Antichrist the Pope of Rome, Part 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP. 7. Of the reuolt, or falling away, foretold by Saint Paul, 2. Theſſ. 2. how it is fufilled in the Papacy.
1. THe reuolt or falling away mentioned by Saint Paul, 2. Theſſ. 2.5. which ſhould be in the world before the comming of Chriſt, is not a reuolt from the Romane Empire, as ſome hauehave thought, albeit that bee alſo long agoe effected: nor yet a defection in maners, though that alſo be implyed in the former; nor by it can bee vnderſtood Antichriſt himſelfe, though Saint Auguſtine and ſome other of the Fathers hauehave ſo called him. For how can a man bee ſaid to bee an Apoſtacy in the abſtract, except by it they vnderſtand that he was to be the principall and prime Apoſtate of the world, and as it were the Apoſtacy it ſelfe, becauſe hee was the cauſe thereof; which doubtleſſe was the meaning of thoſe Fathers. But by this Apoſtacy, reuolt, or falling away, the Apoſtle vnderſtands a famous, and as it were, a vniuerſall and generall defection from the Faith, and from true Religion, which ſhould be in Antichriſts time; and whereof hee ſhould bee the head and Captaine: for ſo the word foreign, is properly and vſually taken both in holy Scripture and all holy writers, for a defection from God, and from the Faith, as the Ieſuite Suarez confeſſeth.Suarez lib. 5. cap. 10.16. But to make the point cleare, Saint Paul in another place thus expounds himſelfe, 1. Tim. 4.1. The Spirit ſpeaketh plainely, that in the latter times ſome ſhall Apoſtate from the Faith, meaning the ſome Apoſtacy (ſaith Espenſaeus) which is mentioned 2.Eſpenſ. in 1. Tim…t. 4 1. Anſelme. in …. Tim. 4 1… Theſſ. 2.3. And Anſelme thus expounds the ſame words, The Spirit of God doth manifeſtly in mee, and by me ſay, that in the laſt times, that is, during the reigne of Antichriſt, or before, ſome ſhall depart from the Faith, by reaſon of which departure it is ſaid, 2. Theſſ. 2. vnleſſe there come a falling away firſt. Now this is called the Apoſtacy, foreign, by a ſpeciality or excellency of ſpeech; becauſe though there hauehave beene many defections from Chriſt cauſed by the perſecutions of Heretikes or Tyrants, yet that which is to bee vnderunder Antichriſt is by an Antonomaſie of ſpeech, called the Apoſtacy: becauſe it is to bee farre greater and more generall then all the reſt. Whence wee may pertinently by the way note fiue things. Firſt, how idle and vaine a queſtion it is which the Papiſts demand of vsus vſually: Where was your Church before Luther? As if then it tooke the firſt beginning and roote in the world. For though it bee eaſie to proue, and hath beene often by the Champions of our Religion, that in all Ages, euen in the darkeſt times of Popery, there hath beene a continuall ſucceſſion of witneſſes to the truth which we profeſſe: yet it is no maruaile that there was then no viſible forme of a reformed Church, ſeeing this Apoſtacy did preuaile and ouer-flow the world for a long time: which is a ſufficient anſwere to that vaine obiection. Secondly, I gather hence, that the Church of Rome doth erre groſly, in holding that the Church of Rome cannot erre, meening the viſible Church: for if there muſt be by their owne confeſſion an vniuerſall Apoſtacy vnderunder Antichriſt, then the viſible Romane Church muſt needs bee ſubiect vntounto it, or elſe it is not vniuerſall. But as touching the inuiſible Church which is the Congregation of the Elect, knowne onelyonly vntounto God, neither can it wholly, nor any one member thereof bee ſeduced by Antichriſt, as is apparent by our Sauiour Chriſts owne ſpeech,Aug. de ciuit. de…. lib. 20. c. 8. Mat. 24.24. which is alſo confirmed by S. Auguſtine in theſe words; Nunquam à diabolo eccleſia ſiducetur praedeſtinata & electa ante mundi constitutionem, that is, The Church predeſtined and elected before the beginning of the world, ſhall neuer be ſeduced by the Deuill. Thirdly, note that if this Apoſtacy bee of Antichriſt, and thoſe that belong to the body of Antichriſt: then Antichriſt cannot poſſibly bee a Iew by nation and profeſſion, nor his chiefe adherents the Iewes receiue him for their Meſſias. For they that neuer made profeſſion of Chriſtian Religion, cannot be ſaid to Apoſtate from the Faith. Fourthly, note that ſeeing the myſtery of Antichriſtianiſme, which is this Apoſtacy heere ſpoken of, began to worke in the Apoſtles time; therefore it may well bee concluded, that all thoſe opinions and traditions which are maintained in the Church of Rome to deſcend from antiquity, hauing no ground nor warrant in holy Scripture, are parcels, fragments, and ſymptomes of this Apoſtacy. Laſtly, ſeeing the Antichriſtian Apoſtacy heere ſpoken of, was to continue a long time, and not to be for a few yeeres and daies onelyonly, as thoſe myſticall numbers, time, times, and halfe a time, 1260. daies, and 42. moneths declare: then Antichriſt cannot be one ſingular perſon, as the Papiſts dreame, but a ſucceſſion of perſons in one ſeate, as is by this Author vnanſwerably proued.
2. But the Papiſts affirme, that the Proteſtants are guilty of this Apoſtacy, and not they, ſeeing it is manifeſt that they hauehave fallen away, à Sede Romana (they be Bellarmines words) The Romane Sea, and that it cannot be proued that they euer fell away from any Church. But I anſwere three things; Firſt, that it is falſe that we are fallen away from the Romane Sea: we confeſſe that we are fallen off from that Sea, but not fallen away: for we hold ſtill with it, what it holdeth with the truth, as the doctrine of the Trinity, the twelue Articles of the Apoſtles Creed, with the Baptiſme of Chriſtians, in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt. Secondly, we diſtinguiſh betwixt Papacy, and Chriſtianity in the Papacy, that is betwixt Curiam & eccleſiam, the Court of Rome, and the Church of Rome; or if you will betwixt Fidem Romanam, and Fidem Chriſtianam, the Roman faith, and the Chriſtian faith, which is hidden in the Romane as a little Gold in a maſſe of Tinne. Now I confeſſe that we are fallen away from the Papacy, that is, the Court and ſuperſtitious doctrines of that Church, but not from the Church, Chriſtianity, and Faith thereof. Thirdly, I ſay that we are commanded by the holy Ghoſt to come out of Babylon, Apoc. 18.4. but Rome is Babylon, as both many of the Fathers acknowledge, and they themſelues confeſſe: to depart then from Rome is not to depart from Ieruſalem the Church of Chriſt, but from Babylon, which is the Synagogue and kingdome of Antichriſt. May a man for the ſafety of his body flye out of an houſe infected with the plague, and may not wee for the ſafety of our ſoules flye out of the Church of Rome infeſted with moſt peſtilent errors? We were indeed once ioyned in fellowſhip with this Church, vntill God enlightning our eyes by his holy Spirit, we perceiued in what danger wee ſtood, and therefore finding that it was departed from the Goſpell of Chriſt, and had framed to it ſelfe a new Faith and Religion out of its owne braine, and in ſtead of Chriſt had entertained Antichriſt, we durſt not be ſo ſenſeleſſe and peruerſe, as to pull the eyes out of our heads, and ſtill embrace that Religion, which wee were aſſured would bring vsus to damnation. And what if out forefathers were drowned in that ſuperſtition, and liued and dyed in the ſame, ſhould wee follow their examples? And not rather with leauing them to the mercy of God, who might take pitty vponupon their ignorance, ſay with the Prophet Ieremy, Chap 16.19. Surely our Fathers hauehave inherited lies and vanity wherein there is no profit, which is a prophecy of the Gentiles conuerted to the faith of Chriſt, both from heatheniſh Idolatry at the firſt, and from Antichriſtian ſuperſtition at the laſt. So that though wee are departed from communion with the Church of Rome, yet we can in no reaſon be called Apoſtates from the faith, ſeeing we retaine the ancient Religion taught by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and profeſſed in the primitiue and purer times of the Church, and reuealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament. But if wee turne our eyes vponupon them, we may eaſily perceiue where this Apoſtacy reſteth; for they are they that are apparently reuolted from the faith: I ſay, from the Faith. Firſt, of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles. Secondly, of their owne Church as it was in ancient time. And thirdly, into thoſe errors which are called by the Apoſtle, Doctrines of deuils, and are ſet downe as markes of this Apoſtacy.
