A Retractive from the Romish Religion, Motive 8

A Retractive from the Romish Religion · Motive 8

p. 240MOTIVE. VIII. That Religion which implyeth manifold contradiction in it ſelfe, and is contrary to it ſelfe in many things, cannot be the true Religion: but ſuch is the Religion of the Church of Rome: ergo, &c.

1. IT is an old ſaying and true, Oportet mendacem eſſe memorem: It behooueth a lyar to hauehave a good memory, leſt he croſſe himſelfe in his tale, and ſo diſcouer his falſhood. This ſaying is verified in our Aduerſaries the Romaniſts, whoſe Religion, being nothing elſe but a bundle of lyes, and a hotch-potch of olde hereſies, croſſeth it ſelfe in many ſubſtantiall poynts, and thereby reuealeth the manifold errours and falſities that lurke in the boſome thereof. That this is true, the diſcourſe enſuing thereof (I hope) ſhall make ſo manifeſt, that they themſelues ſhall not be able to gainfay it.

p. 2412. The Maior propoſition in this argument is of ſuch euidentMAIOR. verity, that by no ſhew of reaſon it can poſſibly be contradicted; conſidering that truth is alwayes, and in eueryevery part, like to it ſelfe, and agreeing, conſenting, and conſpiring with it ſelfe, as a perfect body, wherein there is ſuch a ſweet harmony of all the members. that one is not contrary to another, but all tend to one and the ſame end, and vnite their forces together, for the good of the whole: for which cauſe the Orator defineth truth to bee that which is ſimple and Cic. offic. lib. 1. Terent. Bernard. in ſer.ſyncere. And the Poet ſaith, that it ſeeketh no corners. To which Saint Bernard alluding, thus writeth, Non amat veritas angulos, non ei diuerſoria placent, in medio ſtat, &c. i. It loueth no corners, by-wayes doe not pleaſe it, it ſtandeth in the miaſt. And therefore the Ancients in their Hierogliphicks repreſented truth by the picture of the Sunne, not onelyonly inPierius valer. Hieroglyph. l. 44. pag. 430. reſpect of the puritie and clarity of it; but alſo in reſpect of the ſimplicitie and vnitie. Duplicia enim & multiplicia ſunt veritati contraria; (i) Duplicity and multiplicity, are contrary to verity. But falſity, errour, and lying, is full of doubtings, windings, and contrarieties, like a dreame in the night, the end whereof, for the moſt part is neuer agreeable to the beginning. And this is that which the Philoſopher teacheth,Ariſtotle. when he ſaith, that Mendacium de ſeipſo duplex eſt; A lye is double of it ſelfe. And as Chryſoſtome noteth, Mendacia ſi Cpryſoſt. ſuper Mato. 21.non habent quem deciptant, ipſa ſibi mentiuntur; Lyes, if they hauehave not one to deceiue, they deceiue and beguile themſelues. So that it muſt needes follow, that that Religion which infoldeth in it ſelfe contradictions, and contrarieties, cannot be the truth, but muſt of neceſſitie be lying and erronious.

3. I therefore leaue the Maior thus cleared, and come toMINOR. the proofe of the Minor, or ſecond propoſition, which is, that the Religion of the Church of Rome is repleniſhed with many contradictions, and is at variance and diſcord in it ſelfe, and therefore cannot ſtand: as our Sauiour concludeth of anMat. 12.Matt 12 houſe or a kingdom. And to ſhew this to be true, let vsus firſt begin p. 242with the Sacrament: in the doctrine whereof are enwrapped many abſurd contradictions; as for example.

4. It is a ground and principle of their Religion, and of1. Contrad. ours, and of the truth, that Chriſt our Sauiour tooke verily and truely, fleſh of the Virgine Mary, and had a true humane body, like to vsus in all things, ſinne onelyonly excepted: and therefore that this body of his had all the demenſions and circumſcriptions of a body, and all the properties and qualities naturally belonging thereunto. This ground of truth the Church of God hath euer defended againſt all Heretikes of former and latter times, that impugned the ſame: to wit, the Marionites, the Manichees, and the Eutychians, with diuers others, that thought, and taught erroniouſly concerning the humanity of Chriſt: affirming that he had no true, but a fantaſticall body. Now this error is in outward appearance condemned by the Church of Rome, and adiudged as a damnable hereſie. But if we looke into other of their doctrines, and neceſſary conſequences that may be deriued therefrom, we ſhall fi…de, that they croſſe their owne poſitions, and hold in ſubſtance as much as the olde Heretikes did.

5. For in their doctrine of the Sacrament they teach, that Chriſt gaue his owne naturall body with his owne hands toBell. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19. Coſter Enchirid. his Apoſtles, when he ſaid, This is my body: by which it muſt needs follow, that he both kept his body to himſelfe, ſitting at the Table, and alſo gaue it to his Apoſtles: ſo that at this firſt Supper there were thirteene bodies of Chriſt; for eueryevery one (by their doctrine) had the true naturall body of Chriſt wholly communicated vntounto him. Now how is Chriſts bodie heere a true naturall body, being in thirteene places at once? From hence thus I reaſon: A true naturall body is circumſcribed, and can be but in one place at once: but by the Popiſh doctrine of tranſſubſtantiation, Chriſts body was in diuers places at once; therefore it was no true naturall body. And ſo the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation dōth contradict and ouerthrow the doctrine of the truth of Chriſts p. 243humane nature: and that, not onelyonly after it was glorifyed, whereof, peraduenture, there might be ſome better ſhew of reaſon, but euen whilſt it was here vponupon the earth, ſubiect to all humane ſinleſſe infirmities, yea, to death it ſelfe. And this concluſion is not ours, but S. Auguſtines: that is, Take away Aug. Epiſt. …7. ad Dardan.from bodies (ſaith he) ſpace of place, and they will bee no where, and becauſe they will be no where, therefore they will not be at all. And againe, in the ſame Epiſtle he ſaith, ſpeaking of Chriſt, that … We muſt take heed that we do not ſo build vp the Diuinitie of Chriſt a man, that we take away the truth of his body. But the Romaniſts deſtroy the truth of Chriſts humanitie, by giuing vntounto it an eſſentiall being and ſubſiſting in many diſtant places at once; and make it no body in truth, by denying vntounto it a certayne circumſcription of one ſingular place at one time, which …s a neceſſary acc…ſlarie to all quantitiue bodies.

6. Bellarmine, to ſalue this contradiction, labours mainely,Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 4. 5. ſtretching all the ſtrings of his wit to the higheſt ſtraine, euen till they cracke againe: but all his labour is not worth a ruſh: eueryevery childe may ſay that he doth but tryfle; for firſt, hee ſaith that Chriſts body is but in one place locally, but in many places ſacramental…y. Secondly, that it is in the conſecrated hoaſt, definitiuè, and not circumſcriptiuè; definitely, and not circumſcriptiuely. Thirdly, (not ſatisfying himſelfe with this euaſion neither) he ſaith, that it is in the Sacrament, Tanquam Deus eſt in loco, As God is in a place: that is, by a ſupernaturall preſence onelyonly. Laſtly, he flyeth to Gods omnipotency, and diſclayming all naturall reſpect, ſaith, it is a miracle: ſo that (in truth) he knoweth not what to ſay, one part of his ſpeech thwarting and croſſing another.

7. For if the body of Chriſt bee in the Sacrament, ſacramentally onelyonly, then it is not, either definitely, as Angels and Spirits are ſaid to be, or diuinely, as God is: for, ſacramentally to be in a place, is to bee there by way of relation, and not by corporall exiſtence, as all know; and ſo we ſay, that Chriſts body is there preſent. Againe, if it be definitiuely, then it cannot be a ſubſtantiall body, ſubſiſting of parts, and members, and quantitie, as they ſay Chriſts body doth in the p. 444Sacrament: becauſe it is proper to Spirits, and intellectuall eſſences, to bee in a place after that manner, and not to bodyes;Aquin. p. 1. q. 52. art. 2. as their learned Aquinas telleth vsus: and if it bee there after the manner of Gods preſence, then it cannot bee there after the manner of a body; vnleſſe with the Anthropomorphites, he will impiouſly aſcribe a body vntounto God. And laſtly, touching Gods omnipotency, and the miracle ariſing therefrom, Bellarmine himſelfe acknowledgeth, that God cannotBell. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 2. doe that which doth imply contradiction; for that is to bee vnlike to himſelfe, and to deny himſelfe: but theſe things are contradictories, a body with quantity, that is, with iuſt length, bredth, proportion, ſitting at the Table, and at the ſame time, the ſame body without length, bredth, or proportion, hidden in the bread; a body viſible, and yet the ſame inuiſible at the ſame inſtant: a body with poſition and ſituation of parts, and yet the ſame without poſition and ſituation of parts, included in eueryevery cr…mme of the hoaſt. Yea, laſtly, one body ſitting at the Table with his Apoſtles, ſpeaking, breathing, ſpreading his hands, and full of infirmitie: the other in the ſtomacks of his Diſciples, neither ſpeaking, nor breathing, nor ſtirring, no… ſubiect to infirmitie. Now compare the termes together: Sitting, and not ſitting: viſible, and inuiſible: with ſituation, and without ſituation: one, and not one, and all at the ſame inſtant and moment of time, are groſſe contradictions, which, as Bellarmine confeſſeth, Almighty God himſelfe cannot reconcile, who by his omnipotent power is able to doe all things: but this is nothing, and therefore is rather to be accounted a defect of impotency then an effect of omnipotency: Dicitur enim Deus Aug. de ciuit. lib. 5. cap. 10.omnipotens faciendo quod vult, non patiendo quod non vult. i. For God is ſayd to be omnipotent, by doing that which he will, not by ſuffering that which he will not.

8. From hence it muſt needes follow, that heere can bee no miracle; and that not onelyonly becauſe miracles are extraordinary works of God; and this change of ſubſtances is ordinary in eueryevery Sacrament, as they ſay: and miracles are not contrary, but aboue or beſide nature; but this is flat contrary, p. 245not onelyonly to nature, but to God himſelfe, the Authour and Creator of nature: and miracles are alwaies ſenſible, but this is inſenſible, and cannot bee diſcerned by any outward meanes: but alſo for that no miracle can imply contradiction in it ſelfe, as this muſt needes doe, if it were as they would hauehave it. For when Aarons Rodde was turned into a Serpent, it left to be a Rodde; and when it turned into a Rodde, it left to be a Serpent. And when the Water was turned into Wine, it left to bee Water, it was impoſſible that it ſhould hauehave beene both Water and Wine at one time, in one and the ſame reſpect; or a Rodde and a Serpent at once. And ſo of all other miracles, there is not one to be found that enwrappethAug. detrinit. cap. 10. contradictions. Beſides all which, Saint Auguſtine concludeth peremptorily, that Sacraments may hauehave honour, vt Religioſa: but not amazement vt admiranda, as miracles. And Thomas Aquinas more plainely ſaith, Ea quae contradictionem Aquin. p. 1. q. 25. art. 3.implioant, ſub diuina potentia non continentur. i. Thoſe things which imply contradiction, cannot fall vnderunder the power of God.

9. They reply, that they teach no more then Cyprian did, thirteeene hundred yeeres ſince, who ſaid that Chriſt did Cyprian. ſer. de coena dom.beare himſelfe in his owne hands at the laſt Supper. I anſwere, that Cyprian in that place, & the reſt of the Fathers elſewhere, did often vſe hyperbolicall ſpeeches, to extoll the dignity of the Sacrament, and to ſhew the certainty and efficacy of our communion with Chriſt, and of our ſpirituall eating of him: but they neuer meant ſo as the Romaniſts doe; that Chriſt bore his reall, naturall, ſubſtantiall body in his owne hands, and gaue it to his Apoſtles after a fleſhly manner. For Cyprian Cyprian. epiſt. 202. ad Euodiū.expoundeth himſelfe in another place, when hee ſaith, that Sacraments hauehave the names of thoſe things which they ſignifie. And Saint Auguſtine more plainly ſaith, that Chriſt did beare himſelfe in his owne hands after a ſort. If it had beene really, and ſubſtantially, what neede hee hauehave added, after a ſort? for this word, as they vſe to ſpeake in Schooles, is, Terminus diminutiuus, qui realitati vbique detrahit. A diminitiue terme, which detracteth from the realtie and true being of a thing. And p. 246this ſpeech, Chriſt bore himſelfe in his owne hands after a ſort, is all one with that in another place, After a certaine manner the Sacrament of Chriſts body, is Chriſts body. So that it is playne, that when the Fathers ſaid, Chriſt bore himſelfe in his owne hands, they meant nothing, but that he bore in his hands the Sacrament of himſelfe: and thus this firſt contradiction is irreconciliable. I come to a ſecond, and that in the Sacrament, which is no leſſe palpable.

10. It is a principle of their Religion, and of the truth2. Contrad. it ſelfe, that Chriſt after his reſurrection aſcended into heauen, and there filleth a place, and hath figure, forme, and diſpoſition of parts, and is circumſcribed within a certaine compaſſe, according to the nature of a body. This is Bellarmines Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 7.owne aſſertion, and it is conſonant to ſound doctrine, confirmed both by manifeſt Scripture, and vniforme conſent of ancient Fathers: for Scripture, Chriſt is ſaid to bee like vntounto vsus; and not barely like, but like in all things, that is, both in nature, and in the qualities and quantities of nature. And to put the matter out of doubt, onelyonly one thing is exceptedPhil. 2. 7. Heb. 2. 17. Heb. 4. 25.Phil 2:7Heb 2:17Heb 4:25 wherin he is not like vntounto vsus, and that is Sinne, whereby he is abſolutely left to bee like vntounto vsus in all other things. And leſt any ſhould thinke, that that was true onelyonly whilſt he was here vponupon earth, the Apoſtle in the forenamed places applyeth it to him being in heauen: for hee ſaith, Wee hauehave not an High-prieſt which cannot be touched with our infirmities, and therefore let vsus boldly goe vntounto the throne of grace: where the Apoſtles argument were of no force, if he were like vntounto vsus here on earth, onelyonly in the ſtate of his humilitie, and not alſo now, being in heauen, in the ſtate of glory: for ſinfull man might thus reply, True, Chriſt was like our nature whilſt he liued amongſt vsus; but now, being glorified, he hath put off our nature, and therefore we dare not preſume to come vntounto him. Yes, ſaith the Apoſtle, he is ſtill like vntounto vsus, and hath not put off our nature, but the infirmities of our nature onelyonly, which were the ſequels of ſinne, as we alſo ſhall doe when we ſhall be tranſlated into heauen after the reſurrection. And this Saint Luke more plainely auoucheth, when he p. 247ſaith, that after he had bleſſed them, he departed from them, and Luk. 24. 5.Luke 24:5was carryed vp into heauen: and that whilſt they beheld, he was taken vp by a cloude out of their ſight. Where we ſee plainelyAct. 1. 9.Acts 1:9 a locall motion of Chriſt from earth to heauen: and therefore there muſt needs be of him a locall ſituation in the heauens. As alſo Saint Peter in expreſſe words doeth affirme, when he ſaith, that the heauens muſt containe or receiue him, Act. 3. 21.Acts 3:21vntill the time of reſtauration of all things. Thus this doctrine is conſonant to holy Scripture.

11. Now let vsus ſee how it was entertayned by the ancient Fathers: thus they write. Athanaſius: When Chriſt ſaid, I Athanaſ. in diſput. contra Arrian.goe to the Father, he ſpake of the humane nature which hee haed aſſumed: for it is the propertie of him to goe and come, who is circumſcribed with certaine limits of places; and forſaking that place where it was, commeth to the place where it was not. Nazianzene Nazianz. ad Cledonium.ſaith, Wee profeſſe one and the ſame Lord, paſſible in the fleſh, impoſſible in his Godhead; circumſcribed in body, vncircumſcribed in deity; the ſame both earthly and heauenly, viſible, and inuiſible; comprehended in place, and not comprehended. Ibid.Againe, Chriſt as man is circumſcribed, and contayned in place; Chriſt as God is vncircumſcribed, and contayned within no place. Auguſtine ſaith, Chriſt, as man, according to his body, Auguſt. in Ioh. tract. 21. Cyril in Ioh. lib. 6. c. 14. Fulgent. ad Thraſimind. Vigil. contra Eutych. lib. 4.is in a place; but as God, filleth all places. Cyril ſaith, Though Chriſt hath taken from hence the preſence of his body: yet in the maieſtie of his deitie, hee is alwayes preſent. Fulgentius ſaith, One and the ſame Chriſt, a locall Man of a Woman his mother, who is the infinite God of God his Father. Ʋigilius the Martyr, Chriſt is in all places, according to the nature of his deitie: but is contayned in one place, according to the nature of his humanity. Damaſcene, The difference of natures in Chriſt is not taken away Damaſc. apud. Euagrium lib. 2. hiſtor. c. 4. Leo. in ſolemn. natiuit. ſer. 1.by their vnion in one perſon: but the proprietie of each nature is kept ſafe. Leo, one of their Popes, Chriſt hath vnited both natures together by ſuch a league, that neither glorification doth conſume the inferiour nature, nor aſſumption doth diminiſh the ſuperiour. To theſe I might adde many more, but theſe are ſufficient to prooue, that this doctrine, touching the truth of Chriſts humanitie, now glorified in the heauens; that he hath p. 248retained our nature with all the proprieties, ſinne onelyonly and infirmities excepted, is concordant both with holy Scripture, and with the voited opinions of all reuerend antiquitie.

