of merite then it is not euery way free Merite in the receiuer and freenesse in the giuer can in no respect stand together 33. Another contradiction in this Article is this that they say a man is iustified by his works and yet for all that he is iustified by grace too Both these propositions they peremptorily defend and take it in great scorne that we charge them to be maintayners of works against grace and call vs loud Lyers in casting that imputation vpon them But by their leaues they maintaine either works against grace or else they breathe hote and cold out of one mouth which the Satyre could not endure and speake contraries let them choose whether for the holy Ghost himselfe placeth these two Works and Grace in diametrall opposition If it be of grace it is no more of works or else were grace no more grace but if it bee of works it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke Here we see a manifest opposition betwixt grace and works so that one doth exclude the other and this in our election and therefore much more in our iustification which is but an effect thereof for election hath nothing to doe with our good works according to our doctrine nor with our euill according to theirs but iustification hath respect vnto our sinnes and euill deeds and therefore much greater must bee the opposition in this then in that greater reason that here works should be excluded by grace then in the other 34 Bellarmines exception is that the Apostle here excludeth onely the works that be of our selues without grace before we be iustified but as for those that come after they are works of grace and therefore be not excluded by grace but may well stand together To which I answere three things First that the Apostle hath no such distinction but speaketh generally of all works and therefore according to the olde rule Vbi lex non distinguit Where the law distinguisheth not there we must not distinguish To say therefore that it is both by grace and works is to confront the Apostle and to fasten vpon him a flat contradiction Yea it is to extinguish grace vtterly for as it hath beene before alledged out of Augustine grace is not grace in any respect except it bee free in euery respect Secondly that the Apostle meaneth works after grace and such as proceed from faith as well as works of nature appeareth by another like place where works are also excluded and opposed to the free gift of God that is to grace and that the Apostle intendeth works of grace appeareth by the reason following in the next verse For we are his workmanship created in Christ to good works Now in this last place works of grace must needs be vnderstood because he saith we are created in Christ Iesus vnto them and therefore the same also must necessarily bee meant in the former vnlesse wee will say that the Apostle or rather the holy Ghost disputes not ad idem Lastly I answere that in Abrahams iustification who was the Father of the faithfull and his iustification a patterne how all his spirituall posteritie should be iustified works of grace are excluded for at that time of which the Apostle there speaketh Abraham was regenerate as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth and yet his works are excluded therefore works of grace are meant by the Apostle I but replyeth the same Cardinall when the Apostle saith that Abraham was iustified by faith and not by works he excludeth those works which Abraham might doe without faith for they which haue faith yet doe not alwaies worke by faith as when they sinne or performe meere morall duties without relation to God But this is no better then a meere shift without any ground of reason or truth for if it bee true which the Scripture saith that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne then those morall works which hee mentioneth being not of faith are no better then sinnes and so need not to bee excluded by the Apostle for they exclude themselues Besides it is manifestly false that a iust and faithfull man doth any worke which is not sinne wherein he hath not relation vnto God if not in the particular act yet in the generall purpose of his minde for euery morning he prayeth to God for the direction of all his wayes and that all his works may be sanctified by his Spirit And thus it appeareth that in saying wee are iustified by grace and yet by works too they speake contraries 35. A third contradiction in this Article is about their works of Preparation which they say goe before the first iustification these they call vertuous dispositions good qualities good preparations merits of congruitie and that they haue a dignitie of worke in them and yet they say agayne that no good works goe before the first iustification belike then they are both good and not good by their doctrine and therefore thus I argue If they be not good why do they call them good if they bee good then it is vntrue that no good works go before the first iustification of a sinner either in the one or in the other they must needs erre and in holding both the one part of their doctrine crosseth the other 36. Fourthly they say that faith alone doth not iustify and yet notwithstanding they say Fide Catholica Christiana eaque sola hominem iustificari nulli vnquam negauerunt nec â—egant Pontificij That no Papist euer hath or doth deny that a man is iustified by the Catholike Christian faith and that alone This is the assertion of Miletus against Heshusius and it is not condemned by any of the rest but his booke approued as contayning nothing contrary to their Catholike Religion and so it seemes to be one of their Catholike doctrines And Bellarmine insinuates asmuch though not in playne speech yet by necessary consequence when bee saith that faith is the beginning and first roote of iustification Now if it be so then as soone as a man hath faith iustification is begun and taketh roote in him euen before he hath any other grace and if it hath taken roote then it is eyther whole iustification or a peece thereof but a peece it cannot be for it is indiuisible therefore eyther whole or none For grant there be degrees in iustification as they say which neuerthelesse they are neuer able to prooue yet they bee degrees of persection not of essence as a man is a man as soone as hee is borne though not a perfect man before hee come to complete age stature and strength So their supposed iustification is iustification in the roote though not perfect and absolute vntill it come to ripe age I speake in their language because I deliuer their owne doctrine Now how can these two contraries bee reconciled Faith alone doth
Prophet Esay saying Behold I will lay in Sion a stone a sure foundation which is a playne and manifest Prophecie of Christ and not of Peter as the Apostle Peter himselfe expoundeth it where by the way we may note the feareful outrage of these Romish Rabbies against the truth of God and the God of truth whilst to the end they may aduance their Popes dignity by Peter they wrest and peruert the Scriptures and apply the Prophecies belonging to the Sonne of God to his seruant Peter and so make Peter himselfe nay the holy Ghost a Lyar. It were not credible that such blasphemous thoughts and words should nestle in the heart and issue out of the mouth of any but that the Apostle Saint Paul hath fore-told vs that in the time of Antichrist because men would not receiue the loue of the truth that they might be saued therefore God would send them strong delusions that they should beleeue lyes c. But to the point If Christs person be the onely true foundation of the Church in whom all the building being coupled together groweth vnto an holy Temple in the Lord and that not the persons but the doctrine and faith of the Apostles are those secundary foundations which the Scripture speaketh of as hath beene proued out of the Fathers then the opposition is vndefeasible namely that there is but one person the foundation of our Church which is our Lord and Sauiour the Sonne of God Christ Iesus and yet that Peters person should be the foundation of the Church also together with Christ 45. Thirdly I answere that both in truth and also in proprietie of speech there can bee but one foundation of one building those stones that are layd next to the foundation are not properly a secundary foundation but the beginning of the building vpon the foundation and for that cause when Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called twelue foundations it cannot bee vnderstood that they were any wayes properly foundations of the Church either first or second but that our Sauiour who is the substance and subiect of their doctrine is the onely true and singular foundation of the Church and that there is none other besides him for if when it is said that we are built vpō the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles as must needes bee because the Prophets are coupled together with the Apostles which liued not in the Christian Church and therefore could not be personall foundations of it and Christ crucified is the substance of their doctrine then it must needes follow that the Apostles meaning is nothing else but that we are built vpon Christ whom the Prophets and the Apostles preached and beleeued in And thus S. Hilary vnderstood it and Saint Ambrose and Anselmus who giuing the foundation of the Church to Peter expoundeth it sometimes of his faith in Christ and sometimes of Christ himselfe in whom he beleeued And thus doe also Salmeron the Iesuite and Cardinall Caietane in their commentaries vpon that place and Peter Lumbard together with the glosse vpon the place interpret And so this distinction of a primary and secundary foundation hath no foundation in the word of God 46. The Gospell teacheth that no Apostle or Bishop or other Minister of the Gospell is superiour to another of the same ranke or hath greater power and authority then another in respect of their ministerie but that all Ministers in their seuerall degrees haue equall power of preaching the Gospell administring the Sacraments binding and loosing But the Bishop of Rome challengeth to himselfe a supreme power ouer all other Bishops and ouer the whole Church and braggeth that he hath by right a title to both the swords both spirituall and temporall and that both iurisdictions doe originally pertaine to him and from him are conueyed to others c. 47. Bellarmine heere first confesseth and secondly distinguisheth hee confesseth that the Bishop of Rome hath a supreme power ouer all other Bishops and the whole Church and denyeth that eyther those places here quoted or any other doe prooue the contrary 48. To which I answere first that whereas out of Luke 22. 26. and 1. Cor. 3. 4. he extracteth a disparity and an inequality I answere that no man denyeth it and therefore he fighteth with his owne shadow hee should prooue not a bare superiority which wee confesse but a superiority in the same degree as of one Bishop to another and that in power not in execution wherein standeth the point of opposition 49. Secondly whereas he saith that though the power of remitting and retayning finnes and binding and loosing was communicated to all the Apostles yet Peter was ordayned chiefe Pastor ouer them all because our Sauiour Christ sayd vnto him alone Feede my sheepe and To thee will I giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen I answere that in this hee crosseth both himselfe the Fathers and the truth himselfe for elsewhere hee confesseth that the keyes both of Order and Iurisdiction were giuen to all the Apostles indifferently and therefore it must needes follow that Tibi dabo claues was not spoken singularly to Peter but generally to them all for if Christ gaue the keyes to them all as he confesseth then without doubt he promised them to them all or else his word and his deede should not accord together And againe hee acknowledgeth that all the Apostles had both power and commission to feede the sheepe of Christ when Mat. 28. he bade them all Goe teach and baptize and they all did put that commission in execution therefore it must needes follow that no singular power was giuen to Peter when as Christ said vnto him Feede my sheepe vnlesse we will say that the rest had not the same commission 50. The Fathers for Saint Cyprian saith plainely that all the Apostles were the same with Peter indued with equall fellowship both of honour and power and that a primary was giuen vnto Peter that the Church might appeare to be one Saint Hilary is of the same minde You O holy and blessed men saith he for the merit of your faith haue receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and obtained a right to binde and loose in Heauen and earth Saint Augustine saith that if when Christ said To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen he spake onely to Peter then the Church hath not the power of the keyes but if the Church hath it then Peter receiuing the keyes represented the Church And lastly Leo one of their owne Popes confesseth asmuch when hee affirmeth that the strength of this power of the keyes passed vnto all the Apostles and the constitution of this decree vnto all the Princes of the Church 51. Lastly the truth for when the Apostles stroue for superiority Christ who is truth it selfe and would not haue concealed so necessary a trueth if
thereof then surely it cannot bee lesse then an article of their faith or if that terme mislike him a generall Romish opinion which is enough for our purpose 35. Againe it is another article of the Romish faith that diuine seruice should bee in the Latin tongue this to be contrary to all antiquity I haue already declared a little before and therefore I thinke it not needfull here to repeate it onely this is to bee marked that till the Pope of Rome began to shew himselfe to be Antichrist that man of sinne the mystery of whose name is the number 666. which according to Irenaeus coniecture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Till then I say this Latine seruice was not publikely receiued but euer since as if the Pope would discouer himselfe to bee that enemy pointed at by that Prophecy hee will haue all the prayers of the Church to bee Latin and hath fixed an Anathema vpon euery one that shall dare to affirme the contrary 36. Againe it is another doctrine of the Romish Religion that the Lay people may not read the Scriptures nor keepe them in their mother tongue which to bee contrary to the ancient custome of the Church three reasons demonstrate First their own confession for Azorius the Iesuite confesseth that the Scriptures in the Primitiue Church were to be published throughout all nations and therefore were made common by the three most common and famous languages and againe Wee confesse sayth he that in Ierome and Chrysostomes times the Lay people were exercised in reading the Scriptures because they were written in those languages which they vnderstood And Ledesima another Iesuite that the Bible was translated into the Latine tongue presently after the Apostles times and that to this end that all might vnderstand the Scriptures And Espensaeus sayth that it is manifest by the Apostles doctrine Col. 3. 16. and by the practice of the Church that the publike vse of reading the Scriptures was then permitted to the people And further that the Iewes instructed their children at fiue yeeres of age in the Scriptures and therefore that Christians might bee ashamed to be carelesse therein and this hee sayth was not onely his complaint but the complaint of the ancient Fathers And lastly Cornelius Agrippa affirmeth that it was a decree in the Nicene Councill that no Christian should be without a Bible Thus we haue a quadron of their owne Doctors acknowledging this to bee a nouelty 37. Secondly the generall consent of the Fathers demonstrate the same for the Councill of Nice as it is alledged before out of Agrippa decreed that no Christian should be without a Bible and Saint Augustine alloweth the vse of the Scriptures to all when hee sayth that they are not so hard but that euery one by his study and diligence may attaine to so much knowledge in them as shall further him in his saluation and Chrysostome in many places exhorteth all both men and women learned and ignorant yea very tradesmen to get Bibles and to read them for though they vnderstand not what they read yet they gaine to themselues some sanctity by the reading of them And Ierome perswadeth not onely men but women to fly to the mountaines of the Scriptures saying that though there be none to teach them yet their indeuour shall bee accepted of God and in another place hee sayth that Plato wrote not to the people but to a few for scarse three vnderstand his workes but Christ our Lord wrote by his Apostles not to a few but to the whole people Origen compareth the Scripture to Iacobs Well wherein drinke not onely Iacob and his children that is the learned but the sheepe and oxen that is the rude and simple Nazianzene affirmeth that Christians ought to read the Scriptures or if through ignorance they cannot then they must giue eare to others Many other testimonies I could alledge but these are I thinke sufficient to shew that in the age when these holy men liued this doctrine was neuer hatcht nor heard of and therefore must needs bee an addle egge of a later layer 38. Thirdly lastly the manifold translations of the Bibles into sundry languages proueth the same for to what end were they translated if they might not bee read This Saint Augustine affirmeth when hee sayth that the holy Scripture proceeding from one tongue beeing through the diuers tongues of interpreters farre and wide dispersed abroad became knowne to the Gentiles to their saluation And Theodoret as plainely The Hebrew bookes were translated into all languages which are at this day vsed in the world Chrysostome is confessed to haue translated some parts of the Scriptures into the Armenian tongue and Vlphias into the Gothicke Charles the fift caused them to be translated into the French tongue and Charles the great into the Germane Alfred king of this Island the Psalter into the English tongue and at this day the Moscouites Armenians Egyptians Ethiopians haue their publike prayers and Scripture in their vulgar and knowne tongues Now these ancient translations doe euidently proue this Romish doctrine to bee an Innouation 39. Againe it is another doctrine in the Romish faith that Priests and Ministers of the Gospell ought not to marry and that marriage is an inseparable impediment to holy orders some of them most grosly affirming that the vow of single life is so essentiall to Priesthood euen by the Law of God as that it is no more lawfull for any person to permit the Clergy to marry then to license a man to steale But they which speake more remissely say that though it bee a positiue Law yet it is Apostolicall and therefore ought to bee obserued in the Church inuiolably and the reason is giuen by Bellarmine Because great purity and sanctity is required in the office of sacrificing but in the act of marriage there is mixed a certain impurity and pollution which though it be not sinne yet it proceedeth from sinne and maketh a man carnall and so vnfit for diuine offices 40. This is their doctrine which to haue no ground in true antiquity first their own confessions beare witnesse and secondly the light of history For their confessions one of them sayth that marriage of Priests is not prohibited either by Legall Euangelicall or yet Apostolicall authority but by Ecclesiasticall onely another that many hundreth yeeres after the Apostles by reason of want of others Priests were marryed another that if wee exclude the Church Lawes and stand onely to that which wee haue from Christ it cannot bee prooued by any reason or authority that speaking absolutely a Priest sinneth in marrying or that holy order is an hinderance to marriage either as it is an order or as it is holy others that in the most ancient times of the Church and after the Apostles deaths Priests had their wiues And lastly their owne glosse and marginall obseruation
