A Dissuasive FROM POPERY, CONTAINING TWELVE EFFECTVAL REASONS, BY WHICH EVERY Papist, not wilfully blinded, may be brought to the truth, and every Protestant confirmed in the same: written by Francis Dillingham Master of Arts, and fellow of Christ's College in Cambridge, necessary for all men in these times. Lactant. lib. de vero dei simulachro. cap. 20. Quid facies? maiores nè, an potiùs rationem sequeris? What will thou doer follow thy ancestors or reason? PRINTED BY JOHN LEGAT, Printer to the University of Cambridge. 1599 The sum of the book. 1 The first reason of Antichrist. 2 The second of truth. 3 Of heresy in general. 4 Of particular heresies. 5 Of popish dissolute, and uncomfortable doctrine. 6 Of Idolatry. 7 Of popish blasphemies. 8 Of the Papists own confession. 9 The ninth, of the Practice of the primitive Church. 10 Of Scripture. 11 Of popish Contradictions. 12 Of the original of Popery. ❧ TO THE right Honourable, and my very good Lord, Oliver L. S. john, Baron of Bletsoe, Grace, and peace, with increase of honour, etc. TWO is not unknown (Right honourable and my singular good Lord) that man is not borne for himself, but for the benefit of others. To this principle agreeth the Apostles precept, Rom. 12. 1. Pet. 4.10. that every man according to his gift, should endeavour himself to do good. And to this precept, the practice of nature is answerable: in similitude. luna (saith Erasmus) quod luminis accepit à sole mundo refundit: ita donum à deo acceptum in commodum aliorum est conferendum. As the moon giveth that light to the world which it receiveth from the sun: so every gift received from God ought to be bestowed to the profit of others. All which excellent sayings, are spoken of every good, and therefore by consequent of knowledge, of which Seneca writeth thus: Nulla me res delectabit licet eximia sit, quam mihi unus sciturus sum. I delight not in any thing, which I myself know and none other. And again: Nullius boni sine socio jucunda possessio est. It is no pleasure to possess any good without a companion. The consideration of these and like speeches, have caused me to set pen to paper, against the mystical and secret impiety of Popish religion, although unfit for so great a work in many respects; as namely in regard of my health. For I may truly say with Seneca, Nulla mihi secura lux affulsit, In Thebay. I have had no good day. This being a most certain truth, how unable I am to undergo this business, the similitude used by Tully may declare. Quemadmodum scalarum gradus si alios tollas, alios in●●●●s nonnullos malè haerentes relinquas, ruinae periculum struas, non ascensum pares, sic tot malis tùm victum, tùm fractum studium scribendi quid dignum auribus, aut probabile potest afferre. If thou take some rounds of the ladder away, and cut other, and leave the rest lose, thou endangerest a downfall, and causest not an ascension: so the endeavour of writing being vanquished with so many miseries, what thing can it bring forth worthy, and worth hearing and reading. This misery hath another attendant, namely poverty and want, which (as one saith) is onus miserum, & grave, a woeful and a grievous burden. The renowned Philosopher could say that felicity needed outward good things. For, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is impossible, Ethic. 1.8. or very hard for him that wanteth instruments, to do any famous work. But not too much of this matter, lest I seem to be impatient, being myself a preacher of patience. Only this, I fear that the cause, why many are perverted by Papists, and diverted to popery, is the hope of preferment, which is not wanting in that religion. Sublatis studiorum pretijs ipsa studia pereunt, (saith Cornelius Tacitus) Take away the rewards of learning, Annal. l. 11. and learning itself decayeth. But I leave this complaint being a misery incident to the despised estate of God's Church in the sight of the world, howsoever most glorious in the sight of God. Thus (Right Honourable) you see the cause that moved me to set forth this treatise. Now in that I dedicate it unto you, I have many reasons. For (to omit private respects, as namely your honourable and singular favour towards me, and all my friends) such is your desire to further Christ's kingdom, such is your care of religion, your love to learning, that for these causes you are most worthy of this duty. And in these singular and admirable graces of God's spirit may you more rejoice then in any worldly thing. Aristotle (as Plutarch writeth) writ to Antipater concerning Alexander, that he should not be proud because of his kingdom, because he that knew God, hath as much cause as he: his meaning is this, that the knowledge of God is better than worldly honour. The Lord bless you and your wise, virtuous, and honourable Lady with all heavenly and worldly honour. Your L. ever bounden Francis Dillingham. A preface to all English Papists whatsoever. Rhe. act. 11. IT is not my purpose to use any long discourse unto you, that please yourselves in the name of Papists, yet I pray you let me first crave an answer to this my dissuasive, or else submit yourselves to gods truth. Secondly, I would be certified what should cause you to continue in the Romish religion. Doth the universality of which you were wont to vaunt yourselves? why then do your Rhemists in their annotations upon the 20. chap. of the Revel. prove the Pope not to be Antichrist, because his kingdom is daily lessened, and Antichrist during the time of his reign shallbe greater than Christ's flock? yea some of you have written that the Church in his time shall utterly perish as yourselves know. Again if universality chalketh out the church, why did the Arrian Emperor say to Liberius. Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 16. Quota pars tu es orbis terrarum, qui solus facis cum homine scelerato, & orbis terrarum, & mundi totius pacem dissoluis? What part of the world art thou that only takest part with the wicked man, and dissoluest the peace of the whole earth? Liberius answereth, Non diminuitur solitudine mea verbum fidei, nam & olim tres soli fuère qui edicto resisterent. In that I am left alone the word of faith is not diminished, for in times passed there were only three that resisted the king's edict. But it may be your unity is of some force with you; for your satisfaction in this point, see my motive of your dissensions. Also consider that there may be some diversity of opinions in lesser matters, and yet a true church, for else the ancient Christians should have been no church, amongst whom there were many dissensions, as you may see in the 8. book of the tripartite history, and 12. chap. Themistius wrote to Valens that he should not be cruel to the Christians, Propter discordiam Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum: for the variance of Ecclesiastical opinions. For amongst the Pagans there were more than three hundred sects. To come now to succession, doth not Bellarmine your Pythagoras teach that it proveth not always a church. Secondly, Atheists, Heretics, Sorcerers, and a woman have been Pope, and that interrupteth your succession. Thirdly, your plurality of Popes, during your two and twenty schisms disannulleth the same. Lastly, many Popes have not been Canonically elected. To proceed to antiquity, see yourselves stripped of it in this my treatise: and yet you are not greatly wise men to allege bare antiquity: for as Lactantius saith in his 2. book and 7. chap. Tanta est apud insipientes authoritas vetustatis, ut in came inquirere scelus esse ducatur. Amongst fools antiquity hath that authority, that it is counted a heinous thing to inquire into it. Lastly concerning your miracles, I say with Augustine in his book, de unitate Ecclesiae cap. 16. Let them not say it is true, because Donatus, or Pontius, or any other man hath done these, & these miracles: Again, whether they hold the church or no let them show, no otherwise, but by the Canonical books of holy Scriptures. I will not spend any time in painting out of the odious and infamous lives of Papists: but come to a conclusion namely that seeing those things that they were wont to brag of, are taken from them, let them embrace the truth, let not the world seduce them against their own consciences. For what are ungodly rich men, but (as Plutarch saith) asini ligna ferentes, asses bearing burdens. The Lord open your eyes to see the truth. To the Christian reader. ALthough I had many motives to set forth this my treatise in latin, yet regarding the good of those that are ignorant in that tongue, I have written it in English, with as much shortness and brevity as I could possibly. I confess I might have made a great volume of it, if I had insisted upon the amplification of every reason: but for diverse respects, I have comprehended it in this small manual. And as I have dissuaded men from popery by these twelve several reasons, so did I once think to have adjoined more, but for causes known to myself, I have yet concealed them. Their senseless paradoxes, and witless arguments, with which their books are fraught, have caused me so to abhor their religion, that I may protest in simplicity of a good conscience, I could never read any argument to persuade me to papistry: yet have I read their writers without any prejudicate opinion at all, being never forestalled with this religion, in which through God's grace now I stand. And Bellarmine's corrupting of fathers, his foolish distinctions, his contradictions with himself, & with other Papists, his senseless sophisms, his wresting of holy writ, have in them (as I think) this force to persuade his readers from his religion. Now it remaineth (Christian reader) to desire this of thee, to weigh these my motives with an indifferent mind, and if thou receivest any good by them, to be thankful to God, and to commend me in thy prayers unto him. Catalogus authorum. ALcoranus franciscanorum. Alexander de Alice Alphonsus de castro. Ambrose. Aquinas. Aria's montanus. Arnobius. Augustinus. Bellarminus. Bernardus. Buckingerus. Catalogus testium veritatis. Censura Coloniensis. Catechismus Coloniensis. Clemens Alexandrinus. Chrysosthomus. Cusanus. Cyprianus. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Duraeus. Durandus. Epiphanius. Erasmus. Euripides. Eusebius. Fasciculus temporum Freculphius. Gratianus. Gregorius Episcopus Romanus. Gregorius Nazianzenus. Gregorius Martinus. Hentenius. Herbranaus. Hierom. Hugo Cardinalis. Index Expurgatorius. Irenaeus. juellus. justinus. Lactantius. Lombardus. Lyra. Macrobius. Maierius. Mathaeus Paris. Melchior Canus. Origines. Picus Miranaula. Plautus. Polidorus Virgilius. Psalterium Romanun. Rhemenses. Roffensis. Ruffinus. Scotus. Sleidan. Socrates. Tertullianus. Tullius. Turrianus. Wolfgangus Hermamnus. Zozomenus. THE FIRST REAson of Antichrist. IN times past (Christian Reader) the question was whether Christ appointed the Pope to be head of this church, but now (blessed be God) it is not without cause demanded, whether he be Antichrist or no. From which as the title of servus servorum, that is, the servant of servants, will not excuse him, being indeed the title of cursed Cham, and so fit in Gods just providence for the man of sin: so these circumstances following being laid together will firmly conclude the same. The 1. Circumstance. Antichristianisme is a mystery, 2. Thess. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, The mystery of iniquity doth now work: out of which place of holy writ, I argue, that neither the open blasphemous haeretiks, nor the Turk can be that Antichrist, because they are not dissembled, but plain and open enemies to Christ. Yet as Hierom saith on the 24. chapter of Matthew, Omnis Haeresiarchia est Antichristus. Every Arch-haeritike is Antichrist, but not Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, that singular Antichrist. Marvel not then though all men perceive & understand him (namely the Pope) not to be that Antichrist seeing it is a mystery: for as few know the Gospel because it is a mystery, so likewise little is the flock to which this Antichrist is revealed: pray therefore with David to open thine eyes, that thou mayst behold the secrets of God: for as Augustine saith, Epistola 11 2. Qui didicerunt à Domino jesu esse humiles & mites in cord plus proficiunt or ando quàm audiendo & legendo; that is, They that have learned of Christ meekness of mind, and humility of heart, profit more by prayer, then by hearing and reading. The second Circumstance. Antichrist is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an adversary to God, although he doth band himself against him, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, an adversary to Christ in emulation of like honour. For he arrogateth to himself those things that are proper to Christ, as namely remission of sins, which I prove out of Bernard, who saith, 11. sermon ad Milites. unde scimus quòd Christus potest dimit tere peccata? quia deus est. unde scis quod deus est? miracula probant. That is, How do we know that Christ can remit sins? because he is God. How dost thou know he is God? his miracles prove the same. Out of which testimony I frame this syllogism: he that remitteth sins is god: but the pope remineth sins, therefore he is god: and by consequent Antichrist. The third Circumstance. Those things which the Papists writ concerning Antichrist are ridiculous. First the Rhemists say and affirm that he shall come of the tribe of Dan, which opinion Bellarmine strongly refuteth by this reason: Namely, because the tribes are so confounded that no man can say this man is of this or that Tribe. Secondly, they say Antichrist shall be the jews Messiah, but he must spring of the tribe of judah: ergo, Antichrist the jews Messiah cannot descend of Dan. Thirdly, they teach he shall be one singular man, which is unpossible: for it is written in the second to the Thes. 2. cap. vers. 7. The mystery of iniquity now worketh, but he that worketh from that time till the coming of Christ is no singular man: ergo Antichrist is not one singular man. The further proof of this, that he is not one singular man, Saint john saith: 1. joh. 2.22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that jesus is Christ: the same is Antichrist that denieth the father and the son: every one that denieth the son hath not the father. This note as it doth agree to all haeretiks, so principally to the Pope, who denieth the offices of Christ, as other heretics have done his person. Read the 2. of john and the 7. verse: also the 4. of john & the third verse, Ireneus saith it is a kingdom. Lib. 5. Fourthly, they teach that he shall reign but three years and a half, which Hentenius a papist in his preface to his translation of Arethas overthroweth, saying, it is impossible that Antichrist in so short time should obtain so many kingdoms and provinces. Secondly Christ his coming to judgement shall be known so soon as Antichrist is revealed, for if he shall be slain of Christ, than it will be easy to cast the time of three years & a half, & so consequently to tell the very hour of Christ his coming to judgement. Fiftly, they teach he shall sit at Jerusalem which is overthrown and is not easily re-edified. 2. it cannot be called the temple of God. 3. The Rhemists themselves out of Augustine incline to think that he shall not sit there: but more of this in the 4. circumstance. The fourth circumstance. Antichrist shall sit in the Church of God, 2. Thess. 2. cap. vers. 4. So saith saith saint Hierom. Antichristus sedebit in Ecclesia Dei. 11. Epist. quae. alga. Antichrist shall sit in the church of God, not in the true Church, but that which is so called, by which the argument of Bellarmine is answered, who goeth about to prove by this circumstance that the church of Rome is the true church. The 5. Circumstance. Gregorius lib. 4. epis. 34. Quicunque se universalem Episcopum appellat is Antichristus est. Papa universalem Episcopum se appellat: ergo. whosoever calleth himself universal Bishop, he is Antichrist, but so doth the Pope. Ergo. And lest they should answer, that the proposition is not to be understood of the Bishop of Rome, hear what Gregory saith: Est nomen blasphemiae, it is a name of blasphemy: And again Petrus non vocatur universalis Episcopus. Peter is not called universal Bishop. The 6. circumstance. In his 38. demonstration. Antichrist shall sit at Rome, so doth Sanders confess, and the Rhemists do not contradict this in their Annotations upon the 5. ver. of the 11. chap. of the Revelation: for the proof of which I thus join in argument with them. 1. That which was Babylon in S. john's time is the same that he prophesieth to be the chief seat of Antichrist: but Rome was then Babylon: Ergo it is the same that he prophesieth to be the chief seat of Antichrist. 2 The fathers affirm Rome to be Babylon when they wrote: out of which thus I conclude. In the days of the Father's viz. Augustine, Hierome, etc. Rome was not heathenish, but by them it is called the seat of Antichrist, Ergo not heathenish Rome is the seat of Antichrist. The 7 Circumstance. Papa dispensat contra verbum Dei. Gratian. ●ar. 1. pag. 76. The Pope dispenseth against God's word: Again, Praecepta moralia sunt per Ecclesiam mutabilia. The moral precepts may be altered by the church. Further he maimeth the Sacrament in taking the cup from the people, yea the Sacrament which he pretendeth to honour as God is carried before him on an hackney when he rideth on men's shoulders: his throne is also above the altar. In the jubilee he beateth open the gates of Paradise with a golden hammer. The cross honoured with divine honour is cast at his feet, out of which I conclude he exalteth himself above God, or at least wise maketh himself equal to God: for no law can be dispensed with all, but by the same authority by which it was made, or by a greater. The 8. Circumstance. In the time of Antichrist there shallbe a general departure from the faith, Rhem. in the 2. Thess. 2.7. so do the Papists themselves confess. Now let us see whether this Apostasy doth agree to them or no. To decide this controversy who is better than Saint Paul who prophesieth of thapostasy. The same Apostle in the first to Timothy, and fourth chapter giveth such evident signs & notes as agree properly unto them, for they forbidden meats and marriages in hypocrisy, other heretics in open blasphemy: well saith Saint Hierome upon the eleventh of Daniel: Nota est Antichristi prohibere nuptias. It is a note of Antichrist to forbid marriages. The 9 Circumstance. The ninth Circumstance is taken out of the 13. of the Revel. from the eleventh verse, and so forward. He is Antichrist that hath two horns like a lamb, and speaketh like a dragon: Again he that causeth the earth to worship the first beast is Antichrist, also he that doth work wonders is Antichrist, with many more notes and marks, that there follow: but all these doth the Pope, Ergo he is Antichrist. The 10. Circumstance. Antichrist is called 2. Thess. 2. cap. 3. v. The man of sin: which fitly agreeth to the Pope, for what monsters of men have been Popes. Silvester was made Pope by the help of the devil. Auxilio diaboli factus est Papa. Pag. 71: Fasc. Tem. john the twelfth abused his father's concubine, gelded one of his Cardinals, drank to the devil, and at dice called for help of jupiter and Venus. Boniface the seventh rob S. Peter's church of all the jewels and precious things. Read their own stories because I purpose brevity. Pag. 1166. & 1168. Matthew Paris monk of Saint Albon recordeth that the bishop of Lincoln proved the Pope to be Antichrist by this reason and writeth thus. Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis, Eius luxuriae meretrixnon sufficit omnis. That is to say, The Pope's covetousness and whoredom are not satisfied with the whole world. To come therefore to a conclusion, I desire thee (christian Reader) to lay all these circumstances together and so to conclude this matter in question whether the Pope be Antichrist or no: do not loosely of any one gather any thing, but bind them together and then there will be not a threefold but a tenne-folde cord, which is not easily broken. The second reason of truth. IN handling this motion or reason it is not my purpose to define or to distinguish truth, but briefly to set down some properties of the same which cannot possibly agree to Popery, only I desire thee (christian Reader) to pray to Christ who is truth that thou mayest conceive and embrace it. The first property. Truth hath this property, that it is simple, and needeth not many interpretations and expositions: so saith Euripides, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Popery to defend itself useth many expositions, Vide river. Bilson. de Sacram. and yet knoweth not what to hold. For the proof of this, consider their interpretations of the first word in this short sentence: this is my body. d contra Ploretum lib. 4. Gerson affirmeth that it signifieth the substance of bread, and e contra Diabolic. sophist Steven Gardiner sometimes thought so also: notwithstanding afterward he changed his mind, and came to Individuum vagum, as if Christ had said, This (what it is I cannot tell, but it must needs be somewhat) is my body. in 4. of Sen● dist. 13. Occam and other say the pronoun this, must be referred to the body of Christ, as if our Saviour had said, This my body is my body. de Conse. dist. 2. Their gloss resolveth this question on this manner. Solet quaeri quid demonstretur per pronomen, Hoc. It is a common question what is meant by the pronoun, This. To this demand I say nothing is meant, but it is there put materially without any signification at all: thus they turned and tossed the words of Christ, till they brought all that the Lord said at his last supper to plain nothing. Tomo 2. Duraeus and Bellarmine teach that by the word (this) is meant the whole substance which Christ had in his hand. I demand then what this substance was, whether it was bread, or the body of Christ; if bread, then there was a figure, if the body of Christ, then there must be transubstantiation before these words were pronounced, which plainly fighteth with their fancies. This property being clearly avouched, if it please thee to consider (gentle reader) the Calvinists expositions (as they call them) thou shalt find them to be all one: namely this signifieth, or this is a sign of my body: let Carolostadius and the Lutherans answer for themselves. The second property. The second property of truth is that it blusheth to be hid, Lib. adversus Valen●●. so saith Tertullian, Nihil veritas erube scit nisi solummodo abscondi, that is, truth is ashamed of nothing but of concealing, Math. 10.27 and our Saviour Christ saith, Whatsoever I show you preach on the house tops: but they hide their traditions from the people, as Bellarmine himself confesseth, which argueth that they were not truth. I will not here confute his answer to the saying of our Saviour Christ, because I shall deal with it in the Motive of Heresies. If they retort this property against us because our Church was [as they call it] occulta, that is, hid for many years; I first answer, that they must distinguish betwixt the time of peace and persecution: Rom. 12. truth in persecution may be driven into the wilderness, but in peace who knoweth not, but that it ought plainly to be taught. Secondly I answer that the Papists have always felt our Church (as testifieth Reinerus a popish Inquisitor, Catolog. test. veri. ) & so I pass to the 3. property of truth. The third property. The third property of truth is, that it is magna & praevalet, it is great and prevaileth: read the third of Esdras for the confirmation of this, where truth is proved stronger than wine and women; and indeed Acts the fift and 39 If it be of God, it cannot be destroyed: this declareth then most apparently, that it could not proceed but of some divine power and supernatural assistance, that amidst the contradictions and oppositions of so many adversaries, among the whips, sword, and tortures, of so bloody and cruel Cannibals as the Papists are, our poor, simple, and feeble congregation should pierce through and augment itself strongly, especially if we consider the outward means of this increase where there was nothing to allure or content man's nature, nothing gorgeous, nothing delectable, nothing to please or entertain sensuality: by which is answered their cavil, that truth resteth with them because of their great multitudes, for had they not had murders, Revel. 9.21. sorceries, fornication, and thefts, (which are as I will prove (God willing) four pillars of papistry) they had never come to that primary: yea who knoweth not that with Cyrus they power forth Gold to their slavish sect by heaps and weight, and not by number and account. The fourth property. The fourth property of truth is to be steadfast and perpetually like itself, for which cause in the Hebrew tongue it is called Emeth of the root which signifieth stability, so do the Latins call that verum which is immutabile, & per omnia sibi simile, immutable and like itself every way: but in popery there is no steadfastness; is not prima & secunda justificatio, the first and second justification a new devise? Censura collon. Ex consilio Tridenti. can any Papist resolve the certainty of Peter's sitting at Room: read Bellarmine, here he disagreeth from Onuphrius, and Onuphrius from the rest of the Papists in this point, which is the foundation of Popery: & is the greatest point of Papistry so uncertain that they know not what to hold? Doth not Allen confess in his book of purgatory, that there is no text brought to prove the same which might not be otherwise applied? Nay have not the Rhemists and Bellarmine himself left school conceits, and brought in their own devices, witness their own writing. Tell me thou learned Catholic who succeeded Peter? Tertullian affirmeth, that Petrus Clementem Episcopum Romanorum ordinavit, Lib. de praes. that Peter ordained Clement Bishop of Rome. Lib. 3. Ireneus placeth next to Peter, Linus, Ancletus, and then Clement. Read Hierom and Augustine, and thou shalt find greater diversity. Answer me papist, how or with what kind of worship Images are to be honoured, Bellarmine himself is not assured of this point, as thou mayest read in his tractate of Images. Lastly, (because I cannot be long) answer me how Saints hear our prayers if thou canst: Bellarmine himself must needs yield to thee, for he is ignorant of that point, & therefore answereth uncertainties, as he doth in the defence of purgatory being pressed with Theophilactes authority, now making it a part of the hand of God which is a place of all just men's souls: and in the next words a part of hell. Thus Christian reader like wandering travelers out of the way, the learnedst papists know not where to rest: yea like drunkards they stagger to and fro, but thanks be to God it is not so with the Caluinists who coin no new distinctions, for truth is always the same. The 5. property. The 5. property of truth is that it is subject to persecution, Obsequium amicos veritas odium parit. Friends are the children of flattery, & hatred is begotten by harmless truth. Peruse the whole book of God, nay all histories and thou shalt find this thing most clearly confirmed: what then caused Bellarmine to teach that temporal prosperity is a note of the church: Christ and his Apostles are much beholding to him, who suffered exquisite torments and therefore by his divinity are to be exempted from the number of God's Saints, but they that have better learned Christ hold otherwise. Now to return to the matter, Read the book of Martyrs. have not the Papists been drunken with the blood of God's Saints: so I come to the sixth and last property of truth. The 6. Propertie. Idverum quodcunque primum, id adulterinum quodcunque posterius: Tertullian adv. Prax. That is true which is first, that is adulterous which is an after intention: but their opinions are not first but latter devices: did not the lay people receive the cup in the Apostles time, no Papist although he hath lost his forehead can deny it. To wind this up in a word: Master jewel (that reverend and renowned bishop his challenge in the 27. articles is not answered. Totis iam triginta annis Catholici omnes Iuello nostro nondum fatisfecerunt, that is, All the Papists in thirty years space and upward have not satisfied M. jewel. And therefore I constantly conclude all these 27. opinions are new and no ancient doctrine thus: they that cannot show 27. of their opinions in the compass of six hundred years are maintainers of new doctrine: but the Papists cannot do this: therefore they maintain a new doctrine and by consequence a false doctrine. Now as in the former circumstances of Antichrist, so likewise in these six several notes of truth, I desire thee to combine them, & thou mayst be able to maintain this, that truth is not lodged in the Pope's breast. The third reason of heresy in general. AS touching the definition of heresy, I might spend many words and much time, Lib. de veili ta●e cred. but I refer thee to Augustine, & come to particular notes and marks of heretics, which I doubt not but most evidently to prove that they agree to papists after a kind of Excellency, Aristo●. i● Metap. for so I have learned to speak by metaphysical philosophy. The first note. The first note or badge of heretics is to maim the sayings of Fathers. Counc. 8. Constant Juelius act. 4. The eight Counsel of Constantinople and the eight act hath these words. Non convenit orthodoxis ita circumtruncat as sanctorum patrum voces deflorare haereticorum potius hoc proprium est. Is it not meet to maim the sayings of Fathers, it is the point of haeretiks to do so. That the Papists do maim the sentences of Fathers, I might show by many examples. Duraeus in his tenth page citing Augustine his testimony out of his book de fide & operibus, and the 14. chap. leaveth out these words which plainly overthrow his defence: namely, opera sequuntur justificatum non praecedunt iustificandum, that is Works follow him that is justified, they go not before justification. Harding so dealeth with the testimony of Gregory in the article of the pope's primacy: but I will convince them by their own testimony, out of their Index expurgatorius, page 11. Although (say they) we make no great account of this book viz. Bertramius and therefore we would not greatly care, if either it were no where extant, or utterly lost yet seeing that in other ancient Catholic writers we bear very many errors & extenuate, & excuse them, yea very often by devising some pretty shift we deny them, and do feign some commodious sense unto them, when they are opposed against us in disputations, or in Conflicts with the Adversaries, we do not see why Bertram doth not deserve the same equity. Thus far the papists themselves, whose own words declare that they are void of all truth and honesty. What should I speak of Cyprian, who to establish Peter's primacy is falsified by Pamelius contrary to the ancient editition in print, yea the very argument of the place is directly contrary unto it. The second note. The second note of heretics is, not to stand to only scriptures, so saith Tertullian, aufer haereticis quae cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de scriptures solis quaestiones suas sistant, Lib. de resurrect. carnis. & stare non poterunt: take from the heretics that which is common to the heathen with them, that they propound their questions only out of scripture and they cannot stand. Out of which testimony I reason thus: they that dispute not out of scripture alone, are either heretics or Ethnics, but the Papists do no so dispute: Ergo they are either heretics or Ethnics. I will conclude this property with the History recorded by Master Sleidon in his sixth book at the disputation at Berne, when Conradus Tregerus an Augustinian proved that he must dispute out of nothing but scripture, he by and by fled, and so in that place popery was destroyed: so Lord, let papistry perish in every place. The third note. The third note of heretics is to accuse the scripture of uncertainty. Heretics (saith Iraeneus) cum ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem ipsarum scipturarum convertuntur, quasi vary sunt dictae: & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas, ab bijs qui ne sciant traditionem, non enim per literas traditam illam sed per vivam vocem etc. When they are convicted out of the scriptures, they fall to accusing of the scriptures themselves, as though they were diversly uttered, and that the truth could not be found out of them which know not the traditon, for that was not delivered in writing, but by word of mouth. Besides in the same place he hath these words: they accuse the scriptures, quasi non rectè se habent, neque sunt ex authoritate, as though they were not right an a perfect, or not of authority sufficient. Whether the papists hold not all these points mentioned, I appeal to their own conscience, though I know it to be corrupt. Did not Sylvester affirm that, Sleidan. lib. 1. fol. 3. ab authoritate papae vis omnis scripturae pendet, all the authority of the scripture dependeth on the pope? Doth not Cusanus write that the scriptures una cum tempore mutantur, are changed with time? Epist 2. vid. Whitak. count Duraeum. p. 161 & 117. Who but Wolfangus Hermamnus blasphemed, that the scriptures without the church, are of no more worth than Aesop's fables? and as touching traditions do not they teach that we have not the fence of holy writ, because we do not embrace the truth of their traditions? so then gather of all these that they are heretics, as well as those against whom Iraeneus did write. The fourth note. The fourth note is to conceal their doctrine from the people, dicunt (as testifieth Iraeneus) non opportere ip sorum mysteria effaeri, sed in abscondito contineri per silentium: Lib. 1. c. 23. They affirm that their mysteries and secrets are not to be uttered, but to be concealed which is directly contrary to our saviviour Christ his words, Matt. 10.27. who commandeth those things which he taught to be published on the house tops, to which place Bellarmine answereth, si opus est if it be needful. de tradit. I doubt not but if he had been furnished with a better answer, we should have had it, but pardon error which hath but fig leaves to hide her filthiness: may not the Atheist say, when he is commanded to believe, and keep gods commandments, si opus est, If it be requisite I will do them. To show now that the papists conceal their secrets from the people is needless, seeing it is confessed by Bellarmine in his tractate of Traditions. And why is their service in an unknown tongue? why are the scriptures forbidden the lay people, Clem. Alex. lib. 3. cap. 2. but to hide their errors: so that I may fitly compare the Romish religion to the temples of Egypt, which without were decked with gold, but within had most loathsome sights. The 5. note The fift note is, to vaunt and to boast themselves of their pretended and falsely called knowledge, 1. Tim. 6.20. dicunt se [saith Iraeneus] non solum presbyteris, Lib. sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores synceram invenisse veritatem: they say that being wiser than the ancient and Apostles, they have found out the sincere truth. 1. Tim. 6. This note is so evidently eminent in all heretics that the Rhemists themselves have made made it a badge of an haereticke; but how shall we prove that the papists like empty vessels make the loudest & the greatest sound. Cap. 5. The maker of their Apology doth it for me advance their fellows in this insolent manner. Our wits, saith he, are from God in as plentiful manner as theirs, our foundation in all kind of faculties requisite for the study of Divinity is as deeply laid as theirs; our diligence rather more than theirs: our times both for age and study more complete, then theirs commonly can be: Our order, method, and course of Divinity much more profitable than theirs: we have more disputations, lessons, conferences, examinations, repetitions instructions, catechizings, resolutions of cases both of conscience, and controversy: methods and manners to proceed to the conversion of the deceived, and such like exercises in our two Colleges, than they in their two Universities containing near hand 30. goodly Colleges, as for the Masters and Professors in our Colleges specially the Roman readers, we may be bold to say they be in all kind the most choice and cunning men in all Christendom for virtue, learning, etc. Would not this odious and arrogant comparison rather beseem boys in the school, then divines in the church: thus the Papists themselves have made both the proposition and assumption, so that if so be they be not wilfully blind, they may infer the conclusion. That 6. Note. The 6. note is to refuse the common name of Christians and to choose themselves several names. Hierom in dialogo contra Lucifir: Sicubi audiveris eos qui dicuntur Christi non à domino jesu sed ab alio nuncupari, ut puta Marcionitas, Valentinianos, scito non Ecclesiam Christi esse sed Antichristi synagogam. If thou hearest any where such as be said to be of Christ, not to have their names of our Lord jesus Christ (as Marcionites, Valentinians,) know thou that they belong not to the Church of Christ, but to the synagogue of Antichrist. Have not the Papists peculiar names as Dominicans, Franciscans, jesuits, Thomistes and Scotistes maintaining all one grand heresy of Popery: yet having their diverse opinions among themselves & each sect envying other, and swelling against the other, which caused Anselmus as Heerbrandus reporteth to break out into this speech. Quis non contemnat religionem tot varietatibus subiectam: Who would not despise a religion subject to so many sects. The 7. Note. The heretics in all ages have by allegories upholden their errors, and allegories have been their strongest instruments to work withal. Epiphanius maketh mention of a beastly kind of heretics, who by allegories defended the sin of the Sodomites not only as a thing that might be suffered, but as a duty that must be done, most shamefully racking to the defence of that shameless opinion these words of Christ. Verily I say unto thee, Matt. 5.26. thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, they say that what soever are thought evil amongst men, are not evil indeed, but naturally good, for nothing is naturally evil. The heretics called Priscillianistae did avoid by allegorizing whatsoever was brought against them, August. de Haere. In suos sensus allegorizando vertunt quicquid in sanctis libris est quod eorum evertat errorem: whatsoever is found in the Scripture that overthroweth their errors, by an allegorical exposition they make it to maintain the same. So do the Anabaptistes and Familistes now in our days. As for the Papists have not they plucked their purgatory out of the same text above named by an Allegory? Do not they prove their free-will by allegorizing the parable in the tenth chapter of S. Luke, which is concerning the man half dead. By which we see it common to heretics and not peculiar to any one by allegories to abuse the holy Scriptures, to be abbetors of their absurdities. Many more places might I have alleged out of the Papists to prove this, Vide Dur. de sopis. but the truth is so clear and manifest that they cannot deny it. The 8. Note. The eight note is to enjoin the lay people those things that are to be performed by the Ministers. Tertul lib. de praescrip. Laicis sacerdotalia iniungunt; ipsae mulieres haereticae quàm procaces quae audent tingere, ordinationes eorum leaves & inconstantes &c. they command the people priests, duties, their women are so bold as to baptise, their ordinations of ministers are light and inconstant. These properties do lively paint out the Papists. Their Midwives use to baptise, their ordinations and consecrations are they not of the basest of the people. I would we had not had experience of this cursed practice of jeroboam. Ordo sacerdotum fatuo turbatur ab omni: Labitur, & passim Religionis honos. Every fool with the Papists are priested, by which religion cometh to ruin, nay I dare avouch, that they have consecrated shrivelings that are not borne ad Aram, but ad Haram, not to serve at the altar, but at the swine-stie. Here I might have added more properties of heretics confessed by the Rhemists themselves, Upon jud. as contempt of authority, the cruelty of Cain, the covetousness of Balam, which aptly agree to the Papists: for the Pope will be subject to none, no not to a general Council: witness Martin the 5. and Eugenius the 4. who would not stand to the decrees of the Counsels of Constance, and Basill. As touching murders the streets have overflown with the blood of God's Saints: For covetousness let Erasmus speak Chiliad. 