3. That they are reuolted from the ſaith of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, the manifold hereticall doctrines taught and maintained in their Church doe clearely euince; for as it was of old time ſaid of Rome, that it was Orbis in vrbe, a confluence of all Nations; ſo may it be truely ſaid of the Romiſh Religion, that it is a confluence and ſinke of all hereſies, which to bee ſo will appeare, if wee take a view of the whole body of their Religion compared with the hereſies of former Ages, and that in order of time, as they ſprung vp in the Church. To begin therefore, Saint Auguſtine fixeth vponupon the Capernaits as the firſt Heretikes in the Church,Aug. in Pſal. 54. which hereſie though it was vnfruitfull in that time, yet hath beene receiued in the Papacy by their opinion of the carnall eating of the body of Chriſt in the Sacrament, which at this day they ſo violently defend; for though the error of the Capernaites was more groſſe in the circumſtance of eating, yet it was all one in ſubſtance with that which the Papiſts hold. From Simon the Magician,Irenaeus lib. 3. in praeſat. whom Irenaeus calleth The Father of all Heretikes, they hauehave ſucked that peſtilent infection of ſetting ſpirituall things to ſale for money, which is ſo ordinary a practiſe in the Church of Rome, that their owne writers cry ſhame vponupon it with open mouth; and whereas it is a queſtion whether Peter were euer at Rome or no, it is out of doubt that Simon was there, as is in that elegant Epig…amme:
An Petrus Romae fuerit, ſub Iudice lis eſt:
Simonem Romae nemo fuiſſe negat.
From him alſo and his followers they hauehave taken their exorciſmes, as may ſeeme by the reſemblance which is betwixt the one and the other. The Sicconians, Sethians, Archontiques, Baſilidians, Ʋalentinians, and almoſt all other Heretikes had their traditions which they oppoſed as oft as they were preſſed with holy Scripture, as if the Scripture were not perfect, and that Chriſt taught many things in particular to be conuayed from hand to hand, which were not written. And is not this the very practiſe of the Papiſts in their diſputations, and their conſtant tenet, that the Scripture is not ſufficient without traditions; and that the word of God is of two kindes, one written, another vnwritten? Nay, ſo impudent are they in this blaſphemy, that Turrian a Ieſuite writing againſt Sadeel, is not afraid to ſay, that if Chriſt had left in his Church the Scripture onelyonly for the totall rule of faith, it had no better then a Dolphian ſword to be ruled by. The Gnoſticks had their Images of Chriſt as they ſaid, which they vſed to worſhip: and doe not the Papiſts the ſame? Their extreame Vnction they hauehave borrowed of the Valentinians and Heracloonites, who vſed it, as both Irenaeus and Epiphanius teſtifie:Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Idem. lib. 1. cap. 18. Epiphan. haereſ. 36. Irenaeus. lib. 3. cap 3. and alſo Exorciſmes and Charmes, with ſtrange and vnknowne words, now alſo frequently practiſed in the Church of Rome. Marcion whom Polycarpus called the eldeſt ſonne of the deuill, affirmed, that Chriſt had onelyonly a phantaſticall and imaginary body: and doe not the Papiſts ſay the ſame, when they teach and beleeue that Chriſts body is really and ſubſtantially contained vnderunder the forme of bread in the Euchariſt, without either quantity or quality of a true body, that is, without its true dimenſions and properties? He alſo magnified for merit, ſingle life before marriage, as alſo did the Eucratites of old and new, the Papiſts in our time.Idem. lib. 1. cap. 36. He enioyned the Saturday faſt, permitted women to baptize, contrary to the practiſe of the ancient Church: all which things notwithſtanding, are receiued, practiſed, and maintained in the Church of Rome. From whence come the ſet Faſts in the Papacy, but from the grand heretike Montanus, who was the firſt that preſcribed lawes for faſting,Euſeb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 18. Epiphan. har. 53. as Apollonius in Euſebius witneſſeth? The Elceſeans worſhipped certaine women, and kept the duſt of their feet, and their ſpittle, as matters of reuerence. And doe not the Papiſts the like in their adoration of women, and many ridiculous relikes, as the foreskin of Chriſt the breath of Ioſeph, the breeches of S. Francis, and haires of Saint Peters beard, with a thouſand ſuch like traſh? The Nonatians gloried in their owne merits, and called themſelues Cathariſts, that is pure perſons: the which pride is imitated by the Papiſts, when they vaunt of their ability to fulfill the Law of God, and of ſuch perfection of works as can merit heauen. The Manichees hauehave contributed much to the building of this myſtery of iniquity. As firſt, their opinion of two beginnings, to which well accordeth the dreame of Auguſtinus Steuchus, Aug. Steuchus. in cymopaia.to wit, that the Emperiall heauen was coeternall with God: and if coeternall with God, what other thing but another God? Secondly, their practiſe of miniſtring the Sacrament vnderunder one kinde, to wit, the bread, as witneſſeth Pope Gelaſius. Thirdly, their prohibiting marriage to their elect, that is, to their Prieſts,Diſt. 2. C. Relatum eſt. C. compertmus. and tolerating it in their Lay Auditors. Fourthly, their abſtinence from fleſh on their faſting daies, not forbearing in the meane while to glut themſelues with all manner of delicate fiſh and iunkets. Fiftly, their inhibiting their elect from eating fleſh at any time,De conſecrat …iſt. 5. C. carnem. which was in like manner enioyned by Pope Gregory to all Monkes, but it is in practiſe onelyonly amongſt the Charterhouſe Monkes at this day. Sixtly, their ſwearing by the creatures, as S. Auguſtine obiecteth to Fauſtus the Manichee, Aug. contra F…ſt. Manich. Iob. 19. c. 22.for theſe ſweare by the Saints and their relikes. Laſtly, the principall reaſon why the Manichees conſtitute two beginnings, one the Author of good, and the other of euill, was for feare leaſt they ſhould make God the Creator of euill. But the Papiſts in this exceed the Manichees, Bell. de grat. Adam. lib. 7.for they feare not to teach, that the rebellion of the fleſh againſt the ſpirit, had bene in man by the condition of his nature, if he had neuer fallen: which opinion, directly maketh God the Creator and Author of euill. Againe, their vow of celebacy and voluntary pouerty,Aug. de haereſ. cap. 4…. was deriued from the Heretikes called Apoſtolikes, who receiued none into their ſociety that was euer married or poſſeſſed any goods in propriety. From the Meſſalians they hauehave borrowed the idle life of their Monks, pretending that they ought to giuegive themſelues