high Priest of the world much like to King Alexanders Bucephalus which being bare would carry any groome quietly but when his trappings and furniture was on then hee would endure none but Alexander The writer of the life of Saint Bernard relateth a pretty wonder done by that holy man at the dedication of a Church when as the place was so filled with multitude of flies that the people could not enter into it without great annoyance Saint Bernard vsing no other meanes to destroy them said onely I excommunicate them and presently the next morning they were all found dead on the floore Doth this sauour of Saint Bernards holinesse or can any man bee so madde as to thinke that so holy a man would denounce excommunication ordained to separate from the Congregation open and sinfull men against poore silly flies sure hee hath no more wit then a flye that will beleeue this so that notwithstanding the ancient miracles recorded by the Fathers yet the Legendary Romish miracles are not freed from grosse and notorious falshood 27. Another practice of theirs to win credit to their Religion and disgrace to ours is slaundering and calumniating both our Religion and the professours thereof and that so grossely and falsely that their owne consciences could not chuse but say secretly vnto their tongues thou lyest when they were writing them in their bookes but they deale like theeues who to cleare themselues from suspition of robbery raise vp hue and cry against true men or like harlots that lay the imputation of dishonestie vpon sober matrones to the end that they themselues might bee thought chast and honest so beeing full of sores and blemishes themselues they seeke to couer their owne shame by discouering ours Which if it were in truth though their enuy was neuer the lesse yet their sinne was not so great but beeing notorious and outragious lyes they plainely show that they care not what they belch foorth so they staine vs with the filth thereof and that they haue learned that Maâ—chauillian rule audacter calumniari to slander boldly because though the wound bee healed yet a scarre remaineth 28. Their slanders are darted either against our persons or the gouernment of our Church or our doctrines let vs take a short view of all these and first for their personall slanders they slander all of vs in generall with the ignominious titles of solifidians nullifidians nudifidians Infidels worse then Turkes c. yea and say that wee haue no faith no Religion no Christ no God and what not that either malice can deuise or enuy and rage vtter These slanderous reproches are set abroach by rayling Parsons in his booke of the three conuersions and almost in all other of his discourses and by Mathew Kellison who was of a sudden start vp from spigget to the Pulpit a buttery diuine and by Wright another of the same stampe and by Reynolds and Bellarmine and Beran and Coster and all the brood of ranke mouthed Iesuites who as if they were all bitten with one madde dog raue alike against our Religion and the professours thereof but God bee praised with euill successe for their calumnies are so transparent that he that doth but meanly vnderstand the grounds of our Religion cannot but turne the lie vpon their heads 29. But let vs heare their reasons why we are all Infidels mary they propound two principall ones and those very strong as they thinke first they say that all learned Protestants are Infidels because they build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of Scripture and secondly that ignorant Protestants are Infidels because they rely their faith vpon their Ministers credit To the first I answere two things first that wee doe not interpret the Scripture by our own priuate iudgements but by the Scripture it selfe for some places are so plaine those principally that contain the grounds of Religion that they need no exposition as Saint Augustine witnesseth saying that quaedam in Scripturis c. There be some things in the Scripture so manifest that they require rather a hearer then an expounder and what those things are the same father declareth in another place where he sayth that in those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture are found all those points which containe faith and manners and those things which are obscure and hard in Scripture we do not expound by any forraine or priuate interpretation but by conferring them with other more plaine and perspicuous places and so except they say that the Scripture it selfe is of a priuate interpretation they cannot condemne vs of that crime Now that this is the best way of interpreting let the same Augustine informe vs who sayth That there is nothing contained in hard places of Scripture which is not to be found most plainely vttered in others and Chrysostome who affirmeth that the Scripture expoundeth it selfe and suffereth not the Reader to erre and Basill who telleth vs that those things which be doubtfull or seeme to be couertly spoken in some places of holy Scripture are expounded by other plaine places Of the same minde are the rest of the Fathers and so wee expound the Scripture no otherwise then all the ancient Fathers vsed to doe and then indeed it ought to be 30. I but wee follow not the iudgement of the Church say they which hath the onely key of interpretation committed vnto it if they meane by the Church the fathers we may iustify our selues by condemning them of the same fault they deale with them as the Iewes dealt with their wiues if they please their humors they hold vnto them but if they crosse or thwart them they sue out a bill of diuorce against them and put them away nothing is more common then this in all their writings and therefore it needs no instances to prooue it if they meane the Councils why by their owne teaching no Councill is of sufficient authority except it bee confirmed by the Pope nor any decree or interpretation to bee entertained without his approbation Therefore they must needs meane the Pope alone and if they doe so then we confesse that wee haue iust causes not to tye our faith to his girdle nor our vnderstanding to his braine seeing many of that ranke haue beene open Heretikes some notorious Atheists all men and therefore subiect to errour yea seeing the body of their Church is an Apostate harlot and the surmised head on earth that man of sinne the great Antichrist spoken of in the Scriptures If to vary from him then and his Babylon in our exposition of Scripture bee priuate interpretation wee confesse our selues guilty but in all other respects cleare and innocent 31. Secondly grant that wee doe in some points follow on our owne priuate exposition yet wee are not therefore Infidels for then most of the Fathers should bee infidels aswell as wee for there are few of them which haue not sometimes priuately vea and falsely
expounded the Scriptures as their owne Doctors confesse Canus saying that they spake with a humane spirit and erred sometimes in things which afterward haue appeared to appertaine to the faith and Posseuine that there are some things in the Fathers wherein vnwitingly they dissented from the Church either therefore they must tax them with infidelity aswell as vs or cleare vs aswell as them if al the force of the argument hang vpon this pin that therefore wee are Infidels because we priuatly expound the Scriptures 32. To the second viz. that all vnlearned Protestants are Infidels because they rely their faith vpon the credit of the translatours I answere three things first that they doe not rely their faith vpon the credit and fidelity of any translatour but partly vpon the iudgement and authority of the Church which receiueth such translations and alloweth them and is able to iudge of them and partly and principally vpon the word translated which containeth such holy and heauenly doctrine as none that readeth or heareth it can chuse but acknowledge the Maiestie of Gods Spirit speaking in it 33. Secondly if our people are therefore Infidels because they cannot examine the translations by the Hebrew and Greeke and doe therefore rely their faith vpon the translatours credit then Augustine was an infidell who knew neither of these languages but was as it is written of him monoglossos and then many godly Doctours and Fathers of the Church were Infidels who for the most part were all ignorant of the Hebrew tongue and some of them of the Greeke also and lastly then all the godly Christians in the purer times who both read and heard the Scriptures translated into their mother tongues were infidels for they all relyed their faith vpon the word translated but not for the translators sake who might erre in translating many places but for the sound holy and heauenly doctrine therein contayned 34. Thirdly if this maketh men infidels to relye their faith vpon man then the ignorant Romanists must needs be all infidels whose implicite Colliarlike faith is grounded onely vpon the Church that is not onely vpon the Pope who is in power the whole Church but also vpon euery ordinary Pastor be he Iesuite or Priest or Frier or any other whom they are according to their diuinity bound in conscience to beleeue whatsoeuer they teach as hath been shewed now this is to rely their faith vpon the fidelity and credit of man and therfore the blame of infidelity falleth vpon them more iustly then vpon vs and thus this accusation of theirs that we haue no faith no religion no God no Christ but are plain Infidels is a most notorious and open slander 35. Thus generally they slander our religion and the professors thereof but not content therewith they set vpon particular persons and those that are most eminent in our Church either in authority of place or excellency of learning that like Captaines march in the head of the ranks For to omit their horrible raylings against Kings Princes Magistrates Nobles and men of high place that any wayes opposed themselues to the Romish Monarchie whose glorious vertues were so resplendent that the mist of their slanders cannot darken the lustre thereof Lord how they raue and rage against the ashes of Luther Oecolampadius Zwinglius Caluin Beza and other worthie champions of our Church O◠Luther they write that he was an Apostate Friar that through enuy pride and ambition fell from them because the office of publishing Indulgences was taken from the Monks of his order and translated vnto the preaching Friers and that he had conference with the Diuell about the priuate Masse and was taught by him that it was vnlawfull and that in a disputation at 〈…〉 psia he vttered these blasphemous speeches This cause was neither begun for God nor shall be ended for God and that his life was incestuous and he himselfe a notable wine-bibber and his death infamous and fearefull he going to bed merry and drunke and being found the next morning dead his body being black and his tongue hanging forth as if he had been strangled and that after his death his body so stanke that they could not endure to carry it to his graue but threw it in a ditch and that the Deulls departed from many that were possessed and came to his sunerall These and many other strange fictions they haue set vpon the stage for the disgracing of the life death and memory of that blessed instrument of God 36. For Caluin they report that he was branded on the back by the Magistrate for his Sodomiticall and brutish lust and that he dyed in despaire calling vpon the Diuell swearing cursing and blaspheming most miserably being possessed with the lousie disease and wormes so increasing in an impostume or most stinking vicer about his priuy members that none of the standers by could any longer indure his stinke The like slander they lay vpon the life of Beza who they say in his youth was an effeminate wanton luxurious Poet and deserued as much shame for his filthy life as Caluin had done Zwinglius was slaine say they by Gods iust iudgement in the warre against the Catholicks Oecolampadius dyed suddenly in the night and Carolastadius was murthered by the Deuill 37. Further they tell how Luther went about in vaine to restore to life one Mesenus that was drowned by whispering and murmuring in his eare and how he would haue cast out the Deuill out of a certaine mayd but was in danger to be slayne by him and how Caluin compacted with one Bruleus to fayne himselfe to be dead that to shew the lawfulnesse of his extraordinary calling he might miraculously rayse him to life againe and that he prooued dead indeed and deceiued his expectation and made him a knowne impostor Thus they belch forth their venome against these good men that through their sides they might wound the Gospell and truth which they professed but with what likelyhood of truth I pray you marke and iudge and because matters of fact can be prooued by no other euidence but by witnesse except God miraculously discouer them to the world and witnesses also must be impartiall and without exception or else their testimonie is of no moment let vs therefore compare those that speake for them with these that are against them and try whether deserue most credit 38. Sleidan writeth of Luther that his death was most sweet and comfortable full of heauenly prayers and godly exhortations at which were present the Earle of Mansfield and other Noblemen Iustus Ionas the Schoolemaister of his children Michael Caeleus Iohannes Aurifaber and many more who testified the same to be true and Erasmus reporteth of his life that it was approoued with great consent of all men and that the integritie of his manners was such that his very enemies could finde nothing in him that they might calumniate which
enforcement to take vengeance on those parts which had done her the mischiefe and to eate them also with many other filthy circumstances which I shame to speake of but in conclusion to make vp the matter with a miracle two midwiues were brought from heauen to Mistresse Nunne by the ghost of Henry Murdach the Archbishop of Yorke which discharged her of her childe without paine and carryed it forth with them to heauen with lie and all so that it was neuer after seene Is not this penance thinke you able to terrifie any one from committing the like sinne or rather might not this Nunne say as another of her sexe and profession said after she had had three Bastards which proued great Clarkes and learned men in the Church that it was a happy scape which brought forth three such worthy bastards so this might call her Sonne an happy Sonne which was honoured with so great a miracle But let the Popes lawes bee broken or his triple Crowne touched and he shall smoake for it that dares do this 25. Their fourth doctrine tending apparently and by necessary consequence to loosnesse is their doctrine of vowed chastity whereby they enioyne single life and prohibite matrimony to certaine kinds of men and women to wit such as enter into holy orders teaching and maintaining that for such it is better to go to harlots then to marry and that to go to a harlot now and then is but a sinne of infirmitie as Pighius calleth it but to marry is no better then a resolued deliberate or continuall incest vtterly without all shame What an occasion or rather a cause this point of Romish doctrine hath beene of horrible silthinesse and wickednesse of life wofull experience in all places where the Romish Religion beareth sway manifestly declareth For to omit that this doctrine is but an vpstart doctrine in respect of true antiquity brought in first by Pope Seritius three hundred and eighty yeares after Christ who was the first that made any restraint of Priests marriages as it is confessed by Polidore Virgill the decree on the Canon law and Clictoueus and yet tooke not effect vntill the time of Gregory the seuenth called Hidlebrand in the yeare one thousand seuentie and foure as also to omit that this doctrine is both contrary to the precepts of holy Scripture and practice of holy men both vnder the law and vnder the Gospell for vnder the lawe both Priests and Prophets were married and vnder the Gospell both Apostles and Disciples had their wiues and after them Bishops and Prestbyters and the doctrine of the Scripture is Marriage is honourable among all men and again If they cannot abstaine let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne Yea and Saint Paul giueth order concerning the wiues and children of Bishops which had beene needlesse if they might haue none And lastly to omit that this prohibiting of marriage is called by Saint Paul one of the doctrines of deuils euery one of which might be a sufficiēt argument not only to euince the vnsoundnesse of this doctrine but also to demonstrate how likely itmust needs be to occasionate sinne comming not from God and therfore not likely to haue his blessing to follow it but from the deuill and therfore most likely to serue for the aduancement of his kingdome Notwithstanding to omit all these and to refer them to a fitter place let vs weigh this matter in the ballance of reason and wee shall easily find that a great breach is hereby made for mens vnruely and vntoward affections to burst forth into horrible and damnable sinnes 26. For first the gift of Continency is no common but a rare and singular gift which God bestoweth not vpon all but vpon some few this proposition is prooued by that aphorisme of our Sauiour All men cannot receaue this thing saue they to whom it is giuen and in the next verse He that is able to receaue it let him receaue it Whereby he insinuateth that who so euer taketh vpon him the vowe of chastity not being able to performe the same sinneth in so doing It is proued also by Saint Paul in this conclusion Euery man hath his proper gift of God one this way another that way for speaking of the gift of continencie he wisheth that all men were as he himselfe but seeing they are not so therefore he leaueth it free to marrie for such as haue not that gift But the Romish Clergy together with the infinite orders of religious Votaries are not few but many and those chosen promiscuously without any respect had whether they be endowed with that gift or no therefore being vnable to containe and forbidden to vse the lawfull remedy ordained by God they must of necessity fall into lawlesse and vnordinate lusts besides seeing that euery man that will be hee neuer so defamed for incontinency and so by experience knowne to be voyde of that same excellent gift may become a Votary and on the contrary our Sauiour saith euery man cannot receaue this what hope can there be of chastity among these men Is the gift of chastitie indeed so common that euery man may haue it that will Is it so ordinary that it is communicated to thousands of Priests Monkes Friars and Nunnes yea to innumerable of that order in all places why then what meant Cassander a learned diuine of their owne to say that the world was come to that passe that a man could scarce find one of an hundred that kept himselfe free from incontinency And Erasmus that the number of Monkes and Priests that liued in whoredome and incest was innumerable weigh the reason now in his iust termes they that cannot containe must needs burst forth either into secret or open vncleannesse But of infinite Romish votaries few or none haue that gift to containe therefore the rest must necessarily fall into either secret or open vncleannesse let any man iudge now whether this doctrine doth not directly tend vnto loosenesse 27. If any alleadge that this gift of continency may bee obtained by fasting and prayer I answere two things First If it may be thus obtained it is a signe that they vse but little the same holy exercises seeing fewe among them doe attaine vnto it Secondly I answere that continency is in the number of those gifts which may be denyed to a man salua salute without danger of his saluation because it is not necessarie to saluation nor common to all Gods children but peculiar to some Now the promise of our Sauiour aske and yee shall haue is meant of things necessary to saluation and not of particular and speciall gifts Thus Paul prayed thrice that the pricke in the flesh the messenger of Sathan might be remoued from him and some say this was concupiscence yet he was not heard in that which he prayed for because hee might be saued without it as it appeared in the answer giuen vnto