12. Now this doctrine is croſſed and contradicted by that other doctrine of theirs, touching Tranſubſtantiation, and the carnall and corporall preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament, for this they teach, that the body of Chriſt is in the SacramentBell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 5. with the whole magnitude thereof, together with a true order and diſpoſition of parts, fleſh, bloud, and bone, as he was borne, liued, crucified, roſe againe: and yet they ſay that the ſame body in the Euchariſt, though it hath magnitude and extention, and diſpoſition of parts agreeable to the forme of an humane body, neuertheleſſe doth not fill a place, neither is to bee extended nor proportioned to the placeBell. Ibid. which it poſſeſſeth: here be pregnant and manifeſt contradictions, Chriſt hath one body, and yet many bodies: euen as many as there are conſecrated hoaſts in the world, that is, it may be a thouſand bodies at once; and ſo his body is one, and not one at the ſame time. Againe, this body is in heauen in a place, and the ſame body at the ſame inſtant is on the Altar, without being compaſſed about with place: to be in heauen, and to be in earth at one inſtant, are contradictory propoſitions, being vnderſtoode of finite ſubſtances, and not of that infinite eſſence which filleth all places: for they imply thus much, to be in heauen, and net to be in heauen; to be in earth, and not to be in earth, which be the rules of Logicke, and Reaſon the mother of Logicke, cannot be together true. Againe, at one moment of time to be aboue, and yet below, to bee remooued farre off, and yet bee neere adioyning, to come to one place, and yet not to depart from another, are ſo meerely oppoſite to each other, that they cannot be reconciled. And laſtly, a body to hauehave forme, magnitude, extention, and diſpoſition of parts, and yet not with theſe to fill a place, is as much as to ſay, it is a body, and yet not a bodie, it is in a place, and yet not in that very ſame place: theſe are contradictions ſo euident, that it is impoſſible for the wit of man to reconcile them.

p. 24913. Notwithſtanding the aduocates of the Romiſh Synagogue labour might and maine in this taske, and by manyBell. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 3. arguments endeauour to reunite theſe oppoſitions: firſt, by Gods omnipotency: ſecondly, by the qualities of a glorified body: and thirdly, by arguments from the diſcourſe of reaſon. From hence they thus argue, All things are poſſible to God, and therefore this is poſſible; neither is there any thing excepted from the omnipotency of God, ſaue theſe things, Quae facere non eſt facere, ſed deficere (as Bellarmine ſpeaketh) that is, which to doe, is not to doe, but to vndoe, and doe argue rather impotency then potency, of which ſort (that one body ſhould be in many places at once, is not, ſaith he) becauſe it is not in expreſſe words excepted in Scripture, as to lye and to denye himſelfe are. To this I anſwere, firſt, that albeit the Scripture doth not expreſly except this from Gods omnipotency, to make one body to bee in two places at once, yet implyedly it doth, for it denyeth power or rather weakneſſe to God to doe thoſe things which imply contradiction:2. Cor. 1. 19.2 Cor 1:19 of which kinde this is, for one body to be in many places at once. And Bellarmine himſelfe ſaith, that this is aBell. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 2. firſt principle in the light of nature, eueryevery thing is, or is not, which being taken away, all knowledge faileth. Secondly, I anſwere, that the power of God is not ſo much to be conſidered as his will, nor what he can doe, but what he hath reucaled in his word, that hee will doe; for if wee argue from his power toTertul. aduerſ. Prax. cap. 10. the effect, Wee may deuiſe God (ſaith Tertullian) to doe any thing, becauſe he could doe it. And therefore the ſame Authour ſaith, Dei poſſe, velle eſt, Dei nonpoſſe, nolle. God can of ſtones raiſe vp Children vntounto Abraham (ſaith Iohn Baptiſt.)Mat. 3. 9.Matt 3:9 Now if any ſhould hence conclude, that any of Abrahams children were made of ſtones, in a proper ſpeech, all would thinke him to hauehave no more wit then a ſtone. And to this accordeth Theodoret, when hee ſaith, That God can doe all Theod. Dial. 3.things which hee will, but God will not doe any of theſe things which are not agreeable to his nature. But for to make a body to be without quantity, and a quantity to be without dimenſion, and dimenſion without a place, that is as much to ſay, a p. 250body without a body, and quantity without quantity, and a place without a place, is contrary to Gods nature; and therefore cannot bee agreeable to his will, and ſo hath no correſpondence with his power. And laſtly, I anſwere, that it is no good reaſon to ſay, God can doe ſuch a thing, therefore he doth it; but rather thus, God will doe ſuch a thing, therefore he can doe it: and thus the Scripture teacheth vsus to reaſon: Whatſoeuer pleaſed the Lord, that did hee in heauen and in Pſal. 135. 6.Ps 135:6earth, and not whatſoeuer hee could doe, but whatſouer it pleaſed him to do; and the Leper ſaid to our Sauiour Chriſt, Maſter, if thou wilt, thou canſt make me cleane: no…, if thou canſt, thou wilt; but if thou wilt, thou canſt.

14. Secondly, whereas they obiect that Chriſts bodie after his glorification, is indued with more excellent qualities then any other naturall body, by reaſon of that ſuper-excellent glory wherewith it is adorned aboue all others, and thereby as he came to his Apoſtles, the dores being ſhut, and roſe out of his graue, notwithſtanding the ſtone that lay vpō it; and appeared vntounto Paul on earth, being at the ſame time in heauen: ſo he is in the Euchariſt after a ſtrange and miraculous manner, and yet is in heauen at the ſame time. I anſwereTheodoret. Dial. 2. p. 268. firſt with Theodoret, that Chriſts bodie is not changed by his glorification into another nature, but remaineth a true bodie, filled with diuine glory: And with Auguſtine, that Chriſt gaue Aug. ad Dardan. Epiſt. 57.vntounto his fleſh immortality, but tooke not away nature: and in another place, That though Chriſt had a ſpirituall body after Idem ad Conſen. Epiſt. 146.his reſurrection, yet it was a true bodie, becauſe he ſaid to his Diſciples, Palpate & videte, feele and ſee; and as his body was then after his reſurrection, ſo it is now being in the heauens. Secondly, that when hee came out of the graue, the Angell remoued the ſtone, with Hierome, and Iuſtine Martyr: Hierom. in Pſal. 104. Iuſtin Martyr quaeſt. 117. Theodor. Dial. 2 Cyril Alex. in Io…. lib. 12. Cap. 53.Ps 104and when he entred into the houſe, the dores being ſhut, that the dores and walls yeelded vntounto him a paſſage, as vntounto their Creator, with Theodoret, and Cyrill: and that when hee appeared vntounto Paul going to Damaſcus, if it was in the aire, or on the earth (as it may be doubted) that then this body was not in heauen at the ſame inſtant: for farre bee it from vsus ſo p. 251to pin vp our Lord in the Heauens, that he cannot be where he pleaſeth. And this is Thomas Aquinas opinion in expreſſeAquin. Sum. q. 57. art. 6. ad 3. words, which Bellarmine as expreſly contradicteth.

15. Thirdly, by diſcourſe of reaſon hee thus laboureth to reconcile theſe contradictions, and thus diſputeth: God beingBell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 3. but one ſimple and inuiſible eſſence, is in infinite places at once, and he might create another world, and fill it with his preſence, and be in two worlds at one inſtant: and the ſoule of man is wholy in eueryevery part of the body, and God is able to conſerue the ſoule in a part that is cut off from the body: therefore it implieth no contradiction to be in two places at once: againe, one place may containe two bodies, and yet be not two places, but one; as when Chriſt roſe out of the graue, the Sepulchre being ſhut; therefore one body may be in two places at once, and yet not two bodies, but one. Laſtly, there be many other myſteries of religion as ſtrange and difficult to be conceiued as this, and yet are beleeued, therefore this alſo is to be beleeued as well as they.

16. A miſerable cauſe ſure that needeth ſuch defences: the weakeneſſe of theſe reaſons argueth the feebleneſſe of the cauſe: for, who knoweth not, but that there is no ſimilitude betweene the infinite God and a finite Creature, nor any proportion betwixt a Spirit and a body: and that à poſſe, ad eſſe, from may bee, to muſt bee, is no good conſequence? Adde that one place cannot hold two bodies, nor euer did, except they were ſo vnited, that in reſpect of place they made but one: And laſtly, that all thoſe myſteries of Religion which he nameth, to wit, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Reſurrection, the Creation, and Annihilation, &c. hauehave their foundation in holy Scripture, and therefore are to be receiued as doct ines of truth, though tranſcending the ſpheare of nature and reaſon: but this ſtrange myſterie of Tranſubſtantiation hath no ground in Scripture, as he himſelfe confeſſeth:Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 23. and therefore it is not to be beleeued as the other are, without better reaſons then he bringeth for the defence thereof: but like lips, like lettuces; ſuch as the cauſe is, ſuch are the defences, both nought and weake, as any man may ſee that is not p. 252muffled with errour; and thus this ſecond contradiction remaines irreconciliable.

17. A third contradiction is alſo in and about the Sacrament,3. Contrad. which is this, they teach that the matter in Sacrament is partly the outward Elements, and partly the thing ſignified and repreſented by them; and that betwixt theſe there is a certaine relation and ſimilitude, as in Baptiſme the outward ſigne which is water, and the thing ſignified, which is the bloud of Chriſt, make the matter of that Sacrament, or the outward waſting, by water, and the inward, by the Spirit, and the relation is; as the water waſheth and purgeth away all filthineſſe of the body, ſo Chriſts bloud purgeth away both the guilt and filth of ſinne from the ſoule: and ſo in the Euchariſt, the Elements of Bread and Wine, together with the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, are the matter of the Sacrament, andBell. de ſacram. lib. 1. cap. 18. the relation is, as thoſe elements doe feed, nouriſh, and ſtrengthen, and cheare the bodie of man; ſo the body and bloud of Chriſt doe ſeed, nouriſh, and ſtrengthen, and cheare the ſoule vntounto eternall life: and as thoſe elements muſt be eaten and digeſted, or elſe they nouriſh not: ſo Chriſt muſt alſo be eaten, and, as it were, digeſted, and after a ſort conuerted into our ſubſtance, or elſe he is no food vntounto our ſoules. This is the very doctrine of the Church of Rome, and it is agreeable to the truth, for Bellarmine thus ſpeaketh, Species illae ſignificant Bell. de Euchar. lib▪ 4. cap. 6.quidem cibum ſpiritualem, ſed non ſunt ipſae cibus ſpiritualis, that is, The ſignes in the Scrament ſignifie our ſpirituall foode, but they are not the ſpirituall foode it ſelfe. And in another place he ſaith, that ſignum in Sacramento reiſignatae ſimilitudinem Idem de Sacra. lib. 1. cap. 11.gerit, The ſignes in the Sacrament doe beare the ſimilitude of the thing ſignified. And in the ſame Chapter hee ſayth more plainely, that God would neuer hauehave ordained one thing to ſignifie another, vnleſſe it had a certaine analogie or ſimilitude with it. And herein he accordeth with the Maſter of ſentences,Lumb. li. 4▪ diſt. 1 who defines a Sacrament thus, To be a viſible forme of an inuiſible grace, bearing the Image of that grace. And with Hugo, Hugo lib. 1. part. 9. cap 2.who ſaith, That a Sacrament is a corporall or materiall element, propounded outwardly to the ſenſes, by ſimilitude repreſenting, p. 253and by inſtitution ſignifying, and by Sanctification containing ſome inuiſible and ſpirituall grace. And that this relation is in eating and nouriſhing, Bellarmine in another place confeſſeth in direct words, when he ſaith, that That ſame outward Bell. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 6.eating in the Sacrament, doth ſignifie the inward eating and refreſhing of the ſoule, but is not the cauſe thereof: and that that is ſo neceſſarie a condition, that without it we ſhould not be partakers of that diuine nouriſhment. And to this agreeth Saint Auguſtine, who plainely affirmeth, that if Sacraments Aug. Epiſt. 23. ad Bonifac.had not a certaine ſimilitude of thoſe things whereof they are Sacraments, they were not Sacraments at all. And what this ſimilitude is he declareth in another place, where hee ſaith, that We receaue viſible meate in the Sacrament; but the Sacrament Idem in Iohan. tract. 26.is one thing, and the vertue of the Sacrament is another. And Thomas Aquinas giueth this as a reaſon why Bread and Wine are the fitteſt matter of this Sacrament, becauſe men moſt commonly Aqui. pa. 3. q. 74.are nouriſhed therewith: his words are theſe, As water is aſſumed in the Sacrament of Baptiſme, to the vſe of ſpirituall waſhing, becauſe corporall waſhing is commonly made by water: ſo bread and wine wherewith moſt commonly men are nouriſhed, are taken vp in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, to the vſe of the ſpirituall eating. By which it followeth, that if water did not waſh, it was no fit element for the Sacrament of Baptiſme: ſo, if bread and wine doe not nouriſh, they are no fit ſignes for the Lords Supper: and for this cauſe our Sauiour at the inſtitution of this Sacrament, gaue this commandement to his Diſciples, that they ſhould take and eate: and the Apoſtle1. Cor. 10. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 20.1 Cor 10:211 Cor 11:20 calleth it the Lords Supper, and the Lords Table.

18. This therefore is their own doctrine, and it is grounded vponupon the truth. But liſten a little how they contradict this by their miraculous monſter Tranſubſtantiation: for when they ſay that the ſubſtance of the bread and wine is vtterly changed into the body and bloud of Chriſt, and that onelyonly the accidents remaine: I would faine know of them how theſe outward ſignes doe nouriſh the bodie: can the accidents of bread and wine nouriſh the ſubſtance of the bodie? muſtSimile nutritur ſimili. there not be a ſimilitude and proportion betwixt the nouriſhment p. 254and the thing nouriſhed? but betwixt accidents and a ſubſtance there is no ſimilitude nor proportion. Ariſtotle tellethAriſtot. de …nima. 2. vsus as much, when he ſaith, that Foode doth nouriſh, as it is a ſubſtance, and not as an accident. Now if the outward ſignes doe not nouriſh the body, what analogie is there betwixt them and the things ſignified? or why were they ordayned to repreſent the ſpirituall refection of our ſoules by Chriſt, if they miniſter no corporall refection vntounto our bodies? or how can they repreſent that where of they beare no ſimilitude? for, as in Baptiſme, if the nature and ſubſtance of the water were taken away, and onelyonly accidents did remayne, ſo that it could not waſh, nor clenſe the body, without doubt, it could be no fit ſigne to ſignifie the inward ablution of the ſoule, by the bloud of Chriſt. So they that take away the nature and ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine, and leau… bare accidents, make it, without all queſtion, a dead and liueleſſe Sacrament, not fit to repreſent ſo high a myſtery.