wholly to prayer, and to abſtaine from all labour, as an impediment thereunto. Thus did thoſe Heretikes,Idem ibid. cap. 57. as S. Auguſtine declareth, and the ſame is the religion of the Popiſh Monkes. The ſame Heretikes taught, that Baptiſme was effectuall onelyonly to waſh away ſinnes going before, comparing it to a razor that ſhaueth away the haire that is growne out, but not that which is within the skinne; which very opinion is taken vp by the Papiſts, and therefore for ſuch as ſinne after baptiſme, they hauehave ordained the Sacrament of Pennance for the obtaining of remiſſion. From whence commeth that ſtrict ſilence of certaine Monkes, eſpecially the Chartrians, who being ſaluted or ſpoken vntounto, may not anſwere a word by the rules of their order, but from the Pattalorinchi…es? who as S. Auguſtine witneſſeth,Ibid. cap. 63. in ſuch ſort profeſſed and obſerued ſilence, that alwaies in company they ſtopped their mouthes and noſthrils with their fingers, for feare leaſt any voyce ſhould ſteale out of them: a ſuperſtition agreeing better with the ſchoole of Pythagoras, then with the doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, & which changeth men into brute beaſts, from whom we are diſtinguiſhed by two excellent differences, ratione, et oratione, reaſon, and ſpeech. S. Auguſtine reciteth amongſt the number of Heretikes,Ibid. cap. 68. certaine people that in a kind of ſuperſtition, went barefoote, the which is imitated by the Capuchins and other Friars, as if any worſhip of God conſiſted in couering or baring the feete. The ſame Father in his 48. Epiſtle to Ʋincentius, mocketh at the Donatiſts, for gathering out of that text of the Canticles, Chap. 1.7. Tell me where thou feedeſt at noone: that the true Church remained onelyonly in Affrica, ſo tying it to one place: and do not the Papiſts in like manner, tye the Catholike Church, whoſe bounds ſtretcheth to all places and times, to Rome? Calling it Romiſh Catholike: which is aſmuch to ſay, as particular vniuerſall. The Pelagians, whoſe hereſie was the very bane of Chriſtianity, and the canker of our Redemption, are reuiued in the Papacy, and that in ſuch ſort, that a man may ſee them as it were liuing in their perſons, and their hereſies in their doctrines. For they taught, firſt, that Adam had dyed by the condition of his nature, though he had not ſinned: which very opinion is auouched by Auguſtinus Steuchus writing vponupon Geneſis, Aug. de haereſ. cap. 88.without any diſapprobation, or condemnation of the Church of Rome: for he ſaith, that infants dye though they be without ſinne. Secondly, they taught, that infants are borne without originall ſinne, and in the ſame eſtate wherein Adam ſtood before his fall, and that ſinne is not borne with a man by nature, but receiued into man by will, &c: as S. Auguſtine at large declareth in his bookes written of that ſubiect.Aug. de peccato originis cont Pelag. et Celeſt lib. 2. c. 1, 6, 13 And doth not Pighius maintaine the ſame opinions in his bookes of controuerſies dedicated to Pope Paul the third, where he alſo directly confuteth S. Auguſtine? his Pelagianiſme in this point will be euident to him that willPighius cont. 1. de peccat. orig. take the paines to read his towne booke: neither was this doctrine of his condemned, but rather approued by the Councill of Trent, as both their deepe ſilence of it, and alſo their owne purging Indexes ſet forth by the authority of the ſaid Councill, do beare ſufficient witneſſe:Indices Expo…g Hiſpan. f. 124. & 126. for thereby they were authorized to raze out of their owne Writers, all ſuch ſentences as ſeeme to oppugne this hereticall Doctrine. As for example: theſe out of Ferus writings vponupon Mat. 12.33. Chriſt heere pronounceth plainly, that wee are all by nature euill Trees. And vponupon Iohn 1.12. By this speech, Chriſt condemneth our old natiuity, and conſequently all the powers of Nature that are transfuſed into vsus by naturall generation. And alſo thoſe words which he addeth touching ſpirituall regeneration; to wit, that it proceedeth neyther from the holineſſe, nor from humane reaſon, nor from the wiſedome of the fleſh, but ſolely from the will, purpoſe, and election of God, with infinite other ſentences of like nature both in him, and other Authors. Beſides that,Aug. cont. Iulian. they teach, that the Virgin Mary was conceiued without originall ſinne, who notwithſtanding cannot be denied, but that ſhe was the daughter of Adam. Thirdly, they hold, that Concupiſcence, eſpecially that which remayneth after B…ptiſme, is no ſinne: which ſame opinion is maintained by the Councill of Trent. Fourthly,Concil. Trident Seſſ. 5. from theſe ſame Heretikes: they hauehave deriued their doctrine of Free-will, to wit, that a man hath power in himſelfe, to deſire and effect his owne conuerſion, onelyonly by an externall coadiution of Grace, which he may admit or reſiſt at his pleaſure. Thus the Pelagians, and thus the Papiſts,Aug. epiſt. 89. & lib. de grat. as is to bee ſeene in their writings. Laſtly, the ſame doctrines which were taught by the Pelagians, touching the merite of Workes, Iuſtification, and Predeſtination, are retained to the full in the Church of Rome at this day.
The Eutychians hold, that the humanity of Chriſt was in eueryevery place: and is not this the opinion of the Church of Rome, when they affirme, that Chriſts body may be locally in two places at one inſtant, to wit, in heauen and in earth? for if it can be in two places at once, by the ſame reaſon, it may be in infinite places.Aug. de haereſ. cap. 39. The Heretikes called Angelici, adored the Angels; ſo alſo by their example doe the Papiſts. The Collyridians whoſe hereſie is deſcribed and confuted by Epiphanius, Epip. haereſ. 79 Oſorius concio in feſto aſſump bea… Maria.laide the foundation of that Idolatrie which is committed in Popery towards the bleſſed Virgin, which is ſo groſſe, that they make no difficulty to equall her vvith God,Clarus Bonarſeius altas Carol. Scriban. Ieſuita. and her milke with Chriſts blood: They ſhame not to ſay, that ſhee is as good a Mother, as God is a Father; and that ſhe and her Sonne redeemed the world with one heart, as Adam and Eue loſt it with one Apple. And as the Collyridians offered Cakes vntounto her, ſo they offer Prayers, Incenſe, Wax candles, with many other gifts. Laſtly, the Gnoſimaches, certaine Heretikes of whom Damaſcent maketh mention, condemned all manner of ſtudie and learning in Chriſtians, and gaue the ſame rule to a certaine order of Friars in Popery called Ignorantes, whoſe profeſſion is ignorance, as alſo to that doctrine of the Church of Rome, that ignorance is the Mother of Deuotion, and that to know leaſt, is beſt of all.