against thy selfe or of thy selfe but the equiuocatour doth both first against his Neighbonr when by a false suggestion he perswadeth him to beleeue an vntruth and of his neighbour when hee reporteth that of him which is vntrue and secondly of and against himselfe by confessing himselfe to be that which he is not or denying himselfe to be that which hee is Equiuocation then is a plaine breach of this Commandement and therefore a lye at the least The Prophet Ieremy interpreting this precept as the manner of the Prophets was giues it affirmatiuely thus Thou shalt sweare in truth c. And the Prophet Dauid saith that the righteous man speakes in truth Now what is it to sweare or speake in truth Azorius the Iesuite will tell vs that It is either for the confirmation of a truth or in a probable opinion of that to be true which we sweare or speake But the equiuocatours speach or oath is neither for the truth nor from the truth and therefore a lye if not grosse periury Againe the Prophet Dauid sets downe this as one note of a righteous man that he speakes the truth from his heart but the Equiuocatour either speaketh not the truth at all or at least speaketh not from the heart whereby he is euidently conuinced to be none of those that shall dwell in Gods Tabernacle or asend into his holy Mountaine Lastly when as Saint Paul was taxed by some false brethren to be carnally minded because promising to come to Corinthus he came not doth he excuse himselfe by equiuocation saying that he promised one thing and minded another no but he protesteth that he was minded as hee spake and that his word was not yea and nay but simply yea which proueth first that all our speach must be simple and plaine without equiuocation and secondly that such as abuse their speach in such sort are fleshly minded men full of lightnesse and vanity And thus we haue a full verdict of Philosophers Popish diuines Fathers and Scriptures and therefore why may not sentence bee pronounced and the equiuocator adiudged guilty both of lying and periury two sinnes which the law of God of Nature and Men haue alway condemned 12. Againe what more contrary to the lawe of God and man then adultery and fornication But the religion of the Church of Rome doth directly maintaine and allow both these by tolerating Stewes places of common whoredome open and knowne Strumpets prostituted to filthinesse and that not onely in all other places of the Popes Dominion but euen in Rome vnder his Holinesses owne nose and by his authentical approbation neither can this be imputed vnto them as a corruption in manners onely and not as an errour in doctrine for they not onely vphold these places and persons of infamy by their practice and winke at them by neglect of due execution of iustice but they are growne to that impudency that they allow maintaine and approue them by their doctrine as things necessary and commodious in a Common wealth and albeit they condemne them generally as sinnes yet they approue them againe as necessary and profitable as if there were any necessary profit or profitable necessity of sinnes which Saint Paul calleth the vnfruitfull workes of darknesse Ephes 5. 11. And thus with their owne mouthes they condemne themselues in that which they allow being Iudges of themselues and proclaimers of their owne shame 13. Their doctrine is this that a lesser euill is to bee permitted to the end that a greater may be auoyded and therefore brothel houses to be suffered lest all places should bee filled with filthy lusts and this their position they defend first by the testimonie of Saint Augustine in his Booke De Ordine secondly by deprauing and corrupting that place of Scripture where it is forbidden that there should bee any harlot in Israel thirdly by diuers reasons to wit if harlots were suffered to be free and at liberty without these Stewes they would sinne more licenciously and that by their first restraint to that one place they may be made ashamed and so at length conuerted and that knowne harlots are to be tolerated lest violence should be offered vnto honest Matrons and lastly they are not ashamed to reckon whoredome and fornication amongst those things which of their owne nature are not euill because the Apostles place it among things of that nature to wit bloud things strangled and things dedicated vnto Idols These bee their goodly reasons whereby they maintaine Stewes but no maruaile if they maintaine them seeing their holy Father the Pope is in some sort maintained by them The Romish harlots pay saith Agrippa vnto the Pope euery wecke a Iuly which is a certaine kind of Coyne for their liberty they prophane Gods word by a filthy Comment for take away say they harlots out of the Common-wealth and all places will abound with whoredomes whereas neuerthelesse the Common-wealths of Israel endured long without that stain where notwithstanding an harlot was not permitted It is recorded also that the harlots in Rome pay vnto the Pope a yearely pension which amounteth sometimes to thirtie thousand sometimes to fortie thousand Ducats Pope Paulus the third is said to haue had in his Tables the names of 45000. Curtezans which payd a monethly tribute vnto him And therefore not without great cause if gaine may be a sufficient cause did Pope Sixtus build a noble or famous Stewes at Rome as Agrippa witnesseth for seeing such large reuenewes arise to the holy Fathers purse by the meanes of strumpets why should they not be there maintained where not as Saint Paul saith godlinesse is gaine but gaine is godlinesse and all Religion is turned into lucre as Mantuan a Fryer Carmelite of their owne saith Ven alia nobis Templa sacerdotes altaria sacra coronae Ignis thura preces coelum est venalâ—â— Deusque With vs are all things to be bought and sold Priests Altars Temples Sacraments new and old Crownes Incense Prayers yea Heauen and God for gold Adde to these Whoredome Sodomitry and Incest and all manner of sinne and then there is a full square number But I would faine know how these holy Fathers can free themselues from the name and imputation of notorious bawdes seeing he is by all law esteemed a bawde that maintaineth harlots exposing them to the lust of others for gaine then which what can be more vilde and base 14. As touching the testimony of Saint Augustine and their other reasons I answere in a word first that when Saint Augustine wrote that Booke he was but Catecheumenus a nouice in Religion not well instructed in Christs Schoole and besides that it doth crosse the doctrine both of himselfe in other Books of more mature iudgement and also of the holy Scripture for he himselfe affirmeth elsewhere that the good which commeth of euil as a recompence must not be admitted and the Scripture condemneth to hell all
when at any time they are conferred withall about their Religion presently not being able to answer their refuge is to referre vs ouer to their Priests of whose learning and iudgement they haue such a perswasion that though Scripture and reason be against them yet their opinions preuaile more with them then either of these So that hence it is most euident that as the Iewes are bound to beleeue all that their Cachamim teach and not to stand to examine what it is that they teach so the Romanists are bound by their Religion to entertaine into their Creed whatsoeuer is taught them by their ordinary Pastours without all enquirie and search into their doctrines whether they bee true or false And as this is one chiese cause of the Iewes obstinacie against Christian Religion so is it also of that miserable superstition which raigneth in the Church of Rome for if the people were but perswaded that their learned Doctours might erre and deceiue they would certainely suspect their doctrines and try them by the touchstone of the holy Scriptures and so at length might be reclaimed from their errours thus they march together in this point also 20. Againe the Romanists are like vnto the Iewes in their doctrine and practice of praying for the dead for they hold and teach that prayer sacrifice is to be offered for the dead grounding their opinion partly vpon the example of Iudas Maccabeus who as they affirme procured sacrifice to bee offered by the Priests for the dead that had trespassed by taking to themselues the idolatrous iewels of the Iamnites and partly vpon the Thalmudical traditions of diuers of their ancient Rabbines but they haue no ground nor warrant for the same in the word of God for as concerning the bookes of the Maccabees they themselues acknowledge that they are not Canonicall Scripture and for the Scripture we finde no such precept or example in the whole volume of the olde and new Testament neither is it likely that God would haue omitted in the law that kinde of sacrifice for the soules of men where he prescribeth sinne-offerings for bodily pollutions and euery light trespasse if he had thought it necessarie That this is the opinion and practice of the Iewes their practice at this day beareth witnesse for they vse to say ouer the dead bodies a certaine prayer called Kaddish by the vertue whereof as they thinke they are deliuered out of Purgatory especially if it bee said by the sonne for his father and if hee haue no sonne by the whole Congregation on their Sabboth dayes And that this also is the doctrine and vsage of the Church of Rome besides their Bookes their Masses for the quicke and the dead their Diriges and Trentals doe sufficiently testifie And that they fetch this custome from the Iewes may appeare by two reasons first because one mayne argument of theirs which they call a demonstration to proue the lawfulnesse hereof is deriued from the example of the Iewes as we may see both in Galatinus Coccius and our late English Apologists And secondly because as it is confessed by their owne Bredenbachius it is not found in all the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists in the new Testament and we may adde hereunto neither in the olde vnlesse by distorted and misalledged texts which are not worth the answering except onely that fore-named passage of the Maccabees which notwithstanding is corrupted both by the Translatour and also the Relatour Iason Cyreneus as is vnanswerably proued by our famous Country-man Doctour Reynolds the word Dead being cogged into the Text by some cunning Iuggler which is not in the Originall wherein lyeth the pith of the argument And therefore it must needes follow that the Romanists doe merely Iudaize herein And for the Fathers which they alledge for the proofe of this article let their owne Cassander giue satisfaction who affirmeth that the ancient Church vsed prayers for the dead either as thankfull congratulations for their present ioyes or esse as restimonies of their hope and desire of their future resurrection and consummate blessednes both in their bodies and soules and this hee proueth out of Cyprian Augustine Epiphanius Chrysostome and ancient Leiturgies 21. Againe they Iudaize in their doctrines of Limbus Patrum and Purgatorie for Purgatorie it hath beene alreadie touched in the former section and for Limbus Patrum it is coâ—sessed by our aduersaries themselues that it is the tenent of the Iewish Rabbines warranted as they say onely by a Text in Ecclefiasticus which being both corrupted in the translation as our worthy Champion Doctour Whitaker hath proued and being also no part of Canonicall Scripture doth plainely shew that it is a mere Rabbinish conceit hatched in their brainsick Thalmud and not bred in holy writ Yet our Romanists lay fast hold on the same opinion without any other certaine ground to build it vpon For as touching the places of Scripture collected by them to proue this assertion they are either so impertinent or distorted that the meanest iudgement may easily discry their weaknesse for either they are deriued from a word of an ambiguous signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the speach of Iacob Gen. 37. 35. which signifieth sometimes the graue and sometimes hell by the confession of their great Bellarmine or from a Parable as that place in Luke 16. concerning Abrahams bosome confessed by Maldonate to be parabolicall because bodies are not yet tormented in hell but here is mention of a finger and a tongue or from an allegorie as is that place of Zacharie 9. 11. where is mention made of loosing Prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water which both Salmeron and Bellarmine acknowledge to make more for Purgatory then for Limbus but in truth for neither it signifying literally nothing else but the deliuerance of the Israelites out of the Babylonish captiuity and tipically the redemption of the Elect from the bondage of Sathan and hell which they are liable vnto or lastly are merely impertinent as those places Heb. 11. 39. 4. 1. Reg. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 19 the first whereof intendeth the consummate and perfect blessednesse of body and soule which the Fathers had not attayned vnto The second meaneth not the true Samuel but the deuill in his shape and likenesse and the third is to bee referred not to Christs dâ—scension into hell but to the operation of his Diuinitie which he exercised from the beginning of the world preaching by the mouthes of iust men as both S. Augustine and Aquinas expound the place How can any sound conclusion now be drawne from Texts that are either equiuocall or allegoricall or parabolicall or impertinent and all by their owne confessions Therefore it must needes follow that seeing this doctrine hath no sure foundation in Gods word but is founded vpon the Iewes prophane Thalmud that it is no better then a mere Rabbinish
in the seuenteenth chapter he auoucheth that the proportion betwixt the worke and the reward is ratione operis in respect of the worke Now I confesse that some of them affirme indeed the reason of meriting of our workes to arise partly from this that we are adopted the sonnes of God and haue vnion with Christ and so they are made meritorious by the dignity of the person which worketh them and partly because they proceede from grace and also partly by reason of the promise which God hath made vnto them whereby hee bindeth himselfe that he will reward them but let all these be granted though all of them bee denyed by many of their owne Writers who attribute merite to the worke without relation either to the person or to grace or to the promise yet it will not free their doctrine from palpable impiety as the sequent discourse shall I trust make apparant After that I haue in opposition to this doctrine set downe the summe of that which we hold touching the dignity of good workes I omit to name their merit of cōgruity because most of themselues are ashamed of it 28. This is therefore that doctrine which our Church maintaineth concerning good workes First wee beleeue assuredly that good workes are necessary to saluation but so Vt via regni non causae regnandi as the way to the Kingdome not causes of raigning and as signes of our Election and forerunners of our future happinesse as Saint Bernard testifieth This with one consent we all teach and the Romanists that slander vs with the contrary assertion cannot produce so much as one sentence out of any of our Writers which being rightly vnderstood doth import the contrary as shall be hereafter fully proued Secondly wee hold that as they are necessary in respect of vs so they are acceptable and well pleasing to God not for their own sakes but for our faith-sake in Christ in whome onely the Lord is well pleased both towards himselfe and all his members Thirdly we beleeue that they are not onely thus acceptable and well pleasing in Gods sight but also that the Lord will reward them assuredly both in this life with temporall blessings and in the life to come with eternall happinesse according to that of our Sauiour Whosoeuer shall giue vnto one of those little ones to drinke a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple he shall not lose his reward But lastly we constantly assure our selues that this reward is not giuen of God for the merite or desert of the worke but of the meere grace and mercy of God for the merits of Christ according to that of Saint Bernard The mercy of God is my merite and of Saint Augustine God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercy For a reward is not onely taken for a due debt in Scripture but also for a free gift as may appeare by comparing Mat. 5. 46. with Luk. 6. 32. In the one place wherof the Holy Ghost vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the one and the same thing So that the summe of our doctrine is this in few words wee renounce not good workes but the merit of workes and wee verily beleeue that Christ is the store-house of all merite and that out of him there is no merite to be found in any no not in the iustest that euer liued and yet the merits of Christ as his righteousnesse are made ours by imputation and in that sense onely we may bee said to merit and deserue eternall life As for our best workes though they bee wrought in vs by grace yet passing through the corrupt channell of our defiled nature they get themselues such a tincture and staine as in regard of the corruption which cleaueth close vnto them they can deserue nothing at Gods hand if he should lay them to the rule of his iustice and not weigh them in the ballance of his mercy This is our doctrine and that it is so I appeale to Bellarmine himselfe who confesseth that by faith alone wee doe not exclude other vertues but the merit of them and that we make good workes necessary to saluation Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae as he termeth it By necessitie of their presence not by necessitie of efficiencie Let vs therefore now come to the examination of both these doctrines and search which of them doth giue most glory to God and honour to Christ our Sauiour in this maine pillar of our Redemption 29. And first doth not that doctrine tend manifestly to the embasing of Gods mercy which teacheth men not to relie wholly vpon that for their saluation but partly vpon their owne merits Especially seeing grace and workes merit and mercy cannot stand together no more then light and darknes as the Apostle teacheth If it be of grace it is no more of workes or else were grace no more grace but if it be of workes it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke So may we truely say If saluation be of mercy then it is not of merit or else were mercy no more mercy but if it be of merit it is no more of mercy or else were merit no more merit and so by kindling the fire of merits they vtterly dry vp the fountaine of mercy And for that cause Saint Bernard maketh the mercy of God his onely merit And Saint Augustine disclayming all merits and laying clayme onely to Gods mercy saith as before God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercie And in another place His promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy And Chrysostome saith That no man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he may bee worthy of the Kingdome of heauen but it is wholly the gift of God In all these places merit is opposed vnto mercy as things of their owne condition incompatible and therefore one must needes exclude the other And sure in reason it must needs be so for mercy is free Grace is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort sayth Augustine but merit requireth the reward of debt Mercies obiect is misery and vnworthinesse but merit is dignity and worthinesse and therefore cannot bee the obiect of mercy Mercy reioyceth against iustice but merit appealeth vnto iustice and challengeth God of vniustice if it bee not recompenced Lastly in mercy God is the Agent and sinfull Man the Patient but in merit righteous Man is the Agent and God the Patient And therefore betwixt these two things Merit and Mercy there is such a disproportion and contrariety that they cannot be reconciled together 30. I but they say our workes are not meritorious of themselues but partly as they proceede from grace and are wrought in vs by Gods Spirit and so it is Gods mercy that we
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
Asse and the holy Spirit lesse able to make that speake then an Angell was to make an Asse to speake Then which what could be brayed out more like the beast he speaketh of 26. But some may say All these are but priuate mens opinions we heare not all this while the determination of the Church Let vs harken therefore to the voyce of the Church touching this poynt that is as they hold of the Councill or rather Conuenticle of Romish Bishops assembled together at Trent which they call the Church representatiue The second Canon of the second decree in thy fourth Session of that Councill doth thus determine Let no man trusting to his owne wisedome dare to interpret the Scripture after his owne priuate sense or contrary to that sense which our holy Mother the Church holdeth or contrary to the vnanimous consent of the Fathers The former part of this Canon is good and sound for Saint Peter saith that no Scripture is of priuate interpretation and therefore they which wrest the Scriptures to their owne senses contrary to the intent and scope of them are guilty of a grieuous sinne before God and doe it to their owne destruction for Optimus scripturae lector est qui dictorum intellectum non attulerit sed retulerit exscriptura saith Hil. that is He is the best reader of the Scripture which doth not bring a sense to the Scripture but draweth it out of the Scripture Besides the middle and end of the Canon is not to bee misliked if they haue a fauourable interpretation for the iudgement of the Fathers is greatly to be regarded and the authority of the Church is to be held in especiall reuerence but for all this latet anguis in herba vnder these faire pretences of words is couched a snake of foule errour for first they tye the gift of interpretation of Scripture and of decision of controuersies to the Chaire of Peter seated at Rome and possessed by the Pope Peters successour as they call him or to the Chaire of Bishops assembled together in a Councill as in Noahs Arke whereas Saint Paul saith plainely speaking of the gift of interpretation These things workethone and the same Spirit distributing to euery man seuerally as he will And in another place that the spirituall man discerneth all things and therefore the Scriptures Now by the spirituall man the Apostle meaneth the man regenerate and sanctified by the Spirit as it appeareth by that he opposeth him to the naturall man in the verse going before and so the gift of discerning and interpreting is not proper to the Chaire of Bishops 27. Secondly this Canon doth not onely giue vnto the Church thus conceiued of them the onely gift of interpretation but also a Praetorian and vnexaminable authority in interpreting so that all which they deliuer out of their Chaires must bee receiued peremptorily without examining the grounds and reasons for which they are mooued to be of that iudgement which Tyrannicall vsurpation is both contrary to the expresse precepts and principles of holy Scripture and also to the doctrine and practice of all the ancient Fathers for the scripture bids to try all things to hold that which is good And Paul refused not to haue his doctrine examined of the men of Berâ—a by the Scripture the same Apost directeth vs how to behaue our selues at the time of prophecying namely that two or three Prophets speake the other iudge All which places are flatopposite to that peremptory obtruding of interpretations vpon the Church which the Canon speaketh of so are all the Fathers in generall for in prescribing certaine rules to all men both of vnderstanding and interpreting the Scriptures they plainely shew that there is not this absolute authority nor infallibility in any to obtrude what interpretation soeuer without contradiction or examination 28. Lastly the Canon in giuing this indefinite power of interpretation and determination of doubts to the Church without any relation had to the Scripture doth vtterly iustle out the Scripture from being the Iudge And so Andradius the interpretour of this Councill doth expound the intendment thereof when he saith that the iudgement of the Church is Principium vltra quod non sit fas in inquisitione progredi Aprinciple beyond the which it is not lawfull to proceede in inquisition By which he giueth to vnderstand that our faith must relye wholly and solely vpon the iudgement of the Church that is the Pope and his Prelates without enquirie at all into the word of God whether that which they propound be consonant to the truth or no. As Erasmus in a certaine disputation against the Papists confesseth that their opinion hath not sure certain testimonies of Scripture but that the contrary opinion may be better more clerely strongly proued out of Gods word notwithstanding saith he if the Church bid I will beleeue it for I will captiuate my vnderstanding to the obedience of the Church And this indeed is the Babylonian seruitude of the church of Rome wherby they fetter the souls of their followers to perpetual slauery and lead theÌ„ blindfold vnder the veile of an implicite faith vnto perdition for this is the first ground they lay in the hearts of all their generation that they must not examine the doctrine of the Church but take it at their hands as good coyne though it be neuer so counterfeit doctrina in Concilijs definit a custodieÌ„da est non examinanda saith Bellarmine that doctrine which is defined in a Council is to be kept not examined and ordinarius pastor Ecclesiae audiendus est non iudicandus saith Stapleton an ordinary Pastor of the Church is to be heard not iudged thus we see that the Scripture is thrust cleane out of dores from hauing any right or title in the decision of questions of faith not onely by priuate men but euen by their Church it selfe 29. Now here two things are to be obserued of vs for the plainer enucleation and clearing of this poynt first that in making the Scripture Iudge we doe not exclude the Church nor any member of the Church from the office of iudging and discerning onely we place them in their due order and ranke for this is it we intend that the Scripture is the highest and most absolute Iudge from the sentence whereof there is no appeale to be made to any higher Court and that the iudgement determination of the Church or of any member therof is subordinate vnto that and to be ruled and guided by that and where it is agreeable vnto that there to be receiued where it swarueth from that to be reiected For as in the ciuill estate the Iudges deputed to that office haue no absolute authority in themselues but are subiect vnto the lawe and the Ministers thereof and therefore must not speake what they list but what the law directeth so in the state Ecclesiasticall they