19 Behold now the contradictions: firſt accidents without a ſubſtance, that is to ſay, accidents, and no accidents; for therefore they are called accidents, becauſe they adhere, and are ioyned to a ſubſtance, in which they hauehave their ſubſiſtance, & vponupon which they hauehave their dependance: ſo that, take away their ſubſtance, and they preſently …urceaſe to beeAriſt. metaph. l…. 5. text. 35. accidents. For, Ariſtotle ſaith▪ Accidentis eſſe eſt in eſſe: The eſſence of an accident is to bee in a ſubiect. Secondly, two parts of the Sacraments, the viſible elements, and the inuiſible grace, & yet but one part of the ſame Sacrament: for the elements bee taken away, and accidents onelyonly remayne; therefore two parts, and not two parts. Thirdly, the externall matter of the Sacrament is the outward elements: and yet there are no elements at all; and ſo elements, and no elements, matter, and no matter. Fourthly, the outward elements are ſignes of the inward grace, and the ſame by their doctrine being but accidents, are ſignes of the outward elements, which are ſignes of the inward grace: and ſo they are ſignes of the ſignes, rather then of the thing ſignified. Laſtly, the outward feeding by bread & wine, repreſents the inward p. 255feeding, by the body and bloud of Chriſt: & yet there is no outward feeding by bread and wine, becauſe there is no bread and wine, except they will make accidents to …eede a ſubſtance: which is againſt all reaſon: for the PhiloſopherAriſt. de …ene…. lib. 2. ſaith, that Ex i…ſdem nutrimur, ex quibus ſumus, wee are nouriſhed by the ſame things, of which we conſiſt: but we do not conſiſt of accidents, but of ſubſtances.

20. Out of this ſnare they ſeeke to ridde themſelues by a double euaſion; firſt, they ſay, that accidents may be without a ſubiect, though not naturally, yet by the ſupernaturall powerBell. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 24. of God. This is Bellarmines: and hee prooueth it by two inſtances; firſt, becauſe Saint Baſil affirmeth, that That light which was created the firſt day, was without a ſubiect: and ſecondly, becauſe as the ſubſtance of Chriſts humanitie had no ſubſiſtance in it ſelfe, but in the word; ſo, though an accident naturally doth inhere in a ſubiect, yet ſupernaturally it may bee, and yet not inhere. To this I anſwere: firſt, that though Saint Baſil be of that opinion, yet Saint Auguſtine isAu…. in Ger. ad Li…. lib. 1. ca. 3. not; for he thought it to be a ſpirituall and no naturall light. Nor Beda, Lyran…s, and the maſter of ſentences, who ſuppoſedDamaſ. de …ide lib. 2. cap. 7. it to be a bright and lightſome cloude▪ which was carried about, and gaue light vntounto the world. Nor Damaſcene, who ſuppoſed that this light proceeded from the element of fire, as an effect thereof. Nor yet the Fathers, who though they differed in their opinions touching this light, yet none of them were of Saint Baſils mind, to thinke that it was an accident without a ſubiect. Now, why ſhould we beleeue Saint Baſil herein, more then S. Auguſtine, venerable Bede, Damaſcene, or the reſt? This therefore is but one priuate mans opinion, croſſed by many others, and ſo maketh little for his purpoſe.

21. Secondly, I anſwere, that though the humanitie of Chriſt had no ſubſiſtance in it ſelfe, yet by reaſon of the vnion with the God-head, it was ſuſtained and vpholden by it: but there is no ſuch vnion betwixt the accidents in the Sacraments, and the body and bloud of Chriſt, that the body and bloud of Chriſt ſhould ſuſtaine and vphold thoſe accidents: and therefore they themſelues ſay, that they are not ſuſtained p. 256by the body of Chriſt, but by the extraordinary power of God; and ſo this inſtance maketh nothing for this purpoſe neither. Laſtly, I anſwere, that we are not ſo much to conſider what God can doe by his omnipotent power, as what he hath done heretofore, or what he hath ſaid hee will doe hereafter: let them therefore ſhew, that accidents hauehave beene without a ſubſtance in times paſt, or that God hath ſaid, hee will hauehave them ſo to be, and then wee will yeeld vntounto them: but till then wee hauehave more reaſon to hold concluſions of nature not croſſed by religion, then to relye vponupon ſupernaturall imaginations.

22. The ſecond euaſion is by Aquinas, who affirmeth thatAquin. par. 3. q. 77. art. 6. ſupernaturally, the accidents of bread and wine may nouriſh, becauſe they receaue miraculouſly the ſtrength and vertue of a ſubſtance, and that they doe nouriſh he proueth, becauſe by the ſame reaſon they may be turned into the ſubſtance of the body, by the which they are turned into aſhes & wormes: and alſo becauſe wee ſee by experience that the body is nouriſhed by the ſignes in the Sacrament: to which a ſhort anſwere will ſuffice: for firſt that there ſhould be ſuch a miraculous nouriſhing by accidents, hath no ground either in experience, or in Scripture. And ſecondly, he ſhould rather conclude, becauſe the body is nouriſhed by outward elements, and they are often conuerted into aſhes and wormes, therefore they are not bare accidents but ſubſtances, then that therefore bare accidents may nouriſh: for let the reader iudge whether concludes more reaſonably, we, when we ſay the elements doe nouriſh the body: therefore they are bodily ſubſtances; or they that thus reaſon, the elements do nouriſh the bodie, therefore accidents without a ſubſtance may nouriſh: and thus the ſnare is not broken, neither are they eſcaped.

23. A fourth contradiction, and that about the Sacrament,4. Contrad. they hold that the wicked and reprobate receaue the body and bloud of Chriſt in the Sacrament, and yet reape no benefit thereby to their owne ſoules, but rather iudgement and damnation, as if the merits, grace, and vertue of Chriſt could be ſeparated from his perſon: or as if a man could receaue p. 257life, and yet not liue, ſanctification, and not be ſanctified, righteouſnes, and not be righteous, redemption, and not be redeemed: for all theſe is Chriſt made vntounto vsus, Life, Righteouſnes, Sanctification, and Redemption, as the Scripture teſtifieth.1. Cor. 1. 30.1 Cor 1:30 Bellarmine ſpendeth one whole Chapter in this argument,Bell. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 13. to proue that the wicked receiue Chriſt in the Sacrament, and therevpon expreſly affirmeth, that though they receiue him, yet they receiue not his iuſtifying grace, nor his merits, nor the fruit and effect of his death and paſſion together with him. Of the ſame mind is Aquinas, & the reſt of theirAquin. 3. q. 80. art. 1. & 3. Diuines. Now this poſition is contrary both to Scripture, Fathers, and to their owne diuinity. To Scripture, for our Sauiour ſaith in expreſſe words, Whoſoeuer eateth my fleſh, and Ioh. 6. 54. 56.John 6:54John 6:56drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, and I will raiſe him vp at the laſt day. And againe, He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. But ſay they, The wicked, yea, the reprobate, eate the very fleſh, and drinke the very bloud of Chriſt. Therefore conclude that they hauehave eternall life, and dwell in Chriſt, and Chriſt in them: neither can they eſcape by ſaying, that the ſpirituall eating ofBell. de Euchar▪ lib. 1. cap. 6. Aquin. 3. p. q. …. art. 2. Chriſt by faith, and not the eating in the Sacrament is here vnderſtood, ſeeing they doe all (for the moſt part) interpret this place of the Sacramentall eating and drinking: but more plaine (if it be poſſible) is that of S. Iohn, Ioh. 5. 12. He that hath the Sonne, hath life: and hee that hath not the Sonne of God, hath not life. From which place thus a man may reaſon, He that hath Chriſt, hath eternall life, but hee that receiueth Chriſt verily & truely, as all the wicked do in the Sacrament by their doctrine, hath Chriſt: therefore the very reprobate, euen Iudas himſelf, hath eternal life, & is ſaued: for either they muſt deny that they receiue Chriſt in the Sacrament; or elſe they muſt grant, being conuicted by theſe Scriptures, that together with him they receiue eternall life.

25. They reply to this two things, firſt, that the wicked receiue Chriſt onelyonly Sacramentally, and not Spiritually, and therefore they hauehave no benefite by him: and ſecondly, becauſe they receiue him vnworthily, therefore they receiue p. 258their owne iudgement and not ſaluation, not diſcerning the body and bloud of Chriſt. To which I anſwere, that though they receiue Sacramentally, and vnworthily, yet by their doctrine they receiue v…ry Chriſt: and ſo by theſe Scriptures it muſt needs follow, that they alſo receiue the fruite and effect of his death, which is life and ſaluation. Adde hereunto, that the termes here vſed are generall, both in reſpect of the perſons that receiue, and alſo the manner of receiuing, without any ſuch exception or diſtinction, as they deuiſe: and therfore I conclude, that it is as impoſſible to make a ſeparation betwixt Chriſt and his ſauing grace, as to ſeparate the Sunne from light, fire from heate, or the ſoule from naturall life.

26. Thus this poſition is an oppoſition to Scripture, ſo it is alſo to the opinions of the Fathers. To giuegive a taſte of ſome two or three, Origen ſaith, That Chriſt is that true meat, which Orig. in Mat. cap. 15. Auguſt. de Ciuit. lib. 21. c. 25.Matt 15whoſoeuer eateth ſhall liue for euer which no wicked man can eat. Auguſtine more effectually ſaith, Hee that is in the vnity of Chriſts body, that is, a member of Chriſt, he is truely ſaid to eate Chriſts body, and drinke his bloud. Note, hee ſaith truely, to ſignifie that all other eate him falſly, that is in ſhew and not in ſubſtance. And in another place yet more plainely, Hee Idem in Sent. …ent. 339.which diſagreeth from Chriſt, doth neither eate his fleſh, nor drinke his bloud, though he take the Sacrament of ſo great a thing to his iudgement. Theodoret as plainely ſaith, That Chriſt is Theodor. in Pſal. 32. Cyril. in Ioh. lib. 4. Baſil. in. Pſal. 3.Ps 32Ps 3meate for his owne ſheepe onelyonly, that is, his elect. And Cyrill that as many as eate his fleſh, hauehave life in them being ioyned to him who is life it ſelfe. And Baſill ſaith, that they which are fed with the foode of life, to wit, the bread that came downe from heauen, hauehave an inward mouth of the minde whereby they eate that ſpirituall food. Many more ſuch like ſayings might be heaped together to this purpoſe, which for breuity ſake I paſſe ouer: all which are contrary to that Romiſh poſition, that the wicked eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Chriſt; which they muſt needs doe, if the bread and wine, after the words of conſecration, be changed into the very body and bloud of Chriſt.

27. Laſtly, it is contrary to their owne diuinity: for they p. 259hold, that the parts of this Sacrament, as of all others, are two, to wit, the matter and the forme: the forme in this SacramentBell de Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 18. is to the whole word of conſecration, together with the ſenſe thereof: the matter is the whole element, with the ſignification thereof. As for example, in the Euchariſt, the matter is the ſpecies of Bread and wine, containing vnderunder them the body and bloud of Chriſt: and the forme is (for this is my bodie, this is my bloud.) Now, hence I thus reaſon. The wicked either receiue the whole Sacrament, or they receiue it not; if they do, then there is no difference betwixt the faithfull and them, for they receiue no more; and why ſhould not they be ſaued then as well as they? if they do not, then either they receiue not Chriſt at all, becauſe we are ſure they receiue the outward Elements: and therfore if any thing be wanting, it muſt needs be the thing ſignified, or there are more parts then theſe two of the Sacrament. Againe thus if the wicked receiue Chriſt in the Sacrament, and yet not the vertue of Chriſt, then they receiue not the whole Sacrament, becauſe the vertue of the Sacrament is in the Sacrament, as the vertue of eueryevery thing is in the thing it ſelfe. And ſo it followeth, that the wicked in the Sacrament receiue Chriſt, and yet not Chriſt the whole Sacrament, and yet but a part of the Sacrament: and that there are but two parts of it, and yet more then two. Obſerue (gentle Reader) theſe contradictions, and wonder.

28. Againe, Tranſubſtantiation is contradicted both by the5. Contrad. doctrine of adoration of Images, and by the Canon of the Maſſe: by the doctrine of adoration of Images thus; they teach that diuine adoration is to be giuen to the pictures, of Chriſt, and God the Father, becauſe they repreſent their moſt excellent and diuine perſons, and yet they would hauehave the very body and bloud of Chriſt to be in the Sacrament tranſubſtantiated, becauſe ſome of the Fathers pretend …o ſay, that it is to be adored with diuine worſhip. Now, if it bee true that they ſay, that Images of God the Father, and of Chriſt our Sauiour, ought to be adored with diuine worſhip, becauſe they repreſent their perſons: then it muſt bee falſe, that therfeore p. 260the bodie and bloud of Chriſt are really and carnally in the Sacrament, becauſe it is to be worſhipped: for, why may not thoſe myſteries of bread and wine inſtituted by Chriſt, to put vsus in mind of his death and paſſion, bee, for ſuch their effectuall repreſentation, adored and worſhipped with diuine worſhip, as well as Images and pictures for their repreſentation, eſpecially ſeeing they carrie a more exact reſemblance and liuely ſignification of him then any picture can doe? Here is a plaine contradiction betwixt the proofe of their Tranſubſtantiation, and their doctrine of adoration of Images, ſtanding vponupon theſe termes, An Image muſt be worſhipped, becauſe it repreſenteth the perſon of Chriſt: but the Sacrament is not to bee worſhipped, though it repreſents Chriſt more fully then any Image, except he be corporally and ſubſtantially preſent in it.

29. Secondly, it is croſſed by the Canon of the Maſſe diuers6. Contrad. waies: Firſt, by the praier that is vſed before the eleuation, where the Prieſt deſireth God to behold the ſame ſacrifice with a propitious and fauourable countenance, like as the ſacrifices of Abel, Abraham, Melchizedech &c. If Chriſt were really offered by the Prieſt, hee need not pray that God would be propitious to that ſacrifice, for in him hee is euer well pleaſed: neither can his ſacrifice be poſſibly diſreſpected of God, being of infinite merite and price to ſatisfie the rigour of his Fathers iuſtice: it were therefore either horrible blaſphemy in their Maſſe to equalize this abſolute ſacrifice of Chriſt, with the imperfect ſacrifices of Abel, and Abraham, which ſtood in need of Gods mercifull acceptation: or it is falſe, that Chriſt is really ſacrificed in the Maſſe: one of the two muſt needs be either blaſphemy in the Canon of the Maſſe, or falſhood in their doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.

30. Againe, by another prayer which is vſed in the conſecration,7. Contrad. where the Prieſt prayeth, that God would command thoſe things to be carried by the hands of the holy Angell vp to the high Altar, into the ſight of the diuine Maieſtie. Now by theſe words (thoſe things haec) cannot bee vnderſtood Chriſt, neither in Grammaticall conſtruction, nor in any religious p. 261ſenſe: for in true Grammaticall Latine, he ſhould hauehave ſaid, if he had ment Chriſt, either hunc, this; or hoc, viz. ſacrifici… this ſacrifice, and not haec, theſe things: for though the elements be two, yet by their own doctrine whole Chriſt is in each of them, and therefore cannot bee ſpoken of in the plurall number, as if he were either diuided in himſelfe, or multiplied to more then himſelfe: & in the conſtruction of religion it can be no leſſe then blaſphemy to imagine, that an Angell muſt carry vp Chriſt into Heauen, and preſent him there vponupon the high Altar to the diuine maieſtie; for it implieth in him either inability, or vnwillingneſſe to preſent himſelfe: to ſay he is vnable, is to deny him to be God, and ſo Almighty: and to ſay he is vnwilling, is to deny him to bee our high Prieſt and Mediatour, to whoſe office it onelyonly pertaineth to offer vp the ſacrifices of the faithfull vnderunder the Goſpell, as the Prieſt in the law of Moſes might onelyonly offer the ſacrifices of the law, and enter into the moſt holy place, to make reconciliation for the people: ſo that it remaineth, that the compoſer of the Maſſe could not vnderſtand by (haec) theſe things, Chriſt himſelfe: but the elements Bread and Wine which are a repreſentation and commemoration of that one all-ſufficient ſacrifice on the Croſſe: and ſo either the Maſſe is erronious, or Tranſubſtantiation a falſe doctrine; for if the Maſſe be true, then Tranſubſtantiation is falſe; and if Tranſubſtantiation be true, then the Maſſe is falſe.

31. Thirdly, it is croſſed by their manifold croſſings, vſed8. Contrad. by the Prieſt in the Maſſe: for, if Chriſt in perſon bee really preſent, as a complete ſacrifice, what neede ſuch ſignings or croſſings by the earthly hands of a ſinfull Prieſt? is hee ſanctified by them? that were blaſphemy to thinke. He needeth no ſanctification, being the Holy of holies. Is the diuell driuen away by theſe meanes? that is a greater blaſphemy to beleeue: for hee once conquered the diuell, in ſuch ſort, that he dareth neuer meddle with him any more. And yet the blaſphemous Ieſuites are not afraid to affirme, that the diuels may, and doe ſo come neere to their Sacrament, that theySuar…z. tom. 3. l. 55. ſect. 1. can both carry it away, and abuſe it alſo. Surely, if this bee p. 262true, then the diuels know, Chriſt is not there: for they durſt not come ſo neere vntounto him ſacrificed on the Altar, by whoſe true ſacrifice on the Croſſe, they receiued ſuch a deadly wound. Laſtly, is God put in minde of his Sonnes ſacrifice on the Croſſe, by their croſſings of him vponupon the Altar? This is impudency to thinke: for Almighty God cannot forget the ſacrifice of his owne Sonne; neyther can his Croſſe bee any whit dignified by their croſſings. Which way ſoeuer they turne them, here is eyther impietie in their Maſſe, or falſity in their doctrine of Tranſsubſtantiation.