4 Thus wee ſee, that Popery is no better then a hotchpotch of Hereſies, and therefore in that regard of their falling from the pure doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles into theſe foule Hereſies which ouerth ow the Faith, they are guilty of this Apoſtacy ſpoken of by S. Paul. I confeſſe, they charge vsus, and our Religion, with many of the ſame Hereſies; but how maliciouſly and falſly, we may eaſily iudge by theſe few examples.Bel. de notis Eccleſ. cap. 9. Bellarmine and Saunders, with others affirme, that we hold the wicked Hereſie of Simon Magus, who ſaid, That a man was ſaued by grace, and not by iuſt workes: but the ſame Bellarmine giueth him elfe the Lye in the ſame place: for he ſaith, that the Simonians referred not ſaluation to the grace of the true God, apprehended by faith in Chriſt as we doe, but to the grace of the Magitian Simon, who vaunted himſelfe for God: anſwerable to that of Irenaeus, that by their opinion men were ſaued by the grace of Simon, Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 20.and not by iuſt workes. And yet the Ieſuite Feuardentius writing vponupon that paſſage of Irenaeus, is not aſhamed (ſo ſeared is their conſcience) to enroll vsus vnderunder this Hereſy, as if the grace of God, were the grace of Simon Magus, and there were no difference betwixt the Sonne of God the Redeemer of the world, and a notorious Sorcerer and Impoſtor. But heereby they ſhew, how hatefull and odious the Doctrine of the free grace of Chriſt, is to theſe ſworne ſeruants of Antichriſt. Againe,Bellar. de notis Eccleſ. cap. 9. how impudently doe they faſten vponupon vsus the blaſphemy of Marcion and Florinus, to wit, that with them we ſhould make God the Authour of ſinne? But our Doctrine ſheweth, how much we deteſt this horrible blaſphemy: for though with the holy Scripture, and ancient Doctors of the Church, wee acknowledge that God ordereth and diſpoſeth to his owne glory the ſinnes of men; yet farre be it from vsus, as it is, to accuſe him for the Author of ſinne, either directly, or by any true conſequence. For ſinne is to be conſidered two wayes; either abſolutely in it ſelfe, or in relation to ſome other thing: Now we expreſſely teach, that ſinne abſolutely commeth from the efficient cauſe, which is man the true author of ſinne; but relatiuely, it is not ſimply directed by it efficient cauſe, but by the prouidence of God, which wiſely ordereth both euill and good to his owne ends:Aug. de gen. ad lit. imperfect cap. 5. which is the expreſſe opinion of S. Auguſtine, who ſaith; There are ſome things which God both maketh and ordereth, and others which he ordereth onelyonly; hee maketh the iuſt and ordereth them too; but ſinners as they are ſinners, he maketh not, but onelyonly ordereth. Thus Auguſtine with vsus, and with him and vsus conſpire all the Fathers, and moſt of their owne Doctors, as is plentifully proued by our writers.Vid. Morton in Apol. Cathol. lib. 1. cap. 25. Againe, they accuſe vsus of Nouatianiſme, and why? Becauſe we denie Penance to be a Sacrament: not conſidering, that there is great difference betwixt this and the opinion of the Neu…tians, Bellar. Ibid.which denied remiſſion of ſinnes to thoſe that ſinned after Bapti…me, though they repented neuer ſo much. Againe, they linke vsus with the Manichees for denying Freewill; and yet who knoweth not, that the Manichees denyed it to our nature, wh…n it was firſt created and pure, and wee onelyonly to nature corrupted: they tooke away all libertie of doing any manner of good whatſoeuer, and we onelyonly in doing ſpirituall good. Further, they lay alſo Donatiſme to our charge, as if we held with them, that the Church onelyonly conſiſted of iuſt men: whereas we plainly teach, that though to the inuiſible Church belong onelyonly the elect, yet in the viſible (of which Donatus meaneth) good and bad are mingled together, as Chaffe and Wheat in the Barne ſtoore: and ſo there is as much difference betwixt their opinion and ours, as betwixt viſible and inuiſible. To omit all the reſt of their imputations of Hereſie vntounto vsus, by theſe few examples vve may iudge, how in hatred to our Religion, they make no conſcience to ſlander it and vsus, though neuer ſo palpably falſly, according to the old Prouerbiall precept, Calumniare audacter, aliquid adhaerebit.
5. Secondly, as the Church of Rome is thus reuolted from Chriſt, ſo is it from it ſelfe; that is, new Rome vnderunder Antichriſt, from ancient Rome vnderunder the firſt Byſhops; and the Church that now is, from the Church that then was, and from the faith that was then profeſſed: ſo that there is no more likeneſſe betwixt them, then is betwixt light & darkeneſſe. Let vsus take a little view of this change: and firſt, conſider but that excellent Epiſtle written by S. Paul to the Romanes, wherein is comprized the whole faith of the ancient Church of Rome. Where is there any the leaſt mention either of the Popes primacy, or of Indulgences, or of the inuocation of Saints, or adoration of Images, or vertue of Reliques, or Monkiſh ſanctity, or Purgatory, or Tranſubſtantiation, or the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, or Auricular confeſſion, with other ſuch like Doctrines, wherein the pyth and ſubſtance of their Religion conſiſteth? Is it likely, that if theſe were Doctrines receiued into that Church, the Apoſtle writing vntounto it, would not hauehave ſo much as ſpoken one word of them? Nay, doe they not directly croſſe and contradict the Apoſtle by many of their Tenets? as by their doctrine of Iuſtification, by inherent iuſtice contrary to Rom. 1.17. and 4.6. and inuocation of Saints, contrary to Rom. 10.13. and ſatisfactions and merits of condignity, contrary to Rom. 8.18? Inſomuch, that the Rhemiſts are conſtrained to admoniſh their Reader, that if any thing in Pauls Epistles ſeeme to ſound contrary to the faith of the Catholike (that is, in their preſumption, the Romane) Church, hee ought to perſwade himſelfe, that he ſwarueth from the true ſence of the place. As if the Apoſtle ſhould ſpeake one thing, & mean another; or auouch one thing in word, and condemne the ſame in ſence: an imputation which none but blaſphemy could lay vponupon him. So that whether we reſpect the Apoſtles omiſſion of their ſuperſtitions, or their contradicting of his Doctrines, it cannot bee denied, but that the face and ſubſtance of their Religion is changed from that it was at that time. Secondly, if we compare the Doctrine of the auncient Byſhops of Rome, with the deciſions of the moderne Popes, and of the Councill of Trent, this will appeare more cleare. For example: Eleutherius Biſhop of Rome,Eleuther. epiſt. ad Lucium Reg. Britan. being conſulted by Lucius the King of Britaine newly conuerted, by what rules or lawes hee ſhould gouerne the Church, anſwered; That he had in his Kingdome both the Teſtaments (vtram que paginam) and that he ought by his Councell to take his direction from them, for he was Gods Vicar in his Kingdome. But the Pope now ſtiling himſelfe Chriſts onelyonly Vicar on earth, denieth that any ſuch power appertaineth to ſecular Kings, to diſpoſe of any matters of the Church, and calleth them intruders that take any ſuch power vponupon them. It is a Decree of Anacletus, and after him of Calixtus, Diſt. 96. ſi Imperato. Diſt. 1. Epiſcop. & 2 peracta. Concil Trident ſeſſ. 6. can. 8.That the conſecration being finiſhed, all ought to participate of the Sacrament, vnleſſe they w…ll be excluded from the Church aſſemblies. But the Romane Church that now is, hath decreed it lawfull for the Prieſts to communicate alone, the people ſtanding by, and looking on; as if that which is done by the Prieſt, were ſufficient for them.