1. Cent. 9.12. Non datur Baptismus, non licet fieri Christianum nisi numeres, non comprobant Matrimonium nisinumeres, non audiunt poenitentium confessiones, nisi sperent praemium: sacrificant conducti, non psallunt gratis, non orant gratis: non impertiunt corpus Christi, nisi numeres: quin vendunt sepulturam, idque in alieno solo. In English it is thus much. It is not lawful for thee to be baptised except thou pay: Matrimony without money is not ratified: the Confessors hear no Confessions without reward: O inexplebilem avaritiam. they sacrifice for hire: they neither sing, nor pray, nor give names freely: No they will not minister the Sacrament without wages: they sell sepulchres in another man's soil. O the exceeding dropsy of covetousness: Aulular. may I not cry out with Plautus. Tenaces dominos nostra aetas tulit, quos Harpagonas, Harpyas, Tantalos appellare soleo, in medio Oceani gurgite sitibundos: Non Midae, non Craesi, non omnis Per sarum copia tartaream eorum ingluviem explere potest. This age hath gripple Lords (which I am accustomed to call Harpagons, e These were Monsters. Harpies, Tantalusses thirsty in the midst of the Ocean sea: their hellish gorge is not satisfied with the money of Midas, with the coin of Croesus, nor with the pomp of the Persians. Ob. But they will here object that they have not been condemned by any general Council, and therefore are not for these properties (though all laid together) to be accounted heretics: Sol. which objection how frivolous it is, I hope to make manifest. Were the heretics in thapostles time condemned by a general Council? they might have defended themselves by this objection aswell as the Papists. Ebion and Cerinthus against whom Saint john wrote his gospel, who dare deny them to be heretics? Tertullian in his book de praescriptione, and Irenaeus adversus haereses mention multitudes of heresies not then condemned by any general Council. I dare not allege the authority of jews who call the Christians minim and cophrim bagnikkar: that is, Heretics and denying the foundation, though not condemned by a general Council, lest they accuse me of judaisme as they do the Protestants, because we do deny Images. Lastly how can it be of the essence of heresy to be condemned by a general Council, seeing as Augustine confesseth that former plenary Counsels may be amended by latter, which must needs be understood of error: for the condition which Saint Augustine repeateth in the first endureth to the last. Si quid fortè à veritate deviatum est. If in aught they swerver from the truth, and except that be understood he answereth not the thing that was objected by the Donatists: they opposed the Council of Cyprian in a matter of doctrine not of discipline, S. Augustine replieth Bishops might be deceived and so might Counsels, in what then but in matters of doctrine? And so I proceed to the fourth Reason taken from particular heresies: with this admonition that this was the very objection of the Pelagians as may be seen in Augustine tomo 7. lib. 4. contra duas epis. Pelag. in fine libri: to whom he answereth, Quasi nulla haeresis damnata sit, etc. as if no heresy were condemned without a Council. The fourth reason of particular heresies. IN the recital of particular heresies, considering that I aim at no long discourse in this my treatise, I will begin briefly with Pelagianism making this syllogism: they which hold the same opinion with Pelagius and use the same arguments that Pelagius did, are Pelagians, but the Papists hold with Pelagius and use his arguments: Ergo, they are Pelagians. The assumption I prove out of Hieroms works against the Pelagians, who hold (as he testifieth ad Ctesiphontem,) that Mandata dei are possibilia, Hierom. lib. 2 God's commandments are possible to be kept: and prove the same by our saviour his saying: jugum meum suave est: my yoke is easy, & mandata eius non sunt gravia, and his commandments are not grievous: to which the learned father answereth, Levia sunt ad comparationem judaicae superstitionis, they are light in respect of the jews superstition. Secondly they thus dispute, Si in operibus meis deus mihi adiutor extiterit, non mihi debetur merces sedei qui in me operatus est: if my good things come from god, then there is no reward for me etc. To which he answereth thus: Contra Deum arma linguam tuam: arm thy tongue against God, and so forth: are not these the very arguments of Papists? Read the Rhemists upon the places remembered, also upon the second of the Corinth. 5. cap. 10. where thou shalt find this blasphemy, that heaven is as well the reward of good works, as hell is the stipend of evil works: which is the drift of the argument of the Pelagians. I will adjoin some other sayings of the same Father, by which every one may further see the truth of this my charge. Facilia dicis dei mandata & tamen nullum proferre potes qui universa compleverit: thou affirmest the commandments are easy, and yet thou canst not bring forth any that hath kept them. Again, Tunc justi sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur: & justitia nostra a non ex proprie constat merito sed ex dei misericordia, dicente scriptura justus est accusator sui, in principio sermonis. Then are we righteous when we confess ourselves sinners, and our righteousness consisteth not of our merits, but of god's mercy, seeing the scripture saith: The righteous is the accuser of himself. To let pass the rest of his most excellent sayings I come to the heresy of Montanists. The 2. heresy of montanism. The Church in Tertullia's time taught, that fasting was restrained neither to certain days, nor to certain meats: which opinion Tertullian being a Montanist confuteth in his book adversus Pseuchicos. That the Church so taught I prove out of his second chapter, where he setteth down the arguments used against Montanus and confuteth them: The Church is brought in speaking thus: Indifferenter ieiunandum ex arbttrio, pro temporibus & causis uniuscuiusque, sic & Apostolos dicunt obseruasse nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum & in common omnibus obeundorum ieiuniorum. We must fast as the cause of every one requireth, and the Apostles did thus observe it, laying no yoke of certain and determined fasts upon men. You see how the Church plainly speaketh against the restraining of fasting to certain days, and as plain is her speech immediately after against the restraining it to certain meats. Xerophagius verò novum affectati officii nomen & proximum Ethnicae superstitioni. The eating of certain dry meats is a new name of strange and affected office near to the superstition of the Heathen. Again, Apostolus est detestator eorum, qui sicut nubere prohibent, ita iubent cibis abstinere à deo conditis. The Apostle himself detesteth them that forbidden to marry, and command to abstain from meats created of God. The verdict the Church gave concerning fasting which in that book Tertullian as a Montanist would confute: out of which testimonies I thus conclude. They which restrain fasting to certain meats and times, hold not as the ancient Church held, but with Montanus: the Papists restrain fasting to certain meats & to certain times: Ergo, the Papists hold not with the ancient church, but with the Montanists against the same, and as they do hold with them concerning fasting so do they likewise in the marriage of Ministers, as may be proved out of his book Monogany, & 12. chap. which he wrote being a Montanist: the Ministers were as he speaketh digami, twice married: omnia licent episcopis, all things are lawful for bistops, which he confuteth by the text of the 1. of Timothy: and 3. chap. A bishop must be the husband of one wife, so that I may say in these two points Non ovum ovo similius, quam Papistae Montanistis: the Papists and Montanists are both alike. And so I pass to the third heresy of Cainism. The 3 heresy of Cainism. The heresy which teacheth that he which before baptism had a wife and she dying, the party marrying another, ought not to be consecrated bishop, is by S. Hierom in his Epistle to Oceanus called Cania Haereses, The heresy of Cain: In which epistle he answereth the place of the 1. of Tim 3. cap. That a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, saying, praecipit ne sacerdotes bina aut trina coniugia sortiantur more judaeorum aut Patriarcharum, He commandeth that priests have not two or 3 wives, after the manner of the jews and patriarchs. Now who is so ignorant that knoweth not the Papists to hold this heresy of Cain, and to abuse the place of Timothy to that purpose: hanc haeresim sequitur Romana Ecclesia, saith Erasmus, this heresy is embraced of the Romish Church. The 4. heresy of Manicheisme Although I might be very long in this heresy, showing where in the Papists agree with the Manichees: yet I will reduce their agreement to three heads: first the Manichees hold the scriptures to be corrupt, Augustine lib. 1. de Morib. cap. 29. which opinion he confuteth in these words: si Pauli epistolam ad Romanos scriptam corruptam esse contendis aliam proferas incorruptam, vel alium codicem potius in quo eiusdem epistola eadem syncera & incorrupta est, if for example thou contendest, that S. Paul's epistle to the Romans is corrupt; thou must show another incorrupt, or rather another book of the same Apostle wherein the same epistle is sincere & uncorrupt. Canus Lindanus & Reinolds for my own part I think them nothing inferior to these Heretics in this point, nay have not the Papists corrupted this same Epistle? leaving out the 11. cap. 6. v. all this sentence, but if it be of works it is no more of grace, or else works were no more works. For it clean overthroweth their grand Heresy: here for the same accusation of divine scripture I charge them with Helvidianisme, for Helvius held the same, as Hierome witnesseth in his book against him: tibi stultissime persvasisti graeocs codices esse falsatos: O fool in the highest degree thou hast persuaded thyself that the greek copies are falsified. And again, Tu mira impudentia haec in graecis codicibus falsata esse dicis thou with wonderful impudency sayest these things are falsified in the greek books. Thus the Papists join with Helvidius, and therefore by Hierome his verdict as they are full fools, so have they brazen faces. Secondly they permitted their hearers to marry, but not their elect as they called them: August. lib. 2. de Mor. Mani. cap. 19 Auditores vestri quorum apud vos secundus est gradus ducere atque habere uxores non prohibentur: your hearers which are in the 2 degree are not forbidden to marry: out of which place I gather that they did not condemn marriages simply, as the Papists would make them, & if they did can any one speak more contemptuously of marriage than the Papists do. M. Martin in his discovery, Cap. 15. sect. 11. calleth it a profaning of sacred orders. Innocentius & Syricius disprove it by these 2. places: be ye holy because I am holy: and again: they that are in the flesh cannot please God: and these arguments are still maintained by the learneddest Papists, by which they conclude that marriage is an enemy to holiness, and a friend to filthiness: the Lord rebuke them for these their blasphemies, Thirdly in fasting they are right Manichees, for as Augustine saith lib. 2. cap. 13. they did nihil carnium gustare, and yet did eat exquisitas & peregrinas fruges multis ferculis varietas, they did eat no flesh, & yet did eat many and strange fruits varied in many dishes: yea (as Augustine saith) if one of their elect should but anoint his lips with bacon, or but take the savour of it, as a breaker of his fast, or abstinence, he shall be condemned to hell fire; is not this the right popish fast? therefore I say to the Papists as he did to these heretics: quaeso advertite errores: I desire you consider your errors. The 5. heresy of Colliridianisme. Lib. 3. & haeres. 79. The Collyridians' as Epiphanius writeth worshipped the virgin Mary: against whom he writeth thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let no man worship Marie, the word used signifieth to cast himself down, and so to worship with religious Honour. To prove that the Papists worship Marry not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, service, which they grant, but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, religious service, which they deny, I use their own testimony upon the 2. of Luke, and 39 verse, where Anna is said to worship the Lord by fasting and prayers: their note is this, that fasting is an act of Religion, whereby we do worship God as we do by prayer, then by their own doctrine they worship Marie with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, religious worship; for they fast and pray to her. Their own words are these in their Psalter, made for the praise of Marie according to the Romans manner. In omni tribulatione & angustia succurrat nobis Maria: in all affliction let Marie help us: And again, Solve vincula reis, perfer lumen caecis, mala nostra pelle, bona cuncta posce, monstra te esse matrem: that is, Lose the bonds of prisoners, give light to the blind, drive away all our evils, obtain all good things for us, show thyself to be a mother. Lastly, Per virginem Mariam consedat nobis Dominus salutem: that is, the Lord save us for the virgin Marie her sake: what greater things can they desire at God's hands? Nay, what christian heart can abide these blasphemies? if this be not to honour Marie, what is to honour her? I end this heresy with Epiphanius his question, Quae Scriptura aliquid de hac re narravit? what Scripture speaketh thus? The 6. heresy of Angelisme. Iraeneus lib. 1 In regard of brevity I will knit up many heresies together: the Carpocratians worshipped the Images of jesus; the Valentinians the cross: the Heracleonites prayed for the dead. Epiphan. 14. Haeres. Elxay the horrible heretic taught prayer in an unknown tongue. Nemo quaerat interpretationem, sed solum in oratione haec dicat: Let no man seek for interpretation, but only let him pray thus. I will therefore in this sixth particular heresy briefly speak of Angelisme: Haeres. 39 Angelici (saith Augustine) in angelorum cultu sunt inclinati: the Angelists were inclined to the worshipping of Angels. Iraeneus likewise showeth the practice of the church against this worship. Lib. 2. cap. 59 Eeclesia non facit aliquid invocationibus angelicis sed mundè & purè dirigit orationes ad Dominum qui omnia fecit: The Church doth not any thing by prayer to Angels, but purely directeth her prayer to the Lord that made all things. Lib. de vero dei simul. cap. 17. Again Lactantius writeth thus. Non est in Angelis quicquam nisi parendi necessitas, itaque nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt, quorum honour in deo est. There is nothing in the Angels but necessity to obey, therefore they will have no honour to be given to them whose honour is in God. And in his first book and seventh chapter? Ministri Dei coli non volunt, quip qui nihil praeter iussum, & Dei voluntatem faciunt. God's attendants will not be adored, for they do nothing but his commandment and will. If these men were alive, what would they have written against the Papists who maintain the adoration and worshipping of Angels? The fifth reason of the popish dissolute and uncomfortable doctrine. IT is not unknown how the Papists without all shame accuse our doctrine of looseness, whereas all our writings, sermons, and exercises tend to holiness of life: for we preach mortification of the flesh, continuance in prayer, and in a word all holy duties: we permit no filthy stews, neither by rash vows cause incontinency and fornication, which are notorious and known things amongst the Papists Vrbs est (saith Mantuan) iam tota lupanar, the whole city is a stews, speaking of Rome. And as the lives of the Papists have been odious to God, and to man, so I doubt not but in this motive to prove that their doctrine tendeth to horrible dissoluteness, and hellish horror. In Aquinas his supplement art. 2. quaest. 2. it is taught that no man ought to be contrite in heart for original sin, which is a licentious and carnal doctrine: did not the prophet David in the 51. psalm, confess that in sin his mother conceived him: and S. Paul crieth out, Rom. 7. O miserable man that I am, who shall redeem me from this body of sin? out of which places we may gather the grief that those holy men of God conceived for their natural corruption. The Papists reason why we must not be contrite for original sin, is worthy of consideration. Non est voluntarium: it is not voluntary, say they. The syllogism is thus to be made: We are not to be contrite but for voluntary sins: but original sin is not voluntary: ergo we are not to be contrite for it. I answer to the proposition, they might as well conclude that it is no sin: let Augustine dissolve this knot, who in his 1. book of Retract. and 13. chap. writeth thus: Nullo modo peccatum est nisi sit voluntarium, peccatum quip illudintelligendum est quod tantummodo peccatum est, non poena peccati, quamvis & illa, quae immeritò non voluntaria peccata dicuntur, quia vel à nescientibus vel à coactis perpetrantur non omninò possunt sine voluntate committi, quoniam & ille qui peccat ignorans, voluntary quoque peccat, etc. It is no sin except it be voluntary, this speech is to be understood of sin which is simply sin, and not a punishment of sin, although those sins which are unfitly called sins against our wills (because they are either committed by constraint, or by ignorance) cannot be altogether without the consent of will, for he which sinneth of ignorance, sinneth willingly. Thus hath Augustine answered the popish reason to the full. Secondly the Papists teach, that some sins are venial of their own nature, that is deserve not eternal death, which must needs cause men to cast off the bridle and reins of holy life: why doth Basil in his shorter Definitions and 10. rule, prove that every sin is deadly by this place, The wages of sin is death. But to withdraw men from the opinion of the lightness of sin, well saith Hierome ad Caelantiam: Tanto facilius abstinemus à quocunque delicto, quantò illud magis metuimus, nec etiam titò ad maior a progreditur, qui etiam parva formidat. We abstain so much the more easily from sin, by how much we fear the same: neither doth he make haste to greater sins which feareth the lesser. Thirdly the Papists teach, that the sacrament gives grace ex opere operato, of work wrought without faith: for howsoever Bellarmine requireth it as a disposition, yet the Censure of Colon, which knew the Romish doctrine as well as Bellarmine reasoneth thus: pueris extra omnem dubitationis aleam sacramenta prodesse nemo sanae mentis dubitare potest, in quibus tamen nulla est fides, nulla cordis motio, nullus peccatorum dolour, aut gemitus, & sanè si in pueris easit Sacramentorum natura, cur non erit similis omnino in alijs maximè? eùm neque Christus, nec Ecclesia unquam vel ullam diversitatis fecit mentionem. Without all controversy children receive benefit by the Sacraments, in whom there is no faith, no motion of the heart, no sorrow for sin, and why do not others likewise so? seeing neither Christ nor the Church mentioneth any reason to the contrary. What is this, but to cause men to come without repentance to the sacraments? for if thou be not a murderer, a thief, or an adulterer, etc. the sacraments will replenish thee with grace: but (Christian Reader) take heed of this dissolute and lose doctrine, for he destroyeth himself, and damneth his soul, that cometh to the Sacraments without faith and repentance, and he is so far from receiving grace, that he purchaseth God's eternal wrath and ireful displeasure to himself. Fourthly the Papists bind their votaries, prelates and priests to keep their vows, which yet burn in filthy lusts, yea are not those vows ungodly which cannot be kept without incontinency? 1. Tim. 5.11. If widows (as S. Paul saith) wax wanton against Christ being warm, idle, and well fed, and so lust after husbands, what do many papists more warm, more idle, and better fed then those poor widows were, that S. Paul speaketh of? What do they I say lust after? but with them this divinity is currant, si non castè, cautè tamen: if not chastened, yet warily. Fiftly the papists teach that the pope may give pardon de paenitentijs iniungendis, Fulk against Allen. that is, of penance to be performed, Ergo a man may have a pardon before he sin, which is to open a gap to all sin, yea the rich man may boldly transgress, because he is able to give largely for pardons. Sixtly, Ferus upon Matth. confuteth it. Aquin. 