32. Thus much touching the contradictions in the Euchariſt.9. Contrad. Now let vsus ſee their concordance in other Articles of their Religion; and that with greater breuitie. And firſt in their Article of Iuſtification, therein there lurke foure maine contradictions: Firſt, they ſay, that the firſt iuſtification, when Cenſur. Colon. pag. 140, 141. Becan. diſput. pag. 199. Trident. Concil. ſeſſ. 6. cap. 6. Bell▪ de Iuſtif. lib. 1. cap. 13. Ibid cap. 17.a man of vniuſt and wicked, is made iuſt and good, is the free gift of God, and deſerued by no precedent works▪ and yet they ſay againe, that a man doth prepare and make himſelfe fit for this iuſtification by certayne acts of faith, Feare, Hope, Repentance, and the purpoſe of a new life. Yea, Bellarmine doth not ſticke to ſay, that this faith iuſtifieth by way of merite, and deſerueth forgiueneſſe of ſinnes after a certaine manner. And all of them …each, that thoſe diſpoſitions and preparations ariſe partly from grace, and partly from free-will, as two ſeuerall and deuided agents, and that it is in the power of mans will, eyther to accept that grace of God, or to refuſe it: as hath beene at large diſcouered in the fourth Reaſon. Now heare the contradictions: If it bee meerely Gods free gift, then it is no wayes mans free-will: and if it bee any waies mans free-will to prepare himſelfe, then it is not eueryevery way Gods free gift▪ For it is not in this caſe, as in other externall donations: the King may giuegive a pardon freely, and yet the priſoner may hauehave power to receiue or to refuſe the pardon, becauſe the pardon is one thing, and the priſoners will on other: but in the iuſtification of a ſinner, the gift it ſelfe is the very change of the minde, and the will, and the whole man: for it is (as they ſay) when a ſinner is made righteous, and an vniuſt man is p. 263made iuſt: and ſo the will hath no power to reiect it, when God effectually giues it; nor power to accept it, till God alter and change it by his grace. And hence it followeth, that to ſay it is Gods free gift, and yet that we in part prepare our ſelues thereunto by our owne free-will, implyeth contradiction, as alſo this, to merite it, and yet to hauehave it freely giuen: if it be any wayes of merite, then it is not eueryevery way free. Merite in the receiuer, and freeneſſe in the giuer, can in no reſpect ſtand together.

33. Another contradiction in this Article, is this; that they10. Contrad. ſay a man is iuſtified by his works; and yet for all that, he is iuſtified by grace too. Both theſe propoſitions they peremptorily defend, and take it in great ſcorne, that we charge them to be maintayners of works againſt grace: and call vsus loud Lyers, in caſting that imputation vponupon them. But by their leaues, they maintaine either works againſt grace, or elſe they breathe hote and cold out of one mouth (which the Satyre could not endure) and ſpeake contraries, let them chooſe whether: for the holy Ghoſt himſelfe placeth theſe two, Works and Grace, in diametrall oppoſition; If it be of grace, it is no Rom. 11. 6.Rom 11:6more of works, or elſe were grace no more grace: but if it bee of works, it is no more grace; or elſe were worke no more worke. Here we ſee a manifeſt oppoſition betwixt grace and works, ſo that one doth exclude the other, and this in our election: and therefore much more in our iuſtification, which is but an effect thereof: for election hath nothing to doe with our good works, according to our doctrine, nor with our euill, according to theirs: but iuſtification hath reſpect vntounto our ſinnes and euill deeds; and therefore much greater muſt bee the oppoſition in this then in that: & greater reaſon that here works ſhould be excluded by grace, then in the other.

34 Bellarmines exception is, that the Apoſtle here excludethBell. de Iuſtiſ. lib. 1. cap. 21. onelyonly the works that be of our ſelues without grace, before we be iuſtified: but as for thoſe that come after, they are works of grace, and therefore be not excluded by grace, but may well ſtand together. To which I anſwere three things: Firſt, that the Apoſtle hath no ſuch diſtinction, but ſpeaketh p. 264generally of all works; and therefore according to the olde rule, Vbi lex non diſtinguit: Where the law diſtinguiſheth not, there we muſt not diſtinguiſh. To ſay therefore that it is both by grace and works, is to confront the Apoſtle, and to faſten vponupon him a flat contradiction. Yea, it is to extinguiſh grace vtterly: for as it hath beene before alledged out of Auguſtine, grace is not grace in any reſpect, except it bee free in eueryevery reſpect. Secondly, that the Apoſtle meaneth works after grace, and ſuch as proceed from faith, as well as works of nature, appeareth by another like place; where works are alſo excluded, and oppoſed to the free gift of God, that is, toEpheſ. 2. 8.Eph 2:8 grace: and that the Apoſtle intendeth works of grace, appeareth by the reaſon following in the next verſe (For we are his workmanſhip, created in Chriſt to good works.) Now in this laſt place, works of grace muſt needs be vnderſtood, becauſe he ſaith, we are created in Chriſt Ieſus vntounto them: and therefore the ſame alſo muſt neceſſarily bee meant in the former: vnleſſe wee will ſay, that the Apoſtle, or rather the holy Ghoſt, diſputes not ad idem. Laſtly, I anſwere, that in Abrahams iuſtification, who was the Father of the faithfull, andRom. 4. 2.Rom 4:2 his iuſtification a patterne, how all his ſpirituall poſteritie ſhould be iuſtified, works of grace are excluded: for at that time, of which the Apoſtle there ſpeaketh, Abraham was regenerate, as Bellarmine himſelfe acknowledgeth: and yet his works are excluded: therefore works of grace are meant by the Apoſtle. I, but replyeth the ſame Cardinall, when the ApoſtleBell. Ibid. c. 19. ſaith, that Abraham was iuſtified by faith, and not by works, he excludeth thoſe works which Abraham might doe without faith: for they which hauehave faith, yet doe not alwaies worke by faith: as when they ſinne, or performe meere morall duties, without relation to God. But this is no better then a meere ſhift, without any ground of reaſon or truth: for if it bee true which the Scripture ſaith, that whatſoeuer is not of faith, is ſinne; then thoſe morall works, which hee mentioneth, being not of faith, are no better then ſinnes, and ſo need not to bee excluded by the Apoſtle; for they exclude themſelues. Beſides, it is manifeſtly falſe, that a iuſt, p. 265and faithfull man, doth any worke, which is not ſinne, wherein he hath not relation vntounto God; if not in the particular act, yet in the generall purpoſe of his minde: for, eueryevery morning he prayeth to God for the direction of all his wayes, and that all his works may be ſanctified by his Spirit. And thus it appeareth, that in ſaying, wee are iuſtified by grace, and yet by works too, they ſpeake contraries.

35. A third contradiction in this Article is about their11. Contrad. works of Preparation, which, they ſay, goe before the firſt iuſtification: theſe they call, vertuous diſpoſitions, good qualities,Bell. de Iuſtif. l. 1. cap. 21. Biſhop. contra Reſor. Cathol. art. 35. good preparations, merits of congruitie; and that they hauehave a dignitie of worke in them: and yet they ſay agayne, that no good works goe before the firſt iuſtification: belike then they are both good, and not good, by their doctrine: and therefore thus I argue: If they be not good, why do they call them good? if they bee good, then it is vntrue, that no good works go before the firſt iuſtification of a ſinner: either in the one, or in the other, they muſt needs erre; and in holding both, the one part of their doctrine croſſeth the other.

36. Fourthly, they ſay, that faith alone doth not iuſtify:12. Contrad. Bell. de Iuſtif. lib. 1. cap. 13. Oſor. Dom. 23. poſt Pentec. con. 2. Milet. contra Heſhuſ. and yet, notwithſtanding, they ſay, Fide Catholica Chriſtiana eaque ſola hominem iuſtificari, nulli vnquam negauerunt, nec …egant Pontificij. That no Papiſt euer hath, or doth deny, that a man is iuſtified by the Catholike Chriſtian faith, and that alone. This is the aſſertion of Miletus, againſt Heſhuſius; and it is not condemned by any of the reſt; but his booke approued as contayning nothing contrary to their Catholike Religion: and ſo it ſeemes to be one of their Catholike doctrines. And Bellarmine inſinuates aſmuch, though not in playneBell. Ibid. ſpeech, yet by neceſſary conſequence, when bee ſaith, that faith is the beginning, and firſt roote of iuſtification. Now if it be ſo, then as ſoone as a man hath faith, iuſtification is begun, and taketh roote in him, euen before he hath any other grace: and if it hath taken roote, then it is eyther whole iuſtification, or a peece thereof: but a peece it cannot be; for it is indiuiſible; therefore, eyther whole or none. For grant there be degrees in iuſtification (as they ſay) which neuertheleſſe p. 266they are neuer able to prooue: yet they bee degrees of perſection, not of eſſence: as a man is a man as ſoone as hee is borne, though not a perfect man before hee come to complete age, ſtature, and ſtrength. So their ſuppoſed iuſtification, is iuſtification in the roote, though not perfect and abſolute, vntill it come to ripe age. I ſpeake in their language, becauſe I deliuer their owne doctrine. Now how can theſe two contraries bee reconciled? Faith alone doth not iuſtify, and yet faith alone doth iuſtify? If they ſay, that they ſpeake of one kinde of faith, and we of another, they ſay nothing to the purpoſe: for euen that any faith alone ſhould iuſtify, is contrary to their owne poſitions, who affirme, that the former cauſe of our iuſtification, is the inherent righteouſnes ofBell. de Iuſtif. lib. 1. cap. 18. works: and not the righteouſnes of Chriſt, apprehended by faith. And thus I leaue the Article of iuſtification at farre with it ſelfe, to be atoned by their beſt wits, if it be poſſible.

37. Let vsus come to their doctrine of workes, and ſee how13. Contrad. that agreeth with it ſelfe: and here firſt they hold, that works done before faith and regeneration, are not good workes, but ſinnes. This is proued by them out of Saint Auguſtine, whoAug. lib. 4. in Julian. cap. 3. affirmeth, that the workes of vnbeleeuers are ſinnes: and if the workes of vnbeleeuers, then of all other wicked men which bee not regenerate; ſeeing, as the ſame Father elſe-where ſpeaketh, Impij cogitant, non credunt, the wicked doe not beleeue, but thinke; they hauehave but a ſhadow of faith, without ſubſtance. It may be prooued alſo by that generall and infallible axiome of the holy Scripture, Whatſoeuer is not of faith, is ſinne: but the workes of wicked men are all voyd of faith, and therefore are no better then ſinnes in the ſight of God, be they neuer ſo glorious and beautifull in the eyes of men. OrNazianz. orat. in ſanct. Lauac. as Gregorie Nazianzene ſaith, As faith without workes is dead, ſo workes without faith are dead: and dead workes are ſinnes, as appeares, Heb. 9. 41. Beſides, Bellarmine confirmeth the ſame by reaſon, becauſe they want a good intention to direct their workes to the glory of the true God, whome they are ignorant of. To which I adde another reaſon drawne from our Sauiours owne mouth, Mat. 7. Becauſe an euill tree cannot bring p. 267forth good fruit: but eueryevery man, til he be ingrafted into Chriſt, is no better then an euill tree, and therefore cannot doe a good worke.

38. This is their doctrine, and it is ſound diuinitie: but ſee how they croſſe it ouer the face with a contrary falſhood; for the ſame men that teach this, notwithſtanding affirme, that the workes of Infidels are good, ſuo genere, in their kind:Bell, de iuſtif. lib. 4. cap. 16. ſo they are good, and not good; ſinnes, and yet good works: but this is in their kind, ſay they, that is, Morally, and not Theologically. I, but morall vertues in the vnregenerate are (by their owne principles) ſinnes: how then can they be good any waies? Can ſinne, which is a tranſgreſſion of Gods law, and ſimply in it owne nature euill, be in any reſpect good, as it is ſinne? But to take cleare away this ſcruple, another of them auoucheth, that they are not onelyonly morally, but euen Theologically good; for he ſaith, that ſuch works as are doneSalmer. Jeſuit. tit. 15. pag. 41. by the light of nature onelyonly, without grace, doe diſpoſe and make a man in ſome ſort fit to iuſtification, though it be longè & valdèremotè, remotely, and a farre off; for he that yeeldeth obedience to morall lawes, is thereby leſſe vndiſpoſed and repugnant to diuine grace. Now, how can ſinnes diſpoſe or prepare a man for iuſtification? is God delighted with ſinnes? Either therefore they are not ſinnes, or they doe not diſpoſe to iuſtification, neither farre nor neere: or which is the preſent contradiction, they are ſinnes and not ſinnes, good and not good, at one time, and in one and the ſame reſpect. And to put the contradiction out of all queſtion, the Councill of Trent in the ſeuenth Canon of the ſixt Seſſion, enacteth asConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 6. ca. 7. much, and denounceth Anathema to all that ſay the contrarie: the words are theſe, If any man ſhall ſay, that all the works which are done before iuſtification, by what meanes ſoeuer they are done, are truely ſinnes, or deſerue the hatred of God, let him be Anathema. And Andradius the interpretor of that Councill,Andradius. authoriſed by the Fathers of the ſame, doth more perſpicuouſly explaine the meaning of that Canon, when hee ſaith, that men without faith, deſtitute of the ſpirit of regeneration may doe workes which are voyde of all filthineſſe, free from all fault, p. 268and defiled with no ſinne, and by which they may obtaine ſaluation: then which, what can be more contradictory to that which before was deliuered, that all the workes of Infidels and vnbeleeuers are ſinnes, be they neuer ſo gliſtering with morall vertue? or more agreeable to the olde condemned errors of Iuſtine, Clemens, and Epiphanius, who affirmed that Socrates, and Her aclitus were Chriſtians, becauſe they liued according to the rule of reaſon: and that the Grecians were iuſtified by Philoſophie: and that many were ſaued onelyonly by the law of nature, without the lawe of Moſes, or Goſpell of Chriſt?

39. Againe, their doctrine of doubel merit, the one of14. Contrad. Congruity, the other of Condignity, as they terme them, is not onelyonly contrary to the truth, but to it ſelfe. For this they teach, that the merit of congruity, which the Councill of Trent calleth the preparations and diſpoſitions to iuſtification, is grounded vponupon the dignity of the worke, and not vponupon the promiſe of God: but the merit of condignity requireth both a dignity of the worke, and the promiſe of God to bee grounded vponupon, or elſe it is no merit. This is Bellarmines Bell. de Iuſtif. lib. 1. cap. 21.plaine doctrine, and is conſonant to the reſidue of their Doctours, both Schoole diuines, and others: for thus they define the merit of congruity, It is that by which the ſubiect is Compend. Theol. lib. 5. cap. 11.diſpoſed, that it may receiue grace according to the reaſon of Gods iuſtice. Here is onelyonly iuſtice required, and not any promiſe to the merit of congruity; though (I muſt confeſſe) Gabriel Biel Gabriel. 3. Sent. diſt. 27.ſomewhat croſſeth this definition, when …e ſaith, that when a man doth what in him lyeth, then God accepteth his worke, and powreth in grace, not by the due of Iuſtice, but of his liberalitie. And Aquinas, who affirmeth, that when a man vſeth well the Aquinas. 2. 2 ae. q. 114. art. 2. Coſter. Enchir. pag. 284.power of free-will, God worketh in him according to the excellencie of his mercy. But yet they all agree in this, that the merit of congruity is not grounded vponupon any promiſe, as the merit of condignity is, but onelyonly vponupon the worthin…s of the worke done. Now here lurketh a flat contradiction, for by this it ſhould follow, that the merit of congruity ſhould bee more properly a merit then that of condignity. Which Bellarmine denyeth in the ſame Chapter, becauſe this dependeth vponupon it p. 269owne dignity, and hath no neede of a promiſe, as the other hath: and ſo ſhould bee alſo more meritorious and excellent then the other; being neuertheleſſe but a preparation and beginning to iuſtification, and the other the matter of iuſtification it ſelfe. And that a man that hath no grace dwelling in him▪ but onelyonly outwardly mouing him, nor is yet iuſtified, ſhould hauehave more power to deſerue and merite, then he that is fulfilled with grace, and fully iuſtified. Thus error, like a Strumpet, bringeth foorth a monſtrous brood of abſurdities: but let vsus proceede.