Iulius the Biſhop of Rome,De conſecrat. …iſt. 2 … o…re. diſallowed the dipping of the bread into the wine, as contrary to the Goſpell, where the bread and wine are diſtinguiſhed and ſet apart from each other in expreſſe words: but the moderne Church of Rome alloweth the Prieſt to dippe the third part of the Hoſt in the cup,Breuiar. in Canon miſſae. Gelaſ. cont. Eutich. & Neſtor and prayeth, that this mixture may be auayleable to ſaluation. It was the opinion of Gelaſius a Byſhoppe of Rome, that an image and ſimilitude of the body and blood of Chriſt is celebrated in the Sacrament, and that the ſubſtance and nature of Bread and wine doth not ceaſe; at which ſentence, Cardinall Contarenus was aſtoniſhed in the conference at Ratisbone, Chem Exam. Con…l …rident. de tranſub…t.as witneſſeth Chemnitius: but now, the Pope counteth this an Hereſie, and them Heretikes that hold the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine to remaine after conſecration, and not to be changed into the very body and blood of Chriſt. Pelagius the firſt, ordained a married man Biſhop in Syracuſa, D ſt. 28 de S… rac….with this caution onelyonly, that hee ſhould not transferre the goods of the Church to his wife and children: but now the Church of Rome cannot in any caſe endure married Byſhops,Bel. … Clericis, lib. 1. cap. 19. not leaſt the goodes of the Church ſhould be embezeled, (for this is an ordinary practi…e with the Popes themſelues, to proſtitute the Church goodes to their Baſtards, Nephewes and Kindred;) but for the impuritie and pollution of marriage eſtate, which (they ſay) cannot agree with the holineſſe of the ſacerdotall order.De conſecr. …ſt. 2 comperimus. Gelaſius againe forbad the ſuperſtition of receiuing one part of the Sacrament without the other, ſaying; That eyther the whole muſt be receyued of all, or not receyued at all: and that a diuiſion of one and the ſame myſtery could not bee made without great ſacriledge;Concil. Trident Seſſ. 5. Can. 2. but the Church of Rome now is ſo farre from condemning ſuch diuiſion as ſacriledge, that they pretend many cauſes and reaſons why it ought to be ſo; and pronounceth Anathema to all that condemne the Church of erring heerein. Leo the firſt ſpeaking of Martyrs,Leo, Ep…ſt 81. ſaith; That they receyued, & not gaue crownes: and that from their conſtancie aroſe examples of Patience, and not guifts of Iuſtice, and that their deaths were peculiar to themſelues, not ſatisfactorie for others; ſeeing amongſt all the ſonnes of men, onelyonly our Lord Ieſus Chriſt was, in whom all are crucified, all dead, all buried, and all riſen againe.Bel de Indulg. lib. 1. cap. 2. But the moderne Church of Rome, cleane contrarie auouch the ſuper-abounding paſſions and ſatisfactions of the Saints, to ſupply the neceſſity and want of others, and to merit for them the relaxation and remiſſion of their debt. The ſame Leo profeſſed his obedience to the Emperours Edicts, and the like did Agatho after him, to Conſtantine. Leo, Epiſt. 16. Conſtantinop. ſyn. 6 act 4. in Epiſt. Agathor.But now the Pope challengeth obedience from the Emperour, calleth him his Man, and exacteth of him an Oath of fidelitie. In briefe, Gregory the Great denied all merit of workes,Greg. Mag. moral, lib. 9. cap. 1 & 14. …aying, That our iuſtice if it were diſtrictly iudged, would be conuinced as vniuſt. Againe he ſaid, That the holie Communion, was called Miſſa, a Maſſe,Idem, E…iſt. lib. 6. Epiſt. 30. & lib. 4 Ep ſt. 32.36, 38. becauſe they that did communicate were by the Deacon ſent out of doores; and that except this were performed, the Maſſe was not rightly celebrated. And laſtly, he affirmed him to be the fore-runner of Antichriſt, that ſtyled himſelfe vniuerſall Byſhop. All which things are directly contradicted by the Pope,Corc. Trident. ſeſſ. 6. cap. …6. and the Church of Rome: for they aſcribe vntounto their owne workes and iuſtice a merit of condiguity, and a perfection proportionable to the Law: they celebrate the Euchariſt by the Prieſt alone, and yet diſmiſſe not the people: and laſtly, the Pope ſtyleth himſelfe Vniuerſall Biſhop, and ſaith;Rhemenſ. in 2. Tim. 4.8. That it is of the neceſſity of ſaluation for euerie ſoule to bee ſubiect vntounto him. All which great change conſidered,Extrac. de maior & obed. C. vnam Sanctā. who can but confeſſe, that the moderne Romane Church, is not the ſame with that which was of old, but is reuolted from it; and that if thoſe ancient Paſtors of that Church were the true Biſhops and ſeruants of Chriſt, then muſt they that hauehave thus departed from their faith and holineſſe, needes be the true Antichriſt in ſolide, that is, contrary to Chriſt and his truth?
6. Thirdly, that we may more fully vnderſtand that this Apoſtacie whereof we accuſe the Papacie, is a iuſt imputation; we muſt conſider how thoſe Doctrines which are ſet downe in holy Scripture as expreſſe markes thereof, do properly and fitly agree vntounto the Church of Rome. For albeit this Antichriſtian reuolt doth in generall ſpread it ſelfe ouer the whole body of Chriſtian Religion, yet the Spirit of God hath marked out certaine particular Doctrines, which are moſt notorious in that myſterie of iniquity, and whereby we may iudge of the reſt. Theſe Doctrines are in number three; two whereof are expreſſed by Saint Paul, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. to wit, the prohibition of marriage, and the abſtayning from certaine meates, which he calleth Doctrines of deuils: And the third is mentioned by S. Iohn, 1 Iohn 4.3. the denying of Ieſus Chriſt to be come in the fleſh: all which, if they bee found in the Church of Rome, it cannot be denyed, but that they are guilty of this Apoſtacy.
7. Touching the firſt, to wit, the prohibition of marriage, where can we finde this marke more apparent then in the Church of Rome, wherein by expreſſe Lawes & decrees it is prohibited and forbidden? For as Theodoret well obſerueth,Theodor. in 1. Tim. 4. The Apoſtle blames not ſingle life or continency, but condemneth them that by publike Law conſtrain men to follow this courſe of life. And where is this decree but in the Papacie? as the Law of Pope Calixtus inſerted into the Decretalles doth euidently declare. So that they are not content vvith Montanus, Diſt. 26. cat. presbyter….to condemne ſecond marriages, but they alſo barre their Clergy by a conſtrained Vow, from the firſt alſo. Which Decree of theirs, is both contrary to the Scripture, and to the continued practice of the Church, till Antichriſt began to reigne therein. For the Scripture commendeth marriage as Gods ordinance, and as an holy and vndefiled eſtate, and permitteth it equall to all men, ſo that they marry in the Lord. And for examples, were Abraham, who is called the friend of God, and father of the faithfull: Moſes then whom no man was more faithfull in Gods houſe, Eſay the miracle of Prophets, Ezekiell, the High-Prieſt a type of Chriſt, Zachary and Elizabeth, iuſt perſons before God, Peter, Paul, Phillip, with thouſands more of godly Biſhops and Prieſts,Be … de Cler. lib. 1 cap. 9. D…cres. Greg. de Cler. conuig cap. quod ad te. Campian rat. 4 that ſuffered martyrdome for Chriſt, were they, I ſay, leſſe holy, becauſe they were married, or more vnfit for ſacred Functions? This is to condemne the generation of the iuſt, and to giuegive the flat lye vntounto the holie Ghoſt: a fit practice for Antichriſt and his ſeruants, who call it a ſacriledge, an impuritie, and an abominable act, and incompatible with holy orders. But how contrarie doe they ſpeake and decree to the ancient Church? The great Councill of Nice conſented with Paphnutius, that the familiaritie betwixt a Prieſt and his owne wife was chaſtity,Socrat. hiſtor. lib. 2. cap. 8. Concil. Gangrenſ. can. 4. Chryſoſt. in tot. hom. 2. as Socrates reporteth: and the Councill of Gangrene ſtrooke him with Anathema that held that a married Prieſt ought not to offer. S. Chryſoſtome thought marriage ſo honourable an eſtate, that a man with it might aſcend to the ſacred Epiſcopall Chaire. And Ignatius before all theſe affirmeth,Ignat. epiſt. ad Philadelph. That if any m n call the lawfull ſociety of man and wiſe, corruption and pollution, he hath the Apoſtate Dracon for his companion. But that which me thinkes is moſt ſtrange of all is this, that the Councill of Trent ſpeaking of the Maſſe, ſaith; That it is ſo pure a ſacrifice, that no vnworthineſſe nor wickedneſſe of the offerers can defile it; and therefore, let a Prieſt bee neuer ſo wicked a Fornicator, an inceſtuous perſon, a Sodomite, a periured wretch, yet none of theſe foule crimes doe make him vnfit to ſerue at the Altar, or any wayes impaire the vertue of the Sacrifice: onelyonly marriage ordained of God makes them vnfit, and the ſeruice vnprofitable: and ſo ſacerdotall purity ſhall not be polluted by the workes of the deuill, but ſhall be by the ordinance of God. Can any ſpirit but Antichriſts breath out this impiety? Peccata interdixit Deus, non matrimonia (ſaith Saluianus:) that is, God hath forbidden ſinnes, not marriages: but theſe men allow that which God forbids, ſinnes; and forbid that which God alloweth, marriage. I know their ſcape-hole here is, that they do not condemne marriage ſimply as euill, which Tatian, Marcion, and Manichee did; and which is it that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh againſt, but onelyonly reſpectiuely vntounto holy Orders. To which I anſwer fiue things: Firſt, that it is impiety to forbid marriage in any ſort whatſoeuer, whether abſolutely, or in ſome reſpect, ſeeing that it dependeth not vponupon any ordinance of man, but is the gift and vocation of God. Secondly, that S. Paul ſpeaketh generally againſt thoſe that prohibit marriage without any ſuch diſtinction: and therefore to reſtraine his ſpeech, is to wreſt the Scripture, and to limit the ſence thereof to our owne vnderſtanding, which is an intollerable iniury to the Spirit of God himſelfe, eſpecially there being no other place of Scripture, whereby that diſtinction may be iuſtified. Thirdly, that their diſtinction being admitted, yet they are not thereby cleared from this imputation: for with thoſe fore-named Heretikes, they abſolutely condemne marriage as an impure and vncleane thing.Bellar. de Clericis, lib. 1. c. 19 Bellarmine deliuereth this Doctrine in direct words, when he ſayth, That in the coniugall act there is mixed a certaine impurity and pollution, yea in the very Saints themſelues: and therefore Pope Siricius, and after him Pope Innocent, to prooue the vnlawfulneſſe of Prieſts marriages alledge theſe texts of Scripture.Diſt. …2. cap. propoſ…ſti. Titus 1.15. To them that are defiled and vnbeleeuing, nothing is pure, but euen their minde and conſcience is defiled. And againe, that they that are in the fl…ſh cannot pleaſe God, Rom. 8.8. So that though they prohibit marriage onelyonly to ſome ſort of people, to wit, the Clergy; yet their reaſon why they do ſo, is, becauſe it is in it ſelfe an vncleane acte. Fourthly, the Manichees did not condemne marriage in all, but onelyonly in thoſe whom they called their elect; as the Papiſts alſo do onelyonly to their Prieſts. Laſtly, the horrible fruites not onelyonly of Adulteries and Fornications, but alſo of Sodomiticall abominations and murthers that hauehave ſprung from this roote of Celebacy (which he that deſireth to take notice of, may reade elſewhere at large diſcouered) doe manifeſtly euince, that it is indeede a Doctrine of diuels, as S. Paul calleth it, and an euident marke of the Apoſtacie of the Church of Rome from the truth.