22.25. q. 9 ar. they teach that the love of a man's enemy is counseled by our saviour Christ, not commanded, so that a man is not bound to love his enemy by God's commandment, O carnal & licentious libertines, what is more easy for man then to love his friend? what is more against the proud spirit of a man them to love his enemy? And so from dissoluteness of doctrine I come to the discomfort of the same. No man ought to be assured of his salvation by faith, Cens. col●●. but by hope (saith the papist) resting upon his own merits, which is to rack and torment a christian soul, for every on must say with Hierom in his dialogue against the Luciferans, Credo Domine & tamen secundum fidem meam fieri nolo, sic enim peribo: I believe Lord, yet let it not be according to my believe, for than I perish: and with Augustine, 10. lib. con. & 29. tota spes mea non nisi in valde magna misericordia tua: my whole hope is only in thy great mercy: but more of this in another motive, and therefore I oppose their own Catechism against them which excellently confuteth this desperate doctrine: Cat. col. profecto nequè in aignitatem fidei, ne que operum meorum, ut me certum faciam rectè respexero. Verily for certainty that god is merciful to me I must neither look to the dignity of my faith or of my works, said in passionem tuam o Christ oculos mentis defigam, but O Christ I will fasten the eyes of my mind upon thy passion, cum defecerit virtus mea non diffidam, quia si sanguis tuus interpellet pro me salvus ero, when my goodness is eclipsed I will not distrust, for if thy blood entreat for me I shall be saved. Secondly they teach that by contrition & sorrow for sin, Stapl. A. quae. 7. ar. 2. the guilt of sin is wholly taken away, but because a man can not be assured of the sufficiency of his sorrow, therefore he must both confess and satisfy God's justice for his sins: O hellish device of man! If no man can be assured of the sufficiency of his contrition and sorrow, how can he certify his soul that his Confession and Satisfaction are sufficient? if he can not be assured of one, he cannot likewise be assured of the other, and so must needs be swallowed up in the gulf of despair. Hold this therefore (Christian soul) that thy reconciliation dependeth not upon sufficient confession, contrition, and satisfaction, but upon the merit of Christ; and say as the gloss doth upon Gratian, pag. 376. that these do not cause and deserve forgiveness of sins, but only God's mercy is the cause thereof; and that true sorrow is a sign to thee of the forgiveness of thy sins. And as the doctrine of Satisfaction is desperate, so it is a most lose and dissolute doctrine: for, Si dederis marcas, & eye impleveris areas, Culpâ soluêris quacunque ligatus eris: that is, If thou fillest the Pope's coffers with money, thou shalt be loosed from all thy faults. Alas, alas, what will not a man give for the redemption of his soul? job 2. Mich. 6. thousands of rivers oil; yea he had rather cause his sons to pass through fire then to perform true repentance. The sixth reason of Idolatry. IN Philosophy there was almost no opinion so void of reason, but it found some patron, and as it was in philosophy, so now it is in Divinity; for else how could the Papists defend the worship of images? Of these popish idolaters I say with Lactantius, Lib. de orig. erroris. cap. 3. Venia concedi potest imperitis & ijs qui se sapientes non fatentur, his vero non potest qui sapientiam professi stultitiam potius exhibent. The ignorant may be pardoned, but to those that professing wisdom manifest their folly, pardon cannot be granted. But let us see how they excuse their idolatry. First Bellarmine maketh a difference between an idol and an image: Lib. 2. cap. 5 de Imag. an idol is an image of that which is not, but an image is a figure of that which is: to take his grant I will first conclude out of his own words that the Papists are idolaters, and then by invincible arguments disprove this distinction. They which worship images of those things that are not extant, are idolaters: but the Papists worship the images of those things that are not extant: Heerbrant●. come. ergo they are idolaters. The assumption I thus prove: Christopher, George, and Katherine were never extant, but they worship their images: ergo they worship images of things that never were. For the disproof of his distinction I will use his own arguments, and confession against himself. First (saith he) the Scripture never calleth any true image an idol, this I disprove out of his 13. chap. where he confesseth that the jews worshipped God in an image or idol. That in which the jews worshipped God, is an idol: but the jews worshipped God in an image: ergo an idol is an image. Secondly (saith he) the scripture calleth Idols elilim, that is Nothing, and useth other names to the same purpose. If this reason be good, then because the scripture calleth Idols pesilim, & by other like names, it must of necessity follow that they represent something: if any demand, why the scripture calleth Idols nothing, and vanity, and lies, I answer because of their effects, so saith Kimhi: dabar she eno mognil that which profiteth not, is called elil, for in truth they neither help the worshippers of them, nor can they help them, and so are mere vanity: and by this reason is answered his argument taken out of the Corinthians 8 chap. where an Idol is called nothing, nothing it is in regard of profit and commodity, yet may it represent something: His fourth reason is, because the Fathers called Heresies Idols: as an heresy is a false imagination, so [saith he] is an Idol a false Image: thus indeed the fathers speak, out of which I thus dispute. Hierom. Hosea 4. An heresy is an false opinion, and imagination of some thing whereof there is a truth, Epiph. Haer. 50. as for example, the Anthropomorphites that thought god was in shape & proportion like a man, did they not conceive a false imagination of a real thing whereof there is a truth, Ergo, by the jesuits own argument an Idol may represent a thing, that hath a being and subsistence: but there is a plain and evident demonstration why the Fathers call heresies Idols, because to serve God as we list, and not as he will is Idolatry: he neither taketh nor requireth any thing at our hands, besides his worship and that according to his will, who requireth this at your hands, (saith the Prophet Esay:) unless therefore they can prove that God will be served with material and artificial Images, and is content to accept that honour as done to himself, that is yielded unto them, their adoring them maketh them idols, and themselves Idolaters. His last reason taken out of Tertullian clean overthroweth his cause, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith Tertullian) graecè formam sonat, ab eo per diminutionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aequè apud nos formulam fecit, igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifieth a shape, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived as a diminutive, and with us signifieth any shape, & therefore every shape or likeness may be called an idol. If every shape may be called an idol, than a shape of a thing that is extant may be so called: but by Tertullia's opinion every shape may be so called, Ergo a shape of a thing that is extant and hath a subsistence: now whereas the jesuite in fine and in conclusion out of Eustathius saith that an Idol is inane spectrum, & phantasma, a vain fancy such as we frame in our imaginations, & as the shadows & ghosts of the dead are, doth it not as well prove that for the matter it is nothing, as it doth that it representeth nothing? yes verily, for in truth those things are as he speaketh umbrae, shadows, & cavae imagines, images without any solidity, so that he might by this argue an Idol to have no matter, & no bodily subsistence, as he doth that it is nothing formally, that is representeth nothing. Having retorted his arguments against himself, I will now briefly show that an Idol representeth something. The 2. Commandment shall help us with the first argument, in which, as the Papists confess an Idol is forbidden, but that which is there forbidden, is a similitude of something, as of things in heaven and in earth, Deut. 4.15.16. or under the earth, so saith Moses, thou shalt not make the form of a man, or of a woman, or of any creature in the earth. Secondly I disprove their distinction out of the 14. of wisdom, verse, 1. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the beginning of whoredom is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the invention of Idols, what doth he call an Idol? read the 15 verse and thou shalt find that the father sorrowing for his son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worketh his Image, and so worshippeth the dead as God: by which every man may see that an Idol & an Image are there put to signify both one thing, except he will hold that the Image which the father maketh of his son representeth nothing: which no Papist though exceeding bold and blind dare affirm. Thirdly I demand whether the Images which Carpocrats worshipped were not Idols? if only idols be forbidden in the 2. Jraen. lib. 1 cap. 23. come. them the Images there forbidden must be idols, yet were they Images of jesus. I let pass the images of Paul, Epiph. 24. Pythagoras and others which every one know to represent something. The Melchizedechians also worshipped the Image of Moses, Epiph. 55. yet can no man deny that to be an Idol, out of all which it is easy to conclude, that an Idol is not always an image of that which is not. Fourthly, Baal himself, which the Scripture detesteth as a most infamous Idol was nothing else but a corporal Image erected unto God, by which the people dreamt they served and pleased God, as may be gathered by Hosea in his 2. chapter: At that day saith the Lord, thou shalt call me no more Baal: And in Elias time, 1. King. 18, the Israelites haulted between two opinions, partly serving God, partly their Idols; likewise the Gentiles which the king of Assyria placed in Samaria (2. King. 17.33) feared God & worshipped their Idols. Lastly the jews swore by God & their King, Sophon. 1. that is, by their Idols, for they called their Idols Kings, some expound it as if it were a proper name, they swore by God and by Malchon, but that can not be, because of the affix and pronoun that is joined with it, for proper names are not compounded with affixes & pronouns, as Elias proveth; by all which testimonies it is evident and plain, that all the jews were not so seduced as to think their Idols to be God, for than they would not have been like a cake half baked, Cap 7.4. ver. (as the Prophet Hosea speaketh) now serving God and then their Idols. Fiftly, the Heathen did not think their Idols to be God, which I prove out of Lactantius: Lib. 2. de vero dei sim. Non ipsa inquiunt timemus sedeos adquorum imaginem ficta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt: We do not reverence and worship the Idols themselves, but those which are represented by them, and those to whom they are consecrated: what is more direct than this against Bellarmine, who would have men believe that the Heathen did account their Idols to be God, and therefore revileth M. Caluin a man of famous memory not being able with any probability to take away his arguments. And if that opinion of Macrobius be true, that all the heathen Gods are to be referred to the sun, 1. Satur. ca 7. as Apollo, Capis, Serapis and others, how can it enter into the heart of any learned man to imagine, that the Gentiles were so ignorant as to think their idols to be God, except they could not distinguish between them and the Sun: their idols then representing the Sun, of necessity it followeth, that they represented something; except the Sun be nothing. Thus the Papists defending Idolatry, go about to take the Sun out of the world, making it nothing, and so prove themselves unworthy the light thereof. And so having disproved his distinction, I will proceed to other of his assertions, and then set down Lactantius his reasons against Images, which are as directly opposite to the Papists, as if he had of purpose written against them. Bellarmine confesseth that in his 8. chap. that Idiotae qui vident picturas, & non possunt legere scripturas, possunt ac debent à praelatis & Concionatoribus institui, alioquin fateor non sine periculo exhiberi imperitis eiusmodi picturas. The lay people which see and behold Images and can not read Scriptures, aught to be instructed of their prelate's and preachers, else I confess that Images to the ignorant are not without danger delivered. This is as much as to give a mad man a sword, and then to watch over him lest he hurt himself: but have the Papists preachers to teach the people? yea, their priests for ignorance are very Idols, many years ago was this complaint uttered that in times passed there were golden priests and treen cups, B●●. but now golden cups and treen priests, but of this see more in a former motive: and whereas he saith that lay people may read the Scriptures, doth he not bid defiance to other Papists, Cens. Col. who by might and main maintain that the Scriptures are not to be read of the ignorant. But now let us see what the people are to be taught, Bellar. 20. they are to be taught, that Images are to be worshipped by themselves not accidentally or improperly, so that worship is due to images themselves, and not only as they represent some other thing: are the people able to reach this divinity? nay the very Papists themselves cannot possibly conceive these distinctions, yea they are flatly opposite to other learned papists: and lastly the Heathen never taught so grossly of the worshipping of their Images. To go a little further, the people must not be taught that Images are to be worshipped with the highest kind of worship which is due to god, cap. 22. & 23 as touching their manner of speech and words, but, si de re ipsa agatur imagines impropriè coluntur eo genere cultus quo exemplar ipsum, if it be concerning the matter and thing itself an Image accidentally must be honoured with the same honour wherewith the thing represented is worshipped and honoured. Is not this to speak mysteries to the people, Bell. cap. 6. yea to speak lies in hypocrisy? Alphonsus de Castro a learned Papist accounteth Serenus Bishop of Massilia, and Epiphanius enemies to Images, because they broke them in pieces, and yet we may not do so without heresy (for saith Bellarmine) when Serenus broke them, the people: being near converted to the faith worshipped them for gods: it were hard for Bellarmine to prove the truth of this sentence, namely a true Christian to worship an image for God, but if Serenus did well for breaking them, because the people worshipped them as Gods, why may not we break them without any hurt, for it is well known that the ignorant papists amongst us have taken them for gods? Thus having gathered out of Bellarmine his garden some sweet flowers and nosegays, nay rather poisonful herbs, I come now to Lactantius his reasons against images, which whether they conclude not against the Papists as well as against the Heathen, let any indifferent man judge. Postquam Deus praesto esse caepit (saith Lactantius) iam simulachr● eius non est opus, Lib. 2. cap. supervacua enim est hominis imago, cùm homo praesto est. When God is present there is no need of his image, for the image of man is superfluous when man himself is present. cap. 8. Yet Bellarmine will needs defend the image of God, although he be present every where, because he is not seen, and so cutteth the sinews of Lactantius his reason: and here I would have the Reader to note that Bellarmine proveth that images of God may be made, and as he proveth the same, so it is their practice to paint the Father like an old man, because he so appeared to Daniel, yet it is not certain (saith he) in the church whether images are to be made or no, out of which confession I conclude, that he teacheth uncertain doctrine, yea that their Church practiseth those things which they are not sure of, and therefore dealeth Antichristianly with the people. But I would know of Bellarmine, why the Father may be painted like an old man, and the holy ghost like a Dove, seeing he condemneth the image of the Trinity painted in form of a man, having three faces, these images (saith he) are monsters, and are not the other so? if you disprove this, than ye likewise disprove the other: for the painters may as well defend the one as the other. To return to Lactantius in the same chap. and book, he thus writeth, Dei in aeternum viventis vivum & sensibile debet esse simulachrum, it aque simulachrum Dei non est quod digitis hominum fabricatur. God which liveth for ever aught to have a living and sensible Image, therefore it is not God's image which is made with men's hands. Again, it images are to be worshipped, than the makers of them are much more to be worshipped. Lib. 2. cap. 2. Nam non potest esse quicquam artifice matus. For there can be nothing greater than the workman, who is always better than his work: to which Bellarmine answereth, that images are to be worshipped not for themselves, but for the things which they represent, as if the heathen might not have said as much and shaped the same answer: yea he is not ashamed to confess and grant that man may be worshipped, if he meant of civil worship we would not contend, but seeing he meaneth religious worship, we detest his doctrine; for the reason being strong against the heathen, it is as strong against the papists: and therefore I thus conclude it, if images may be worshipped with religious worship: then may man who is a true image of God be so worshipped; but man ought not so to be worshipped: Ergo, neither images. I will adjoin more sayings of Lactantius, Lib. 1. cap. ●● Religio & veneratio nulla alia tenenda est, nisi unius Dei, no religion & worship is to be embraced but of god only: Quidigitur opus est tantos sumptus, vel fingendis, vel colendis imaginibus impendere? What need them is there to bestow so much cost in making of Images, and worshipping them? For, Nihil colendum est quod mortalibus oculis cernitur: Lib. 2. cap. 3. Nothing that is seen with the eyes of man is to be worshipped; and that the Papists may see how well the Gentiles and they agree, hear the Gentiles defence: Lib. 2. cap. 2. Non ipsatimemus sedeos ad quorum imaginem ficta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt, cur igitur oculos ad coelum non tollitis? cur ad parietes spectatis? We do not adore the Images, but those, whom they represent, and to whom they are dedicated and consecrated, why then do you not lift up your eyes to heaven? and why do you gaze upon the walls: Out of this defence of the heathen (as I said before) every one may gather, that they did not defend their Idols to be Gods, as Bellarmine would make them; yea we may learn that the Papists go further, than they did, for Bellarmine holdeth that the Images themselves are to be worshipped, and that they do terminare venerationem, worship goeth no further than the image not to the thing which is represented by the image: Thus I have set down Lactantius his arguments, which I desire all Papists to consider without a prejudicate opinion for favour of them: before I finish this reason I will set down a syllogism or two, which I would have them likewise to think upon: Bellarmine confesseth that images may accidentally be worshipped with the same kind of worship, that the things represented by them are to be worshipped with: out of which I conclude that accidentally there may be many Gods; that which accidentally hath divine worship, is accidentally God, but images of God accidentally have the same worship that God himself hath: ergo they are accidentally Gods: and if this argument cannot move them, yet let them consider that the man cannot be excused from treason that giveth the proper titles of the kingdom to any under this pretence, that he doth it for honour of the King. The Lord (saith Esay) will not give his glory to another, and yet the papists say, Cap. 42. he is content that images by accident have the same glory, yea why might not the Collyridian heretics by the same shift excuse their idolatry, and by as good reason offer cakes to the virgin Marie as the papists do candles to her: and howsoever Bellarmine minceth this point by this sophistical distinction of accidental worship, yet doth their church worship the image of Christ and his cross with the same worship wherewith Christ himself is worshipped, so saith the fortress of their faith, Crux Christi & eius imago venerari debet veneratione latriae, & haec est opinio Thomae, Lib. 3. cons. 4. art. 24. The cross & image of Christ ought to be worshipped with such honour as is due to God, & of this opinion is Thomas. Holcoth indeed contradicted this opinion, but the church took part with Thomas against him, Communis opinio