40. Their merite of condignitie bringeth foorth a like15. Contrad. monſter; for they build it vponupon two foundations, whereofBell. de Iuſtif. lib. 1. cap. 21. Coſter. Enchir. pag. 284. &c. Aquin. 1. 2. q. 114. art. 6. Bell. de Iuſtif. lib. 5. cap. 14. Coſter. Enchir. pag. 285. Bell. de Juſtif. lib. 5. cap. 17. one ouerwhelmeth the other: to wit, the dignity of the worke, and the promiſe of God: for what can be more contrary, then mercy and iuſtice? Now if it depend vponupon the dignity of the worke, then it is a due of iuſtice: and ſo they call it, Meritum ex iuſtitia. A merite by iuſtice: but if it rely vponupon the free promiſe of God (as they call it,) then it muſt needs be, Meritum ex miſericordia. A merite by mercy: for Gods promiſe is a voluntary fruit of his mercy. They anſwer, that they may both well ſtand together: for, ſay they, God dealeth with vsus, as we deale with our hyred labourers; we agree with them for a certayne price, for doing a peece of worke, and when they begin, we giuegive them an earneſt penny; and when the worke is done, according to the couenant, we giuegive them their wages: So dealeth Almighty God with Chriſtians; he firſt maketh a couenant with them, that for labouring in his Vineyard they Mat. 20. 2.Matt 20:2ſhall hauehave a penny, that is, eternall life: then he giueth them the Epheſ. 1. 13.Eph 1:13earneſt of his Spirit, to aſſure them thereof: and laſtly, at the end, when they hauehave done their worke, hee payeth them their wages. Apoc▪ 22. 12.Rev 22:12But by the Ieſuites leaue, this ſimilitude is lame of all foure: for firſt, when a man hyreth a labourer, and bargaineth with him for wages for his worke: this is a couenant of iuſtice, and no promiſe of mercy: and therefore if he performe this bargaine, hee is not therefore called mercifull, but iuſt: but Almighty God, as they themſelues confeſſe, promiſeth freely, and is bound to none: and therefore this muſt needs p. 270be a worke of mercy, and not of iuſtice. Secondly, there is a proportion betwixt the labourers worke and his hire: but betwixt the Kingdome of heauen, and our good works, there is no proportion, no more then betwixt a finite, and an i… finite thing: or a drop of a B…cket, and the huge Ocean. And third y a man ſtandeth in need of his workman & his worke: but God hath no need of vsus. And hence it muſt of neceſſitieIob. 35. 7.Job 35:7 follow, that the labourers hire i… a debt of iuſtice: but a Chriſtians hire is a reward of mercy. And ſo I conclude, that being of mercy, it cannot be of iuſtice too; or if it be of iuſtice, it cannot be of mercy t…o: f… what need… iuſtice, if it bee of mercy? and what need mercy, if … b… of iuſtice? And therefore if this merit… of condignitie be grounded vponupon the worth and valour of he worke done (as they teach) … cannot bee grounded vponupon the promiſe of God, as the… teach alſo; becauſe the dignitie of the worke requires … as a d… by iuſtice, and the gracious promiſe of God imparts it, as a …eward of mercy.

41. Againe, in their merite of congruitie there is another16. Contrad. Bell de iuſtif. lib. 5. cap. 21. Co…c…. Trident. Seſſ 6. c. 13. …an. 4. contradiction: for they teach, that the who…e dignitie of the worke dependeth vponupon grace; and therefore that it is not ſo much man that meriteth, as Gods grace in man. And yet the ſame affirme▪ that this grace doth not inhabitare: that is, awell in a man; but onelyonly outwardly mooue and helpe him: and that it is in mans power, either to accept, or reiect the…ſ me Now how can the power of meriting iſſue from grace alone, and the whole dignitie of the worke depend vponupon grace, when as that grace is not in vsus, and when as our owne free will is the chiefe worker, being able of it ſelfe, either to vnlocke the dore, and let it in, or ba…re the doore, and ſhut it out? And beſides, if the whole dignitie of the worke depend vponuponBell. Ibid. grace, why doth he call …t Meritum in…hoatum & imperfectū? A lame and vnperfect meri…e? I Gods grace …ame and imperfect? eyther therefore that grace dwelleth in vsus, and is the chieſe worker▪ or elſe it doth not wholly depend vponupon grace. And againe, if it wholly proceede from grace, then it is not a lame and imperfect, but a complete & perfect merice. p. 271See, … beſeech you, how falſehood needeth no other Engine but it ſelfe to ouerthrow it.

42. Laſtly, concerning works, their doctrine is, that the17. Contrad. Concil. Trident Seſſ. 6. cap. 11. can. 25. Bell. de Iuſtif. lib. 4. cap. 10. good works of the regenerate are fully and abſolutely iuſt, and perfectly good: and yet neuertheleſſe, that they may grow in goodneſſe, and are alſo mixed with many veniall ſinnes. If they bee perfectly good, how can they grow in goodneſſe? and if they increaſe in goodneſſe, how are they perfectly good, ſeeing that onelyonly is perfect, to which nothing can be added? If they ſay that this perfection is but begun, and not finiſhed; why then alſo, they ſhould ſay, that they are imperfectly perfect: or elſe, they pull downe with one hand, that which they build with the other. And againe, if they, moſt holy and iuſt men, hauehave their works intermixed with many veniall ſins, for which they need to cry daily, Forgiue vsus our treſpaſſes, how can they either perfectly fulfill the law of God, or doe ſuch works as may bee able to abide the cenſure of Gods iuſtice, ſeeing Saint Iames ſaith, that he that tranſgreſſeth one Commandement,Iam. 2. 10.Jas 2:10 is guiltie of the whole law, becauſe he violateth the body of iuſtice, contained in the law? as he which hurteth the little toe, doth herein wrong the whole bodie. It is a contradiction therefore, to ſay, that the works of the regenerate are perfect, and yet are intermingled with many ſinnes: and it is all one, as if a man ſhould ſay, that his face is perfectly cleane, and yet hath many ſpots: or that the bodie is perfectly in health, and yet is peſtred with many diſeaſes.

43. And thus much of good works. Now, beſides theſe,18. Contrad. there are certaine works in their Religion, which are more then good, and more perfect then perfection: theſe be their works of Supererogation, ariſing from three grounds: Firſt,Bel. de Monach. lib. 2. cap. 6. 7. when the Saints in this life do more good works, then are neceſſarie for themſelues to the attainment of ſaluation. And ſecondly, when they ſuffer more and greater puniſhments then are due vntounto them for their ſinnes. And thirdly, when they vndertake, no… onelyonly works, commanded by the law of God▪ but alſo, ſuch as are commended by the Euangelicall Councells: as, voluntary pouertie, abſtayning from marriage, p. 272and regular obedience. Theſe ſuperabounding actions and paſſions of Gods Saints, are the works of ſupererogation, ſpoken of, and magnified ſo much in the Church of Rome: which both are the Churches Treaſure, mingled with the ſuperabounding merits of Chriſts paſſion; and are layd vp in a Treaſury, the keyes whereof and diſpenſation is committed to the Pope of Rome, that hee, either by himſelfe or his Factors, may diſpence them at his pleaſure: that is, to them that will buy the ſame for money: and alſo (as they ſay) are more excellent, and perfect, and meritorious of a greater reward. This blaſphemous doctrine might eaſily be woūded to death by the Sword of the Spirit: for it is contrary to all Religion, & to the experience of eueryevery mans owne conſcience. But I leaue this to others, who hauehave, or ſhall meddle in this argument: my taske is to ſhew, how it contradicteth both it ſelfe, and other doctrines of their Religion.

44. It ſelfe, thus: They teach, that works of ſupererogation,Bell. Ibid. grounded vponupon Euangelicall Counſels, are (as you hauehave heard) more excellent, perfect, and meritorious, then thoſe which are done in obedience to the law of God: and that in three reſpects: Firſt, comparing ſeuerall Counſels with ſeuerall Precepts which concerne the ſame matter: As, to ſell all and giuegive to the poore, is a more excellent worke, then any commanded in that Precept, Thou ſhalt not ſteale. And the Counſell of Single life, is more perfect then the Precept, Thou ſhalt not commit Adultery. As if men could bee more perfect then God had commanuded, or then Chriſt himſelfe was, whoſe righteouſnes conſiſted in this, in being obedient to hisHeb. 10. 7. Pſal. 103. 20.Heb 10:7Ps 103:20 Fathers will. Or then the Angels, whoſe perfection conſiſteth in executing the Commandements of God. Or, as if the law of God was not a perfect rule of righteouſnes. Secondly, comparing the ſtate of men, obſeruing Euangelicall Counſells, with the ſtate of them that onelyonly yeeld obedience to Precepts: as if a man could be in a higher and happier eſtate then they are, which louelove God with all their heart; and their Neighbour as themſelues: which is the ſumme of the Law. And thirdly, (marke this) comparing Counſells with any p. 273precept whatſoeuer, euen with that great Commaundement of the Law, Thou ſhalt louelove the Lord thy God with all thy heart, Mat. 22. 37. 38.Matt 22:37Matt 22:38and with all thy ſtrength. As if a man could louelove God more then with all his heart, and with all his ſtrength. Gods children labour for ſo much, let them take the more for their ſhares. Hence they conclude, that in reſpect of matter, the Precept is good; but the Counſels better: and in reſpect ofBell. de Mona h. lib. 2. cap. 7. the end, the fulfilling of Precepts hath a reward; but the execution of Counſels hath a greater reward. This is their plaine doctrine. And yet neuertheleſſe the ſame men teach, that the perfection of a Chriſtian man conſiſteth eſſentially, in the obſeruation of Precepts: and inſtrumentally, in the obſeruationBell. Ibid, c. 6. of Counſels. And ſecondly, that the Precepts of charitie are the ends whereunto Counſels are ordayned: and the works of Counſels are but the way and meanes for the betterAquin. 2. 2. q. 184. art. 3. Idem. Ibid. q. 189. Salmer. c. 7. pag. 37. keeping of the Precepts. Now to the purpoſe. How can works of ſupererogation bee more perfect then works of obedience? Counſels then Precepts? ſeeing perfection conſiſteth in the one inſtrumentally, and in the other eſſentially, and Precepts are the end of Counſels, and not Counſels of Precepts? Is an inſtrumentall perfection greater then an eſſentiall? or the meanes more perfect then the end? This is contrary to naturall reaſon: for Ariſtotle ſaith, Maius bonum Ariſtot. Rethor. lib. 1. cap. 7.eſt finis, quàm quod finis non eſt. The end is a greater good then that which is not the end: and the inſtrument is neuer ſo perfect as the eſſence of a thing.19. Contrad. Concil. Trident. Seſſ. 6. c. 11. can. 25. Bell. de Juſtif. lib. 4. cap. 10. Idem. de Grat. & lib. arbit. l 5. c. 30. Et de bon, operin partic. l. 1. c. 6. Iam 3. 2. …idem de grat. & lib. arbit l. 6. c. 10Jas 3:2

45. Againe, it croſſeth another of their doctrines thus: They teach, that though the law of God bee poſſible to bee kept by the regenerate, & the works of the faithfull be ſimply and abſolutely iuſt: yet they are mixed with many veniall ſinnes: and therefore there is none ſo iuſt, but that ſinneth ſometimes, and hath neede to vſe that petition in the Lords Prayer daily, Forgiue vsus our treſpaſſes. According to that generall axiome of Sain: Iames, In many things wee ſinne all. Yea, Bellarmine himſelfe affirmeth, that the regenerate may fall into many deadly ſinnes, and that hee cannot poſſibly auoyd veniall ſinnes, Niſi priuilegio ſingulari: But by a ſingular p. 274priuiledge. Which priuiledge hee cannot inſtance to hauehave beene granted to any man liuing or dead, except Chriſt only, who was God & man. Obſerue now the contradiction: (to omit that this neceſſitie of ſinning doth ouerthrow the poſſibility of fulfilling the law, and doth imply an impoſſibilitie) how can theſe two extremes be reconciled? The regenerate cannot performe all they ſhould do, & yet do performe more then they ſhould do. They cannot auoyd veniall ſins, and yet can ſupererogate. It is as much as to ſay, that a man is not able to pay his owne debts, but muſt aske pardon for them; & yet hath ability to pay another mans, far greater then his owne. Or, an Archer cannot by any means ſhoot home to the marke & yet with the ſame Bow & Arrowes, ſent forth by the ſame ſtrength of his arme, he can ſhoote farre beyond the marke. He that is tainted and ſtained with many veniall ſinnes, in that reſpect, is not perfect: but hee that doeth ſupererogate, is more then perfect: For ſo they ſay, when they giuegive a higherBell. de Monach. lib. 2. cap. 2. degree of perfection to theſe works, then to the perfect obedience of the law. If they ſay, that veniall ſinnes doe not hinder the perfection of good works: I anſwere, that neuertheleſſe, they hinder the perfection of the worker: & if they ſtick faſt to the worke it ſelfe, they hinder that alſo: as the leaſt ſpot of inke blemiſheth the whole face, and the lighteſt diſeaſe diſableth the health of the whole body. Eyther therefore they muſt deny them to be ſinnes, and ſo ſpots & defects in the ſoules of the regenerate: or they muſt confeſſe, that they are not ſo perfect as they ſhould be. And how then can they be more perfect then they ſhould be?

46. Further, they teach, that one degree of ſuperero gating20. Contrad. Bell. de Monach. lib. 2. cap. 8. Salmer. tom. 5. tract. 5. Bell. de Monach. lib. 2. cap. 2. perfection, is the vow of Monaſticall pouerty, renouncing all propriety in worldly goods, and holding in Common the vſe of temporall things: and yet they ſay, that the ſtate of Biſhops, who poſſeſſe lands and goods, and enioy the propriety of them, is more perfect then the ſtate of Monks; who depriue themſelues thereof, becauſe Biſhops hauehave alreadie atchiued this perfection, and Monks are but in the way to it. From which ground a man may thus argue: If perfection p. 275conſiſt in voluntary pouerty, which is an alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods; then Bſhiops, poſſeſſing Lordſhips and reuenues, are not more perfect then Monks, that hauehave renounced all: and if Biſhops, poſſeſſing, be more perfect then Monks, not poſſeſſing, then perfection conſiſteth not in the alienation of all proprietie of worldly goods. One or the other muſt needes bee falſe, except hee will place perfection in two contraries: to wit, poſſeſſing, and not poſſeſſing. And the rather may this abſurditie appeare, becauſe, aske them, why Monks are more perfect then other men? they will anſwere, becauſe they remooue from them all impediments of their louelove to God (in which ranke they place worldly wealth) and conſecrate themſelues wholly to Gods ſeruice. By which reaſon, Biſhops cannot bee more perfect then either they or other men, becauſe they retayne thoſe impediments: and ſo by their doctrine, doe not wholly conſecrate themſelues to Gods ſeruice.