that are inferiour Iudges are but the Ministers of the law of God and must not vary from the rule thereof in any respect And for this cause as the Iewes were commanded to obey the sentence and determination of the Priest in all controuersies so the Priest was commanded to giue iudgement according to the law and no otherwise and albeit the Hebrew glosse vpon that Text teacheth that if the Priest say that the right hand is the left or the left is the right his sentence is to be holden which is the plaine doctrine of the Church of Rome Iudaizing in this as in many other things yet Lyra writing vpon that Text saith that the glosse is manifestly false because the sentence of no man of what authority soeuer is to be holden if it be contrary to the law of God so we admit the Church to be Iudge and euery priuate Christian also in his place but we ascribe the chiefe power and authority of Iudging to the Scripture alone The next place we allow vnto the Church and the lowest vnto the particular members thereof These last to be directed by the Church but yet so farre as it bringeth it authority out of the Scriptures and it to be limited by the bounds of the Scripture also and if it iudge against the euidence thereof not to bee heard nor beleeued This is our opinion that wee may not be mistaken but our aduersaries aduance their Church vnto the highest place and make the Scripture an inferiour vassall and seruant vnto it as I haue declared 30. Secondly note thereason that moueth them thus to disclaime from the iudgement of the Scripture it is because they know full well that the maynest and chiefest poynts of their Religion wherein they dissent from vs haue no ground nor foundation in the Scripture but would vanish like a morning aust if the light of Gods word should but shine vpon them as for instance their doctrines of worshipping Images of tasting dayes of prayer for the dead of Purgatorie of shrift of pardons of the communion in one kinde of single life and of the priuate Masse and such like all which poynts and many other their owne Writers contesse cannot be sufficiently proued out of the Scripture And therefore Andradius doth fully and ingenuously acknowledge that many poynts of their Religion would reele and stagger if they were not supported by tradition and Bellarmine himselfe saith that it may be doubted whether the great poynt of transubstantiation may be sufficiently enforced out of the words of the Text Hoc est corpus meum So that wee see now the reason why they will not be tried by the Scriptures euen this because if the Scripture bee Iudge Popery must needes goe to wracke This is ther fore a cunning and witty policie or rather a grosse and palpable subtilty of theirs whereby though they dazle the sight of the simple and ignorant yet they cannot bleare the eyes of the vnderstanding and wise from discerning into their fraud 31. Hauing thus proued that they reiect the Scripture now I come to shew that they allow of no other Iudges but themselues for the proofe whereof there needes no long discourse seeing it is sufficiently apparent by that which hath already beene deliuered that they appeale from the sentence of the Scripture vnto the iudgement of the Church and tye vnto the girdle thereof the onely key of interpretation Now by the Church they intend first the Romish Synagogue that is all that whole bony which dependeth vpon the Pope for their head and receiue as it were life and nourishment by his influence for as Bristo saith the Romane Church is the Catholike Church and as the Rhemists the Catholike and the Roman faith is all one Secondly by the Church they meane more particularly a congregation of Romish Bishops and Prelates assembled together in a Councill which they call the Church representatiue And thirdly and principally they intend by the Church the Pope who is the head of the Church and contayneth in him virtually all the power and authority of the Church The Church in the first sense is not to be this Iudge say they nor yet in the second which notwithstanding is but an vpstart opinion and but of the first head for in the Councils of Constance and Basil it was decreed that the Pope should obey the Councill and be ordered by it in all things pertayning to faith and the reformation of the 〈…〉 and many learned Romanists haue been of the same opinion as Bellarmine confesseth but now neither may the Councill be Iudge therefore take the Church in the third sense for the Pope and then you haue the man that is the Church virtuall and must be all in all euen the only Iudge and Vmpier in all controuersies The center in which all the lines that is opinions of Fathers Councils and Diuines must concurre and meete The Epitome and abridgement of the whole Church in whom alone remayneth the whole power of the Catholike Church And thus from the Scripture they call vs to the Church from the Church to the Councils and from them to the Pope and there they pitch their line as in the highest poynt of resolution 32. That they thus vnderstand by the Church the Pope and that all iudgement is deuolued vnto him alone heare them speake in their owne persons Bellarmine saith that the Pope without a Councill may define matters of faith because being the vniuersall Pastor and Teacher of the Church he cannot erre teaching out of the chaire and that he is absolutely aboue the Councill and that he may as he is the chiefe Prince of the Church retract the iudgement of the Councill and not follow the greater part And therefore when hee affirmeth in another place that the Pope with a Councill is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scripture he foysteth in the word Councill for a flourish but indeede hee meaneth the Pope alone for if the Pope be aboue all Councils and may establish or disanull their decrees at his pleasure then is not hee with a Councill but without a Councill the chiefe Iudge 33. Gregory of Valence is more plaine By the Church saith he we meane her head that is to say the Romane Bishop in whom resideth the full authority of the Church the Iesuite Coster after he hath discarded the Scripture from being Iudge because it is Res sine anima sensu in varias pugnantesque sent entias distracta A thing without life and sense distracted into diuers and contrary opinions saith that Penes Ecclesiā Cathelicā est indicium veritatis The iudgement of the truth is belonging to the Catholike Church but because the whole Church cannot meete together in one place without great inconueniences Therefore God hath appoynted and nominated one man to wit the Pope to whom he hath so tyed his presence and spirituall grace that in question◠of
New Testament many things are wanting What can be more plaine Yet Lindanus is more plaine for he calleth Traditionem non scriptam c. The vnwritten tradition that Homericall moly which preserueth the Christian faith against the inchantments of Heretikes and the true touch-stone of true false doctrine and the Aâ—acian buckler to be opposed to all Heretikes and in conclusion the very foundation of faith To this fellow adioyne Melchior Canus as a coÌ„panion in blasphemy who saith That many things belong to Christian faith which are contained in the Scripture neither openly nor obscurely To conclude all in one summe without any further repetition of priuate mens opinions wherein much time might be spent the voyce of their whole Church represented in the Councill of Trent is this That traditions are to bee receaued pari pietate with the same reuerence and affection wherwith wee receiue the Scripture it selfe Thus wee haue a view of the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the insufficiency of the holy Scripture both in part and whole Out of all which these two impious conclusions doe necessarily arise First that traditions vnwritten are equall if not superiour in dignity and authority to the written word of God and secondly that without the helpe of them it is not able to bring vs either to a sauing faith in this life or to the end of our faith in the life to come then both which what could be spoken more iniurious either to the Word it self or to the Maiestie of that Spirit from whom it proceeded And that their blasphemy might be known â—o all men Bellarmine more like a Iulian then a Christian doth not onely affirme the Scripture to be vnsufficient and imperfect but also not simply necessary and to that end he maketh a good round discourse and bringeth in long Leaden arguments which indeed are not worth the answering for they are meere sophisticall collusions as any one of meane iudgement may easily discerne Neuerthelesse by this we may see what an honourable opinion and affection these fellowes beare towards the Scripture when as they dare to affirme that they are not simply necessary but may bee wanting and remoued without any great hurt to the Church of God 12. The third iniurious doctrine whereby open disgrace is offered to the holy Scripture is concerning the authority thereof compared with the Church for this they teach and hold That the authority of the Scripture doth depend vpon the Church and not the Church vpon the Scripture And so by consequent that the Scripture is inferiour to the Church and not the Church to the Scripture whereas we on the contrary affirme and defend that the Church wholly dependeth both for authoritie and existency vpon the Scripture and so is euery way inferiour to the Scripture and not the Scripture vpon the Church 13. This blasphemie of theirs may more euidently be discerned if we obserue what they vnderstand by the Church to wit not the Primitiue Church which was in the time and immediately after the Apostles but the succeeding and present Church and that not the whole Catholicke Church which is dispersed ouer the world but the Church of Rome which holdeth vpon the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and in this Church not the whole body but the Pastours and Prelates assembled in a Councill yea and lastly not the Councill neither but the Pope who is totus in toto all in all and in whome all the members meete and resolue themselues as lines in the center as is before declared This is their Church and to this Church of theirs they subiect the Scriptures euen the word of God to the Pope of Rome that is God himselfe to a mortall sinnefull man For as Nilâ—â— the Archbishop of Thessalonica saith To accuse the Scripture is to accuse God so to debase the Scripture is to debase God 14. That wee may see this to be true and that wee lay no false imputation to their charge heare them speake in their owne words and let Bellarmine leade the Ring If we take away saith he the authoritie of the present Church and of the Councill of Trent then the whole Christian faith may bee called in question for the truth of all ancient Councils and of all poynts of faith depend vpon the authority of the present Church of Rome Marke he saith not vpon the authority of the Scripture but of the present church of Rome where he doth manifestly preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture not onely of the Church but of the Church of Rome as if there were no Church but that and not the Church of Rome as it was in the purer and primer times but the present Church corrupted and depraued with infinite errours Againe in another place he concludeth That the Scriptures doe depend vpon the Church and not the Church on the Scriptures which position he confesseth in the same place to haue beene in other places maintained by him And yet elsewhere he disclaimeth this opinion as none of theirs and calleth it a blasphemy that it is his I haue shewed already though he be ashamed of it as he may well be and therefore exore suo by his owne iudgement he and all the rest are guilty of most grosse and intolerable blasphemie But that you may see that it is the generall receiued doctrine of them all for the most part heare others as well as him vttering their spleene against the Scriptures Siluester Prierias saith that Indulgences are warranted vnto vs not by the authority of the Scripture but by the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome which is greater And againe That the Scripture draweth it strength and authority from the Church and Bishop of Rome Eckius saith that the Scripture was not authentical but by the authority of the Church and putteth this proposition among hereticall assertions The authority of the Scripture is greater then the Church Pighius also affirmeth the same that all the authoritie of Scriptures doth necessarily depend vpon the authority of the Church and calleth all that hold the contrary in scorne Scriptuarij that is Scripture-men or such as maintaine the Scripture Cardinall Hosius goeth further and commendeth a blasphemous speech of one Hermannus as a godly saying That the Scriptures are of no more force then Aesops Fables without the testimonie of the Church and addeth presently of his owne that vnlesse the Churches authority did commend vnto vs the Canonicall Scripture it should bee of little account with vs. The like is deliuered by Coclaeus by Canus Stapleton Andradius Canisius and generally all other of that side that handle that question 15. Onely to palliate the matter they bring in a distinction to wit that this dependance of the Scriptures authority vpon the Church is quoad nos in respect of vs not quâ—adse in respect of it selfe and declaratiuè for declaration sake
for to restraine a common good to a particular vse is an open wrong to the good it selfe which the more common it is the better it is and the lesse common the lesse good for bonum est sui diffusiuum good inclineth naturally to spreade it selfe and therfore the restriction thereof is violence and force offered to the nature of it and truth cannot abide to bee imprisoned but loueth liberty This is true in all naturall good and true things but much more in this supernaturall good and truth which as Origenâ— well noteth was not written for a few as Platoes Bookes were but for the people and multitude yea for the veriest Ideots and women and children as the Fathers affirme 20. And yet these presumptuous Romanists forbid the reading of the Scripture among the people one of them affirming That it was the deuils inuention to permit the people to reade the Bible Another That he knew certaine men to be possessed of the deuill because being but Husband-men they were able to discourse of the Scriptures All teaching that it is the ground of Heresie and that Lay men are no better then Hogs and Dogs and therefore these precious pearles not to be committed vnto them and that the Scripture to a Lay man is as a sword in a mad mans or a knife in a Childes hand Thus they practise to imprison the Scriptures within the Priests cells or Monkes cloysters which were giuen by God to be the light of the world and yet which is to be noted in Queene Maries bloudy and blinde daies such as could dispend a certaine summe of mony by the yeare might reade the Bible without any speciall dispensation as if heresie builded her nest rather in the brest of the poore man then of the rich or as if the rich were lesse carnall then the poore and thus these saucy fellowes handle the sacred Scripture at their pleasure being rightly to be branded with the name of Heretikes whom Epiphanius generally calleth Lucifugae because they cannot abide the light of the Scriptures but fly from them as Owles and Bats from the light 21. Another practice of theirs is against the sense of the Scripture as the two former were against the letter that neither the body nor the soule thereof might be left vnuiolated and this is in respect of the learned to bar them vp from controuling their errours as the other were in respect of the simple to keepe them from once looking into them Their policy in this is to interdict all senses and expositions of the Scripture saue such as agree with the Church of Rome and are allowed by the Pope of Rome this is the interdiction of the Councill of â—rent and is grounded vpon a false interpretation of that article of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church for as Stapleton saith The literall sense of that article is that thou beleeuest whatsoeuer the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth And Cardinall Hosius If any man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome though he know not whether and how it agreeth with the words of the scripture notwithstanding he hath Ipsissimum verbum Dei Now by the Catholike Church they meane the Romane Church or rather the Romane Bishop as I haue shewed for as Siluester sayth The power of the Catholike Church remaineth onely in him And as Stapleton The foundation of our Religion is of necessity placed vpon the authority of this mans teaching and therfore one â—aith that the Pope may change â—he Gospell and giue to it according to place and time another sense Yea a blasphemous Cardiâ—all is bâ—ld to say That if a man did not beleeue that Christ is very God and Man and the Pâ—pe thought the same he should not be condemned This is a tricke pâ—ssing all other whereby they not onely make sure worke with the Scripture that it neuer doe them hurt but also fashion the sacred and diuine sense thereof vnto their fond and foolish fancies and make it speake not what the Holy Ghost intendeth but what they imagine Nay they are so impudent as to say That the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood the sense thereof being one while this and another while that according as it pleaseth the Church to change her iudgement Can there be a greater disgrace to the Scripture then this is 22. Adde to these yet another deuice which is far worse then all the rest that is a grosse and palpable wringing and wresting out of the holy Scripture a sense contrary to the true intendment of the place fitting it strangely to their own purpose This is a practice of theirs so coÌ„mon as that their Books swarme with nothing so much as such fond and foolish interpretations and so ridiculous withall that it would make euen Heraclitus himselfe to laugh if he were aliue I wil here report some few of these strange wrested Expositions that the Reader may haue a taste of them and so iudge of the whole caske 23. And to beginne at the beginning of the Bible Genes 1. 16. It is written God created two great Lights the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night that is saith Innocentius the third one of their owne Popes And also Molina the Iesuite God ordained in the Firmament of the Catholike Church two dignities to wit the Pontificiall dignitie and the Regall But that to gouerne the day that is the Spiritualty and is the greater and this to rule the night that is the Carnalty and is the lesser so that how great difference is betwixt the Sunne and the Moone so great is there betwixt the Bishop of Rome and a King that is according to the Glosse vpon the same place seuen and fiftie times So in the 3. of Genesis whereas the words of the Text are plaine Hee shall breake thy head or tread vpon thy head which is the first and principall promise of the Messiah they contrary both to the Hebrew and Septuagint translate and expound it Ipsa She shall applying vnto the Virgin Mary that which properly belongeth vnto Christ euen the worke of our Redemption And this interpretation and translation of that place is approued by the Councill of Trent in approuing the vulgar Latine Bible for authenticall and by Bellarmine also who calleth it a great mysterie that in the Hebrew a verbe of the Masculine gender is ioyned with a Nowne of the foeminine to signifie that a woman should breake the serpents head but not by her selfe but by her sonne and is also so translated by our Doway Translatours in English 24. So againe that place in the Psalme Psal 91. 13. Thou shalt walke vpon the Aspe and the Cockatrice and shalt tread vpon the Lion and the Dragon Pope Alexander the third interpreted it of himselfe and the Emperour applying the promise made to Christ principally and in him to all the Elect vnto himselfe as Pope and