8 The ſecond marke of this Apoſtacie, is, the prohibition of meates, which God hath created to be receyued with Thankeſgiuing: which marke is moſt expreſſe and notorious in the Church of Rome. For it hath forbidden by Law, that which God by Law ordained; to wit, the free vſe of the creatures, reſtraining it by certaine times and differences at their pleaſure, and forbidding ſome at all times, and all at ſome times, to abſtaine from ſome kinde of meates. Their ſhift to auoid this marke, is; That they do not command abſtinence from meats as if they were vncleane of their owne nature, which was the opinion of the Marcionites, Eucratites, and Manichees, but onelyonly in reſpect of religion and deuotion, which by ſuch abſtinence is much furthered and encreaſed. To which I anſwer, that though they neuer ſo much abhorre the Hereſie of theſe forenamed Heretikes; yet they fall into that of Montanus and Euſtathius, who held the ſame opinion of Faſting, that themſelues now do; and were therefore condemned by the whole Church,Euſ. hiſt. lib. 5. cap. 16. as Euſebius witneſſeth. For Popiſh Faſtes are preſcribed by publike authoritie and law, and ſo they are no more arbitrarie, but neceſſarie. And Montanus Faſts are of the ſame nature, for he was the firſt that preſcribed lawes of Faſting, for which he was condemned of the ancient Church, as witneſſe both Euſebius, Idem, lib. 5. cap. 15.Socrates, S. Auguſtine, Theodoret, with diuers others. Socrates his words are theſe,Socrat. hiſt. lib. 6. cap. 21. after he had largely diſcourſed of the varieties of the Lent faſt in ſeuerall Churches, hee thus concludes: It is manifeſt that the Apoſtles permitted free liberty of Faſting to eueryevery mans minde and choice, that euerie man might do that which is good, without impulſion by feare or neceſſity. But S. Auguſtine is more plaine, when he ſaith,Aug. epiſt. 86. & cont Fauſtum. Theodor. hiſt. ſanct. patrum cap. 3. That he found in Scripture that we ought to Faſt, but that it was defined by no precept of the Lord or his Apoſtles, what dayes wee ought, and what we ought not to Faſt. Secondly, the Papiſtes auow, that meats of themſelues are not vncleane: the ſame did the Montaniſts, Tertul. de ieiunio. Ceſter Euchir. cap. 16. Tertul. de ieiunio, cap. 15. Bellar. de bon oper. in part. lib. 2. cap. 8.as may appeare out of Tertullian Montanizing in his booke of Faſting. Thirdly, the Church of Rome doth not abſolutely prohibit any meate, but onelyonly ſuſpendeth the vſe of ſome for a time. So likewiſe ſaith Tertullian in the name of all the Montaniſts: Wee abſtaine from meats, we do not reiect them, but differ them. Fourthly, the Church of Rome preſcribes faſting, and the choice of meats, as a ſeruice of God, and a part of his worſhip. So alſo ſaide Montanus: Our Faſtings are ſeruices of God, and ought to bee performed to God alone. Laſtly, the Papiſts teach, that by their Faſtings they appeaſe God, ſatisfie for their ſinnes, obtaine releefe in diſtreſſes, and merit heauen: And doth not Montanus his paraclete ſay the ſame? when he affirmeth, That Faſting can do much with God, and that God is ſatisfied by it, and originall ſinne aboliſhed, and our ſaluation re-kindled, which is extinguiſhed by fulneſſe, yea, that the prerogatiue of it is ſo great, that it maketh God cohabite with man, as like with like. By all which, it is eaſie to conclude, that the Romiſh Faſts are deriued from Montanus, and that he layed the foundation, and theſe hauehave reared vp the building of that ſuperſtition. And therefore ſeeing the ancient Church condemned the error of Montanus in this point, and the Montaniſts defended it by the ſame argument which the Papiſts now do; their opinion and practice being all one in effect, I ſee not how they can cleere themſelues from the ſame cenſure and guilt. Nay, I peremptorily affirme, that they farre exceed the Montaniſtes in this ſuperſtition, and that in two reſpects. Firſt, becauſe Montanus though he preſcribed lawes of Faſting, yet the penalty of them was onelyonly this; that they accounted the violaters of thoſe lawes not Heretikes and Apoſtates from the Faith, but onelyonly leſſe holy, and Pſychici, that is, carnal men: whereas amongſt the Papiſts, he is eſteemed vncleane and an Heretike, and worſe then any Iew, that eateth fleſh on a Faſting day; wherein, they ſhake hands with Manichees. Secondly, the Montaniſts vndertooke this exerciſe of Faſting,Aug. con. Fauſt Manich. lib. 30. cap. 5. edomandi corporis cauſa, for the taming of fleſhly luſtes, as S. Auguſtine confeſſeth; and therefore they abſtained not onelyonly from fleſh, but from Wine, Fruites, many kindes of Fiſh, and all delightfull meates, that might any way pamper or pleaſe the body: but the Popiſh Faſts permit all delicate viands and iunkets, that either Sea or Land can affoord, fleſh onelyonly excepted, as infected with an vncleane ſpirit. They glut themſelues with the moſt exquiſite and rich Wines, with the moſt rare and delicate Fiſhes of all ſorts, with ſawces of rareſt Cookery, with Fruites, Spices, Preſerues, Confections, and Broaths, as excellent as the Art of the Apothecary, or of the Kitchin, can affoord. So that one did not without cauſe merrily ſay, That he had rather be a gueſt at their faſts, then at the moſt plentifull feaſts of other men. And thus (forſooth) they ſeeke to tame their fleſh by their Faſting, and to quench the luſts thereof by ſuch prouocations as Nature cannot affoord better and ſtronger: inſomuch, that Plutarch calleth Gluttons by the name of Fiſh-eaters.Plutarch Sympoſiac. lib. 4. q. 4. And thus is Montanus left behinde the Papiſts, as a Nouice in compariſon of themſelues, who in this laſt point rather reſemble the damned Manichees then the Montaniſts, as we may read at large in S. Auguſtine, Aug. de morib. Manich. lib. 2. cap. 13.in his booke concerning the manners of thoſe Heretikes. And ſo I leaue the Church of Rome branded alſo with this ſecond marke of the Apoſtacy.