47. From their actions, let vsus come to their paſſions: to21. Contrad. wit, their Satisfactions, or, as Melanchton calleth them, Satiſpaſſions, wherein there are as fat and foggie contradictions, as in the former. For, firſt they teach, that Chriſt hath made a perfect and full ſufficient ſatisfaction for all the Elect; and thatConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 4. c. 8. Bell. de poenit. lib. 4. cap. 14. Coſter. Enchir. pag. 395. his death was a ſufficient price for the redemption and expiation of the ſinnes of the whole world: and that his ſatisfaction was of infinite valew, &c. This they affirme in ſemblance of words, becauſe, if they ſhould not, all men would cry ſhame vponupon their Religion. And yet, in truth, they ouerthrow the ſame by another croſſe doctrine of our owne ſatiſfactions: for the ſame men ſay, that Chriſt hath onelyonly ſatisfied for the fault of our ſinnes, and the eternall puniſhment due vntounto them: but wee our ſelues muſt ſatisfie for the temporallConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 4. cap. 10. c. 12. & 13. Bell. de poenit. lib. 4. cap. 4. & 3. & 7. puniſhment, eyther here on earth, by neceſſary afflictions, or in Purgatory, by the indurance of thoſe paynes which are there ordayned to purge men withall. Now what can be more contrary then theſe two propoſitions? Chriſt hath made a full ſatisfaction for vsus; and yet we muſt alſo ſatisfie in part for our ſelues. If Chriſts ſatisfaction be full and perfect, then p. 276it hath payd the whole debt which we ought: but if we muſt pay part of the debt, then is not this ſatisfaction full and perfect. That the temporall puniſhment is a part of our debt, Bellarmine himſelfe confeſſeth, writing vponupon the fi…ft petitionBell. de bonis …per. in partic. …. …. cap. 6. of the Lords Prayer, where hee giueth this one reaſon, why ſinnes are called debts: becauſe he which breaketh the Law, is a debter, to vndergoe the puniſhment which the Law requireth. But the Law bindeth tranſgreſſors, not onelyonly to eternall, but alſo to temporary and tranſitory puniſhments. As a Suretie therfore, that payeth for his friend, owing an hundred pound, foureſcoreand ten, leauing the remainder to the debter himſelfe to be ſatisfied, cannot be ſayd, to hauehave made full ſatisfaction: So, if any part of our debt is to be payed by our ſelues, Chriſt, our all-ſufficient Surety, cannot be ſayd to hauehave made a full ſatisfaction. But they anſwere, that this our ſatisfactionConcil. Trident. …eſſ. 4. cap. 8. is wrought in vsus by Chriſt; and is ſo in vsus, that it is not of vsus, but of Chriſt. And ag…i…, that it is nothing but an inſtrumēt ordained by God, to apply Chriſts death vntounto our ſelues,Bell. de poenit. …. 4. cap. 14. and ſo to expiate the puniſhment of our ſinnes inſtrumentally, and not cauſally. To which I anſwere: Firſt, that this inwrappeth another contradiction: for, if it bee Chriſts in vsus, and not ours of our ſelues, then it muſt needs be the ſatisfaction it ſelfe, and not an inſtrument to apply it: for one and the ſame thing cannot bee both the inſtrument to apply, and the thing that is applyed. But of this ſee more in the fourth reaſon. And ſecondly, though it be from Chriſt, yet that is but in part; becauſe, as they teach, it is not onelyonly in eueryevery mans power, eyther to admit, or to exclude the grace of God, and the efficacy of Chriſts merite, by his owne free-will: but alſo, for that it is wrought by our ſelues, and vponupon our ſelues, cooperating with grace at leaſt. And thus the knot of the contradiction remaineth ſtill as faſt tyed as euer it was.

48. Againe, they ſay, that our ſatisfactions, when they…2. Contrad. Bell. de poenit. lib. 4. cap. 1. are at the beſt, are imperfect, and no wayes proportionable to the iuſtice of God: for when we ſinne, we offend him, who is an infinite God; and whatſoeuer we hauehave, it is but a ſmall and finite thing: and therefore there muſt needes bee an imperfect p. 277compenſation from vsus to God, depending rather vponupon his mercifull acceptation thē any proportionable ſatisfaction. This is their doctrine. And yet they teach alſo, that there isIdem de poenit. lib. 4. cap. 7. an equalitie and proportion betwixt Gods iuſtice, and our ſatisfactory works: and that they are in ſome ſort of infinite valew, by reaſon of the infinite power of Gods Spirit dwelling in vsus, from which they proceede. And thus by their doctrine they are perfect, and not perfect: infinite, and finite: hauehave equality and proportion, and yet hauehave no equality nor proportion to Gods iuſtice. Either therefore they are not of infinite valew, though they proceede from the Spirit: or if, becauſe they doe proceede from the Spirit, therefore they are of infinite value, then they cannot bee imperfect. Let them chooſe which they will, they hauehave a Wolfe by the eares.

49. Further, they teach, that the paſſions of the Saints doe23. Contrad. Bell. de Indulg. lib. 1. cap. 2. not onelyonly profite themſelues, but alſo others, whether liuing or dead; not ſo much, by example, for their edification, as alſo, for their ſatisfaction, by redeeming them from temporall puniſhment. Which doctrine is not onelyonly contrary toGreg. de Valent. de Indulg. c. 1. Saint Gregory, one of their owne Biſhops, who taught that Chriſts ſufferings are herein diſtinguiſhed from the ſufferingsGreg. Mag. of all others; becauſe hee ſuffered without ſinne, and all men ſuffered with ſinne: but alſo to the receiued doctrine in their Church, which holdeth, that the righteouſnes by imputation, whereby we ſay a man is iuſtified, is a meere fiction and Chimericall conceit. For a man (ſay they) cannot bee righteous by another mans righteouſnes, nor wiſe by another mans wiſedome: and ſo not iuſtified by Chriſts righteouſnes imputed vntounto him. Cannot a man be iuſtified by Chriſts righteouſnes imputed? & can ſatisfaction be made by the paſſions of the Saints imputed? Is the death of Chriſt of leſſe p…ice & force then the ſufferings of the Saints? The righteouſnes of Chriſt imputed, is a Monſter in Religion; & yet the ſatisfaction of the Saints imputed, is with them a Catholike doctrine. And thus with one doctrine they eſtabliſh imputation, and with the other, pull it downe againe. With one breath they condemne it, and with another they iuſtifie it.

p. 27850. Ioyne vntounto Satisfactions, their baſtard Purgatorie:24. Contrad. for out of this doctrine, That men muſt ſatisfie in themſelues, and for themſelues, for the temporall puniſhment of their ſinnes, ſpringeth Purgatory: becauſe, when they hauehave not ſatisfied ſufficiently in this life, then (as they teach) they muſt make vp that which is wanting in the life to come, in the fireBell. de Pur at. lib. 1. cap. 7. of Purgatory. This doctrine of Purgatory is directly oppoſite to their Sacrament of Extreme vnction: for there they teach, that by this Sacrament all the reliques of ſinne are vtterly aboliſhed and wiped away. Si quae delicta ſint adbuc expianda abſtergit (ſaith the Councell of Trent:) If any ſinnes Concil Trident. Seſſ. 14. ca. 2. Bell. de extrem. vnct. lib. 1. cap. 8remayne vnpurged, or to be ſatisfied for, this Sacrament wypeth them cleane away. And the Councell of Florence affirmeth, that the effect of this Sacrament is, Sanatia animae: The healing of the ſoule. And Bellarmine concludeth, that therefore the fiue Senſes are anoynted, becauſe they are, as it were, the fiue doores, by which ſinnes enter in vntounto the ſoule: to wit, that there might bee a generall purgation of all ſinnes which remayne. This is their abſolute doctrine: and yet the ſame men affirme, that Purgatory is ordayned to purge away theBell. de Pargat. lib. 1. cap. 7. reliques of ſinnes, which in our life time wee hauehave not ſatiſfied for: and that many ſinnes ſticke ſo faſt and cloſe vntounto vsus, that we carry them with vsus out of this life, to bee purged in that purging fire. This is alſo their doctrine. Now I would aske of them, if all the reliques of ſin be wyped away by this annoynting Sacrament, then what vſe is there of Purgatory? and if the reliques of ſinne bee to bee purged in Purgatory, then what vſe of this Sacrament? Either therefore this fire doth dry vp the vertue of that ſacramentall Oyle, or this ſacramentall Oyle doth quench that fire. They will ſay, peraduenture, that eyther all are not anoynted with this Oyle … or that ſome that are anoynted, by their owne infidelity and impenitency, barre out the vertue thereof. Or, laſtly, that the ſinne being remitted, yet the temporall puniſhment due vntounto it, is to bee payd in Purgatory. To which I reply: firſt, that it is againſt the rule of their owne Religion, that none that are anoynted with this Oyle, ſhould goe to Purgatory: p. 279for then a very ſmall number ſhould goe to that place, ſeeing their Prieſts are ſo diligent, for their owne belly ſake, that they ſeldome ſuffer any to paſſe away without this Paſport. Secondly, for them which barre out the efficacy of the Sacrament by their owne infidelity or impenitency, not that purging fire of the Suburbs, but the deuouring fire of Hell it ſelfe is prepared, as they themſelues acknowledge. And thirdly, if there be not a purging away of ſome filthy ſtaines of ſinnes from the ſoule by that fire, but onelyonly a ſatisfactory puniſhment, why do they call it a Purgatory? Nay, and why doeth Bellarmine thus define it to bee a place, wherein, as it Bell. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 1. & lib. 2. cap. 1.were in a Priſon, after this life thoſe ſoules are purged, which were not ſufficiently purged in this life; to the end, that being ſo purged, they may enter into heauen, whither no polluted thing can hauehave admittance? And thus it remaynes a neceſſary concluſion, that either the reliques of ſinne are not clenſed away by Extreme vnction, and ſo that Sacrament is of no force: or, if they be, they are not then purged in Purgatory: and ſo that fire muſt needes be quenched.

51. But if this Oyle will not ſerue to extinguiſh Purgatorie,25. Contrad. becauſe the fire burneth ſo hot: let vsus adde vntounto this the Popes Pardons, which will (at leaſt) evacuate and empty it, that there ſhall be no fuell for that fire. For they teach, that a Pardon or Indulgence, is the remiſſion of temporal puniſhment, due for actuall ſinnes, out of the diſpenſation of the Churches Tollet. Inſtruct. Sacerdotum. lib. 6. cap. 21. Bell. de Indulg. lib. 1. Greg. de Valen. tom. 4. pag. 1846Treaſury. Thus doth Tollet define it, and Bellarmine, and Gregory de Valentia, adding onelyonly, that it is by meanes of application, of the ſuperabounding ſatisfaction of Chriſt and the Saints, made by him that hath authority there unto. Now none hath authority thereunto but the Pope onelyonly, and ſuch as are delegated by him to that purpoſe: for the keyes of this Treaſury were committed to Peter, and his Vicar, ſaith Oſorius, Oſor. tom. 4. con. in publ. Iubil.another Ieſuite: and from them is deriued to Cardinalls, Archbiſhops, Biſhops, and other inferiour Clarkes. And the Pope by his iuriſdiction, may abſolue all that are in PurgatoryAntonin. part. 3. …it. 22. c. 5. …. 6. from the paine, and ſo empty Purgatory at once, ſaith Antoninus, the Archbiſhop of Florence: which if it be true, p. 280then either the Pope is vnmercifull, if he can, and will not: for who would ſuffer ſuch a number of poore ſoules to bee ſo tormented, when with a word of his mouth he might releaſe them? or, if hee would, and cannot, then their doctrine is falſe of his abſolute Iuriſdiction. Let them chooſe whether they will. But of this, more hereafter. Now to the purpoſe. Some of them hold, that the paynes of Purgatory hold but ten yeeres: ſome, an hundred: ſome, two hundred: they that ſtretch them fartheſt, yet ſay, that they muſt end at the day of Iudgement: becauſe then, all muſt bee Sheepe or Goates, none betwixt both, of middle nature, as Beliarmine affirmeth. Well, then, if Purgatory dure no longer, then we ſhall not neede to feare it no more, then that fire which the Philoſopher calls, Ignis fatuus. For let any man goe to Venice, and ſay but a prayer of Saint Auguſtine, printed in a table, and he ſhall hauehave 82000. yeeres pardon: that is longer then the world is like to endure by their owne confeſſion, and therefore longer then needes. This indulgence was granted by Pope Boniface the eyghth. Or, if Venice be too farre a iourney, let him ſtay at home, and but nod the head at the Name of Ieſus, and hee ſhall hauehave twenty yeeres pardon for eueryevery time. I would nod twenty times a day if this were true, and that commeth to 7300. in the yeere. O how a man may diſappoint this Purgatory, if he hauehave any wit in his head! This Indulgence came from Pope Iohn the two and twentieth. Or, if this be alſo too great a matter, let a man weare but an Agnus Dei about his necke, and thinke onelyonly in his heart on the Name of Ieſus at the houre of his death, and hee ſhall hauehave plenary forgiuenes of all his ſinnes. And for them that are there already, they are helped out daily, or at leaſt may bee, by the Suffrages and Maſſes of thoſe that are aliue: and if any remaine there, the fault is in the Prieſts, that ſay not Maſſes faſt enough: and the reaſon of that is, becauſe they receiue not money faſt enough: for there is the common Prouerbe moſt true, No penny, no pater noſter. To conclude,…ſer. tom. 5. pag. 859. in the yeere of Iubile a perfect and full p…rdou is graunted to all that deſire the ſame, or on whom the Pope will beſtow it: p. 281therefore the ſoules in Purgatory cannot be excluded. NowEmanuel. Sa. in Aphoriſ. Barrad. in concord. Euang. pag. 6…1. if all theſe things ſtand true, then Purgatory muſt fall: for who would fall into Purgatory, that may thus eaſily preuent it? or who would ſuffer any of his friends ſoules and acquaintance to lye burning there one houre, when it is in his power thus to redeeme them? Either therefore the doctrine of Pardons is falſe and fayned, or elſe Purgatory is no better then a ſcarcrow.

52. Adde to theſe, that ſoules onelyonly are tormented in Purgatory,26. Contrad. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 9. and not bodies: but bodies ſinne as well as ſoules: and ſome ſinnes are committed by the whole man, to wit, bodie and ſoule together: and therefore the body is not free from the relicks of ſinnes, no more then the ſoule, eſpecially from obligation vntounto temporall puniſhment. How can then theſe relicks bee purged away in this fire, when as the one part of man, which ſtandeth in neede of purging as well as the other, neuer commeth thither? Bellarmine ſawe this contradiction well enough, and therefore labours to ſalue it by a falſe poſition, driuing out one nayle of error with another: to wit, That ſinne is onelyonly an act of free-will; Bell. Ibid.and therefore, after the diſſolution of the body and ſoule by death, remayneth onelyonly in the ſoule, and not in the dead body. But this is firſt falſe: for albeit properly it is the ſoule that ſinneth, yet the body alſo ſinneth, by being an inſtrument of the ſoule in ſinning: and he himſelfe ſaith, that ſome ſinnes cannot bee committed but a toto compoſite, by the whole man. And if the bodie doe not ſinne as well as the ſoule, I wonder why it is puniſhed both in this life, with corporall diſeaſes and plagues, and after death, with putrefaction and depriuation of life, and in the day of iudgement, with eternall torment in hell fire. Secondly, if it were ſo, that a dead carkaſſe had no relique of ſinne in it, yet in that it was an inſtrument of ſinne, it is lyable to temporall puniſhment, which is the chiefe ground of Purgatory, as hath beene ſhewed. And therefore I conclude, that either the body goeth to Purgatory as well as the ſoule; or elſe a full ſatisfaction is not made for the temporall puniſhment: or at leaſt, that the fire of Purgatory is but an imaginary p. 282and witty conceit to keepe men in ſome awe, and to maintaine their owne pride and pompe.

53. Next vntounto Purgatory, is Prayer for the dead, which27. Contrad. is both the mother and daughter of that fire; for as it is vpheld by Purgatory, a weake and imaginary foundation; ſo it vpholdeth Purgatory, a paper building: neuertheleſſe it is ouerturned by it owne poyſe and weight. For this theyBell. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 18. teach, That the prayers and ſuffrages of the liuing, doe nothing profite thoſe that doe enioy bleſſedneſſe, as the Martyrs, and ſuch like: according to that of Saint Auguſtine, Auguſt de verbis Apoſtol. ſer. 7.Iniuriam facit martyri qui or at pro martyro: He doth wrong a Martyr, that prayes for a Martyr: nor the damned, whether they be in the loweſt Hell, as reprobates, or in Lymbo, as vnbaptized Infants: but onelyonly the ſoules in Purgatory. And yet notwithſtanding, they both alledge the authorities of ancient Fathers, to prooue the prayer for the dead, who prayed for thoſe whom they aſſured themſelues to be in heauen: and alſo by their owne doctrine and practice declare, that they hauehave vſed to pray for the damned. As touching the Fathers, Nazianzene prayed for Ceſarius, and Ambroſe forNazian. in land. Ceſarii. Ambro. de obitu Theod & Valent. in Auguſt. confeſ. lib. 9. c. 13. Theodoſius, Valentinian and Saint Auguſtine for his mother. And in the ancient Leiturgies of the Church, prayers were made for Patriarks, Prophets, Martyrs, and the bleſſed Virgine Mary her ſelfe: yea, for the Popes alſo: as for Pope Leo for example; and yet they thought all theſe to be in the ſtate of bleſſedneſſe, as it appeareth in the ſame places where theſe prayers are expreſſed: and therefore Caſſander, theirCaſſand. conſult. art. 24. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 18. iudicious reconciler, calleth thoſe prayers, Teſtimonies of charitie towards the dead, congratulations of their preſent ioyes, and profeſſions of their faith and hope, concerning the immortality of their ſoules, and reſurrection of their bodies; not ſupplications for their releaſement out of Purgatory, as our Romaniſts imagine. Now hence thus we reaſon: If the Fathers prayed for them who were in poſſeſſion of bleſſednes, then their teſtimonies ſerue nothing for their purpoſe, who affirme, that ſoules in Purgatory are onelyonly benefited by ſuch prayers: and if ſoules in Purgatory bee onelyonly benefited by ſuch p. 283prayers, as they ſay, then they deale impertinently and deceitfully to bring in the teſtimony of the Fathers for maintenance of ſuch prayers; in the one, bewraying the imbecillitie of their cauſe; in the other, the weakneſſe of their iudgements, and in both croſſing themſelues in that which they would build vp, as the builders of Babel did. Neyther doth this onelyonly bewray their fraude in miſapplying the authorities of the Fathers: but alſo it implyeth a playne contradiction: for they teach, that though wee ought not to pray for the ſoules of the Saints that are in heauen, yet wee may pray for the reſurrection and glorification of their bodies, which notwithſtanding are not tormented in Purgatory, but aſleepe in their graues. And ſo it followeth, that by their doctrine we may not pray at all for the Saints departed, and yet wee may pray for their bodies, which are the one halfe of them. And againe, we may not pray for any that are dead, except they be in Purgatory; and yet we may pray for the bodies of the dead, that are not in Purgatory, but in their graues.