tenet oppositum, The common opinion holdeth the contrary: And why doth their church sing on this manner to the cross, O Crux ave spes unita, auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam: Hail cross our only hope, increase in the godly justice, and give thee guilty pardon: But to give that honour which is due to Christ to the cross: For who is so simple as to rest in Bellarmine's answer that by Cross is understood Christ himself, or else there is a rhetorical figure, called a feigning of a person, this is but to feign an untruth: if their church were asked, especially the vulgar people, Vide Aqui. 3. par. quae. 25. art. 4. they know no such meaning. The second syllogism shallbe this, they which go on pilgrimage to images, worship images themselves: but the papists go on pilgrimage to images: Ergo they worship the images themselves: to this Bellarmine answereth, Peregrinationes ad imagines rariores sunt in Ecclesia, Pilgrimages to images are not often now used in the church, what they are now I will not dispute, the little frequenting of pilgrimage cannot dissolve the argument seeing the thing is granted. I leave the practice of the jews who knew the meaning of God's commandments, and yet [as Cornelius Tacitus witnesseth in his 5. book of histories.] Nulla simulachra in templis sunt: they have no images in their temples: Only I wish the reader to consider that Epiphanius is rejected of Bellarmine, Augustine is answered that he wrote against images when he was first converted, and yet he never retracted his opinion: Two councils of Constantinople, one of Franckfurte, and the fourth Council of Eliberis must all give place to the idolatrous Council of Niece: well may Bellarmine by these answers persuade his besotted disciples to be idolaters, but except he hath better arguments and answers every learned man will easily espy his weak defence, and in my judgement it had been better both for his credit & conscience that he had never defended the worshipping of images, for I doubt not but by reading of him every one not forestalled may be moved to the truth. The seventh reason of Blasphemies. HAving evicted the Papists to be guilty of many grievous crimes; as Heresies, Idolatry etc. I come now to Blasphemies which are uttered by men of no small account amongst them: these blasphemies without the rest of the arguments here propounded, I doubt not but being thoroughly weighed by the reader, will leave such an impression in him, that he shall have just cause to take part with God and Christ against the Pope who arrogateth to himself a certain Godhead. I begin first with Bellarmine's blasphemous argument: si nullo modo legem possemus servare, Lib. 2 de Mona cap. 13. Deus esset omni tyranno iniquior & crudelior: if we cannot possibly keep the law of god, than God is more cruel, and unrighteous than any tyrant. What dog would thus bark against god? for that no man can perfectly fulfil God's commandments I shall prove by such arguments and testimonies as he cannot accept against. To love God with all our heart, with all our mind, soul, & strength, is angelica perfectio, an angelical state of life: but no man can come to angelical perfection: Ergo, no man can fulfil God's commandments. Secondly we are but viatores in this life, 1. travellers, so that if we can perfectly fulfil all God's commandments, there is no difference betwixt the life that we shall lead in our country, which is heaven, and this pilgrimage in which we now are, for being in heaven we can but love God in that manner and measure which he requireth. Well saith Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to sin is above the reach of man, and Bernard is directly apposite to Bellarmine, In his 50 sermon in canti. saying, Ergo mandando impossibilia, non praevaricatores homines fecit, sed humiles, ut omne os obstruatur & accipientes quip mandatum & sentientes aefectum clamabimus in caelum & miserebitur nostri deus: God by commanding impossible things made not men transgressors of his law, but humbleth them that every mouth may be stopped, for receiving a commandment, & feeling our inability to keep it, we cry unto God and he will have mercy on us. What is more plain than this that god requireth impossible things at our hands? To Bernard agreeth Augustine. In mandatis est etiam quod iubemur or are remit nobis debita nostra, Lib. 1 Retr. cap. 19 omnia ergo mandata sacta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. In God's commandments we are bidden to pray, forgive us our sins, therefore all God's commandments are accepted as done, when that which is not done is pardoned. But why do I heap up testimonies of the Fathers? Let their master of Sentences himself speak, Lib. 3. &. dist. 27. cur praecipitur hominibus ista perfectio? Why are men commanded this perfestion? he answereth out of Augustine, quia non rectè curritur, siquo currendum est, nesciatur: because we cannot run well except we know whether we must run. 2. 2 q. 44. art 8. So doth Aquinas use the very same answer by which it is apparent to all men that God commandeth impossible things, and therefore by this blasphemy must be more cruel than any tyrant, but this might have been better borne withal, if they had uttered no more blasphemous arguments. The Rhemists upon the first of Timoth. chap. 4. wanting reasons for their prohibition of meats and marriages, know not how to defend their practice but by an argument à pari, taken from equality: God in paradise did command abstinence from one certain tree, and also did forbid in the time of the Law certain degrees of marriage: ergo so may the Pope do: O unanswerable, nay rather blasphemous consequents! if ye thus dispute without all peradventure in the end ye shall have the victory. From Bellarmine and the Rhemists I come to their angelical Doctor, who in his supple. 25. quae. art. 1. concludeth thus: Christus potest, Ergo Paulus potest, Ergo papa potest: Christ can do it, therefore Paul can do it, therefore the Pope can do it. Make the syllogism and then the argument will be of greater force: whatsoever Christ can do, that can Paul do, and whatsoever Paul can do, that can the Pope do: but Christ can do this: therefore Paul, and the Pope can do it. But why are Paul and the pope joined together, seeing his authority is derived from Peter? when Peter's keys will not serve, than Paul's sword must save. To let pass these senseless disputers, hear what is written in the first part of the 6. book of decretals, and 6. title de electione, fol. 44. Papa non est homo, sed vicarius Dei, expressius acus, The pope is not a man, but God's vicar, more expressly God. In the proheme of the Clementines and 3. folio, I find the notation of the pope to be this: Papa, id est, admirabilis, nec deus es, nec homo, quasineuter es inter utrunque. The pope is called so because he is wonderful, thou art neither god nor man, but as it were a neuter betwixt both. Again in the Extravagants fol. 16. tit. 3. Supposit a plenitudine potestatis juxta quam papae dici non potest, Domine, cur ita facis. Presupposing the plenary power by which no man may say to the pope, Master, why dost thou so, no not though (as it is in an other place) he lead innumerable souls with him by heaps to the devil of hell. Now let Panormitan play his part, Papa & Christus faciunt unum consistorium. The pope and Christ make one consistory, excepto peccato omnia potest quae deus, excepting sin he can do all that God can do. Also, papa potest quicquid vult, the Pope can do what he will, and therefore contra novum testamentum potest dispensare, he may dispense against the new testament. From the Canonists I come to the Alcoran of the Franciscans taken out of their book of Conformities, nihil fecit Christus, quod Franciscus non fecit, imo plura fecit quàm Christus, ungues Francisci tentationem propellunt, Christ did not any thing but Frances did the same, yea more than Christ, the nails of friar Frances drive away temptations. Sicut Ade Deo non parenti omnis creatura libellis extitit. Sic Francisco omnia praecepta divina implenti creatura omnis famulata est, omnia Deus subiecit sub pedibus eius, etc. As every creature rebelled against Adam disobeying God, so all of them served Frances who fulfilled gods commandment: God hath put all things under his feet, he hath made him ruler over all the works of his hands, and he may most worthily say that which is written in the Gospel, All things are given me of my father: Can the devil himself speak more spitefully against the God of heaven and earth? I wonder how the Pope can suffer those things, seeing he applieth the same scriptures to his authority, and therefore sayeth, Omnis potestas mihi data est in terra, all power is given me on earth: To proceed in the same book thus they speak of the mass, Celebratio unius missae tantum valet, quantum Christi passio, The saying of one mass is as profitable as Christ's passion. And again, si quis devotè audierit missam non incidit in peccatum mortale, if any here mass with devotion he cannot fall into mortal sin, if this be true why have the priests so many harlots? nay why are Popish geldings become stone horses? These (Christian reader) are not the tenth of their blasphemies which they have vomited, but I dare not load thee with any more, lest I should he offensive: I will end this reason in a word: that religion is a blasphemous religion which maketh not God merciful, and just in the highest degree, but the Popish religion maketh not God merciful and just in the highest degree: Ergo it is a blasphemous religion: the assumption is thus proved, if the only mercy of God be not the only cause of the pardoning of our sins, and the alone satisfaction of Christ answereth not to God's justice then may a finite thing, as man's satisfactions answer the same, & so he shall neither be summè misericors, nor summè justus, neither have perfect mercy, nor perfect justice: but the only mercy of God is not the only cause of the forgiveness of our sins, neither is his justice fully satisfied by Christ, but by our own satisfaction? and therefore he is neither perfectly merciful, not perfectly just. Let god be then as he is is most rich in mercy and absolute in justice, and the Romish religion cannot stand, for it detracteth from his infinite mercy and justice, therefore without all controversy is a blasphemous religion. The eight reason of the Papists own Confession. AMongst the properties of truth, this as I proved was one, that it was great and prevaileth, and indeed through God's omnipotent power it is so great that the Adversaries against themselves confess the same: so that I may say with the Orator in his oration pro Quinctio: quis nostrae causae testis idem qui accerrimus adversarius in hac re inquam adversarium citabo testem: Who beareth witness to our defence, even he that is the fiercest adversary in this defence: I say I will use our adversary for a witness, for although I may say to him as the same orator doth in an other oration pro Fonteio: Tuum testimonium quod in aliena re leve est, in tua quoniam contrate est gravissimum esse debet: Thy own testimony which is of small credit in another matter, in thine own because it is against thyself ought to be of exceeding great weight: upon these triumphs as it were the Christian Reader will be desirous to hear the Papists testimony, not to hold him therefore any longer in suspense, this is Bellarmine's confession in his 7. chap. & 5. book of justification. Propter periculum maius gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benignitate reponere: by reason of the danger of pride and vain glory, it is safest to put our whole confidence only in the mercy of God, not in our merits or good works. And this he proveth out of the 9 chap. of Daniel, we pray not in our righteousness, but in thy manifold mercies: and out of the 17. of Luke, when you have done all that you can, you are unprofitable servants: nay out of their own prayers, Deus qui conspicis quia ex nulla actione nostra confidimus: O God thou seest that we trust not in any of our actions or works: and lest these his proofs should not be weighty enough, he quoteth chrysostom in divers places, as namely in his 3. homily upon Matthew writing thus: Noli mercedem poscere ut accipias mercedem, require no reward that thou mayest receive a reward. Next followeth Ambrose, Non sic vixi, ut me pudeat vivere, nec mori timeo quia bonum Dominum habemus; I have so lived that I am not ashamed to live, neither am I afraid to die, because I have a merciful Lord. After Ambrose follows Augustine, Gregory, and Bernard: and lastly he useth this reason: vel homo habet vera merita vel non habet, man hath good works in truth, or else he hath them not in truth but in appearance only, if only in appearance then is he dangerously deceived, if in truth than he looseth nothing, for his trust is only in God. This is to disannul all his former doctrine, for before he proved that a man might put his confidence in good works, because they deserve eternal life; but now he confesseth that it is best to put no confidence in works, but only in God's mercy: out of which I conclude, that it is safest to disclaim our own merits in the attaining to salvation, and by consequent to be a Protestant. The syllogism shall be thus framed. It is safest to put no confidence in works: but this is the Protestants constant doctrine: ergo it is safest to be a Protestant: and indeed it hath been always judged the part of a wise man to incline in eam partem quae cautior est, into that defence which is best, but our defence is best by the adversaries own confession: ergo it is the wisest part to hold with the Protestants. So now I may justly use the Orator's exclamation in his oration pro Coelio: o magna vis veritatis quae contra hominum ingenia, colliditatem, solertiam, etc. o mighty power of truth, who doth defend itself against the wit, craft, & subtlety of men. I will end this reason with some sayings of Hieron, because his authority hath not been yet used in this matter: in his 3. book against the Pelagians he writeth thus, Nec in sapientia nostra, nec in ullis virtutibus confidendum, sed in solo domino: We trust neither in our wisdom, nor in any virtues, but only in the Lord: and in his dialogue against the Luciferians, Credo & tamen secundum fidem meam fieri nolo, si etenim sit peribo: I believe, yet I would not have it be according to my belief, for than I perish: So must every Christian say if it be according to our works we perish, but we trust only to the mercy of God: therefore look and wait for salvation. To this confession of Bellarmine I might likewise have adjoined Steven gardiner's, but Bellarmine being the papists Pythagoras shall serve in stead of all. And now for a conclusion of this point and reason, let any papist answer me what harm can come of the Protestant's doctrine? if they say good works are come to a downfall by it, I would have yielded but that S. Paul in the 2. of the Galat. ver. 17. many hundred years ago hath answered this rotten and stolen objection, If we that seek for justification by Christ, be found sinners in Christ, is Christ the minister of sin? God forbidden, etc. by which place of holy Scripture this frivolous cavil is so plainly confuted, that the Papists (except they cannot resolve the Apostles argument) might as well have charged Paul's doctrine with dissoluteness as they do ours, therefore I desire all men to hold that which is safest, which is the part of a wise man to do. But it is safest to hold as we hold, and it is the part of wise men to defend the best part, which is ours: Ergo, it is safest to hold with: and why was the Pharise condemned us but for putting his confidence in works? he acknowledged them to come from God, Luk. 18. v. 11 saying, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, I fast twice in a week, I give tith of all that I have. If we give thanks to god for those his good actions and works, then by necessary consequent it may be concluded that he ascribed them not to himself, but to the giver & fountain of all good things, yet hath he Christ's own testimony against him for what then but for his affiance in his works. Thus the Papists by their own doctrine of confidence in works become Pharisees: also I see not why they may not say to god as the jews did, why do we fast, & thou dost not regard us? why do we afflict out souls and thou dost not acknowledge us? Better it is to pray with the Prophet David, Enter not into judgement O Lord with thy servants, Psal. 143. v. 3 for no flesh is righteous in thy sight. To which place of Scripture Bellarmine answereth that it is to be understood, Tom. 1. lib de Mona. cap. 13 ad comparationem Dei, in comparison of God, and so contenteth himself with the answer of Pelagius as I prove out of Hierom in his book ad Ctesip. Non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens quod testimonium sub nomine pietatis eludunt, aiunt enim ad comparationem dei nullum esse perfectum, quasi hoc dicat scriptura, quando enim dicit in conspectu tuo hoc intelligi vult quod etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur, dei scientiae atque notitiae nequaquam sunt sancti. No man living shall be justified in thy sight, which testimony under the pretence of piety they delude, for they say that no man is perfect in respect of God, as if this were the meaning of the scripture, for when it saith (in thy sight) it giveth us to understand, that those which seem holy to men, in god's sight and knowledge are not holy. Out of this testimony it appeareth that the papists accepting of Pelagius his answer, join not only with the Pharisees in this point, but also with the Pelagians of whose heresy I have spoke before, I dare not stay any longer in this reason, lest I forget myself promising to have ended it before, but the laying open of the Papists Phariseisme and Pelagianism I hope will add some weight to it, and therefore I have dwelled a little the longer in it. The ninth reason of the practice of the Primitive Church. ALthough I might be very long in showing the practice of the primitive Church to be repugnant to popery, yet I will end this reason with all possible brevity. Eusebius in his 4. book of his Ecclesiastical history, and 14. chapter, writeth thus of the people of Smyrna, who by the malicious jews were esteemed as worshippers of Policarpus: judaei nostros intentis oculis observarunt, ne eum àflammis adhuc ardentibus raperent ignorantes, quia neque Christum aliquando possemus derelinquere, qui mortem pro totius mundi salute sustinuit, neque alium quenquam colere quoniam eum verum deum, & qui solus colendus sit noverimus, martyrs vero tanquam descipulos diligimus quasi integrè fidem magistro servants & domino, quorum nos quoque in fidei perseverantia & charitatis optamus esse participes. The jews watched us diligently lest we should have taken him out of the fire being ignorant, that neither we can leave Christ which hath suffered for all that are saved in the world, neiworshippe any other, for him we adore as being God, but the Martyrs as disciples and fellows of our Lord, we love worthily for their exceeding good will unto their king and master, of whose charity in faith and perseverance God grant we may be partakers. This testimony showeth how the Papists are departed from this practice, who do not only love, but most superstitiously adore the relics of Saints: the christians were charged as you may see in Justin's 2. apo. to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Atheists, not to worship God, to whom he answereth, Profitemur nos quidem talium qui habentur deorum esse expertes & atheos, sed non verissimi illius dei patris videlicet virtutum expertes, verum hunc ipsum & qui ab illo venit filium, & spiritum propheticum colimus & adoramus cum ratione & veritate venerantes. We profess ourselves to be without such as are accounted Gods, and indeed to be Atheists, but not without the most true God the father of virtues, for we worship and adore him and his son, and the holy ghost in truth and as reason requireth. Out of which answer I gather that the Christians did not worship Saints, Angels, or other things, for then justine might have answered that the Christians worshipped many Gods, as the heathen did, especially if they worshipped as many as the Papists who exceed the Gentiles, or at leastwise are nothing behind them in their idolatry: and if these two will not content the Papists in this point. 