9. The third marke of this reuolt is out of S. Iohns Epiſtle, chap. 4.3. and that is, to deny Ieſus Chriſt to bee come in the fleſh; which though it hath bene literally verified in diuers Popes that were ranke Atheiſts, and mocke-Gods, as in Pope Leo by name, who called the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt, a Fable, to Cardinall Bembus; and in a number of their Prelates and Prieſts, which hauehave ordinarily belched out the like Blaſphemies: As of one for example, that hauing preached of the paſſion of Chriſt, ſo paſſionately, that hee made his Auditors to weepe; preſently comforted them with this exhortation: Oh weepe not, for peraduenture this is not true. Yet let that be granted vntounto them which they challenge, to wit, that in word they do confeſſe Ieſus Chriſt to be come in the fleſh; and then what is that to the clearing of them from this marke? For, as S. Auguſtine noteth,Aug. tract. 6. in epiſt. Iohannis. all the grand Heretikes that euer were in the Church, would confeſſe as much; and ſo doth Mahomet in his Alcharon, whom diuers Doctrines of the Church of Rome deſigne for the great Antichriſt: and yet who knoweth not, but that by conſequence and in effect they deny him, albeit in word they confeſſe him? So likewiſe doth the Church of Rome by conſequent, deny the comming of Ieſus Chriſt in the fleſh, becauſe they deny the vertue and efficacy of his comming, and the end for which hee came: for to take away the end of a thing, is to take away the thing it ſelfe, and to make it ydle and vaine, which is all one as if it were not. Thus the Apoſtle reaſons when he ſaith, Gal. 2.21. If righteouſneſſe bee by the Law, Chriſt is dead in vaine, that is, by conſequent, not dead at all, for he could not dye in vaine. And Gal. 5.4. Chriſt is made of none effect in regard of you that will bee iuſtified by the Law. How of none effect? but becauſe the end for which he came, is annihilated. Now, what is the end of the comming of our Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt in the fleſh, but to bee Sauiour of the world, as the name Ieſus importeth, and to bee the King, Prieſt, and Prophet of the Church, as is intimated by the name Chriſt, which is Nomen officij, a name importing his office? Now both theſe ends are denied in the Papacy, and therefore they muſt needs be guilty of denying Chriſt to be come in the fleſh.
10. Touching the firſt end, which is to be the Sauiour of the world; doe they not deſtroy that, when they make ſo many Sauiours beſides Chriſt, as the Virgin Mary, and the Saints, to whom in expreſſe words they aſcribe this title of Sauiour, as is to be ſeene in many of their prayers vntounto them found in their Breuiaries? and not onelyonly ſo, but alſo make themſelues halfe Sauiours of themſelues, by mixing their owne merits with the merits of Chriſt, and their owne ſatiſfactions with his, making both together the ioynt cauſe of our ſaluation, which is the preciſe doctrine of the Church of Rome, as their bookes witneſſe: as alſo when they teach, that wee are iuſtified by our owne inherent righteouſneſſe, wrought in vsus partly by Gods grace, and partly by our owne free will, which they ſay, is able either to admit or exclude the grace of God comming to conuert vsus. Is not this to deny Chriſt to be Ieſus? For if he be not a Ieſus alone, he is no Ieſus at all. And for the ſecond end, they deny him alſo to be Chriſt: For they make the Pope the head of the Church, and attribute vntounto him an infinite and an vnlimited power to rule ouer mens conſciences, to preſcribe Lawes to the Church, to diſpenſe with the Law of God, to be free from error, and to do what he liſt: And thus they rob Chriſt of his Kingly Office, and giuegive it to the Pope. And for his Prieſthood, do they not alſo take that from him, by ordaining a new Prieſthood of Popiſh ſhauelings, that hauehave power to make their Maker, and to offer him vp vntounto God, and a new ſacrifice in the Maſſe for the remiſſion of ſinnes, both of the quicke and the dead, and that without ſhedding of bloud, without which the Scripture ſaith plainly, that there is no remiſſion? And do they not intrude the Saints into his Office of Mediation, and eueryevery particular man into his Office of Satisfaction; and dead creatures, as holy Water, holy Lambes, holy Beads, &c. into his Office of purification of ſinnes? And laſtly, touching his Propheticall Office, that they alſo depriue him of, by adding to the holy Scripture their owne traditions, which they make of equall dignity and authoritie with the word of God, by teaching the Scripture to bee an vnperfect rule of it ſelfe, and of no credit without the authority of the Church, yea no better then a noſe of wax, or a rule of lead; by detracting from the Scripture ſome parts thereof, and appropriating to the Pope the onelyonly key of interpretation. Thus they deny the ends why Chriſt came in the fleſh, and conſequently deny him to be come.
11. But that they may be left without excuſe, will you ſee the height of their impiety in this kinde? It is in the blaſphemous and abominable queſtions which their Schoolmen make about Chriſts incarnation.Bonauent. in 3. Sent. diſt. 4. Bonauenture mooueth this queſtion, Whether the Virgin Mary merited to conceiue Chriſt in her wombe, or whether her conception was onelyonly the gift of diuine Grace? and anſwereth thereunto, that ſhee merited by congruity, in regard of her ſuper-excellent humility, purity, and goodneſſe, to bee the mother of Chriſt before his Incarnation; but after her Annunciation, that ſhee merited by condignity, to be ouer-ſhadowed and ingroſſed by the vertue of the holy Ghoſt. I omit the vnchaſte diſcourſes that they make of her conception, leaſt in reporting them I ſhould both diſhonour my Sauiour, and giuegive iuſt offence to Chriſtian eares.