54. If they reply as Bellarmine doth, that we may pray for28. Contrad. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 18. the Saints in Heauen, not for releaſ of any paine, but for increaſe of their glorie, either of their ſoules preſently, or of their bodies futurely at the Reſurrection: then (I ſay) they contradict themſelues againe. For, how doe the Praiers of the liuing doe no good to any, but thoſe that are in Purgatorie; whereas they are meanes to increaſe the glorie of their ſoules, and to procure the conſummation of their bodies glorie alſo? As for their practice in praying for the damned, Damaſcene reporteth, that Gregorie the Pope abſolued Traiane, Damaſ. in or at. de defunct.and a Martyr Falcenilla from the paines of hell: and alſo relateth out of the hiſtorie of Palladius, that Saint Maehary demanded of the dead skull of an Idolater, whether the Praiers of the liuing did good vntounto them in Hell or not to whom the skull ſhould anſwere, When thou offereſt vp Praiers for the dead, we in the meane time feele ſome refreſhing. The like wee read of Iudas, in the Legend of Saint Branden. Bellarmine indeed reiecteth this Tale of the skull as a Fable,Bell. Ibid. but yet he gain-ſaith not the deliuerie of Traiane, by the praiers p. 284of Gregorie. But Antoninus, the Archbiſhop of Florence, Antonin. part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5. §. 6. Aquia. in 4. diſt. 45. art. 2. q. 2.approoueth the firſt as an authenticall Storie, ſo doth Aquinas the laſt, and frameth this anſwere thereunto: that the ſoules of the damned receiue no mitigation of their paine by the Praiers of the liuing; but onelyonly a certaine vaine and deceitfull ioy: and the Schoole men deuiſe ſtrange reaſons, how this ſhould be brought to paſſe, ſome ſaying that Traian, by the vertue of Gregories Praiers, returned to life, and did penance, and ſo obtained pardon, and glorie: others affirming that his ſoule was not ſimply abſolued from the guilt of puniſhment, but that his paine was ſuſpended vntill the day of Iudgement: others imagining, that his ſoule was not freed from Hell, but from the torments of Hell; ſo that he ſhould remaine there, but ſhould feele no paine: And laſtly, Bernardine reiecting all theſe opinions, and concluding that Traian was not definitiuely condemned, but conditionally, to wit, the diuine Wiſdome fore-ſeeing that Gregorie ſhould pray for him, and therefore to hauehave deferred his damnatorie ſentence. Thus they labour in by-paths that forſake the way of Truth, and wander they know not whither. But to the point, either that is falſe, that ſoules in Purgatorie are onelyonly helped by the Praiers and Sacrifices of the liuing, or this, that by them the damned may be either releaſed or refreſhed.

55. Laſtly, both the Doctrines of Purgatorie and Praier29. Contrad. for the dead, are directly croſſed by their Canon of the Maſſe: for there thoſe dead perſons for whom Praier is made, are ſaid to reſt in Chriſt, and to ſleepe the ſleepe of peace: and yet here they ſay, that none are to be praied and ſacrificed for, but thoſe onelyonly that are in Purgatorie. What, is there then any reſt in Purgatorie? is to be tormented reſtleſſely in thoſe burning flames, which in their iudgement are equall for extremitie, and anguiſh (excepting onelyonly continuance) to the paines of Hell, to be at reſt, and to ſleepe in peace? is Purgatorie become a Paradiſe? and the skirts of Hell the ſuburbes of Heauen? this is new & ſtrange Doctrine: and yet this muſt needes bee, if both their practice of praying for the dead in their Maſſe, and their doctrine of the ſame in their bookes bee true.

p. 28556. Concerning inuocation of Saints, it is intangled with30. Contrad. diuers abſurd contrarieties: for firſt if it bee true, which the former Doctrine requires, that wee muſt pray for the Saints which are in bliſſe, that their glorie may bee increaſed: thenBell. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 18. it is falſe that wee muſt pray vntounto them. For if they ſtand in need of our Praiers, as they doe, if by them their glorie is increaſed, then they ſhould pray vntounto vsus, aſwell as wee vntounto them: and if they ſtand in need of our helpe being in Heauen, how can they helpe vsus being on Earth? if we be Mediatours for them, how are they Mediatours for vsus? True it is, that here below one man prayeth for another, becauſe they ſtand in need of one another: but by another Doctrine which is alſo the truth, the Saints enioy the ſight and preſence ofIdem de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 2. God, and therefore are moſt bleſſed, for in him they enioy all ſinneſſe of ioy and glorie; ſo that nothing can bee added to that happineſſe, which in their ſoules they enioy: and therefore one of theſe two neceſſarily are falſe, either we muſt not pray vntounto them, or we need not pray for them.

57. Againe, they a leage teſtimonies out of the olde Teſtament,31. Contrad. to prooue the inuocation of Saints, as that Praier of Moſes, Remember, O Lord, Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, thy Bell. Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 19. Ecchius Enchir. cap. 14. 15. Coſter. Enchir. cap. 14.ſeruants: and Ier. 25. If Moſes and Samuel ſtand before mee, my ſoule ſhould not bee to this people: and Gen. 48. 16. and Iob the 51. & 2. Machabees 15. with diuers others: and yet they teach, that before Chriſt, there was no Saint in Heauen, but all in Lymbo. Now, if they were in Lymbo, and could not help themſelues, vntil the Mediatour came, how could they help others? and if they did not enioy the preſence of God themſelues, how could they be certified thereby, as by a glaſſe, of the neceſſities and Praiers of the liuing? ſo that it muſt needes follow, that either the Saints were not praied vntounto, or elſe if they were, then they were in Heauen, and not in Lymbo. Eſpecially, ſeeing Bellarmine confeſſeth, that the Saints in Lymbo Bell. Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 20.did not ordinarily know the neceſſities of the liuing: that being a prerogatiue of perfect bleſſedneſſe: neyther tooke care of humane affaires, nor were protectors of the Church, as the Saints in Heauen are. Bellarmine indeede, ſeeing this abſurditie, p. 286acknowledgeth, that for the reaſons afore alleaged, it was not a cuſtome in the olde Teſtament to direct their Praiers purpoſely to the Saints; but in their praiers to God, to alleage the merits of the Saints: but herein hee both croſſeth himſelfe, and all his fellowes: for if it be ſo, why doth he and they produce teſtimonies out of the olde Teſtament, to prooue their inuocation which is made directly vntounto the Saints?

58. Laſtly, they affirme that no Saints may bee worſhipped32. Contrad. publikely, that is, in the name of the Church, vnleſſe hee be canonized by the Pope, for the auoiding of miſpriſion:Bell. Ibid. c. …. & 10. and yet they confeſſe that none were canonized till 800. yeeres after Chriſt, by Pope Leo the third, and alſo that it is lawfull priuately to worſhip any of whoſe ſanctity I hauehave an opinion: now I would gladly know, if this bee a way to auoide miſtaking, why was it forborne ſo long? or why is it not vrged priuately aſwell as publikely? if canonization were neceſſary 800. yeeres after Chriſt, to auoide miſtaking, then there was much miſtaking before, or elſe this remedy would not hauehave beene hatched: and if it was neceſſary in the publicke ſeruice, then is it much more in priuate deuotions, ſeeing priuate men are more propenſe to falſe ſuppoſitions, then a whole congregation is: and ſo this new doctrine of canonization, not onelyonly condemneth the Idolatry offormer times, in the inuocation of Saints, but alſo openeth a wide doore to priuate ſuperſtition, in that kind: and ſo indeed croſſeth and vndermineth it ſelfe: for Bellarmine confeſſeth out of Sulpitius, that the people did long celebrate one for a martyr, who after Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 7.appeared, and tolde them that hee was damned: and Alexander the third reprehendeth certaine men, for giuing the honour of a martyr, to one that dyed drunke: and no doubt but many ſuch Saints are in their Martyrologe at this day, notwithſtanding their canonization: ſo that by canonizing, they preuent miſtaking, & by giuing liberty to priuate inuocation, they giuegive occaſion, if not cauſe of miſtaking: then which, what can be more contradictory?

59. Againe, when they barre all children that are vnbaptized,33. Contrad. out of Heauen, and confine them to Limbo, there to endure p. 287the puniſhment of loſſe for euer: doe they not contradict another doctrine of theirs, which teacheth, that men dying without the baptiſme of water, if they hauehave baptiſmum flaminis, vel ſanguinis, that is, either ſuffer martyrdome for Chriſts ſake, or, bee regenerated by his Spirit, and ſo hauehave a deſire to bee initiated by that Sacrament, but are preuented by ſome meanes, may notwithſtanding goe to Heauen: for if want of baptiſme bee a ſufficient cauſe to keepe from Heauen, then it is ſo as well in men growne, as in infants: and if it bee not a ſufficient cauſe, to ſhut vp Heauen gates againſt men of yeeres, then how can it be to yong infants? eſpecially, ſeeing infants by their doctrine, are equall to men in two things: firſt, that they may bee martyrs, as well as they: as the children whom Herod ſlew in Bethl…em, are celebrated in their leiturgies: and ſecondly, that they may bee ſanctified as well as they, as Iohn Baptiſt was in his mothers wombe: and in theſe two are precedent vntounto them, firſt, that they are void of actuall tranſgreſſions, with which, men of yeeres are infinitely ſtayned, and ſo neerer to Heauen, then thoſe: and ſecondly, though they hauehave no deſire of baptiſme in themſelues, yet they are deuoted thereunto, both by the deſire of their parents, and by the purpoſe and intent of the Church. And therefore, all conſiderations, being equall in the perſons, and the oddes remaining, if there be any on the infants ſide, it can bee no leſſe then a direct contradiction, that children vnbaptized cannot bee ſaued, and men vnbaptized may bee ſaued: for it implieth thus much in effect, that the outward baptiſme of water is neceſſary to ſaluation, and yet the outward baptiſme of water is not neceſſary to ſaluation.

60. Againe, concupiſcence in the regenerate, is denyed34. Contrad. Bell. de amiſſ. grat. & ſtat. peccat. lib. 5. cap. 7. Concil. Trident. Seſſ. 5. by them all, to bee in it owne nature ſinne, and yet they all confeſſe, that it is malum, an euill, and vitium, a vice. Is any thing naturally euill, which is not ſinne? or a vice in Philoſophy, that is not a ſinne in diuinity? This is ſtrange diuinity. The name of euill, we know, is vſed of annoyances, croſſes, and afflictions; but theſe are naturall euils, and not morall: but to doe euill, can bee ſaid of nothing, but ſinne: and howſoeuer p. 288ti bee true, that vice is rather the habit, then the act of ſinne: yet becauſe it is the habit, is it therefore leſſe ſinfull then the act? noy, is it not more ſinfull, ſeeing it groweth out of many actes, and is confirmed by cuſtome, and almoſt turned to nature? In this therefore they are moſt contrary to themſelues, when they grant concupiſcence to bee of it owne nature an euill, and a vice, and yet not a ſinne: for nothing is naturally euill, but that which ſwarueth from good: nor any thing vice, but that which is contrary to vertue. Now all morall good and vertue is within the compaſſe of the Law of God, and all morall euill and vice, a tranſgreſſion of that Law; therefore, it cannot but follow, that concupiſcence being a morall euill and vice, and therefore a tranſgreſſion of the Law of God, ſhould bee cleared from being ſinne, of it owne nature, eſpecially, ſeeing as Origen ſaith, This is the nature of Orig. in Rom. 7.Rom 7ſinne, if any thing bee done, which the Law forbiddeth: and Bede, Beda in 1. Ioh. Caeſar. Dial. 3. apud Nanzianz.that all that ſwarueth from the rule of righteouſneſſe, & ſinne: and Caeſarius Gregory, Naianzens brother, that ſinne is eueryevery aſſay to reſiſt, and eueryevery reſiſtance it ſelfe againſt vertue. And Saint Auguſtine, that therefore a thing is ſinne, becauſe it ought not to Auguſt. …e not. & grat. cap. 14. & contra Iulian. lib. 4. cap. 3.bee done, and that to doe any thing amiſſe, is to ſinne: but eueryevery moral leuill and vice is forbidden by the Law, ſwarueth from the rule of righteouſneſſe, is a reſiſtance againſt vertue, and a thing that is done amiſſe, and ought not to bee done: therefore is alſo ſinne in it owne nature. They hauehave no wayes to helpe themſelues out of theſe briers, but by the diſtinction of properly and improperly, which they ſay, they fetch out of Saint Auguſtine, as if concupiſcence in the regenerat ſhould be ſinne improperly, and not properly, by which the contradiction is not taken away: for they ſay, that it is not ſinne at all in it owne nature, but onelyonly euill: now; if it bee improperly ſinne of it owne nature, then it is ſome way ſinne: and ſo that propoſition is falſe, that it is not ſinne at all: and beſides therefore it is ſaid by that diſtinction in Saint Auguſtine, to be improperly ſinne, becauſe it is not come to ſo high a perfection, as other ſinnes are, by being without conſent of will: neuertheleſſe, hee neuer meant, but that it was a tranſgreſſion of p. 289the Law of God: and ſo a ſinne in it owne nature: as may appeare by almoſt infinite places, in his bookes: as for inſtance one for all, Concupiſcence (ſaith he) is not onelyonly the puniſhment Aug. contra Julian. lib. 5. c. 3.of ſinne, and cauſe of ſinne, but euen ſinne it ſelfe, becauſe there is in it a rebellion againſt the Law of the minde: and therefore heeIdem de ci…itat. lib. 1. cap. 25. & contra Julian. lib. 6. cap. 7. & de Joh. tract. 41. & denupt. & concupiſc. lib. 1. cap. 25. calleth it a concupiſcentiall diſobedience, which dwelleth in our dying members: and in other places, an euill quality, vitious deſires, vnlawfull luſts, &c. Therefore Saint Auguſtine, when he called it …in improperly, neuer dreamt that is was not a tranſgreſſion of the Law, but either that it was not ſo high a degree of ſinne, as thoſe which are done with conſent of will: or that becauſe the guilt of it is taken away by baptiſme in the regenerate; as hee ſpeaketh in another place, ConcupiſcenceIdem contra Iulian. lib. 2. is not called ſinne in ſuch manner, as ſinne maketh guilty, becauſe the guilt thereof is releaſed in the Sacrament of regeneration. And thus this diſtinction rightly vnderſtood, ſtandeth them in no ſtead, to keepe their doctrine from manifeſt contradiction.