vnderstanding by the Aspe and Cockatrice Lyon and Dragon the Emperour Frederick vpon whose necke hee set his foote vsing those words and all other Kings and Emperours and to proue that he so vnderstood the place when as the Emperor disdayning this pride made answere Not to thee but to Peter the holy Father treading on his necke replied Et mihi Petro Both to mee and to Peter Which storie though it bee branded by Baronius with the marke of a fable yet it is auouched by a full Iurie of witnesses and especially two Gennadius the Patriarke of Constantinople and a Venetian Historian that liued about that time which last onely differeth in the Popes alledging of the Text for he makes the Pope to say not in the second person thou but ambulabo I will walke vpon the Lion and the Adder Againe they interpret that place of Esay 49. 23. They shall worship towards the face of the earth and licke the dust of thy feete as a Prophecie of the Popes sublimitie For saith Turrian the Iesuite Where is this verified but in the kissing of the feete of the Bishop of Rome and yet who knoweth not that this is nothing else but a manifest prediction of the glory of the Church and the conuersion and subiection of Kings and Princes to the Religion of Christ What a wresting of Scripture call you this Are not these strange interpretations 25. But yet heare them which are more strange and ridiculous In the 28. of Esay 16. verse wee read Behold I will lay in Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation This all know being taught by the interpretation of S. Peter 1. Pet. 2. 6. is to be vnderstood of Christ only and none other yet Bellarmine vnderstands by this tried precious corner stone not Christ but Peter that is as he saith Sedes Romana The Roman Sea Againe we read Iere. 26. 14. Behold I am in your hands doe with mee as you thinke good and right This Text Bonauenture alledgeth to proue that Christ is in the Priests hands at the Masse as a Prisoner not to bee let goe till he haue payd his ransome that is till he haue giuen remission of sinnes contrary to the manifest sense of the place Hosea 1. 11. We read that the children of Iudah and Israel shall be gathered together and appoint themselues one head answerable to that Ioh. 10. 16. There shall be one fold and one shepheard which places properly appertayning to Christ and his Church are ordinarily and blasphemously alledged to proue that the Pope is the head of the Church Againe Cant. 5. 11. His head is as fine gold And Cant. 7. 5. Thy head is like the mount Carmel One of which is the speech of the Church to Christ and the other of Christ to the Church but Bellarmine interprets the first to be spoken Christ and the second of the Pope These be his words The Bridegrome compareth the head of his Spouse to mount Carmel because though the Pope be a great mountaine yet he is nothing but earth that is a man and the Bride compareth the Bridegromes head to the best gold because the head of Christ is God 26. But let vs come a little to the new Testament are they any thing more shie and cautelous in this then in the olde Heare and then iudge Matth. 28. 18. our Sauiour saith to his Disciples All power is giuen vnto me in heauen and earth This in the booke of Ceremonies is expounded of the Pope and also by Stephen the Archbishop of Patauy in the Councill of Laterane Luc. 22. 38. the Apostles say vnto Christ Behold two swords and he answered It is sufficient By this place of Scripture Boniface the eighth challenged to himselfe both temporall and ecclesiasticall authority because Christ said two swords were sufficient and bade Peter not cast away one of them but put it vp into the sheath This exposition flat contrary to the meaning of the Text was not only deuised by a Pope but also approued by Bellarmine and Molina the Iesuite and Balbus with diuers others though I confesse reiected by Stella Maldonate and Arias Montanus But what are these to a Pope that cannot erre and to such an Emminent Cardinall as Bellarmine is So likewise they expound that Text Matth. 17. 24. Solue pro te me Pay for thee and me To signifie that Christs family hath two heads to wit Christ and Peter because they two onely payd and that Peter was chiefe ouer the rest of the Apostles because none of the rest payd as if paying of tribute was a signe of preeminence and not rather of subiection as Iansenius expounds it So Baronius alledgeth that of Act. 10. 13. Arise Peter kill and eate to proue the Popes power to excommunicate the Venetians Kill that is excommunicate and eate that is bring them to the obedience of the Church of Rome This is goodly stuffe indeede sure they stand in neede of arguments to proue their cause that are driuen to these silly shifts So our Country-man Fisher to proue iustification by workes alledgeth that Text of S. Peter 1. Pet. 4. 8. Loue couereth the multitude of sinnes which he expounds thus that loue expiateth and purgeth away the guilt of our sinnes in the sight of God contrary to the direct sense of the holy Ghost Pro. 10. 12. 27. It is a wonder to see how both Bellarmine and all the Patrones of Purgatory wring and wrest the Scripture to vnderprop the Popes Kitchin The Scripture cannot name fire and purging but presently there is Purgatory as Esay 4. 4. and 9. 18. Mal. 3. 3. nor a lake where there is no water but there is Purgatory as Zachar. 9. 11. nor things vnder the earth Phil. 2. 10. Apoc. 5. 3. but there is Purgatory and yet they themselues confesse that they know not whether it be vnder the earth or no because the Church hath not yet defined where it is And Bellarmine bringeth in eight diuers opinions touching the place of Purgatory but two of their expositions touching Purgatory I cannot ouerpasse left I should depriue the Reader of matter of laughter in the midst of this serious discourse and them of commendation of wit for they are witty aboue measure the one is Mar. 13. 34. where it is said in a Parable that a certaine man going into a strange Country leaueth his house and giueth authority to his seruants and commandeth the Porter to watch This man going into a strange Country signifieth the soule say they which by death departeth out of this world his leauing authority with his seruants signifieth that he commandeth his executors to procure with his goods the prayers suffrages of the Church whereby he may be freed from Purgatory hee commandeth the Porter to watch that is he giueth part of his goods to his Pastor that he may diligently
touch of diuine worship and religion therfore it was reiected the one saying Stand vp for I my selfe am a man insinuating that a man must not bee religiously adored and the other See thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant implying thereby that Angels and if Angels then Saints are but our fellow-seruants and therefore not to bee worshipped with any part of diuine and religious worship 49. To the example of Peter Bellarmine and Vasques giue two answers the one out of Hierom in his Booke against Vigilantius that Cornelius was worthily corrected by Peter because he thought some diuine thing to be in him aboue othermen the other out of Chrysostome vpon this place that it was no fault in Cornelius to exhibite but modesty in Peter to refuse that honour which was due vnto him Bellarmine is in different which of these two answers we take and therefore without propounding his owne iudgement leaues theÌ„ to our choyce and yet the one of them ouer-turneth the other for Hierom saith it was a fault in Cornelius Chrysostome that it was no fault Hierom that Peter did well in reprouing Cornelius Chrysostome that he did not reprooue him at all but of modesty refused the honour giuen to him What reason had he to leaue these to our choyce being thus contrary It plainely sheweth that he knew not what to answere Therefore Vasques the Iesuite renounceth Hieroms answere vpon this ground that Cornelius knew the true God before Peter came vnto him and therefore could not erre so grossely as to ascribe any diuinity to a mortall man and insists vpon Chrysostomes that hee did it for modesty sake but by as good warrant we may reiect Chrysostome as he doth Hierom especially seeing our reason is as effectuall for Peter giues this reason of his denyall for I my selfe am a man which must needs be the medium of a sillogisme thus to be concluded No religious worship is to be giuen to man but I my selfe am a man therefore thou doest euill to worship me Here is not a strayning at courtesie for modesty sake but a plaine renunciation of Cornelius his sact as vnlawfull if it had been a tricke of modesty onely he should rather haue said thus comparatiuely I am not worthy of this honour from such a man as thou art or such like but in saying I my selfe am but a man he insinuateth that Cornelius did more then he ought to do 50. If they say I but though you thus escape from Chrysostome yet Hieroms interpretation will hold you fast I answere Besides Vasques reason whereby he reiecteth Hierom that it maketh nothing against vs but for vs rather against them because Hierom seemeth to condemne as idolatrous all such adoration of Saints wherein any part or propertie of the diuine nature is attributed vnto them but the Romanists in kneeling and prostrating their bodies to the Saints ascribe the properties of God vnto them to wit either to be present in many places at once oâ— to heare being as farre remote from them as â—eaâ—en is from earth and to know the heart and to haue power to helpe c. all which properly are proper vnto God 51. To the example of Iohn and the Angell the former two Iesuites oppose also a double answere first that the Angell did appeare vnto Iohn in that maiesty that he might bee thought to be Christ himselfe And therefore that Iohn was rebuked not for the errour in his adoration but for his errour in the person adored This answere Vasques names onely and then reiects as friuolous But Bellarmine propounds it as good and authenticall Which shall we beleeue in this case Maâ—y sauing his reuerence though hee be now a Cardinall the plaine Iesuite is to be preferred before him both because this answere is crossed and contradicted by the second and also because the Iesuite giues a reason of his reiection And the Cardinall goeth to it by downe-right authority as if because he is their chiefe Rabbi hee may say what hee list his reason is because Iohn did truely know him to be an Angell and not God and therefore that there was no errour in the person Secondly they answere that the Angell would not now as in time before be worshipped of men because now God was become man and by his incarnation brought such dignity to the nature of man that the very Angels should doe reuerence vnto it not be adored and reuerenced by it especially of Christs Apostles and Princes of the Church To which I answere first that by this allegation it must needes follow that Angels are not now to bee adored in the Church of Christ howsoeuer they were before which is contrarie to their owne doctrine and generall tenent of their religion And secondly if not Angels then much lesse the Saints who at their highest though they be made like yet are farre inferiour to the Angels in excellency of graces and gifts And thâ—â—â—ly the reason where with the Angell after he had reproued Iohn directeth him to the right obiect of religious worship doth ouerthrow this exposition for he saith Worship God he doth not say Forbeare to worship me because your nature is dignified by the incarnation of the Sonne of God but forbeare because I am not God and all diuine and religious worship belongeth vnto him And thus notwithstanding all that is yet said all religious kneeling and prostrating the body to the Saints is Idolatrous 52. As for the dedicating Temples consecrating Festiuall daies making vowes to them they are all within the same compasse and that partly for the reasons before specified being acts of a religious worship but especially because the doctrine of their Church is that these things are so properly directed vnto the Saints that the end of their consecration is determined in them And therefore Bellarmine reprooues their opinion which say that Temples cannot properly bee erected to any but to God and affirmeth that they may be dedicated directly vnto Saints and that vowes may bee made to them determinately and so also Holy daies consecrated which cannot be any lesse then plaine Idolatrie seeing as Saint Augustine saith Cuiconuenit Templum ei conuenit sacrificium to whom a Temple to him a Sacrifice belongeth And seeing the Scripture in many places testifieth that vows must onely be made to God I am not ignorant of their cuasion that they doe not dedicate Churches to Saints as they are Temples but as they are Basilicae that is stately buildings for memorials of the Saints and that a Vow is made to God in signum gratitudinis â—rga authorem primum principium omnium bâ—nâ—rum as a signe of our thankfulnes to God the authour and first cause of all good things but to the Saints as a signe of gratefulnesse towards our mediatours and Intercessours by whose meanes wee receaue benefits from God And that the honour of the holy day though it immediately pertaineth to the Saints yet mediately
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
man should say that a man may bee iustified by his owne works wrought by the power of nature without the diuine helpe by Christ Iesus and Bellarmine seemeth to affirme as much in this place Yet Andradius that famous Interpreter of that forenamed Councill one of the most learned men of his age and that knew well the mysteries of that Councill doth tell vs that by diuine helpe the Councill vnderstood not the grace of regeneration and speciall worke of Gods sanctifying Spirit but heroicall motions stirred vp in the vnregenerate and vnbeleeuers and that by this speciall helpe they might doe works void of all fault and meritorious of saluation And Bellarmine confesseth in other places that they are good suogenere that is morally and Salmeron the Iesuite that they dispose and prepare a man for iustification and the same Councill of Trent in the seuenth Canon following doth curse them that shall say they are sinnes or that they deserue the hatred of God Now if these kinde of works be good in their kinde and preparatiues to iustification and not sinnes nor deseruing the hatred of God but such as whereby the Heathen were saued then it is a probable falsehood in Bellarmine when he saith by their doctrine that these works doe not iustifie nor helpe any thing to the iustification of a sinner 10. Secondly it is false also which he affirmeth concerning the second kinde of works to wit of preparation that though they proceede from faith and grace yet they doe not iustifie for Bellarmine in another place doth not stick to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenes of sinnes after a certaine manner and here in this place that these works proceeding from faith doe merite after their manner and obtaine remission of sinnes which if it be true then it must needes be false which he sayd before That they make not our works to concurre with the merits of Christ for the remission of sinnes which is the point of opposition and that which also he affirmeth here That these works doe not iustifie seeing remission of sinnes is of the verie essence of iustification for none haue their sinnes forgiuen but they are iustified and none are iustified but they haue their sinnes forgiuen they concurre in one if they bee not one and the same And therefore if these works merite remission of sinnes they must needs also merite iustification And thus Bellarmines distinction doth no waies free their doctrine from opposition to the doctrine of the Gospell 11. The Gospell teacheth that hee which repenteth and heareth the promise ought to beleeue it and bee perswaded that not only other mens sins but euen his owne are pardoned for Christs sake and that he doth please God and is accepted of God and in this faith ought to come vnto God by prayer But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man must alwaies doubt of the remission of his sins and neuer be assured thereof which doubting as Chytraeus truely speaketh is plainely repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine 12. Bellarmine answereth here not by a distinction but by a negation denying flatly that the Scripture teacheth any such doctrine that a man may be assured of the remission of his sinnes and his reconciliation with God and this hee seemeth to prooue by two arguments one because it is contrary to other plaine and manifest places of Scripture another because all Gods promises almost haue a condition annexed vnto them which no man can iustly know whether hee hath fulfilled or no. 13. It is good for Bellarmine here to vse a plaine negation for their doctrine is so manifest that it will admit no distinction the Councill of Trent hath put that out of all question and distinction For it teacheth in expresse words that no man ought to perswade and assure himselfe of the remission of his sinnes and of his iustification no though he be truly iustified and his sinnes be truely and really pardoned This doctrine is so euident that Bellarmine could neither distinguish as his custome is nor yet deny it and therefore hee freely confesseth it and yet Gropper condemned it as an impious doctrine and Catharinus at the Councill of Trent defended the contrary that the childe of God by the certainty of faith knoweth himselfe to be in the state of grace And so did also Dominicus a Sotâ— and diuers others of their owne stampe But there is great cause why the Church of Rome should maintaine this doctrine of doubting very peremptorily for as Chemnitius well obserueth all the Market of Romish superstitious wares is built vpon this foundation for when as the conscience being taught to doubt of solution doth seeke for some true and sound comfort and not finding the same in faith through the merits of Christ then it flyeth to it owne works and heapeth vp together a bundle of superstitious obseruations by which it hopeth to obtaine fauour at Gods hands hence arise voluntary vowes Pilgrimages Inuocations of Saints works of Supererogation priuate Masses sale of Pardons and a number such like trash and when as yet they could not finde any sound comfort in any of these at last was Purgatory found out and redemption of the soules of the dead out of that place of torment by the suffrages and prayers of the liuing Now the Romanists fearing lest these profitable and gainefull wares whereby an infinite tribute is brought into their coffers should be bereft them haue barred out of their Church this doctrine of certainty of saluation by faith of which if mens consciences bee once perswaded they will neuer repose any more confidence in those superstitious trumperies 14. But we with Luther may boldly say that so odious and impious is this doctrine that if there were no other error in the Romane Church but this we had iust cause of separation from them and with Chytraeus that it is repugnant to the nature of faith and a meere heathenish doctrine For it doth not onely nourish mens infirmities who are too much proâ—e to doubting but euen encourage them thereunto and teach that we ought to doubt But that we may come to the point is not this indeede the doctrine of the Gospell that wee should not doubt of our saluation why then doth our Sauiour command all to repent and beleeue the Gospell By which he plainely teacheth where true repentance goeth before there beleefe in the Gospell that is assurance of forgiuenesse of sinnes by the bloud of Christ doth follow and that wee ought euery one to be thus assured seeing this is a precept Euangelicall which doth not onely giue charge of doing the thing commanded as the Law doth but also inspireth grace and power to effect it as Saint Augustine well informeth vs when he saith The Law was giuen that grace might bee sought and grace was giuen that the Law might bee fulfilled Why doeth Saint Paul say