8. Book contra Celsum p. 937. let Origen speak: Solus Deus adorandus est, preces offerendae soli unigenito Dei verbo, qui ut pontifex eas ad Deum suum & Deum nostrum perferat. God alone is to be adored, to the only begotten son of God our prayers are only to be offered, who as high priest offereth them to his and our God. And again, Oblitus cum Christianis se agere soli Deo per jesum preces offerentibus: He forgetteth himself that he hath to do with Christians who offer their prayers only to God by Christ jesus. These testimonies of Origen do evidently manifest unto us, what was the approved use of the church in his time, viz. that their prayers were not made unto Angels nor Saints, but only to God in the name of jesus Christ, neither have we the practice of the primitive Church only in this point but in many more, which I will in a word declare. The Christians were charged by the Pagans for having no images, and they not only confessed so much, but also defended it as most agreeable to the law of God. Origen, Contra Celsum lib. 8. Pag. 934. posthaec Celsus ait nos ararum, statuarum, templorumque dedicationes fugere, non videns pro aris suam esse mentem cuique ex qua sursum feruntur verè & intelligibiliter suaveolentes suffitus, simulachra autem Deo dicanda sunt non fabrorum opera, sed à verbo Dei dedolata & formata in nobis, viz. virtutes ad imitationem primogeniti totius ei naturae, hae sunt statuae Deo dicatae. Furthermore Celsus affirmeth that we have no dedication of Altars, standing Images and Temples, not knowing that every man in steed of an Altar hath a mind, out of which are sent spiritual swet-smelling perfumes, and as touching Images such are dedicated to god as are not the works of artificers, but are framed of the word of god in us, namely virtues to the imitation of the first begotten of every creature, those are the images that are dedicated to god. Again in his 7. book pag. 928. Multa adeò nos prohibent ab aris & simulachris, ut emori citius iubeant, quàm contaminemus nostram de Deo fidem talibus impietatibus. There are so many prohibitions against Altars & Images, that men are commanded rather to die, then to defile their faith which they have of god with such impiety. Out of which two testimonies as I conclude against images, so may I likewise against Altars, and then what will become of the popish sacrifice of the mass? Not to rest only in the authority of Origen, hear what Clemens Alexandrinus saith in his exhortation to the Gentiles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Nobis non est imago sensilis de materia sensili, sedquae percipitur intelligentia: We have no image that is material and seen with eyes, but only such as is conceived with understanding: I let pass Lactantius his testimony because I have been long in it before, and use Arnobius authority in whose 8. book, the heathen do move this question, Cur nullas are as habent nulla templa, nulla not a simulachra, why have they no Altars, no Temples, no known Images? of these testimonies I may say with the Orator, Aut hoc testium satis est aut nescio quid satis est, Either these are sufficient witnesses, or else I know not what is sufficient. But I come now to a third practice of the church repugnant and opposite to popery, which was to have public prayers in a known tongue: justine in his second apology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & in solis qui dicitur die omnium qui vel in oppidis, vel ruri degunt in eundem locum conventus fit, & commentaria Apostolorum, aut scripta Prophetarum leguntur, quo ad tempus patitur: On the day which is called Sunday all that are in towns or villages meet together in one place where the writings of the Apostles or Prophets are read as the hour permitteth us. When the reader ceaseth, the parson warneth and exhorteth us to imitate the good things that have been read unto us, then arise we all & jointly make our prayers after which ended, bread and wine with water are brought to the place, and he that is chief amongst us giveth thanks in the best manner he can: and a little before, Perfectis precibes & gratiarum actione, populus omnis qui adest bene dicit dicens Amen: at the end of his prayers and thanks, all the people that are present do bless and say Amen. Amen in hebrew signifieth as much as God grant it may be so. If they desire plainer words let them hear Origen lib. 8. cont. Celsum pag. 941. Sciant quod germanè Christiani, ne usitatis quidem Dei nominibus in sacra scriptura utuntur inter precandum, sed Graeci Graecis, Romani Romanis, singulique precantur in propria lingua, deumque celebrant pro viribus, & omnium linguarum Dominus, omni bus linguis precantes exaudit tàm variè loquentes haud secus ac consonos etc. Let men know that true Christians do not use in their prayers the names of god which are used in holy scripture, but greeks do use greek names, Romans use Latin names, and men of every nation pray and praise god with all their might in their own mother tongue, and the Lord of all tongues doth hear them praying in all tongues understanding them that speak diversly no otherwise than if they were men of one speech and language. I might here allege the 15. Canon of the Council of Laodicia which ordained that none should sing but those that were Canonically elected, & qui de Codice legunt, and those that read out of their books, by which it appeareth that some of the people could read the Psalms and by consequent had them in their own tongue. But let Basill end the third difference, who writeth, Epist. 80. ad Caterineo. that in the church the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, answer one another in singing: and this was the manner and custom of all churches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: mos qui nunc obtinet omnibus Dei Ecclesiis consonus est & consentaneus: the custom which now prevaileth is agreeable to all churches: and after this he rehearseth the Egyptians, Thebans, Arabians, Syrians, and Chaldaeans. So then now I hold it needless in so clear and manifest a matter, to quote more testimonies, for I might have used Augustine's, Chrysostom's, Hieromes, and Ambrose's authority for the proof of this practice, but eschewing tediousness I will now propound the fourth Difference. The people in the primitive Church were not deprived of the cup in the Communion, so testifieth Clemens Alexandrinus, Lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Some distributing the Eucharist do suffer the people as the custom is to take part. This testimony also overthroweth the priests private Communion, which I might have made an other difference, but that for brevity sake I spare to speak of it. To Clemens I adjoin justine in his 2. Apol. qui apud nos diaconi vocantur dant unicuique eorum qui adsunt partem panis pro quo gratia actae sunt & vini & aquae participandam: they which we call deacons give to all that are present a part of consecrated bread and wine mingled with water to be received. Here I might abound with testimonies, and time would sooner fail me then proofs, and therefore I take and accept the confession of Duraeus, who being pressed with the authority of Gelasius, who commanded that sacraments should be either wholly received or wholly omitted, confesseth that for four hundred years it was so used in the Church, I will not stand to show that it was longer continued, but I demand why that which was so long practised in the Church, should be disannulled by the Counsel of Constance, were the Fathers in that counsel wiser than all the Christians in so many ages, yea then the Apostles and Christ himself? The fift difference is that the Christians were hot burdened with many festival days: 936. p. Celsus objecting to the Church the want of feasts is answered by Origen, Festum is facere officium id est, a feast is to do a duty, & proveth it out of the fourth of the Galat: that days are not to be kept excepting the lords day, Easter and Pentecost, what then is become of the multitude of the Popish festival days wherewith the Church is grievously burdened, concerning this point Erasmus writeth thus upon Matthew 11. cap. Aetas Hieronimi praeter diem dominicum p●● ifsima noverat festa. In Hierom his time there was very few festival days besides the Lord's day. And in the tripartite history in the ninth book, & the thirty eight chapter I find these words, Mens fuit Apostolorum non de diebus sancire festivitatem, sed conversationem rectam & Dei praedicare culturam: It was not the Apostles meaning to give laws concerning festival days, but to preach a holy conversation and the worship of God. To leave this practice and come to the sixth difference namely of fasting. I find likewise that the Church left it free, and imposed no necessity upon men to observe the Lent fast, Quidam saith Eusebius) putant uno tantum die observari debere jeiunium, alii duobus, Lib. 5. cap. 24 alij vero pluribus, nonnulli etiam quadraginta, ita ut horas diurnas nocturnasque computantes diem statuant; some thought they ought to fast one day, some two days, some more, some forty days, and counting the hours of the day and night, make up the day. Also, jeiunii dissolentia fidei unitatem commendat. The diversity of fasting commendeth the unity of faith. To Eusebius agreeth Socrates saying, in ipsis ieiunijs aliter apud alios observari invenimus, Romani enim tres ante Pascha septimanas ieiunant, tota helas, Alexandria quoque sex septimanas antè ieiunant. We find difference in the observation of fasts themselves, the Romans fast three weeks before Easter, all Greece and Alexandria 6. weeks. Memorable is the practice of Spirid. in the same hist. 1. lib. 12. cap. who said that omnia munda mundis, all things are clean to the clean: & therefore in quadragessima edebat carnes porcinas, In lent he fed upon bacon. Lastly good is the advise of Nazi. in his oration of Baptism: Christus quadraginta dies ieiunavit, nos nostris viribus men suremus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ fasted forty days, let us measure it according to our ability. Out of all these testimonies it is apparent to all men that there was no uniformity in fasting, and therefore the Papists are degenerate in this point also from the primitive Church, because they impose a necessity of abstinence from flesh permitting fish, for (as we may read in the places before cited) some used to feed on flesh in the time of lent. Many more differences, as namely the liberty of ministers in marriage, the reading of the scriptures etc. might I have stood upon, but for brevity sake hoping that these differences here recited will satisfy a Christian, I leave them, and say with our Saviour Christ, It was not so from the beginning, Mtah. 19 v. 8 as the Papists would bear men in hand, and therefore they are to reform their religion, for as Cyprian saith ad Pomp. con suetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est: custom without truth is but an ancient error. The tenth reason of Scripture. IF I should in this reason prosecute all things that argue the desperate case of popish religion, my treatise would exceed the measure of the volume which I propounded to myself: therefore in a word I come first to the abusing of Scripture by ungodly translations. In the 1. chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, & 3. verse, it is said, that Christ purged our sins by himself, which words (by himself) are clean stricken out, as overthrowing their blasphemous doctrine of satisfactions: for they teach, that Christ satisfieth by the repentant, whereas the Scripture saith, that he satisfieth by himself. In the same Epistle, the 7. chapter, and 28. verse, it is written, that the law appointeth priests men that have infirmity, but the word of the oath which is after the law, the son for ever perfected: where by the opposition it is most clear, that jesus Christ is a Priest as he is God. Yet they contrary to their latin translation have left out the word [men] that the opposition might not appear. Again, in the thirteen chapter and 16. verse: their translation is thus, with such hosts God is promerited: doth not this make for their doctrine of deserving at God's hands? where as it is in the greek fountain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, with such sacrifices god is delighted, or well pleased. To what a desperate estate are these men grown, which so wilfully against their own consciences, in favour of their heresies, translate the Scripture. Is there no difference betwixt pleasing of God, and meriting? All the substances and qualities of things natural, please God because they are good, yet do they not deserve at God his hands. Again in the fourteen chapter of Saint john and the twenty six verse their translation hath it thus, Suggeret vobis omnia quaecunque dixero vobis, which they finely english thus, Shall suggest unto you whatsoever I shall say unto you, when they know the greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all things which I have spoken unto you. Is not this translated to maintain the traditions of their Church, and decrees of Popes, and counsels? That it is so, it appeareth by their note, referring the reader to the 16. chapter, and 12. verse. Upon which they have gathered their traditions: but Saint Augustine upon that verse answereth them, Cum ipse tacuerit, when he himself hath not uttered these things, which of us can say, these, and these they are? or if he dare be so bold to say, how doth he prove it? In the tenth chapter of Luke & the thirty five verse, the vulgar latin hath it thus, Quodcunque superogaveris, ego cum rediero, reddam tibi, which they have translated thus, whatsoever thou shalt supererogate etc. Hence are gathered works of supererogation, it is in the greek: whatsoever thou spendest more. These (to speak the least of them) are both supererogant collections, and superarogant works. To proceed in the 11. of the Rom. and 6. verse, these words are omitted, but if it be of works, it is no more of grace, or else were work no work, the dashing out of this sentence, helpeth their doctrine of merits, let it alone in the scripture, and grace and merits cannot stand together: for here we may gather, that gratia non est ullo modo gratia, nisisit omni modo gratuita, grace is not grace except it be every way free. In the 5. to the Ephes. they translate Sacramentum hoc magnum est, this is a great Sacrament: Out of which the master of the Sentences lib. 4. distinct. 26. proveth marriage to be a Sacrament: the greek is, This is a great mystery, or secret, which Saint Paul speaketh, and meaneth of Christ, and his Church. (Not to quote many testimonies) let Cyprian that famous Martyr speak in his 2. book of Epist. the 8. epist. Cum Apostolus dicit Sacramentum, hoc magnum est Christi, pariter & Ecclesiae unitatem individuis nexibus cohaerentem, sancta sua voce testatur, When the Apostle saith this is a great Sacrament he testifieth the unity of Christ & his holy Church knit together, with undivisible bonds. I cannot let pass that intolerable translation, Romans the seventh and the 25. verse. Where S. Paul crying out, O miserable man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of sin? in the next verse they translate, the grace of Christ, concluding out of it, that grace is sufficient to resist temptations and to vanquish sin, where the Apostle saith no more, but I thank god, yet they make the meaning to be this, who shall deliver me from this body of death? the the grace of God by jesus Christ; whereas there is no such meaning: for Paul having sorrowed for his sin, rested in the hope which he had placed in Christ. Furthermore in the 1. to the Corinth. the ninth cap. and 5. verse, they have perverted S. Paul's words, whereas he sayeth, a sister, a wife, or (as they would have it) a sister, a woman, they make it to be a woman, a sister, expounding it against the Apostles wives, whereas no man would say a sister, a woman, because the word sister implieth a woman. We read indeed that certain women did follow Christ, we read not that he led them about. vide Euseb●um lib. 3. ca 30. Concerning this matter Clemens Alexandrinus writeth thus. An & Apostolos improbant? Petrus enim ac Philippus uxores habuerunt. Do they disallow the Apostles? for Peter and Philip had wives. And it grieveth not Paul in a certain epistle to speak of his yoke-fellow, which he did not lead about with him, that he might be more ready to preach the gospel. But to come to a weighty matter indeed, they translate the 2. verse of the 3. chap. of Matth. Do penance, which cannot be so turned, and that I prove by these reasons: First penance includeth in it confession of sins, and satisfaction for sins: but the baptised are not bound to confess and satisfy for their sins, Aquin. 3. p. q. 68 ar. 5, 6. yet they must repent: therefore to confess and satisfy, is not to repent. The second reason is this: that the Rhemists writing upon the first of Mark and 12. v. faith, that Christ did penance, therefore a man may do penance without sorrow for sins, or else Christ repent of his sins which is most horrible blasphemy. Thirdly let Lactantius speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resipi scentia dicitur, L. 6. cap. 24. nam mentem quasi ab insania recipit. The Greek word is called Repentance, for it recovereth the mind (as it were) from folly. Fourthly, Act. the 5. chap. and 31. vers. they translate it themselves, Repentance, and again Mark the 1. chap. and 15. verse, be penitent. I will not stand upon any more places in the new Testament, but come to a few of the old. In the ninth of the Preacher and second verse they have these words, Omnia in futurum servantur incerta, All things are reserved as uncertain for the future time: there is no such thing in the Hebrew, yet out of this place is proved the uncertainty of salvation and final perseverance. O most wretched and vile doctrine that must coin scripture to defend itself! In the 98. psalm and 5. verse they translate, worship his footstool, for it is holy, and from hence conclude the adoration and worshipping of creatures, whereas it should have been turned, at his footstool he is holy, lahadom the same thing being repeated in the last verse. In the 8. of Genesis toward the end of the chap. where it should be, the thoughts of man's heart are evil, in their translation it is prone to evil, as if there were no difference betwixt prone to evil, and evil, If I should affirm a papist to be prone to evil, and treason, do I say that he is evil, and treason itself? nothing less: even so there is a difference betwixt proneness to vice, and vice itself. In the 14. of Genesis, and 18. verse, they have it thus erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi, for he was a priest of the most high God, in favour of their sacrifice: where it is, and he was a priest of the high God, neither let them answer me that the conjunction (vau) doth sometimes signify (for) that is not the question, but whether it so signifieth in this place. And because they vaunt of antiquity, in this point, Freculph. in the first book of his history, and 42 chap. saith, that Melchizedech, in refectionem ipsius Abrahae, panem, vinumque protulit. Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abraham. I will follow this matter of translations no further at this time. By this every one may gather why they forsake the pure Hebrew, and Greek fountains, and drink of the corrupt Latin streams. I come in the second place to the denial of plain Scriptures. In the 3. of the Galat. and 10. ver. it is thus written, for as many as are of the deeds of the law, are under the curse: for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them: in which words the Apostle doth thus reason, They which cannot fulfil the law are under the curse: But no man can fulfil the law: ergo. If this be not the Apostles assumption, the Galatians might have answered Paul, that they could fulfil the law, and therefore were not under the curse. Yet the Papists teach, that man may fulfil God's law, and so cut the sinews of S. Paul's reason. Secondly in the 4. to the Rom. and 11. verse, circumcision is called a seal of the righteousness of faith: out of which place we gather, that we are not justified by the sacraments. The Papists to elude the place, answer it followeth not that it is so in all, because it was so in the patriarches; this answer disjointeth the Apostles argument, which is this: As Abraham was justified, so are all men justified: But Abraham was justified without the sacraments: Therefore all men are so justified. In the 6. of the Rom. and 27. ver. it is said that the gift of God is eternal life, through jesus Christ our Lord. S. Paul's speech is corrected by the Rhemists, saying, the sequel of the speech required, that as he said, death or damnation is the stipend of sin, so life everlasting is the stipend of justice. To see papists sit as it were in judgement of the Scriptures, to allow, or disallow sentences at their pleasure, is the most notorious example of Heretical pride and misery that can be. Again, in the 6. to the Rom. and 12. v. concupiscence is called sin, yet denied by them to be sin. If the scripture had so said, they might well have expounded it as they do, namely the occasions and matter of sin. But cannot one thing be properly sin, and the occasion of sin? let Augustine then be controlled, who in his 5. book contra jul. Pelag. and 3. chap. writeth thus, Sicut caecitas cordis, & peccatum est, & poena peccati, & causa peccati: it a concupiscentia, carnis & peccatum est, quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis, & poena peccati, & causa peccati. As blindness of heart is sin, and a punishment of sin, and a cause of sin: so likewise is concupiscence sin, because it disobeyeth the rule of the mind, and a punishment of sin, and a cause of sin. Augustine's syllogism is this: That which is disobedience to the government of the mind is sin: But concupiscence is disobedience to the government of the mind: Therefore concupiscence is sin. Also in the 5. of the Roman. and 14. verse. Paul proveth all men to be sinners, because of death; yet is the virgin Marie exempted from sin, which strengtheneth Pelagius his opinion. For he might deny the argument; Infants die, therefore they are no sinners, because Marie died, and yet was no sinner. In the 1. to the Corinthians and 10. chap. S. Paul beateth down the conceit of the Corinthians concerning the sacraments. For the jews did eat Christ in their sacraments. Yet the Papists will have our sacraments to give grace ex opere operato, of the work wrought, and so make the Apostles argument to be of no force. For the Corinthians might have replied, our sacraments give grace to them that receive them, therefore we cannot be dismayed, with the examples of the Israelites. Furthermore in the 9 of the Hebrews the 25. vers. Christ is said to have offered himself but once, because he suffered but once. The Apostles reason is this: Christ died but once: Therefore he suffered but once. Lastly, Hebr. 10. and 8. ver. the Apostles conclusion is, seeing there is remission of sins, there is no more offering for sin. Therefore it followeth invincibly, that the mass is not a sacrifice for sin. Yet the papists assertion must needs frustrate both these arguments of the Apostle. From the denial of scripture I come to the addition of the same, which argueth extreme despe●atenes. The Council of Laodicea 59 canon rejecteth the books which we do and commandeth ne aliqui praeterea legantur, & in authoritatem recipiantur, that none besides be read, and received into authority. Ruffinus likewise in his exposition upon the Creed, rejecteth the same, and will not have them alleged, ad authoritatem fidei confirmandam, for the confirmation of faith. Cirill of Jerusalem in the 4. book of his Catech. writeteth thus. Lege scripturas sacras nempè viginti duos veteris testamenti libros, read the holy scriptures, namely the two and twenty books of the old testament. I pass over Hieroms authority, and Nazianzens, with Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Lyra's: If all these will not move them, yet let their Angelical doctor Thomas Aquinas be of some force with them, who in his first part. 89. quaest. 8. artic. resp. ad secund. regardeth not the authority of Ecclesiasticus. Fourthly and lastly the concealing of the scriptures from the people, what end hath it, but maintenance of the Idolatry, pomp, pride and covetousness of the popish priests and prelates, (as Erasmus saith) Quis non intelligat istos, sacras literas ideo velle paucis esse notas ne quid decedat ipsorum authoritati questuique? who knoweth not that these men would have the scriptures known but to few, lest their authority and gain should decay? How could men be deceived with Images, and rob with Purgatory, if they were conversant in the scriptures. Thus Christian reader I have given thee a taste of foure-notorious-crimes, namely corrupt translations, denial of plain scriptures, addition to them, and lastly concealing them from the people: a taste I say I have given thee, for I could not prosecute them as the things require. If any Papist could show the like in the Calvinists, what exclamations should we have? Master Martin's discovery of our translations argueth either blind ignorance or extreme malice, as I offer to prove to any Papist. Campian in his first reason objecteth diffidence, and distrust, because we deny scriptures, therefore it is a sure conclusion against them, they add to the Scripture and so distrust their cause: otherwise they could not add any apocrypha books, as they do: but enough of this. The eleventh reason of popish contradictions. THe number of popish contradictions is so great (as by reading of Bellarmine himself every man may gather) that I may say with the Orator, In hac causa oratio nemini de esse potest, In this matter no man can want words, & therefore, non tàm mihi copia, quàm modus in dicendo quaerendus est, In speaking of this thing I must seek for a just measure, not for plenty and variety of matter. Chrastovius in his book, called Bellum jesuiticum, the jesuits war, besides contradictions concerning Antichrist hath gathered two hundred and fifty about the Mass. Thus the Papists like the Madianites wound on another, and indeed, Non tanta nobiscum, quanta secum est contentio, The controversy is not so great with us as with themselves, and this agreeth to the wont and accustomed dealing of the Lord: who did, Haereticos inter se committere, set heretics together by the ears: For (as Hierome saith) Amos the 9 Nisi superbiam haereticorum suo dominus calcauerit pede, & perversam sceleratamque doctrinam, spirituali mucrone percusserit, & magistros eorum qui in capitibus accipiuntur, inter se divi serit, atque in bonam partem occiderit, non possunt discipuli vivificari, Except the Lord tied down the pride of heretics with his foot, and wound their perverse and wicked doctrine with his spiritual sword, and set their masters which are counted the principallat dissension, and slay them for the most part, their scholars cannot be restored to life. The first contradiction. The Papists teach that the Pope, as he is Pope cannot err in giving of sentence, although he may err as a private person, yet Alphonsus who wrote bitterly against Luther, Lib. 1. cap. 4. when it came to this point, giveth the Papists both the crime of impudency, and flattery. Non credo aliquem adeo esse impudentem papae assentatorem, ut ei attribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare possit: I cannot think any man to be so impudent a flatterer of the Pope, as to attribute this unto him that he cannot err: out of these words I gather first that the papists are the Pope's flatterers, Secondly, that their flattery is joined with impudency, which are two no small faults: to go forward in Alphonsus Caelestinum papam errasse circa matrimonium fidelium, quorum alter labitur in haeresim, res est manifesta omnibus, neque hic Caelestini error talis fuit, qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit, ita ut illum errasse dicamus veluti privatam personam, & non ut Papam, quoniam huiusmodi Caelestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibas, etc. It is a thing manifest to all men that Pope Caelestinus erred touching the marriage of the faithful, when either part fell into heresy, neither was the error of Caelestinus such, as aught to be imputed only to negligence, so that we may say he erred as a private person, not as a Pope, because this definition of Caelestinus was in the ancient decretals, which I myself have seen and read. In this sentence Alphonsus confuteth the distinction used by the papists, namely that the Pope may err as a private man, but not in a definitive decision of a matter: but I would gladly know the cause why they hold that the Pope cannot judicially err? Is it not by reason of Christ's prayer? Luke 22. verse 32. who prayed that Peter's faith might not fail; such senseless disputes are not worth an answer: yet if they will be satisfied let Cyprian satisfy them, who writeth thus in his 4. book of Epist. and 4. Epist. Adeo autem pro nobis deprecabatur, ut legamus in alio loco, Luc. 12. Dixit Dominus ad Petrum etc. Quodsi ille pro nobis ac delictis nostris laborat & prec. etc. He prayed so for us, as we read in another place, namely Luk. 12. the Lord said unto Peter, etc. If he doth pray so for us and our sins, how much more ought we to continue in prayer? By this exposition and collection of Cyprian we may gather that no christian can err judicially, if that were the intent of Christ his prayers to free the Pope from giving any definitive sentence against the faith, for Christ prayeth for all Christians and therefore we thus conclude. He for whom Christ prayeth cannot err: But Christ prayeth for all true Christians: Therefore no Christian can err. No papist I am assured will grant the proposition seeing the assumption cannot be denied, being so plainly avouched by Cyprian: but I proceed to the second Contradiction. The 2. Contradiction. The Papists now teach that the Pope is above a council. Qui tradunt (saith the Turrian) concilium esse supra papam illi naturae repugnant, quum hoc nihil aliud sit, pag. 294. quam partem toti praeferre. They that deliver this doctrine that a council is above a pope, cross nature, seeing this is nothing else but to prefer a part before the whole. If this be true, than the counsel of Basill opposeth itself to nature, for I find it written in the 33. session. Veritas de protestate concilii generalis universalem ecclesiam representantis, supra papam & quemlibet alterum declarata, per Constantiense, & hoc Basiliense generaliae concilia, est veritas fidei Catholicae. The truth of the power of a general Council, representing the universal Church, above the Pope and every other person, declared by the general councils of Constance, and this of Basill, is the verity of the Catholic faith. And to retort Turrian his reason, thus may an argument be framed: The whole is above the part: But the general Council is the whole representing the universal Church: Therefore it is above the Pope. The 3. Contradiction. The Papists teach that necessary arguments may be drawn from traditions, councils, Pope's decrees, and I know not what, and therefore wanting arguments against us, obtrude their pelf of traditions, which have no warrant in the book of God: yet Aquinas writeth otherwise, Sacra doctrina authoritatibus canonicae scripturae utitur, ex necessitate argumentando, part 1. q. 1. art. 8. resp. ad 2um. authoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum ecclesie quasi arguendo non ex propriis, sed probabilibus: Divinity useth the authority of the Canonical scripture, arguing out of it by by necessary arguments, but the authority of other church teachers, arguing as it were by proper, not by probable arguments. I wish the Papists would attend to their Angelical Doctor in this point, which he proveth sound out of Augustine: Solis enim scripturarum libris qui Canonici appellantur, didici hunc honorem defer, ut nullum authorem eorum in scribendo errasse aliquid firmissimè credam. For I have learned to defer this honour only to the Canonical Scriptures, to believe most steadfastly that no Author of them hath erred in any point. If this were the opinion of all papists, many controversies would be compounded betwixt them and us, yet this is in truth to honour and reverence the Scriptures, which were good for all papists, and not to disgrace them as they do. The 4. Contradiction. Praefat. To●ia. Postquam auxiliante deo (saith Lyra) scripsi super libros Canonicos sacrae Scripturae, incipiendo à principio Genes. & progrediendo usque ad finem, eiusdem confisus auxilio super alios intendo scribere, qui non sunt de Canone, lib. Sapientiae, Ecclesiastic. judith, Tobiae, & Macchabaeorum, etc. After that by God's assistance I have written upon the books of Canonical scripture, from the beginning of Genesis and so forward to the end, trusting still unto his help, I purpose to write upon those that are not Canonical, as the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees. This is Lyra his opinion concerning these books, which he proveth out of Hierom, and yet the Papists plead for them to be numbered amongst the Canonical Scriptures, yea (as thou heardest before) Campian in his first reason proveth that we distrust our cause, because we deny them to be of equal authority with the other books; I pass by the authority of other Papists, as namely Hugo the Cardinal, and Caietan, who with Lyra cut these books from the body of the Bible, yet we may not do so without heresy, and accusation of maiming the holy Scriptures; let them now turn their pens against their own fellows. Here I might have made an other article of dissension about the corruption of Scriptures: for Lindanus and other Papists hold them to be corrupt, but the contrary is learnedly taught by Isacke, and Arrias Montanus, two famous Hebricians, and by God's assistance I offer to defend it against all Papists, that are of another mind. Bellarmine's reasons are blown away with a blast. The 5. Contradiction. There are so many opinions of Papists about marriage, that they themselves are uncertain what to hold. This is witnessed by Melchior Canus, lib. 8. cap. 5. fol. 245. in initio. Lege Magistrum, Diwm Thomam, Scotum, Bonavent. Richard Paludan. Durandun, caeterosque scholae theologos, & nisi statim pendents & vacillantes eorum animos deprehenderis, tum verò me aut stultum, aut temerarium iudicato, nam & cum quaerunt, an matrimonium conferat gratiam, idque eo loco maximè finiendum erat, non definiunt tamen, sed in his referunt, quae in hominum opinione posita sunt. In materia auten, & forma huius sacramenti statuenda, adeò sunt inconstantes, & varii, adeò incerti, & ambigui, ut ineptus futurus sit, qui in tanta illorum varietate, ac discrepantia, rem aliquam certam, constantem, & exploratam conetur efficere, quod si in forma, & materia sacramenti, etc. Read the Master of Sentences, Saint Thomas, Bonaventure, Richardus Paludanus, Durandus, and the rest of the school divines, and if forthwith thou dost not find their wavering and doubtful minds, then judge me either a fool or a rash fellow: for when they dispute whether matrimony giveth grace, that which was especially to be determined, they do not determine at all, but only make relation of men's opinions, and in setting down the matter and form of this sacrament, they are so inconstant, so variable, so uncertain, and doubtful, that he shall be judged indiscreet, who in such a variety, and descent, goeth about to frame any certain & constant matter. But if they be so doubtful about the matter, and form of the sacrament, which is a matter of exceeding great moment etc. Thus the Papists bore witness one against another, concerning their pretended sacrament of marriage: and whosoever readeth Bellarmine, out of this point, tom. 2. shall find more variety. The 6. Contradiction. Peter Lombard the master of sentences, Lib. 40. dist. 18. teacheth that priests only have power to manifest and declare, that men are bound, & loosed from their sins: and therefore he is reprehended by Doctor Allen in his book of the power of priesthood. I will set down their master's reasons: Non ergo postmodum per sacerdotem, cui confitetur, ab ira aeterna liberatur, à qua liberatus est per dominum, ex quo dixit confitebor, he is not afterward delivered from aeternal wrath by the priest, to whom he maketh confession, from which he is delivered by the Lord, even then, when he said I will confess. His syllogism is this. He that is delivered by the Lord, before his confession, is not absolved by the Priest. But the repentant is delivered by the Lord himself before his confession: Therefore not by the Priest. Next followeth Ambrose his testimony. Verbum dei dimittit peccata, sacerdos, & judex, sacerdos quidem officium suum exhibet, sed nullius potestatis ius exercet. The word of God namely jesus Christ forgiveth sins being Priest, and judge, the Priest indeed doth his duty, but he practiseth not the right of any power: To Ambrose is adjoined S. Augustins' saying. Nemo tollit peccata nisi solus Deus: no man taketh away sin but only God: Afterward in the same distinction he proveth it, because the Lord first cleansed the Lepers, and then sent them to the Priests. He likewise first raised Lazarus, and then offered him to the disciples, & in the end after Hieroms notable testimony he concludeth thus, Et in remittendis, vel in retinendis culpis id juris & officii habent Evangelici sacerdotes, quod olim habebant in lege legales in curandis leprosis, The Evangelical priests have that power and office in forgiving and retaining of siinnes which in times past the legal priests had in curing of the lepers, now every man knoweth that they did but declare them to be healed. The 7. Contradiction. Picus Mirandula in his first question about Christ his descent into hell, affirmeth that, Scotus in sacris literis non parùm exercitatus dicit, quod ex sacra scriptura non habetur, quod Christus descenderit ad inferos: Scotus being well studied in the Bible teacheth that it is not proved out of the holy writ that Christ descended into hell: yet it is notorious to see how the Papists do lustily pull & hail the Scriptures to prove this matter. The same Picus in the before named question, bringeth forth Durandus testimony, first concerning his learning, and then setting down his words, Videtur quod Christus secundum animam non de scenderit ad infernum, quia idem finitum non potest simul esse in diversis locis, sed anima Christi cum esset creatura finita, & statim post mortem fuit in paradi so cum anima latronis, cui dictum est Lucae 23. hody mecum eris in Paradiso, ergo tunc saltem non potuit esse in miseria. It should seem that Christ in soul went not down into hell, because the same finite thing cannot be at one time in many places: but the soul of Christ being a finite creature, was by and by after death in paradise, with the thieves soul, to whom it was said Luke 23. this day thou shalt be with me in paradise: therefore than it could not be in hell. Again, Quae Christus fecit, & passus est in natura assumpta, ordinata fuerunt ad salutem humanam, sed ad hanc non profuisset, quòd Christus ad inferos descendisset quiaper passionem quam Christus in hoc mundo sustinuit, liberavit nos ab omni culpa & poena. Those things that Christ did, and suffered in his assumpted human nature were ordained for man's salvation, but it furthered not this that Christ went into hell, because by his passion which he suffered in this world, he delivered us from all guilt and punishment. The conclusion is that Christ descended not locally into hell, but by operation and effect. The 8 Contradiction. Melchior Canus in his 12. book of common places and thirteen chapter, page 450 teacheth, that in Christi voluntate intellectuali, (quae propriè voluntas est) non tristitia modo sed summa & maxima fuit. In Christ's intellectual will, which is properly will, there was not only sorrow but exceeding great heaviness: and this he proveth thus, In hostia pro peccato potissimum desideratur voluntatis tristitia, sacrificium quip deo spiritus contribulatus, In the sacrifice for sin is desired especially the sorrow of the will, for a troubled spirit is a sacrifice unto god, his syllogism is this. Christ offered the most acceptable sacrifice unto God. But the most acceptable sacrifice to God is sorrow in the will: Ergo Secondly he proveth it because that jesus Christ did those things for us, which do especially manifest his love, but herein (namely in suffering in soul) is his love especially manifested: Ergo, Other reasons for this purpose are alleged by him, but in the end he concludeth, that Christus was derelictus à deo, omnique penitus destitutus solatio, that Christ was forsaken of god, and altogether destitute of all comfort. If Galuin had written so, how should he have been reviled and taunted by the papists? who accuse us of blasphemy because that we say he suffered in soul. Notwithstanding Ferus upon the 27. of Math. goeth further, and teacheth that Christus desperationem piorum in se recepit, Christ took upon him the despair of the godly. Yet now who knoweth not the contrary is held by the papists, namely, that Christus non gravitate suppliciorum, sed actionum pondere justitiae divine satisfecit, that Christ satisfied God's justice not by sustaining any grievous punishment, but by the weight or excellency of his actions. The 9 Contradiction. Aquinas in his 2. 