Another of the ſame ſtampe and ranke, thus diſcourſeth:Baralet. ſer. ſ…l. 229. col. 4. The Fathers (ſaith he) of the firſt Age, to wit, Adam, Enoch, Noah, &c. longing for the comming of Chriſt in the Fleſh, earneſtly deſired of God the accompliſhment of his promiſe; and when they could not obtaine it by their owne prayers, they ſent vntounto him their Embaſſadors the Prophets, as Moſes, Dauid, Eſay, with the reſt, who all requeſted this fauour at Gods hand; but theſe being alſo denied, they then ſent their wiues with ſupplication for their ſuite, as Madame Eue, Madame Sarah, Madame Rebecca, Madame Iudith, Madame Eſter, which all receiued their anſwer with reproach; one, of cauſing her husband to ſinne, another of infidelity, the third of partiality to her children, the fourth of murther, and the fift of vanity; and therefore were reiected as vnworthie to obtaine their ſuite. At laſt, was ſent a young maid of foureteene yeeres olde, who full of humility and ſhame faſtneſſe, kneeled downe and ſaid: Oh that my beloued would come into this Garden, and eate of the fruite thereof: [This Garden was the Virgins wombe:] now the Sonne of God hearing theſe words, ſaid vntounto his Father; My Father, I hauehave loued this Maid from my youth, and hauehave ſought meanes to hauehave her my spouſe. Whereat God the Father preſently called the Angell Gabriel, and ſent him to Nazareth vntounto Mary, with Letters of credit, and a meſſage from the Father, that he had choſen her to be his Wife; and from the Sonne, that hee had choſen her to be his Mother, and from the holy Ghoſt, that he had choſen her to be his habitation; and with theſe letters and meſſages, Gabriel deſcendeth vntounto her, and ſaith as it is in the Goſpell, Aue Maria, &c. Now Mary hearing theſe words of the Angell, was troubled, and calling her three maydes that ſhe had attending vponupon her, to wit, Prudence, Virginity, and Humility, asked their opinions what ſhe ſhould do; to whom Prudence anſwered, that ſhe muſt not be light of beleefe; and Virginity, that ſhe muſt know of the Angell, whether this muſt be effected by the ſeed of a man: and Humility ſaid, that it might be a deluſion, ſeeing that no woman that euer liued, was worthy of ſuch a grace. Then the Angell ſaid, Feare not Mary, for thou haſt found fauour with God, neither ſhalt thou feare the carnall knowledge of man, for the holy Ghoſt ſhall come vponupon thee, and the power of the Higheſt ſhall ouerſhadow thee, and therefore that holy thing that ſhall be borne of thee, ſhall be called the Sonne of God. Then Mary was reſolued and ſaid, Behold the hand-maid of the Lord, be it vntounto me according to thy word: thus he. And what is this, I pray you, but to make a ieſt of the greateſt myſtery of our redemption, to wit, Chriſts Incarnation, and to turne it into a meere fable and enterlude? With the like prophaneneſſe they diſcourſe vponupon his paſſion, reſurrection, and ſending of the holy Ghoſt. For concerning his paſſion, they ſay, that rather then Chriſt ſhould not hauehave bene crucified, the Virgin Mary would hauehave crucified him with her owne hands ſo great was her deſire of the ſaluation of mankind. And touching his reſurrection, they tell vsus this pretty tale: That there was a ſtrife in heauen who ſhould go to declare vntounto his mother his reſurrection: Adam ſaid, that it belonged vntounto him, becauſe as he was the cauſe of euill to the world, ſo he might be the meſſenger of their redemption: but Chriſt anſwered, nay, it may be thou wilt be ſtayed by the way with eating Figs: Abel ſaid that it pertained to him; but Chriſt ſaid, nay, for Cain may meete thee by the way and kill thee: then Noah preſented himſelfe, but Chriſt ſaid, nay, thou mayeſt not, for thou loueſt wine too well, and ſo maieſt forget my meſſage. Iohn Baptiſt ſaid, I will go, but Chriſt ſaid nay, for thy garment is but of haire: the theefe of the croſſe ſaid, Let me hauehave this office, but Chriſt ſaid, no in no caſe, for thy legs be broke, and thou maiſt not trauaile ſo long a iourney. At laſt an Angell was ſent who began to ſing, Regina cali laetare, Alleluya, reſurrexit ſicut dixit, Alleluya. The like or more prophane tal, they hauehave deuiſed touching the miſſion of the holy Ghoſt, which is this; That the Apoſtles came to the Virgin Mary, and complained that Ieſus Chriſt her Sonne had not kept promiſe in ſending the holy Spirit: to whom the Virgin anſwered, that this could not be performed before the fiftith day after his reſurrection, as on the fiftith day after the deliuerance of the Children of Iſrael out of Aegypt, the Lord appeared in Mount Horeb in flaming fire: then there went to prayer Peter, with others on the one ſide: Lazarus with the 72. Deſciples on another, Mary Magdalen with other women on a third, and the Virgin Mary in the middeſt: whereupon there grew a diſſention in heauen betwixt God the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt. The Sonne ſaid, O Father, I promiſed to ſend to my Apoſtles the Comforter, and now the time is come to fulfill my promiſe: the Father anſwered, I am content, tell the holy Ghoſt: but the holy Ghoſt replied, tell me how they handled thee when thou waſt among them? Then the Sonne ſhewed him his ſide, hands, and feete, pierced and wounded, ſaying; this hauehave I ſuffered for the louelove of mankind; then ſaid the holy Ghoſt, alas for me, but I will go vntounto them in ſuch a ſhape, that they ſhall not dare to touch me, and immediately he deſcended with a great ſound from heauen, like the ruſhing of a mighty wind in the ſimilitude of fiery tongues. All theſe prophane fables are found in Barlet, a famous preacher of theirs, whoſe books being authorized by the Church of Rome, and not any waies purged or condemned, muſt needs be imputed vntounto it, as a doctrine receiued and approued.
12 But to returne to the point of Chriſts comming in the fleſh.Lombard lib. 3 Diſt. 12. The maiſter of Sentences, their famous Doctor, propoundeth this queſtion, whether Chriſt might not hauehave taken humane nature in the feminine ſex: and anſwereth, that ſome were of opinion, that he might hauehave done it in either ſex if he had pleaſed, but that it was more honorable and fit that it ſhould be in the maſculine ſex.Bonauent. in 3. Sentent Diſt. 12. Bonauenture goeth a degree further, and asketh whether it were fit for Chriſt to take fleſh from a man and woman together, or from a woman alone: he anſwereth, that doubtleſſe he might hauehave taken fleſh from man and woman together, or from man alone: which is ſuch a blaſphemy as ouer throweth all the prophecies of Chriſts Incarnation, and indeed his Incarnation it ſelfe, in denying an abſolute neceſſity of being borne of a Virgin. But aboue all in impiety, is that execrable queſtion of the ſame Author in the ſame place, and of other Schoolmen his followers, to wit; whether it was poſſible that the man Chriſt could ſinne, and ſo not be God: For if he could ſinne (ſay they) he might alſo be damned; and if he might be damned he might alſo not be God. To this they anſwer, that the humane ſoule of Chriſt is to be conſidered, either as vnited to the Word, or as ſeparated and not vnited: Now it is without queſtion (ſay they) that this ſame ſoule if it were not vnited might ſinne, which being vnited could not ſinne: As if (prophane wretches as they are) the ſoule of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, could be not vnited in any conſideration whatſoeuer, or that it is not blaſphemy to hauehave ſuch a thought: nay, the ſame Author concludeth peremptorily, that if we regard the power of free-will in Chriſt in this ſenſe, as the power by which a man ſinneth, Chriſt might hauehave ſinned, and ſo might be damned, and not be God. O blaſphemies intollerable! my heart quaketh to thinke of them, and my hand and pen to write them: neither would I in reuerence to my Sauiour Chriſt dare to mention them, were it not to diſcouer the abhominations of the Whore of Babylon, and to ſhew that howſoeuer in word they confeſſe Chriſt, yet in effect and truth they deny him, by calling the efficacy of his comming into doubt by ſuch prophane queſtions.
13. To conclude, he that diuideth Chriſt, doth alſo deny him, and is as S. Iohn ſaith, the ſpirit of Antichriſt, for ſo their vulgar tranſlation, according alſo to S. Auguſtine, readeth that Text. 1. Iohn. 4.3. Omnis ſpiritus qui ſoluit Ieſum, ex Deo non eſt, et hic eſt Antichriſtus: out of which ground of their owne, I conclude that the Papiſts diuiding Chriſt, do alſo thereby in effect deny him to be come in the fleſh.Bellar. de. Chriſto. lib. 5. c. 1. et. 3. et ſequent. For they teach, that Chriſt performed the office of the mediatorſhip in his humane nature alone, without any helpe or occurrence of his diuinity: which is both pure Neſtorianiſme, in making Chriſts humanity a perſon alone, for actions are of a perſon, and alſo againſt common reaſon becauſe Chriſt as he was Mediator, produced operations that were not onelyonly humane, but alſo diuine; as when he raiſed the dead, diſcouered mens thoughts, conquered the deuill, and roſe againe from death, all which were wrought by his diuine power: now it is impoſſible that a meere humane nature ſhould be the occaſion of diuine operations. Adde hereunto, that it is the common opinion of all their Doctors, that Chriſt from the very firſt moment of his conception, was a Comprehender, that is, in the ſtate of that bleſſedneſſe which is future to vsus after this life: but by their owne doctrine, a Comprehender is not in the ſtate of meriting, and ſo it will follow, that Chriſt by his comming in the fleſh hath merited nothing, and conſequently that his comming was in vaine, and ſo indeed as if it were not. And thus eueryevery way the Church of Rome ſtands guilty of the Apoſtacy foretold by S. Paul, whether we reſpect their falling from Chriſt into hereſie: or from their owne ancient Church and religion; or the three Apoſtaticall doctrines which they are fallen into, which are left as brands thereof.