meates and that from all in generall and that to this end for the castigation and mortification of the body and not eyther for merite sake or that it is a thing vnlawfull or that wee may glut our selues with some kinde and may not so much as touch others vpon paine of heresie which is the doctrine of the Church of Rome This is all that S. Augustines words import which as they doe not deliuer them from opposition to the Gospell so they manifestly imply these two conclusions first that the Synagogue of Rome is not the Church of God for it forbiddeth marriage to Priests not as a lesser good but as a thing simply euill And secondly that they maintaine in this their Church that doctrine which of S. Paul is called The doctrine of Diuels for they forbid both Meates and Marriage at some times and to some persons as things sinfull and vnlawfull And whereas the Fathers almost in generall say that it is better for such as haue vowed continency to marry then to fall into the fire of lust they conclude filthily to their eternall disgrace It is better for a Priest to play the whoremonger and keepe a Concubine then after his vow of continency to be coupled in wedlocke 39. But Bellarmine couereth her nakednesse whereof he is as it seemeth some what ashamed with a figge leafe of a distinction for he saith that fornication is not simply better then marriage but in respect that a man hath before entred into a vow in which regard to marry after the vow is a greater sinne then to commit fornication and this hee proueth by an example from a married woman whose husband is eyther continually absent or sicke so that hee cannot performe the marriage debt vnto her It is not sayd vnto her It is better to marry then to burne but shee ought to keepe her faith to her husband and by fasting and prayer keepe vnder and tame the concupiscence of her nature and therefore saith hee that precept or permission Let him marry is not spoken to all but only to such as are free and not if they be bound and haue giuen their faith vnto God 39. To which I answere two things First I aske him whether this vow which 〈◊〉 talke of be onely against marriage or against all manner of incontinency If they say that it is the vow of chastitie and that it is against all manner of incontinency then how can it bee that it should bee broken more by marriage then by fornication by hauing a wife then by keeping a whore and that to marry in respect of the vow should be a greater sinne then to commit whoredome especially seeing marriage is Gods ordinance and fornication of the Diuels institution that an honourable and holy estate and this a filthy and vgly sinne If they say that the vow is against marriage onely then what a Religion is Popery that teacheth her people to vow against marriage and not against fornication against wiues and husbands but not against whores and varlets Surely that Religion that maintaineth this cannot be of God 40. Secondly to his example I answere Marriage cannot be inioyned to her that is married already albeit her husband bee eyther absent or impotent for that is contrary to Gods ordinance Mal. 2. 14. Mat. 19. 5. But the vow of single life is not Gods ordinauce especially in so high a degree as marriage is for at the most it is but a Council whereas the other is a flat Precept to all that cannot containe and besides they that are married may expect the blessing of God vpon them vsing the meanes for their restraint in a godly manner and begging continency at Gods hand because they are in a calling ordayned by God but they that are in a vow who either enter rashly or are thrust in against their wills and contrary to Gods Commandement not being able to abstaine but proudly presume vpon their owne strength how can they hope for Gods blessing vpon them to strengthen them against the temptations of the flesh And thus this example together with the distinction it selfe maketh no whit to the iustifying of their doctrine but that it still remayneth in plaine contrariety and opposition to the Gospell of Iesus Christ 41. The Gospell teacheth that there is one true and solide foundation vpon which the Church of God is built 〈◊〉 to wit our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ But the Romish congregation cryeth out that Peter and the ordinary succession of Popes and the Church of Rome is the foundation of the whole Church and that the Church is built vpon them and not vpon Christ alone 42. Bellarmine distinguisheth of foundations and saith that Christ is the primary and principall foundation of the Church but that doth not hinder but that there may be secundary foundations and for proofe thereof he alledgeth Ephes 2. 20. where it is said that we are built the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and Apoc. 11. 14. where the twelue Apostles are made the twelue foundations of the Church 43. To which I answere three things First that though it be trueâ—â— that the Apostles bee the secundary foundations of the Church layd vpon Christ the true Rocke and foundation as twelue goodly stones and that vpon them the Church is built to wit vpon Christ primarily and principally and vpon them secundarily yet it doth not take away the Antithesis of their doctrine to the Gospell for they say that Peter is the onely secundary foundation and that hee as the chiefest stone is layd next vnto Christ and the rest of the Apostles built immediately vpon him and mediately by him vpon Christ But those Scriptures say that the twelue Apostles are twelue precious stones laid one by one vpon Christ and not one vpon another and twelue foundations equally proportioned to each other and not one placed vpon the top of another and so it is true that as the prerogatiue of the onely singular foundation belongeth to Christ so the honour of being secundary foundations is equally deuided among the twelue Apostles and so Peter in this respect hath no greater prerogatiue then the rest And therefore this distinction deliuers them not from the snare seeing that it maketh all the twelue Apostles altogether ioynt-foundations of the Church and they would haue Peter to bee the onely foundation next vnto Christ vpon whom both the Church of God and the Apostles themselues are built 44. Secondly I answere that when the Apostles are said to be foundations of the Church it is not meant of their persons but of their doctrine as witnesse almost all the Fathers for concerning person it is true which Saint Paul saith No man can lay any other foundation beside that which is layd Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. 11. But the Romanists would not haue the doctrine of Peter but the person of Peter to be this foundation and for proofe thereof Bellarmine fetcheth this argument from the
to this exposition subscribe most of the Fathers 77. Secondly they distinguish vpon that place of Iohn where our Sauiour confesseth himselfe to be vnder the power of Pilate to be iudged by him and say that eyther it is to bee vnderstood of a permissiue power graunted by God without the which no not sinnes can be committed with Cyrill and Chrysostome or if of the power of iurisdiction with Augustins and Bernard that then Pilate had power ouer Christ not simply but by accident to wit as he was reputed to bee a priuate Iew and so no more then a meere man by which ignorance of the person his power was iustified to be lawfull as if a Ciuill Magistrate should condemne a Clerke in the habite of a Lay man not knowing him to be a Clerke he should be free from blame To which I answere First that the power of the Emperour though a heathen was lawfull and ordayned by God as they themselues confesse and as the Scriptures in many places prooue but Pilates power was from the Emperour therefore it was a lawfull not a lawlesse power and so not only by permission but also by ordination Secondly if it were onely a power by permission then Pilate had sinned in executing that power vpon Christ but because of the mistaking of the person therefore hee saith he was free from fault as a Ciuill Magistrate that should iudge a Clerke taking him for a Lay man And so one part of his answere crosseth the other Lastly I answere that though Pilate might erre in the person of Christ yet Christ could not erre in the power of Pilate who affirmeth of it plainely that it was of God and so it was indeede in respect of the power it selfe though the abuse of it in the condemning of an Innocent was a sinne and so from the Diuell and not from God 78. The Gospell teacheth that before regeneration wee are dead in sinne and haue no more power to mooue in any worke of grace then a dead carkasse hath in the works of nature and therefore can neither will nor doe that which is good But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man vnregenerate is not spiritually dead but wounded like the man that fell among theeues betwixt Ierico and Ierusalem or like a Prisoner with setters on his heeles or like a Bird entangled in a lime-bush and therefore that there is remayning in him so much power both in his will and vnderstanding that being but helped a little by grace hee can begin his conuersion and so deserue a more plentifull grace of iustification All this they affirme then which what can bee more contrary to the Gospell of Iesus Christ which saith that wee are starke dead in sinne and are not able to thinke a good thought of our selues but that all our sufficiency is in God and that he worketh in vs both the will and the deed c 79. Bellarmine heere likewise endeuoureth to escape by a double distinction First he saith that a sinner because he is spiritually dead cannot of himselfe or by his owne power recouer life or prepare himselfe thereunto but yet being preuented and helped by grace he may cooperate with God that quickneth him for that he doth not as being dead but as hauing a vitall vertue inspired into him by God 80. For answere whereunto let me propound vnto him this question namely Whether this spirituall life which is the first degree of a sinners conuersion bee inspired into him altogether by the Spirit of God without the helpe of his owne will or whether it ariseth partly from grace and partly from his will If he saith Altogether from the Spirit without the helpe of his will then how doth the sinner cooperate with God in his first conuersion If he say Partly from grace and partly from free-will then how is the sinner dead when yet he doth worke towards the obtayning of his owne life Can a dead man cooperate at all much more towards his owne life I but hee is preuented and excited to grace and so doth worke but then I would know whether in that first exciting and stirring vp hee doth worke with Gods Spirit whether he be actiue in that first motion or passiue onely If actiue then hee is not dead if passiue then the first degree of his conuersion and spirituall life is only from grace without the coadiution of this free-will for this excitation and stirring vp of his will is the first sparke of spirituall life in a sinner and this is that which S. Augustine affirmeth saying that God without vs worketh in vs to will that is the first sparke of life then worketh with vs and helpeth vs when we doe will this is the second And againe The will is first changed from euill to good and helped when it is good And againe He prepareth the good will that is to be helped and helpeth it when it is prepared In all which passages the first conuersion of a sinner is ascribed to God alone and mans will is a dead thing that mooueth not but the succeeding works are attributed ioyntly to God and vs. And this is the very doctrine of the Gospell which Bellarmine plainely crosseth by his distinction though subtilly hee seemeth to doe nothing lesse for he saith plainely in another place that in the act of our conuersion will is truely free and determineth it selfe though God moue and apply it to the worke And another compareth the will to an eye in a darkeplace which though it see not yet can see as soone as light commeth because in it selfe it hath the faculty of seeing then which what can bee more contrary to the Gospell the one affirming that a sinner is dead before his regeneration the other that he is but halfe dead and wounded and hath some power and therefore life in himselfe to grace and rghteousnes 81. Bellarmine perceiuing the weaknes of this distinction flyeth for succour to another and that is though a sinner be dead to grace yet hee is aliue to nature and so is not altogether dead and that by the power of that naturall life hee being helped by grace can cooperate with God in his conuersion and therefore that the similitude of a dead man doth not in euery respect agree vnto the vnregenerate because a dead man hath no life in him at all but a man vnregenerate hath notwithstanding the life of nature in him But this is more absurd then the former for first it is plaine that the vnregenerate are as dead in respect of grace as a dead carkasse is in respect of nature for they haue no more ability to the workes of grace then a dead man to the workes of nature A dead man hath no appetite or desire to naturall things no more hath the vnregenerate to spirituall things A dead man hath no vnderstanding of the things of this world no more hath the vnregenerate of the things that are
vnto him And that wee may not thinke that this Master of theirs is without schollers the glosse of their decrees doth set down asmuch when it sayth Dimiâ—tantur id est dimissa ostendantur Let them bee forgiuen that is let them bee declared to bee forgiuen Which because it speakes too boldly therefore their iudicious Censurers haue caused it either to bee blotted out or compelled it to speake otherwise 92. Secondly I answere that this doctrine is crossed by it selfe For they do not professe any other absolution but such as may be hindered by the party to by absolued to wit if by want of faith or repentance he put an inuisible bar to stop the power thereof Now if the sinner may hinder his own absolutioÌ„ then the Priest hath no power to absolue him except he be fitly disposed for the receiuing of it this disposition is meerly from God and therefore in God is the onely power to absolue and in the Priest onely to declare who is absolued and that conditionally if hâ— be thus qualified and haue no barre to hinder For if the power of absoluing or not absoluing depend vpon the putting in or taking away the barre of impenitency then he onely can iudicially absolue a sinner that can giue him repentance but neyther the Pope nor any mortall man is able to doe this as the Scripture testifieth in many places and therefore neyther Pope nor Priest can absolue a sinner any further then by a declaratiue sentence 93. Lastly it crosseth their owne practice for they teach that dead mâ—n dying in excommunication may be absolued and they practise the same to wit as Bellarmine saith when it is discouered that the partie was erroniously excommunicate and as Tollet saith when he shewed manifest signes of contrition before his death in which case their absolution can bee no more then a declaration that hee did repent and that he is absolued before the tribunall â—â— at of God 94. And thus this first distinction wiâ—l hold no water Let vs heare the second Touching the Popes power to pardon out of the Sacrament this it is They say that the Pope doth not by his pardon take vpon him eyther to remit the guilt of sinne or the eternall punishment due vnto it but onely the temporall punishment which it ought to sustaine eyther here in this life òr in Purgatory But I answere that hâ—e which can remit any part of the punishment due vnto sinne can also remit the guilt it sâ—lâ—e for guilt and punishment are vnseparable companions insomuch as in the Hebrew tongue Sinne and Punishment are notified by one and the same word to shew that where the one is there the other is also and therefore he that can pardon the ore may also release the other Adde hereunto that to pardon a sinne is nothing else as our common phrase of speech together with reason teacheth vs but to remit the punishment thereof as when the King in the Court of Iustice pardoneth a Malefactor he releaseth him from the punishment which by the law he should suffer so in the Court of Conscience he that doth remit any part of the punishment due by Gods Law vnto a sinner as the Pope doth vndertake to doe by the same labour doth remit so much of the guilt it selfe And so this distinction filleth to the ground being as feeble and brittle as the former 95. Lastly the Gospell teacheth that when we haue done all that we can yet we may say that we are vnprofitable seruants Luke 17. 10. But the Church of Rome teacheth that a man may doe more then he ought and then the law requireth and so may say and thinke himselfe to be not onely a profitable but more then a profitable seruant for hee mâ—y say they supererogate now hee doeth supererogate who layeth out more then he receiued as he that to the precepts of Christ adioyneth the commaundements of the Church and to the precepts of the law the counsels of the Gospell 96. Bellarmine answereth first out of Saint Ambrose that it is to bee vnderstood of vs whilst wee are in the state of nature and not of grace as if by nature we are vnprofitable but by grace profitable but our Sauiour speaketh this to his Disciples who were now in the state of grace and not of nature And Saint Ambrose his meaning is nothing else but this that our naturall imbecillity though it be sanctified yet it is not abolished by grace and therefore that we in regard thereof are still bound to remember that when we doe all we can yet we are vnprofitable 97. Secondly he answereth that we are vnprofitable indeede but to God not to our selues which hee saith is Beda's interpretation but hee leaueth out that which followeth in Beda for so farre is hee from building hereupon the merite of works that he saith plainely that by whose mercy we are preuented that we may humbly serue him by his gift wee are crowned to raigne with him By which it is euident that if wee bâ— profitable to our selues it is because God accepteth our seruice and in mercy rewardeth the same not because we deserue any thing at his hands To omit that the word Seruants hath relation to Masters and not to themselues and therfore in saying they are vnprofitable seruants it must needs be vnderstood in respect of God and not of themselues 98. Thirdly hee answereth out of Saint Augustine that we are said to bee vnprofitable in respect of the couenant of the law but in respct of the free couenant of grace we may be profitable and more then profitable But this is Bellarmines fraudulent collection and not Saint Augustines intention for he saith onely that we can require no reward for our labour though we haue kept all the commandements vnlesse God of his free grace had couenanted with vs to reward vs. He saith not that wee are made profitable by grace eyther to God our Master or to our selues And therefore in another place he disclaimeth vtterly all profite and merite in our selues when he saith Lord for thy Names sake quicken me in thy righteousnes not in mine not because I haue deserued it but because thou art mercifull Thus this generation is not ashamed to wrest and wring the godly Fathers to make them speake to their purpose 99. Lastly hee answereth out of Saint Chrysostome that our Sauiour saith not Yee are vnprofitable seruants but bids them say so of themselues to teach them humility and to auoyd pride But how doe this follow that because Christ biddeth vs to say so to auoyd pride therefore we are not so yea rather therefore we are so for would he bid vs to lye Chrysostome himselfe in another place cleereth this doubt when he saith that all that euer wee doe we doe vpon dutie for which cause Christ sayd When yee haue done all say yee are vnprofitable seruants So that Chrysostome did not onely
brought into the world sayth Saint Augustine by originall sinne ignorance and difficulty from which two other fountaines of euils doe arise to wit error griefe For ignorance bringeth forth error and difficulty griefe And our Countrey-man Stapleton telleth vs plainely that Zelus sine scientia est vehemens cursus in deui◠in quo quantò curris velociùs tantò a via aberras longiùs peccas absurdiùs Zeale without knowledge is a violent course in a wrong way wherein the swifter wee runne the further woe wander and sinne the groslier Thus they themselues write and therefore I wonder how the same men should dare to allow that which in their own consciences they condemne or nourish that in the people which they confesse to bee a sinne a wound and disease of the soule and the way to perdition I know not how they will distinguish and shift off that saying of Saint Paul Blessed is he that condemneth not himselfe in that which hee alloweth vnlesse it bee either by saying that they condemne not ignorance in all but onely in the Lay people as if Lay people had not souls to saue aswel as Priests Or that they allow of it not simply in regard of it selfe but in respect to a further good to wit the increase of deuotion as if euill were to be done that good might come thereof which Saint Paul giueth a God forbid vnto and sayth that their damnation is iust that are of that minde I leaue therefore this first proposition confirmed by Scripture reason Fathers and their owne Doctours and come to the second wherein out of their owne grounds they shall bee conuinced of this grosse impiety 6. That the Romish Religion doth nourish and maintaine most grosse and barbarous ignorance amongst the people and take from them the key of knowledge First their owne confessions Secondly their doctrines And thirdly the fruits and effects of both in the whole rabble of their multitude Priests and people shall euince For their confession The Rhemists doe plainely confesse that knowledge in things wee pray for is not required of Christians but that ignorance is to bee preferred before it and that ability to professe the particulars of our faith is not necessary no when possibly we are to dye in the defence of the same faith How contrary is this to that which Saint Peter teacheth that eueryman be ready to giue an answere of the hope that is in him Hosius saith that to know nothing is to know all things and ignorance of most things is best of all How contrary to that which our Sauiour teacheth This is eternall life to know thee and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ The same Hosius with Stephylus and others commends the Colliers faith to be the onely faith whereby euery vnlearned man may trye the spirits resist the Deuill iudge of the right sense of Scriptures and discerne true doctrine from false c. And what was the Colliers faith Mary being at the point of death and tempted of the Deuill answered I beleeue and dye in the faith of Christs Church Being againe demanded what the faith of Christs Church was answered that faith that I hold And thus hee beleeued as the Church beleeued and the Church as he and yet he neither knew what the Church nor himselfe beleeued This is a braue faith and worthy to bee canonized to all posterity for conquering the Deuill But what if the Deuill departed from the Collier not because hee was scarred with his bugbare faith but because he perceiued him safe enough intangled in his snare and so needed not to tempt him any more being already sure enough his owne Where was his faith then Sure I am it is farre vnlike to that faith which the Scripture speaketh of which is often called by the name of knowledge and not of ignorance as Esay 53. 11. Iohn 17. 3. 7. Againe another affirmeth plainely to wit Linwood their Lawyer that for simpler people it is sufficient to beleeue the articles of the faith implicuè that is confusedly and infoldedly and not distinctly and plainely as a bottome of yarne folded together which lieth in a small compasse and not raueled out at the length that it may bee seene and discerned in euery part And their Angelicall Doctour Aquinas compareth Gods children to asses and their teachers to oxen because it is said in the first Chapter of Iob that the oxen did plow and the asses fed by them that it is sufficient for them in matters of faith to adhere vnto their superiours And in the same place hee concludeth that a man is bound to know no more explicitely but the Aritcles of the faith As for all other doctrines of Religion conteined in Scripture it is enough to beleeue them implicitely And againe in another place hee sayth that knowledge doth occasionally hinder deuotion and therfore that simple men and women that are voyd of knowledge are for the most part most inclined to deuotion But I confesse he speaketh this of such knowledge as is not sanct fied but puffeth vp how be it hee should then haue ascribed the impediment of deuotion vnto the pride that accompanieth knowledge and not to knowledge Hence grew that notorious celebrated prouerbe of the Romish Synagogue that Ignorance is the mother of deuotion And it goeth for currant amongst them all as yet vncontrolled But how opposite is the very sound thereof to that which holy Scripture teacheth that ignorance is the mother of errour and of folly Prou. 7. 7. and of destruction Hos 2. 6. Thus wee haue their open confession and what should follow but their open condemnation 8. But peraduenture the Iury requireth fuller euidence let them list therefore to their doctrines diuers whereof either directly maintaine ignorance or at least by necessary consequence driue thereunto and they are such as are not the particular opinions of priuate men but the approoued doctrines of their Church so that a man cannot bee an entyre Romanist but he must needes subscribe vnto them and subscribing vnto them must also needs confesse that that monstrous ignorance which is in the Church of Rome doth issue out of their corrupt fountaine To come therefore vnto them 9. The first doctrine that breedeth and nourisheth ignorance amongst them is their locking vp the Scripture in an vnknowne tongue that the common people being ignorant of the learned tongues may not be able to read them much lesse to vnderstand them to their comfort which that is so hath beene partly declared already and may further bee demonstrated for Bellarmine affirmeth that it is not necessary for the Scripture to be translated into our Mother tongue And Azorius another Iesuite going a step further saith that it is not expedient for the sacred volumes to be translated into Mother tongues because thereby the vnitie of the faithfull should be detrimented and diuers causes of errors and heresies would spring vp