2 quaest. 91. artic. secundo, responsione adquartum, writeth that, instrumenta musica magis movent animum ad delectationem, quam ut per ed formetur interius bona dispositio. Instruments of music do rather stir up the mind to delight, them frame any good disposition in it, and answereth the Papists arguments brought for them In veteri Testamento usus erat talium instrumentorum, tum quia populus erat magis durus, & carnalis, unde erat per huiusmodi instrumenta provocandus, sicut & per promissiones terrenas, tum etiam quia huiusmodi instrumenta corporalia aliquid significabant. In the old Testament there was use of such instruments because the people were hard and carnal, whereby it cometh to pass, that they were to be excited by such instruments, as by earthly promises, and also because such corporal instruments did praesigne some thing. How this agreeth to Bellarmine's defence of them, let the Papists themselves judge. The same Aquinas also in the same place saith, Nobilior modus est provocandi homines ad devotionem per doctrinam & praedicationem, quàm per cantum. It is a more excellent kind of way to excite and provoke the people to devotion by doctrine and preaching, then by singing. And therefore praelati non debent cantibus insistere ne per hoc à maioribus retrahantur. Prelate's ought not to insist in singing least men by this thing should be drawn from greater matters. The 10. Contradiction. The Counsel of Basill 36. sessio: holdeth that the Virgin Mary was Immunis ab omni peccato originali, free from all original sin: and forbiddeth all men to preach the contrary. So do many more Papists hold, yet Aquinas proveth the contrary 3. part. quaest. 27. artic. 2. first because that sanctificatio non est nisi emundatio à peccato originali, culpa autem non potest emundari nisi per gratiam, cuius subiestum est sola creatura rationalis. Sanstification is nothing else but a cleansing from original sin, now sin cannot be purged but only by grace the subject whereof is only a reasonable creature. Secondly because, sola creatura rationalis est susceptiva culpae, only a reasonable creature is capable of sin: if Mary had no sin, than she should have needed no Saviour: but Christ saved the people, and therefore Marry. Thus whiles the Papists pretend to honour Mary, and so Christ, they rob Christ of his glory, and honour, which is to be Mary's saviour. The 11. Contradiction. It is held by Papists that in Purgatory satisfaction is made to God for man's sins but Aquinas telleth us the contrary in his supplement, quaest. 5. artic. 3. for being urged by this reason that paena purgatorii ad satisfactoria pro peccato, sed satisfactio habet efficaciam ex vi contritionis, ergo contritio manet post hanc vitam: the punishment of purgatory satisfieth for sin, but satisfaction hath his efficacy from contrition, therefore contrition endureth after this life. The force of this argument driveth him to this answer, paena illa quam animae in purgatorio sustinent, non potest proprie dici satisfactio quia satisfactio opus meritorium requirit, the punishment which the souls sustain in purgatory cannot properly be called satisfaction, because satisfaction requireth merit. But there is no merit in purgatory: therefore no satisfaction. And if his argument in the same place be good that there is no sorrow for sins in purgatory, because sacramenta non manent post hanc vitam, the sacraments endure not after this life. Then is therefore no satisfaction in purgatory, because satisfaction is a part of their sacrament of penance, as well as contrition. The 12. Contradiction. Aquinas in his third part. quaest. 25. articulo 3. holdeth that, Imago Christi est adoranda adoratione latriae. The Image of Christ is to be worshipped with the same worship that Christ himself: and proveth it clerkly (I warrant you) out of Aristotle his book de memoria. I will not stand to set down his reason being fully answered by Picus Mirandula, that great learned man, to whom I refer the reader concerning this question. The contrary is held by many Papists, as may be seen in Picus before named, and in Bellarmine himself. Behold unto what Idolatry Papists are grown, to worship a creature with the same honour which is due to the Creator himself. The 13. Contradiction. In the Censure of Colon we are taught pag. 89. a certain vain kind of difference betwixt faith and hope. Faith (saith that Censure) is of general propositions, as, Quicunque crediderit, & baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit: Whosoever believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved. But it is not of these propositions: ergo advitam aeternam ingrediar, aut mihi peccata remissa sunt. I shall enter into life everlasting, or my sins are forgiven me. pag. 139. The Catechism of Colon teacheth contrariwise, that ad justificationem requiritur, ut singuli credant sibi remissa peccata per Christum: It is requisite to justification that every one believeth that his sins are forgiven him by Christ; Serm. 1. de Eunuch. and proveth the same by that excellent testimony of Bernard. It is not sufficient to believe that thou canst not have remission of sins, but by God's mercy: and thou canst have any good thing except God giveth thee it: and that thou canst not deserve eternal life by any works, besides these which are but initium fidei, the beginning of faith. Hoc etiam addendum, ut credas quòd per ipsum tibi peccata condonentur; this moreover is to be added, that thou believest that thy sins are forgiven thee by God; and this is the testimony which the holy Ghost doth assure thee of in thy heart, saying, thy sins are forgiven thee. Out of this testimony of Bernard, we may gather, that to think of the Popish faith the contrary is constantly maintained by the Papists, namely, that no man is to believe the forgiveness of his sins, which doctrine is plainly confuted by their own Catechism, as we said. The 14. Contradictions. Spes (saith the Master of sentences) est cum fiducia expectatio futurae beatitudinis, Lib. 3. dist. 26 veniens ex dei gratia, & meritis praecedentibus: Hope is an expectation of the blessedness to come with an affiance proceeding of God's grace, and our precedent merits: yet the same Catechism of Colon, pag. 138. and 140. placeth all our affiance in God his merciful promise. But no more of this contrariety, because I have spoken of it in the reason of dissolute, and uncomfortable doctrine. The 15. Contradiction. The same Catechism teacheth out of Bernard that we are justified only by faith, pag. 141. hoc est non per merita propria, sed per misericordiam dei, quam sola fides, accipit, & apprehendit, that is, none by our own merits, but by God's mercy, which only faith doth apprehend. What Protestant teacheth any otherwise? Bernard his words are these, Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus, esurit, & sitit justitiam, Serm. 22 in Cantic. credat in te, qui iustificas impium, & solam justificatus per fidem, pacem habebit apud Deum. Whosoever is pricked in his heart for his sins, and hungereth and thirsteth after righteousness, let him believe in thee that justifieth the ungodly man, and being justified by only faith, he shall have peace with God. Here I might have also alleged the testimony of Albertus Pighius for justification by imputative righteousness. The same Catechism also fol. 85. teacheth that justifying faith is unseparable from hope and charity, and answereth the place of the 1. to the Corinth. and 13. chap. by the testimonies of chrysostom, Theophylact, Basill, and Ambrose: how well the papists agree in these 2. points with this their Catechism, let their own writings witness. The 16. Contradiction. Scotus in the first book of sentences, and 27. distinct. proveth that good works deserve, opera merentur tantùm ex pacto, works deserve only by reason of God his covenant and promise. His argument is this, Meritum non est nisiubi est dignum: at non est dignum respectu intrinsecarum actionum: there is no desert but where there is a worthiness: but in respect of our inward actions, there is no worthiness: ergo. His assumption is thus proved, tunc enim deus non possit non retribuere beatitudinem, if there were any worthiness in the works themselves, than God is bound to give unto them happiness and blessedness: but God is not bound. Ergo. Read Bellarmine in his 5. book of justification, and thou shalt not only find Scotus his opinion misliked, whose argument is unanswerable, but Durandus also reprehended by Bellarmine, such is the harmony betwixt Papists in substantial points of religion. The 17. Contradiction. Roffensis in his 32. article against Luther, agreeth with Luther about venial sin, namely that none is venial of it own nature, but only by gods mercy, Quod peccatum veniale solùm ex dei misericordia veniale sit, in hoc tecum sentio: that a venial sin is only venial through God's mercy, therein I do agree unto thee. Read more Papists of Roffensis his mind in Bellarmine lib. 2. de purgat. cap. 4. yet we know that Aquinas & generally all Papists do teach otherwise. The 18. Contradiction. Aquinas in his prima 2. 109. quaest. artic. 6. teacheth that man without grace, cannot vitare peccatum, avoid and eschew sin; and answereth three reasons brought against this opinion. The first reason is thus framed. He that cannot avoid sin but sinneth necessarily, sinneth not at all. The second argument is this, It followeth of this opinion that reprehensions are needless. Thirdly, & lastly Eccles. 15. it is said, that ante hominem est vita, & mors, before man is life and death. These three arguments are all answered by Aquinas, and yet they are the papists pillars of free-will as every man knoweth: if it were needful I might quote the authors that use them. The 19 Contradiction. Alexander de Hales part 4. quaest. 24. denieth that confirmation was instituted by Christ: his reasons are these two, Quia Christus quando instituit aliquod Sacramentum, determinat elementum, when Christ doth institute any sacrament, he determineth of the element, and matter of the Sacrament, but he hath not done so in this Sacrament: Ergo it was not instituted of him. Secondly, in Sacramentis una forma est, in the Sacraments there is one form of words, but in this there is not one form of words; for in divers churches they have divers forms: Ergo it was not instituted of Christ. Hence it may be concluded that it is no sacrament, because all Sacraments were ordained by Christ jesus, as Aquinas holdeth 3. part, quaest. 72. art. 1. resp. adprimum, where also we may see that some held, (as Alexander de Hales holdeth) namely, that it was not instituted of Christ, and by consequent it is no Sacrament. The 20. Contradiction. The Contradictions about the Sacrament of the altar, and real presence are so many, that I will not enter into them, because I eschew tediousness, only I will set down Aquinas his opinion in his supplement, 83. quaest. art. 3. responsione ad quartum: namely that on body cannot be locally in two places at one time, for it implieth a Contradiction, but now the Papists care not for Contradiction: so they may make the body of Christ present locally in the Sacrament. Many more Contradictions might I have set down, as namely the certain knowledge that a man is in grace, and such like taught by Papists, but it shall suffice to have proved that in the weightiest points of controversy the Papists are on our side. Let them now brag no more of unity, for the spirit of dissension is sown amongst them. Did ever the Caluinists teach the weightiest points of popery, as the papists do the greatest opinions of Caluinisme? I know they do not. Thus leaving this reason to the indifferent reader to judge of, every man may see what cause there is to disclaim and renounce the Romish religion. The twelve reason of the Original of many things taught & held in Popery. FOr as much as in one of my former reasons I have by sufficient testimonies proved the practice of the primitive Church to be repugnant to Popery in many weighty matters, I shall not need to be long in the Original of the Romish religion; certain it is that it was not all hatched at once, Te●. de p●esc●●p. and that it it not a thing necessary to show the beginning of every point in popery, seeing that ipsa Papistarum doctrina cum Apostolis comparata ex diversitate, & contrarietate sua pronunciabit, neque Apostoli alicuius authoris esse, neque Apostolici. The Popish doctrine itself being compared with the Apostles will by the variety and contrariety that is in it, pronounce that neither Apostle, nor any Apostolical man was the author of it. Notwithstanding both because it helpeth much for the satisfying of some, and also because diverse abuses are noted by Papists themselves, I will set down some things concerning the Original of popery: and first hear what Bucchingerus an arch Papist in his Ecclesiastical history writeth, pag. 217. Res est plena horroris vel legere, vel meminisse, tantam tyrannidem, inter se exercuisse mutuò Pontifices Romanos: o quantum degenerarunt à maioribus suis! & fieri non potuit in tanta crudelitate, ut pietatis Christianae ratio haberetur ne cui mirum sit interim, siqui abusus & perversae opiniones in Ecclesiam irrepsêrunt. It is a thing full of horror either to read or to remember the great tyranny the Bishops of Rome have practised one toward another: o how are they degenerate from their ancestors! and it cannot be that in such cruelty their should be had any regard of Christian piety: let no man then marvel if some abus●s, and bad opinions have crept into the church. Lo here three things noted by a Papist him self. First the cruelty of the Romish Bishops, 2. their degeneration from their ancestors, and thirdly that certain bad opinions by this means are crept into the Church. For proof of this last point, I will begin with purgatory, because that it hath warmed the pope's kitchen. Concerning which let Roffensis a papist speak, artic. 18. contra assert. Lutheri, far in ini●sed Graecis etiam adhunc usque diem, non creditum est purgatorium esse: legate quicunque velit Graecorum veterum commentarios & nullum (quantum opinor) aut quàm rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet. Sed neque Latini simul omnes huius rei veritatem concepêrunt, & rursus, non absque maxima spiritus sancti dispensatione factum est, quod post tot annorum curricula, purgatorii fides, & indulgentiarum usus, ab orthodoxis generatim sit receptus, quandiu nulla fuit de purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit indulgentias, nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum existimatio. The Greeks to this day do not believe that there is purgatory, read who list the Commentaries of the ancient Grecians, and he shall find either very seldom mention of purgatory, or none at all. Neither did the Latin Church conceive the truth of this thing at one time. And again, neither was it done without the great dispensation of the holy ghost that after so many years, Catholics both believed purgatory, and received the use of pardon generally, so long as there was no care of purgatory, no man sought for pardons, for of it dependeth all the estimation that we have of pardons. Out of this testimony I gather first that the Greek Church acknowledgeth no purgatory. Secondly that the ancient Latin Church did not believe it. Thirdly, that these opinions grew by little and little in the Church. Fourthly and lastly that pardons depend upon purgatory, and so are new devices of man's brain. Therefore let pardons & purgatory pickpurse go. From purgatory I pass to the Pope's primacy, which is an after invention (as I prove out of Socrates in the 7. book of his Ecclesiastical history, and the 11. chap.) Episcopatus Romanus non aliter atque Alexandrinus, quasiextra sacerdotii fines egressus ad saecularem principatum iam erat ante delapsus. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria going beyond the limits of priesthood, went into a secular & worldly dominion. For proof of this, when Victor [as Eusebius writeth lib. 5. cap. 23. Ecclesiastic. histor.] would have excommunicated the Churches of Asia, he was resisted by Iraeneus. To pass over that, Policarpus would not yield to Amcetus. We know that before Boniface the first no Bishop of Rome was called universal bishop. Lastly as testifieth (Fasciculus temporum) anno 704, in Gregory the second his days, Domini Papae plus solito erant in temporalibus, The pope's grew more in temporal matters than they were wont. Thirdly, concerning ministers marriage, Bucchingerus (before named) saith, pag. 104, that Calixtus nemini in sacris ordinib. constituto, licere superducere uxorem, conubialique vinculo se constringere statuit. decreed that no man being in holy orders, might marry a wife & bind himself with the marriage bond. johannes Maierius in his book, de differentiis schismatum, pag. 136. professeth his ignorance in this point, namely, who did first prohibit it, yet saith, that some refer it to Calixtus upon these ridiculous, and barbarous verses. O bone Calixte nunc omnis clerus odit te, Olim presbyteri poterant uxoribus uti, Hoc destruxisti quando tu Papa fuisti. Ergo tuum festum nunquam celebratur honestum. O Calixtus thou art hated of all the clergy, priests might marry in times past, which thou didst take away being Pope, therefore thy festival day is not honourably celebrated. O hers refer it to Syricius the Pope: certain it is, that it was not from the Apostles, (as is proved out of Gratian: part. 1. distinct. 56. Cenomanensem.) Coniugia sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem ubique erant licita, & in Orientali Ecclesia usque hodiè licere probatur, Marriage of ministers was lawful before the prohibition thereof, and in the East churches they are lawful unto this day. See Polydore Virgil in his fift book de inventoribus rerum, when it was restrained in the West churches. Howsoever it is not certain who first restrained the marriage of ministers, yet it is certain that, Calixtus instituit jeiunium quatuor temporum, appointed the fast of the four times, namely in March, May, September, and December, Bucchingerus in the same place. Fiftly, Innocentius the first, anno 404. statuit, quòd non solum presbyteri, sedomnes Christiani deberent ungi oleo infirmorum, decreed that not only Presbyters, but all Christians ought to be anointed with the oil of the sick. Fasciculus temporum, folio 50. Ergo, extreme unction is no Sacrament, being invented, and devised by a Pope. Sixtly, anno 654. Festum purificationis institutum fuit, the feast of the purification of Marie was instituted. Fasciculus temporum, folio 55. Seventhly, anno 654. Vitellianus cantum organorum instituit, Pope Vitellian ordained Organs in the church. Fasciculus temp. fol. 60. Eightly, anno 614. Bonifacius instituit festum omnium sanctorum, ordained the feast of all Saints. Fasciculus temp. fol. 58. Ninthly, anno 484. Festum visitationis Mariae institutum fuit ab Vrbano, The feast of the visitation of Marie was ordained by Vrbanus. Fasciculus temp fol. 86. Tenthly, Festi dies instituti sunt à Foelice primo, festival days were instituted of Faelix the first. Bucchingerus 130. pag. eleventhly, Pelagius horas canonicas instituit, Pelagius appointed canonical hours. Idem pag. 167. Twelfly, Gregorius primus Letaniam auxit, Gregory the first increased the Litany. Idem pag 173. And because I might abound in these particulars, read this author, and thou shalt find the Original, of every thing almost in their Mass: the worshipping of Images was not concluded (as Alfonsus witnesseth) before the Council of Nice. Transubstantion in the Lateran Council was determined under Pope julius. jewel in the defence of the Apology pag. 35. the cup was taken from the people by the Council of Constance. But these shall suffice to show the Original of popery: by them every man may judge of the rest, neither let any man say these are trifles. For the Pope's primacy, purhatorie, marriage of ministers, extreme unction, images, transubstantiation, and the cup are matters of exceeding great moment. And for a conclusion (christian Reader) I say with the Orator, in his 2. book de natura Deorum, si singula haec te non movent, universa tamen inter se connexa, & coniuncta movere debent. If every one of these severally can not move and persuade thee to relinquish popery, yet all of them joined and coupled together ought to persuade thee. FINIS.