And Salmeron a third Iesuite descending yet a stayre lower saith that the translation of the Scripture should be onely tillinguis of three tongues that is Hebrew Greeke and Latine in honour of the Trinitie Or as another saith Because thâ—se three tongues were onely sanctified vpon the Crosse Herevpon the Councill of Trent decreeth the olde vulgar Latine Translation of the Bible to be onely authenticall and alone to bee vsed in all publike Lectures Disputations Preachings and expositions And though Pope Pius Quartus forbade onely as Bellarmine saith such to read the Scripture as had not licence thereunto giuen them by their Priest or Confessor to wit such as could receiue no damage but profit by their reading yet Pope Clement the eighth as another Iesuite confesseth tooke away all faculty of giuing licence to any to read the Scripture or to retaine with them the common Bibles or any parts of the Old and New Testament in the Mother tongues so that as wofull experience hath taught it was in times past in this Land and is now in those places where the bloudie Inquisition is exercised a sufficient marke of an Heretike and cause of fire and faggot to bee found with a translated Bible in their houses or hands 10. This is their doctrine which how it ingendreth and nourisheth ignorance who seeth not seeing first it locks vp the fountayne of knowledge that few or none of the common sort can drinke of the waters thereof cleane contrary to that famous saying of learned Origene who compareth the Scripture to Iacobs Well where not onely Iacob and his Sonnes that is the Learned but also the Cattell and the Sheepe that is the rude and the ignorant doe drinke and refresh themselues but these men barre out the poore sheepe and driue them away from the waters of life to no other end as it may be thought but that they should pine away with thirst and liue and dye in blindnesse and ignorance For if all sound and true knowledge is to be found in holy Scripture and therein is the whole counsell and will of God reuealed vnto vs so farre foorth as it concerneth our saluation it being the Epistle of the great Iehouah to his poore Subiects to enforme them of his will and pleasure how should they possibly clime to this true and sauing knowledge who are debarred from the place and meanes where it is to found and had and not permitted to reade this Letter or heare it read vnto them contrary to that doctrine of Nazianzene who saith that all Christians ought to come to Church and there read themselues or if they be not able heare others read vnto them the word of God 11. If they reply and say that it is enough for them to know the Traditions of the Church I answere that if there were as certaine ground for their Traditions to prooue them the word of God as there is of the Scripture then this allegation might carry some shew of reason but the vncertainty nouelty mutability and absurdity of many of them doe plainely shew that it is no safe course to repose the strength of our saluation vpon them but rather to flye to that foundation which is immooueable If they say that the people must be content for their knowledge to depend vpon their Priests and to draw it from their lippes and so by that meanes may attayne a sufficient measure of instruction I answere that the Priests are for the most part as ignorant as the people as shall be shewed afterward and if any be furnished with gifts yet they seldome teach the people and when they doe they preach in stead of Gods word their owne inuentions idle tales and meere tales and fables witnesse Cornelius Agrippa and Dante their Poet two no great enemies but fast friends to Popish Religion Now if a man should bee constrained to sup vp whatsoeuer euery sottish Priest or idle Fryer or craftie Iesuite doth belch foorth without examining doubtlesse hee should sucke downe much poyson in stead of wholsome iuyce If they say that there is multiplicity of good Bookes written to this end to instruct the people in the grounds of Religion and to stirre them vp vnto godlines and deuotion I answere there is indeede a great number of such Bookes which are so farre from gendring sound knowledge that they are no better then baits of Antichrist seruing to allure men vnder shew of deuotion vnto Idolatry and Apostacie from God for if they were sound and true why should Gods Booke which without all question is most sound bee prohibited and they admitted Why is it not lawfull to examine them by that rule and why should all Bookes else which any thing make against their Religion be suppressed and by great penalties forbidden Surely this sheweth that all their Bookes of deuotion are but rotten stuffe and meere hypocriticall deuices to deceiue the simple 12. Lastly if they say that all our translations are false and erronious and therefore that our Bibles are not the word of God I answere that indeede it is impossible to haue a Translation so exact perfect that no fault nor imperfection shuld be found therin neuertheles the chief faults in our translations are for the most part in respect of proprietie of words and phrases which are nothing repugnant to holy doctrine or good life and not in any materiall or substantiall poynt of faith and those also are not frequent but heere and there dispersed which can no waies hinder the profite to be gathered by the rest of the Scripture and if for some corruption in translations the Bible should not bee read then none but the originall Hebrew and Greeke should bee in vse for all translations are imperfect yea their so much extolled vulgar authorized by the Councill of Trent wherein the Diuines of Louane obserued many errors and Isidorus Clarius a Spanish Monke professed that hee found eight thousand fau'ts though for his plaine dealing hee was plagued by the Inquisitors and after that it was decreed authenticall by the Councill a thing worth the noting yet it was corrected and castigated by the authority and commaundement of sixe Popes successiuely Nay the Hebrew and Greeke copies themselues should not bee permitted for euen they if wee will beleeue the Romanists are full of corruptions but as Bellarmine saith of the corruptions in the Hebrew text so wee may truely of the imperfections in our translations Non sunt tanti momenti vt inijs quâ— ad fidem bonos more 's pertinent sacrae Scripturae integritas desideretur that is they are not of such moment that they can hinder the integrity of the Scripture in those things which pertaine to faith good manners 13. Moreouer besides all this it is no maruell if they contend for their vulgar Latine Bible that it should be onely authenticall seeing many Romish errors are thereby maintained which in the truth of yeâ—â—â— originall
and ignorance must needs ouerflow the world as wofull experience hath taught to bee true in those places where the Romish Religion preuaileth 16. Thirdly they teach that Images and Pictures are Lay mens Bookes wherein they must read and with the which they must content themselues without searching at all into the Booke of God This doctrine taught Gulielmus Peraldus three hundred yeeres since saue that hee ioyned the Scripture and Images together for thus he writeth As the Scriptures be the Bookes of the Clergie so Images and the Scripture are the Bookes of Lay men where hee equalleth a dumbe and dead Picture to the speaking and liuely Scriptures the worke of man to the Word of God But Loelius Zechius a learned and famous Diuine of latter time goeth further and saith that Images are the onely Bookes for them that bee vnlearned to draw them to faith and knowledge and imitation of diuine matters Yea another Fryer that liueth in Paris at this day or at least was aliue very lately goeth yet a degree further and affirmeth that Lay men may more easily learne diuine mysteries by contemplation of Images then out of the Booke of God and all these are as they stile them most Catholike and holy Bookes But what should I search further into these petty Disciples whereas the grand Doctor himselfe hath this proposition in expresse words Meliùs interdum docet pictura quà m scriptura A Picture doth better instruct sometimes then the Scripture 16. This is their Doctrine Now what fruits doth it bring foorth Surely the best fruit is ignorance a worse then that error and the worst of all superstition and and idolatry for howsoeuer we deny not that there may be an historicall and ciuill vse of Pictures either to put vs in minde of our absent friends or to represent some obseruable history and notable deede done or to stirre vs vp to the imitation of the vertues of Godly men and women yet we constantly affirme that to make them the Bookes of Lay men either to be instructed by them alone without the Booke of God or to finde better and more perfect instruction in them then in it is to inwrap the people in a cloude of foggie and mistie ignorance and to hood-winke their eyes that they should not see the bright shining light of truth for where is all sound sauing knowledge to bee found but in the holy Scripture whither doth our Sauiour Christ send his Disciples but vnto them he doth not say vnto them Gaze vpon Pictures for they be they that testifie of me and In them yee shall finde eternall life but Search the Scriptures for c. And the Prophet Dauid that it is the Law of God that giueth wisedome vnto the simple and that conuerteth the soule and giueth light vnto the eyes and not the Pictures of Abraham Isaac and Iacob or of any of the Prophets And therefore though a man may be instructed by a Picture touching a thing done yet most certaine it is that more excellent and more perfect instruction is gotten by the Scripture for let an vnskilfull man returne neuer so often to the beholding of his Picture it will alwaies represent the same thing vnto him and if any scruple or doubt remaine in his minde it can answere nothing for the explication thereof whereas in holy Scripture that which is obscure in one place is explained in another and that which in one Chapter we cannot conceiue in the next following it may be is so cleerely set downe that a childe may discerne it without erring so that as a man may discouer his meaning by signes and becks yet it is not so effectuall as if he vtter it by word of mouth so Pictures may teach but yet Scripture teacheth more fully and effectually And therefore to tye the people to these dumbe Bookes and discharge them from searching into the Booke of God is to depriue them of the chiefest meanes of knowledge and so to foster them in ignorance 17. But yet this is not all For besides that it occasioneth ignorance an Image also is a teacher of lyes as the Prophet Habakuk calleth it and a mother and a nurse of superstition and Idolatry For first how many Pictures are there in their Churches of Monsters and miracles that neuer were As of Saint George killing the Dragon Saint Christopher carrying Christ vpon his shoulder ouer the Ford. Saint Catherine tormented vpon the wheele and disputing with the Philosopher Saint Dunstane holding the Diuell by the nose or lip with a paire of Pincers Saint Denis carrying his owne head in his hands being strooke off Saint Dominick burning the Deuils fingers with a Candle which hee made him to hold will he nill hee And an infinite number such like which either neuer were extant in the world or were not such neither euer did worke such feates as are represented by their Pictures Two Pictures I cannot passe ouer in silence which I haue seen and obserued with my owne eyes the one at the Church of Ramsey in Huntington-shire neere adioyning vnto that quondam a famous and rich Abbay In this Church in the lowest window in the right I le is a picture of a paire of Ballance in one skole whereof is the Deuill and in the other a woman and the woman is more sinfull then the Deuill ouerweighing him euen to the ground Behold a Lay mans book whereat wise men may wonder fooles may laugh and women may bee inraged and euery one may read the folly and prophanenes of those times Sure I am heere is little instruction for the soules health The other is in the Cloister window of the cathedrall Church of Peterborough where is painted out at large the history of Christs passion In one place whereof our Sauiour Christ sitteth with his twelue Apostles eating his last Passeouer which because it was vpon the Thursday night before Easter commonly called Maundey Thursday therefore they picture before him in a dish not a Lambe as the truth was but because it was Lent O miserable blindnesse three pickerels so that now the Paschall Lambe is turned into a Paschall pickerell and all forsooth to nourish in the people the superstition of the Lent fast For if they should see Christ eating flesh in Lent what an incouragement would this be thought they for the people to doe the like 18. And thus Images may wel be called Laymens bookes But what bookes you see euen such as teach lyes and superstition no sound and true instruction I could heere relate how that Saint Dunstane put life by a trunke forsooth into the Image of the Virgin Mary and made her speake against the marriage of Priests when that controuersie could no otherwise bee decided And how the Image of the Crucifixe vsed to speake to Saint Francis to the end to giue authority to the order of his fraternity and that vpon two Images in a Church at Venice the one of Saint
Dominick the other of Saint Paul were written these words On Pauls By this man you may come to Christ On Dominicks But by this man you may doe it easilier because Pauls doctrine led but to faith and the obseruation of the Commandements but Dominicks taught the obseruation of Councils which is the easier way All this and asmuch more might be produced to this purpose But I conclude the point with the censure and confession of their owne Cassander who out of the writings of William Bishop of Miniatum concludeth with him that as if officious lyes should bee added to the holy Scriptures there would remaine no authority nor weight in them So no errour nor falshood should be tolerated in Images and Pictures in the Church seeing that an errour not resisted is receiued for a trueth And in the same place the same Cassander doth bewaile the abuse of Images in the Church of Rome affirming that superstition was too much pampered thereby that Christians were nothing behind the Heathō in the extreme vanity of framing adorning and worshipping of Images Thus farre Cassander out of which we may perceiue the chiefe lessons that are learned out of these Lay bookes to wit ignorance superstition and Idolatry And therefore no maruaile if all these vices raigne in the midst of their Church as plentifully as amongst the Heathen themselues 19. Fourthly they deliuer for sound doctrine that whereas Saint Iohn sayth that they which haue the anointing of the holy Ghost know all things Hee meaneth not that euery one should haue all knowledge in himselfe personally but that euery one that is of that happy society to which Christ promised and gaue the holy Ghost is partaker of all other mens graces and gifts in the same holy Spirit to saluation And thus whereas Saint Iohn meaneth that euery true Christian both by the outward preaching of the word and by the inward vnction of the Spirit hath a distinct knowledge of all things necessary to saluation They say that it is sufficient if he be partaker of another mans knowledge though he be empty voyde himselfe Then which what can be a greater nourisher of ignorance and quencher of knowledge For if I may bee saued by anothers mans knowledge and faith And if it bee not required that I should know al things necessary to saluation in my owne person but may haue a share of another mans knowledge what need I greatly seeke for knowledge my selfe And why may I not repose the hope of my saluation vpon other men And heereby wee may obserue their grosse absurdity In the case of iustification they teach that wee are not made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs though hee bee the head of the body of the Church and the Spirit that animateth it proceedeth from him and yet heere they say that a man may be made wise and knowing by the knowledge of other their fellow members in the same body abiding in the vnity of Christs Church What is this but to aduance the members aboue the head or at least to forget themselues not caring what they say so that they maintaine the cause they haue in hand 20. I but Saint Augustine sayth If thou loue vnity for thee also hath he whosoeuer hath any thing in it it is thine which I haue it is mine which thou hast And againe in another place hee sayth When Peter wrought miracles he wrought them for me because I am in that body in which Peter wrought them In which body though the eye seeth and not the eare and the eare heareth and not the eye yet the eye heareth in the eare and the eare seeth in the eye c. Therefore all the grace and knowledge that is in any other of Gods Saints either liuing or dead is ours by participation And so that which was sufficient in them for their saluation is also enough for vs for ours though wee haue little or none of our owne Thus reason our Rhemists in the place before quoted But I answere first with our reuerend learned countrey-man Doctor Fulk that Saint Augustine vnderstandeth that place of Saint Iohn of an actuall and personall knowledge inspired by the holy Ghost concurring with the outward ministery of the Church and not of any generall knowledge infused into the Church to bee transfused and dispersed among the members by an imputatiue participation Secondly if a man may know by another mans knowledge why may not a man bee righteous by anothers righteousnesse And if the knowledge of our fellow members may bee imputed to vs that wee thereby may bee saide to know why may not the iustice of our head bee so imputed vnto vs that thereby wee may bee made iust These things are so paralell that the one being granted the other needs must follow Thirdly and lastly that communion which is betwixt the members of a body either naturall or mysticall is not an actuall translation of gifts from one to another but either a participation in the fruit of those gifts or a generating of the like in others by doctrine example exhortation prayers and such like meanes And so wee may truely say that euery one that is in the body of Christ reapeth fruit and benefit by all the graces and gifts that euer haue or shall belong to any member thereof though not for merit yet for comfort instruction edification and increase of grace And againe as one candle lighteth another and one steele sharpeneth and whetteth another So wisedome and grace is deriued from one to another either by naturall commerce of speech or patterne of example Thus much did Saint Augustine intend and no more and therefore it neuer came into his minde to thinke as these idle braines would make him that the knowledge which resided in the Saints of God is actually in all Gods Children or that they are partakers of their gifts and graces to their saluation For he that will be saued must beleeue for himselfe and know for himselfe and liue godly for himselfe If hee doe all these things by a proxy hee must also goe to Heauen by a proxy and not by himselfe This doctrine therefore is a manifest breeder and maintainer of such grosse ignorance as both Saint Augustine and all other holy men haue alwayes condemned for a sinne 21. A fift doctrine from whence ignorance springeth and ariseth is their prohibiting of Lay men to dispute touching matters of faith and that vnder paine of excommunication This Nauarre propoundeth as the doctrine of their Church neither is it contradicted by any other Aquinas goeth further and sayth that it is vnlawfull to dispute of matters of faith in the presence of those that are ignorant and simple And Bellarmine taketh away from the people all power of iudging of their Pastours doctrine saying that they must beleeue whatsoeuer they teach except they broach some new doctrin which hath not beene heard of in the Church before And if they
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
and plain-dealing men The case then thus standing this practice of theirs cannot be termed Christian policy but plaine subtlety to giue it no worse a name 110. His last reason is drawne from the practice of the Church of God in all ages which hath alwaies forbidden the Bookes of Heretikes to be read and condemned them to the fire and to this purpose he produceth diuers fit and pertinent authorities to which I answere first that he fighteth herein without an aduersarie for we confesse that this was a necessarie and commendable practice to prohibit condemne burne and abolish all such Bookes as tend to the corrupting of the Christian faith and also to preuent them in the birth that they may not come to light but yet for all that this alloweth not their purging and paring of Bookes for they cannot giue vs one example in all antiquitie of this dealing except it bee drawne from Heretikes whose practice it hath beene to depraue the Scriptures themselues and the Decrees of Councels and the Bookes of ancient Fathers as witnesseth Bellarmine in many places of his workes and Sixtus Senensis and almost all other of their side III. Secondly the Fathers condemned onely the Bookes of Heretikes but our holy Inquisitors condemne not onely those whom they call Heretikes as Caluine Luther Beza Melancthon but mangle and purge the Fathers themselues and their owne deare children whom they dare not condemne for Heretikes as this Author himselfe confesleth those they chop and change wriâ—he and wring bend and bow as they list which is so much the more intolerable because being profest Romanists they durst not vary from the receiued opinions of the Church of Rome except mere conscience inwardly and some forcible reason outwardly mooued them thereunto 112. Thirdly and lastly the Fathers when they condemned any Heretike or hereticall Booke did it openly to the view of the World and not secretly in a corner not ascribing vnto them other opinions then they held eyther by adding vnto or detracting from their writings But our Romish correctors like Owles flye by moonshine and so closely câ—rtie their businesse that they would haue none to discry them yea they denie and abiure this trade I meane in respect of the Fathers and in a word they make almost all Authours to speake what they list for if any thing dislike them deleatur let it be wiped out or at least mutetur let it bee changed or addatur let something bee added vnto it that may change the sense and turne the sentence into a new mâ—ld of all these their Iudices Expurgatorij afford plentifull examples so that they can no wayes colour their forgerie and false dealing by the examples of the Fathers or Primitiue Church For this is a new tricke of legerdemaine of the Deuils owne inuention found out in this latter age of the World which hath beene verie fertile in strange deuices 113. Now then to conclude and to leaue this Priest with his vaine and idle reasons to be fuller confuted of him whom it more neerely concerneth and whose credit is touched by him Hence two necessarie conclusions doe arise one that they are guiltie of forgerie and corrupting of Authours by their owne confessions and secondly that they adde hereunto impudencie and shamelessenesse which is alwayes the marke of an Heretike and that first in defending their owne vniust and false dealing by reasons as if their wits were able to maintaine that snow was blacke and the Crow white and secondly in translating the crime from themselues vnto vs without all shew of reason not caring what they say so they say something for the honour of their mistresse the whore of Babylon and defence of her cause 114. Now then seeing it is manifest that they labour to vphold their Religion by these vniust vngodly and deuillish practices as treason crueltie periurie lying slandering and forging this conclusion must needes bee of necessarie consequence that therefore their Religion is not the truth of God nor their Church the true Church of God It is the iudgement of their owne learned Iesuites touching this last crime that wee may conuince them out of their owne mouthes that forging of false Treatises corrupting of true changing of Scriptures and altering of mens words contrarie to their meaning be certaine notes of heresie what can the Church of Rome be then lesse then hereticall that not onely doth all this but now at length professeth and maintaineth the doing thereof as lawful and profitable MOTIVE XIII That Religion the doctrines whereof are more safe both in respect Gods glorie mans saluation and Christian charitie is to bee 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 bee reiected THe first proposition is so euident and cleare that our aduersaries themselues will not deny it neither can it by any good reason bee excepted against for as it is in bodily physicke that medicine is alwayes preferred which bringeth with it lesse danger to the life of the patient and if it misse curing cannot kill so is it in the spirituall physicke of the soule which is Religion that doctrine deserueth best acceptance which is most safe and least dangerous for the soules health And as desperate medicines if they bee applyed by a skilfull Physicion argue a desperate case in the patient so desperate doctrines proue a desperate cause Neyther will any wayfaring man when two wayes are offered vnto him the one whereof is full of manifold perils and the end doubtfull the other safe from dangers and the end certainly good not choose rather the safer and certainer way and leaue the other so men like Pilgrimes trauelling towards the heauenly Canaan the way of Poperie on the one side and of Protestancie on the other being seâ— before them if they bee well in their wits will choose rather that way which is both the safer in the passage and the certainer in the end There is no doubt then in this first proposition and therefore let vs leaue it thus naked without further proofe and come to the second and examine whether our Religion or the Romish is the safer that all men may imbrace that which by euidence of demonstration shall appeare to be so and resuse the contrarie and here notwithstanding all the former pregnant arguments whereby the falsitie of their Church and Religion is plainly discouered wee put our selues againe vpon a lawfull tryall and referre our cause to the iudgement not of twelue men but of the whole world that if our euidence bee good wee may obtaine the day and the mouthes of our aduersaries may be stopped if not we may yeeld as conquered to bee led in triumph by them to Rome yea to the Popes owne palace to kisse his feet and receiue his marke on our
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
Protestants condemne the worship of Images taught and practised in the Church of Rome but they are not alone therein but haue many Romanists for their abetters and companions Cassander concludeth out of Saint Augustine that there were no Images in all the Churches of his Diocesse And Polydore Virgil writeth that by the testimonie of Ierome it appeareth how in a manner all the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatrie thus speaketh he in his vncorrupted editions but in his later editions his tongue is tyed by the Belgicke Index others as Holcot Durand Alphonsus flatly affirme that no worship at all is due to an Image neither is it lawfull to worship it diuers Councels also decreed the same as the ancient Councell of Eliberis propounded this onely remedie against Idolatrie that no Images should bee painted in Churches but this Councell was not Romish for Poperie was then scarce in the Embrio therefore of later time a mere Romish Councell to wit that of Franckford consisting of many Romish Bishops and the Popes owne Legates condemned all worship of Images and a later yet to wit the Councell of Mentz held in the yeere 1549. decreed that the Image it selfe was not to bee worshipped but that by the Image of Christ men should bee stirred vp to adore Christ which is contrarie to the new professed doctrine of the Church of Rome 54. Many Romanists as well as Protestants reiect the intercession and inuocation of Saints as an Article not found eyther in the olde or new Testament In the olde Testament sayth Salmeron The Patriarchs vsed not to be inuocated both because they were not in perfect estate of blessednesse and also because there had beene then a danger of Idolatrie to offer that honour vnto them And for the new Testament the same Iesuite confesseth that this article is not expressed because the Iewes would haue thought it an hard matter to inuocate Saints departed and the Gentiles would haue taken occasion to haue thought that the worship of new Gods had beene prescribed vnto them Of the same opinion was Ecchius who peremptorily affirmeth that the inuocation of Saints departed is not commanded in the holy Scripture And Faber Stapulensis thus writeth I would to God that the forme of beleeuing might bee fetcht from the Primitiue Church which consecrated so many Martyrs to Christ and had no scope but Christ nor imployed any worship to any saue to the one Trinity alone 55. That a Christian may bee certaine of his owne standing in present grace and of his future saluation is the doctrine of Protestants denyed by the Church of Rome and yet approued by many of her deare children as for example Euery one that beleeueth seeth that he doth beleeue sayth Dominicus Bannes A Christian man by the infallible certaintie of faith which cannot bee deceiued certainly knoweth himselfe to haue a supernaturall faith sayth Medina Some spirituall men may be so certaine that they are in grace that this their assurance shall be free from all feare and staggering sayth Vega reported by Gregory de Valentia And touching assurance of eternall life the same Medina sayth that hee would haue euery beleeuer certainly to hope that he shall obtaine eternall life And of the same opinion are al the rest of them saue that they will haue this certainty to be of hope and not of faith and so the difference is in words and not in the thing for they make it to be without doubting or wauering firme and assured aswell as we 56. That concupiscence is a finne in the regenerate is affirmed by Protestants contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Church of Rome yet many Romanists themselues shake hands with the Protestants in this point as Ribera a Iesuite who writing vpon the twelfth of the Hebrewes sayth that by sinne hanging fast vpon is meant the concupiscence of the flesh against the holy Spirit which the Apostle vseth often to call by the name of sinne and Tanner another Iesuite acknowledgeing that concupiscence in the regenerate is called sinne by the Scripture sayth that it is a great wickednesse to traduce as blasphemous the manner of speech true in it selfe and imitating the Scriptures yea and Stapleton calleth it a certaine iniquitie and obliquity not onely against the dominion of the mind but also against the Law of God Now Bellarmine telleth vs that whatsoeuer is contrarie to the Law of God is mortall sinne Cassander playeth the Protestant in direct termes in this point for he sayth that if we respect sinne as an iniquitie or disease which must be resisted by the spirit lest it burst forth into vnlawfull acts concupiscence is not vnfitly called sinne but if we respect it as an offence to God and guiltinesse to which punishment and damnation is answering it is not thus sinne in the regenerate 57. Touching marriage of Priests which the Church of Rome condemneth as execrable filthie and abominable we allow as holy and lawfull we haue their owne Doctours on our side and against their owne mother Gratian sayth that marriage of Priests is not prohibited eyther by legall or Euangelicall or yet Apostolicall authoritie but by Ecclesiasticall onely Espenseus sayth that for many hundred yeeres after the Apostles time by reason of the want of others Priests were married Caietane affirmeth that if wee stand onely to the tradition of Christ and his Apostles it cannot appeare by any authoritie or reason that holy order can be any hinderance to marriage eyther as it is an order or as it is holy Pius the second one of their owne Popes affirmeth that it is better for a Priest to marry then to burne though hee haue vowed the contrary and that there be many reasons to forbid Priests marriage but more to allow it Panormitane Cassander Erasmus doe all agree that in regard of the monstrous and filthy effects that follow a vowed single life it were better both for Gods glory and the auoyding of scandall in the Church that libertie of marrying were granted to all men And Espenseus and Agrippa doe grieue and blush to behold rather Concubines and Stewes to bee permitted to their Clergy then lawfull wiues 58. The Popes Primacie or rather Supremacie in all affaires and ouer all persons challenging the iurisdiction of both swords and authoritie of supreme Iudicatures in cases of controuersie and interpretation of Scripture with an infallibilitie of Iudgement is the verie foundation of Poperie yet the same is razed not onely by Protestants but by many of their owne ranke that are both by name and profession Papists Concerning his temporall Iurisdiction so stiffely maintained by Bellarmine and the Iesuits our Wisbich Priests affirme that this power was neuer giuen vnto Peter Espensâ—us condemneth it in direct tearmes Tolosanus confesseth that for two hundred yeeres after Christ it was neuer read that Christians attempted any thing
against their Emperours and that this was not for want of strength as Bellarmine would haue it he sayth that euen then they did not attempt any such thing when in number and strength they might make their party good but in this extolled their Religion aboue all other by defending this most holy doctrine That all men ought to obey the Magistrates The notable and learned Treatises of Barclay a French man Blackwell Warberton c. our Countrey-men all profest Romanists doe peremptorily and plainely by many reasons confute the same Touching his spirituall iurisdiction though there bee fewe of them that gain-say that yet Gregory the great one of their owne Popes may stand in stead of many who by many letters both to the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople sheweth that no man ought to be an vniuersall Bishop ouer therest calling that name in detestation vaine proud prophane blasphemous mischieuous Antichristian against the commandements of God and decrees of Councils and peremptorily sayth that he is a follower of Sathan and a fore-runner of Antichrist that assumeth it to himselfe 59. And that the Pope is not the supreme Iudge in the Church nor of infallible iudgement but the Scripture only many of them are of opinion aswell as we Aquinas saith that the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles is the rule of our vnderstanding Antoninus saith that God hath spoken but once and that in the holy Scripture and that so plentifully to meet with all temptations and all cases that may fall out Gerson saith that the Scripture is the rule of our faith which being well vnderstood no authority of men is to be admitted against it Gonradus Clingius saith that the Scripture is the infallible rule of truth yea the measure and Iudge of the truth Peresius saith that the authority of no Saint is of infallible truth for that honour is due only to the Scripture Yea Bellarmine their Ring-leader confesseth the Scripture to be the most certaine and most safe rule of faith Franciscus Victoria saith that the Pope in dispensing against the Decrees Councels and former Popes may erre and grieuously sinne Alphonsus de Castro diueth deeper and saith that euery man yea the Pope and that as he is Pope and Pastor of the Church may be deceiued Bozius pierceth yet deeper and saith that the Pope may be an Heretike yea write teach and preach heresie And lastly Almayne saith that the power of not erring in the faith is not alway in the Pope Are not all these now Protestants in this point But for fuller satisfaction in this point I referre the Reader to the reuerent and iudicious Deane of Winchester Doctor Morton with others who haue largely and learnedly discouered this matter in their writings 60. The like might bee shewne in all other points these few instances therefore shall suffice for this time to perswade that it is farre more safe to subscribe to the Religion of Protestants then of Romanists seeing we hold nothing which many of their owne ranke and order doe not maintayne aswell as we and what I pray you could mooue them thus to doe being sworne subiects to the Church of Rome but the euidence of truth which shined so cleerely to their consciences that they neither could nor durst gaine-say the same Conclusion NOw then gentle Reader these things being thus cleerly proued viz First that the Religion of the Church of Rome giueth open libertie to sinne Secondly that it maintayneth by the grounds therof things forbidden by all lawes Diuine Naturall and Humane Thirdly that it imitateth the Iewes in those things wherein they are enemies to Christ Fourthly that it derogateth from the glorie of Gods mercy and efficacy of the merits of Christ in the worke of our redemption Fiftly that it refuseth to bee tryed by the Scriptures and will be iudged and tryed by none but it selfe Sixtly that it is at defiance and profest enmitie with the sacred Scriptures Seuenthly that it maintayneth grosse and palpable Idolatrie Eightly that it is contrary to it selfe by manifest contradictions Ninthly that it is apparently opposite to the Gospell of Iesus Christ Tenthly that it nourisheth grosse and barbarous ignorance amongst the people Eleuenthly that it was neuer knowne nor heard of in the Apostles time nor in the primitiue Church Twelfthly that it vpholdeth it selfe by vnlawfull vniust and vngodly meanes and lastly that it is dangerous and vnsafe both in respect of Gods glorie mans conscience and Christian charitie I say all these things being thus cleerely demonstrated what remayneth but that wee abhorre the same as the Religion of the great Whore and her Paramour Antichrist who with their cup of fornications and vaine pretext of Peters authoritie haue besotted heretofore all Nations of the earth and cleaue to the sinceritie of the Gospell taught and professed in the Church of Protestants which is free from all these imputations for it neither giueth libertie to sinne nor maintayneth any thing that is vnlawfull nor imitateth the Iewes ascribeth all the worke of our redemption to Gods mercy and Christs merits onely desireth to bee tryed and examined by the Scriptures reuerenceth the fulnesse and perfection thereof abhorreth all shew of Idolatrie is not at enmity and opposition but keepeth a sweet harmony with it selfe doth not crosse the Gospell not so much as in shew condemneth and laboureth against ignorance is agreeable to the doctrine of the Apostles and primitiue Church maintayneth it selfe by no vnlawfull meanes and lastly hath great safetie and securitie in the profession thereof Good Christians must bee like good Gold-smiths who will not take a piece of gold of any mans word but will trie it by the touch-stone and weigh it in the ballance The Truth is like gold it behoueth all therefore to trie it and weigh it before they entertayne it into their soules lest they receiue in stead of pure mettall that which is counterfeit and light trie therefore these two Religions which of them hath the truth and without partialitie or affection retayne the good and reiect the counterfeit remember that the truth of Christians as Saint Augustine saith is more beautifull incomparably then Helene of the Grecians and that it alone as Saint Ambrose saith freeth alone saueth alone washeth and therefore though it be hid in a deepe pit as the Philosopher said yet it is diligently to be digged for of all them that desire the saluation of their soules In a word let not the darke mists of error and superstition blinde thine eyes but open them wide to the beholding of the bright light of truth that shineth round about thee and know that if the Gospell be hid it is hid to them that perish in whom the god of this world hath dazeled their mindes that they should not see the light of the glorious Gospell of Iesus Christ I desire no more credit at thy hands then the euidence of these reasons produced do require and therefore if they be true then