61. This ſubiect might bee proſecuted in many more35. Contrad. points of their Religion, but I conclude with theſe two, Antichriſt, and the Biſhop of Rome, which I ioyne together in this diſcourſe, becauſe in truth they are all one: and though they differ in name, yet they agree in nature: one egge is not liker to another, nor milke liker to milke, then the Pope is to Antichriſt. As touching Antichriſt therefore thus they confeſſe, that by myſticall Babylon in the Reuelation, is meant `Rome, Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 3. c. 13. Viega. ſup. Apocal. 11. v. 12. Rhem. Annot. in Apocal. 17. 8. Ribera com. in Apocal. 14.Rev 11:12Rev 17:8Rev 14and by and by with an other contrary blaſt, they puffe away that againe, and affirme, that Rome is not Babylon. The firſt is auouched in plaine termes, both by Bellarmine, and Viega, and Ribera, two other Ieſuites, and the whole colledge of the Rhemiſts, and diuers others, conuicted by the euidence of truth: and the ſecond is inſinuated by a neceſſary conſequence out of another poſition: for they ſay, that Ieruſalem ſhall bee the ſeat of Antichriſt: and in ſo ſaying, they inferre neceſſarily, that Ieruſalem is myſticall Babylon, and not Rome, becauſe the whore of Babylon is ſet foorth in the Scripture, to be the ſeat of Antichriſt: and it muſt needs bee ſo, ſeeing ſhee is called p. 290the mother of all fornications, that is, of Superſtition and Idolatry, of all Atheiſme and hereſie: and ſeeing ſhee maketh drunke the kings and inhabitants of the earth, with the golden cup of her fornication, and is died red, and made drunke with the bloud of the Saints, and of the martyrs of Ieſus: And laſtly, ſeeing Antichriſt muſt bee one of the ſeuen heads, to wit, the laſt of the Romane beaſt, and the laſt King of the Romane Empire, though not called the Romane Emperour, asBell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 3. c. 15. Bellarmine himſelfe confeſſeth. All theſe things conſidered, and laide together, it muſt needs bee inferred by neceſſary conſequence, that the whore of Babylon cannot chooſe but bee the ſeat of Antichriſt; and if it bee ſo, then either Ieruſalem is not the ſeat, where this man of ſinne muſt raigne; or by Babylon is not meant Rome, but Ieruſalem: let them chooſe which: one of theſe is apparantly falſe.

62. Againe, when by Babylon they vnderſtand Rome, they36. Contrad. reſtraine it to heatheniſh Rome, vnderunder the perſecuting Emperours; and ſay, that it is not meant of Rome Catholicke and Chriſtian, but of Rome Ethnick and Heatheniſh. Now if Rome be Babylon, and Babylon the ſeat of Antichriſt, as hath beeneBell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 3. c. 13. proued out of their owne confeſſion, how can Rome heatheniſh, vnderunder the Emperours, be it, when as they all agree, that Antichriſt ſhall not come, vntill a little before the end of the world? That ſtate of Rome, which they ſpeake of, is paſt aboue a thouſand yeeres ſince, and Antichriſt is not yet come according to their doctrine. Neceſſarily therefore it followeth, that either Antichriſt ſate there then, and ſo is come long agoe; or elſe that Rome was not Babylon, whilſt it was vnderunder the heathen Emperours, but is, or ſhall be after it hath receiued the Chriſtian faith.

63. Againe, the Romane Empire muſt bee remoued before37. Contrad. the comming of this great enemie: this, all our aduerſariesIdem l. 3. cap. 5. yeeld vntounto: and moſt of the ancient fathers ſo interpret that place, When he that hindereth, ſhall be taken out of the…. Theſ. 2. 8. way: and yet the ſtate of the Romane Empire, vnderunder the Emperours, is made by them the whore of Babylon, and the ſeat of Antichriſt: and ſo the Romane Empire by their doctrine, p. 291is both vtterly aboliſhed before the raigne of Antichriſt, and yet is not aboliſhed at all.

63. Againe, they teach, that Enoch and Eli… muſt come38. Contrad. Bell. de Roman. Pontif. l. c. 6. & cap. 12. and preach againſt Antichriſt, and at length conuert the Iewes: and yet they alſo affirme, that the Iewes ſhall receiue Antichriſt for their Meſſias. If the Iewes ſhall receiue him for their Meſſias, how ſhall they bee conuerted by Enoch and Elias to the true Meſſias? And if they ſhall be conuerted, how doe they receiue him for their Meſsias? If they ſhall be conuerted before Antichriſts comming, and then fall away from Chriſt; then this could not be done by Enoch and Elias, who, by their doctrine, muſt come in Antichriſts time: and yet it ſeemeth by them, they muſt be called before; becauſe Bellarmine confeſſeth, that Antichriſt muſt be an Apoſtate, and the head of the Apoſtacy: but the Iewes cannot make an Apoſtacie before they be called. Againe, if they ſhall bee conuerted in Antichriſts time, how ſhall Antichriſt raigne three yeeres and an halfe, when all his Subiects ſhall be taken from him? And laſtly, if they ſhall bee called after the deſtruction of Antichriſt, as indeed they ſuppoſe, thē how can that be, ſeeingIbid. cap. 9. the deſtruction of Antichriſt ſhal not be but immediately before the end of the world, euen fiue and fortie daies, and no more? Shall a whole Nation bee conuerted in ſo ſhort a time, and being conuerted, continue no longer, to make profeſſion and practice of their conuerſion? Thus one abſurditie being granted, a thouſand follow.

64. Beſides, they ſay, that Antichriſt ſhall bee borne of the 39. Contrad. Ibid. cap. 12.Tribe of Da…: and yet the Iewes ſhall receiue him for their Meſſias. Whereas notwithſtanding it is a manifeſt and confeſſed thing that the Iewes looke for their Meſsias out of the Tribe of Iuda, and not out of the Tribe of Dan. To ſtoppe which g…p, they are driuen to ſay, that indeed he ſhall truly riſe out of the Tribe of Dan, but ſhal faine himſelfe to be of the Tribe of Iudah, and of the familie of Dauid. As if the Iewes were ſo credulous to beleeue his report without proofe: or that they kept ſo ſleight an account of their Genealogies, in which neuer any people were more ſcrupulous: or, as if a diſtinctiō of p. 292their Tribes remained to this day, their Genealogies being defaced ſo long ſince by Herod: and themſelues ſcattered through all Countries of the world. Either therefore he muſt be of the Tribe of Iuda, in truth, more then by a counterfeit ſimulation; or elſe the Iewes will neuer receiue him.

65. Laſtly, they teach, that Ieruſalem is to bee the ſeat of40. Contrad. Antichriſt, and the Iewes his peculiar Subiects: and yet they alſo confeſſe, that hee ſhall bee the laſt Emperour of Rome, though not called by that name; and therefore that the Romanes ſhall bee his Subiects. From whence I thus conclude; that if the Romane Empire bee the Dominion of Antichriſt, then it is not likely that hee ſhould bee the expected Meſsias of the Iewes, nor that Ieruſalem ſhould be his ſeat: for neuer any Romane Emperour kept his Imperiall reſidence in that Citie: and if the Iewes bee his Subiects, and Ieruſalem the ſeat of his Kingdome, then it cannot bee that hee ſhould be the laſt Emperour of Rome.

66. And thus much of Antichriſt in generall. Now of the41. Contrad. Biſhop of Rome in particular; who, if he be not, as we conſtantly beleeue, this very Antichriſt; yet, (as Gregory their owne Pope confeſſeth) is his fore-runner, becauſe hee claimeth to himſelfe the title of Vniuerſall Biſhop. Concerning the Pope, their preſumption is, that hee cannot erre in any caſe, in thoſe things which pertaine to faith, nor yet which concerne manners, when he teacheth iudicially, and ſpeaketh out of his Chaire: and yet they doe not deny, but that hee may bee an Heretike. This is confeſſed by moſt Popiſh Doctors:Boz. to…. 2. de …ig. eccleſ. l. 28. cap. vlt. Fran. Victor. Relect. 4. nu. 6. Occham. quaeſt. de Sum, Pontif. cap. 9. Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. c. 6. as Bozius, who ſaith, that he may be an Heretike, yea, write, teach, and preach hereſie. And Victoria, that in diſpenſing againſt the Decrees of Councils, and former Popes, he may erre and grieuouſly ſinne. And Occham, that many things are contained in the decretals, which ſauour of hereſie. And it is ſo faintly denyed by Bellarmine, that his denyall is almoſt as good as a confeſſion▪ for he ſaith, that it is probable, and may godlily be beleeued, that the Pope cannot be an Heretike. Hee doth not reſolutely auouch it, but only coniecturally expend his opinion: but yet denieth not, but that hee may erre in p. 293ſome cauſes as a priuate man. And it is a Decree of their owne, that the Pope may bee found negligent of his owne and his brethrens ſaluation, and draw innumerable peopleD. 4. Si Papa. with him into hell. This groſſe and manifeſt contradiction they labour to couer by a ſilly and ridiculous diſtinction: for thus they creepe betwixt the barke and the tree: The Pope may erre as hee is Man, but not as he is a Pope. Orthus, He may erre in his priuate opinions, but not è Cathedra, by way of definition. Or thus, Hee may erre when hee inſtructeth a particular Church: but he cannot when he purpoſeth to direct the Vniuerſail Church. Or thus, Hee may erre in the premiſes, but not in the concluſion. But this is a ſenſeleſſe and ridiculous ſhift. For firſt, if hee may write, teach, and preach, and decree hereſie, as out of Occham and Bozius: and erre in his Diſpenſations, as out of Victoria, then he may erre iudicially, and è Cathedra; for theſe are iudiciall exerciſes of the Chaire. Secondly, if the Pope may be an Heretike, as he is a Man, and hauehave a ſound ſaith, as he is a Pope; then as hee is a Man, hee may goe to hell, and as he is a Pope, to heauen: but both mu… goe to heauen or to hell together; therefore both of them either erre or not erre together: and if he erre in his owne priuate iudgement, how can hee but erre in his publike determinations, which are but fruits of his iudgement; eſpecially, ſeeing the maine promiſe whereupon this infallibil…ie of the Popes Chaire is grounded, was made not onelyonly to the Office, but alſo to the perſon of Peter? Luk. 22. 32. I hauehave prayed for thee that thy faith may not faile: as Bellarmine himſelfe confeſſeth, and Auguſtine, Chryſoſtome, Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. c. 3 Aug. de correp. & grat. cap. 8▪ Chryſ. hom. 83. in Mat. Theophil. in cap. 22. bic.Theophilact, and others of the Fathers expound it as a perſonall priuiledge, without any mention of his Office: neuertheleſſe, let it belong to his Office, if that will doe them any good: then I ſay, What reaſon is there, that the priuiledge of Peters perſon ſhould not be deriued to the Pope, as well as his Office, ſeeing they cl…ime the latter by the ſame title, by which Peter had the former? and if Peters faith could not faile, neither in himſelfe, nor in his Office, by vertue of that promiſe; then the Pope, if he be Peters ſucceſſor, muſt be in p. 294the ſame caſe, that is, neither to erre perſonally nor iudicially: or if he erre one way, then alſo to bee ſubiect to error the other. Laſtly, experience hath taught, that Popes may erre, euen as they are Popes, and that iudicially: yea, and alſo hauehave beene condemned for Heretikes: As Honorius the firſt, whom three generall Councils condemned for a Me…othel…te. And Iohn the two and twentieth, who was conſtrained to recant his iudgement touching the ſoule, by the Vniuerſitie of Paris. And Iohn the three and twentieth, who was condemned for an Heretike, by the Council of Conſtance, Eraſ. annot. in 1. Cor. 7.1 Cor 7for denying the immortality of the ſoule. And diuers others, who not onelyonly in their priuate opinions, but in their publike doctrines, hauehave taught and maintained notorious errours.

67. Another doctrine of theirs is, that the Pope is the42. Contrad. head of the Church, and yet they denie not, but ſometimes the Pope is no true nor ſound member of the Church: how can hee be the head of the Church, that is no ſound member thereof? nay, no member at all, not ſo much as the taile, as the Iewiſh Rabbines call the Biſhop of Rome, in diſdaine: except their laſt diſtinction helpe them, quatenus Papa, and quatenus homo, I know not how they will rid themſelues out of this ſnare; and yet that will not helpe them, neither in this caſe: for is it likely, that Chriſt will make a reprobate, the head of his Church, and commit the cu…dy of the ſame to an Atheiſt, an Heretike, or an Epicure, or a Necromancer, or a monſter of nature, as all ſtories …all Iohn 12. and as many of them hauehave beene? Surely either as he is a Pope, he is not the Churches head: or as hee is a man, hee muſt needs be a member of the ſame. If they ſay, that wee giuegive vntounto a King the ſame title of head and gouernor of the Church, who notwithſtanding is often a tyrant, and waſter of the Church, and a very reprobate: I anſwere, that in attributing theſe titles of dignity to Kings, wee doe not poſitiuely ſet downe what eueryevery one is: for if hee bee a deſtroyer of the Church, hee is not an vpholder of it; but what eueryevery one ought to bee in regard of his office: but the Romaniſts abſolutely ſet it downe, that p. 295though the Pope be a wolfe, waſting the flocke of Chriſt, and though hee lead by his doctrine and example, infinite ſoules with him to hell, yet hee is ſtill actually the head of the Church, quatenus Papa, and no man may ſay vntounto him, Why doe you ſo?

68. Againe, it was decreed by two Councils, and thoſe43. Contrad. aſſembled, authorized, and confirmed by Popes themſelues, that the Councill was aboue the Pope; and yet the CouncillConcil. Conſtant. & Baſill. Bell. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. of Laterane, vnderunder Pope Leo the tenth, decreeth peremptorily, that the Pope is aboue all Councils: & ſo alſo moſt of the moderne Romaniſts affirme. Now if the decrees of Councils lawfully aſſembled, and approoued by Popes, bee the doctrines of the Church, then here is one doctrine quite contrary to another, one Councill oppoſite to another, yea, one Pope to another: which is no new nor ſtrange thing, but ordinary in the Church of Rome. As witneſſe, Pope Iohn the two and twentieth, and Pope Nicholas, about the queſtion of our Sauiours manner of poſſeſſing earthly goods: and Pope Celeſtine, and Pope Innocent the third, in the queſtion of diuorce, in the caſe of hereſie: and Pope Pelagius, and Pope Gregory the firſt, in the queſtion of putting away the wiues of Subdeacons; one of theſe croſſing the other iudicially, and one gain ſaying, what the other defended. And moſt notorious is that which diuers Chronologers teſtifie of Pope Stephen Sigebert. Polonus. Sigonius de reb. Ital. lib. 6. Lui…prand. ver. per Europ. geſt▪ lib. 1. cap. 8. Concil. Reuen. anno Dom. 898.the ſixt, how hee decreed in a Councill, that they who were ordained Biſhops by Pope For…ſus, his predeceſſour, were not ordained lawfully, becauſe the man was wicked, by whom they were ordained; & therfore he did vnordain them, and reordaine them againe: thus Stephen iudicially croſſed Form…ſus, and hee againe was croſſed and condemned by Pope Iohn the ninth, euen for this fact, and his new ordainings marched with new baptizings.

69. Laſtly, they conſtantly maintaine, that the Pope is44. Contrad. not Antichriſt; and yet they affirme that hee is the Vicar of Chriſt heere on earth: a flat contradiction: for the word Antichriſt ſignifieth not onelyonly an enemie vntounto Chriſt, but alſo one that taketh vponupon him the office and authority of Chriſt: p. 296the pr…poſition foreign, affording naturally, and properly, both ſignifications, as appeareth in theſe two wordes foreign, an oppoſite, and foreign, a Proconſull: in the firſt whereof it ſignifieth oppoſition, and the ſecond ſubſtitution. Now then, if the Pope bee Chriſts Vicar generall on earth, then he is in the laſt ſenſe Antichriſt: and beeing ſo in the laſt ſenſe, it is moſt likely that hee is alſo the ſame in the firſt: becauſe the Antichriſt ſpoken of in the Scripture, is deſcribed to be ſuch a one as is not an open and outward, but a couert and diſguiſed enemie, hauing two hornes like the Lambe, that is, counterfeting the humility and meekneſſe of Chriſt, and making aApoc. 13. & 17.Rev 13 glorious profeſſion of religion, with a ſhew of counterfeit holineſſe, when notwithſtanding hee ſpeaketh lyes in hypocriſie, and vttereth wordes like the dragon, and is the greateſt enemy to Chriſt Ieſus and his Goſpel that euer was: ſo that in that hee is Chriſts Vicar, hee is Antichriſt, by their owne confeſſion, in that ſenſe, and being ſo, is probably Antichriſt alſo in the other: becauſe the true Antichriſt muſt bee both the one and the other. And ſo for the concluſion of this point, wee hauehave not onelyonly the myſtery of iniquity, that is, Antichriſtianiſme in the manifold contradictions and oppoſitions thereof, but euen Antichriſt himſelfe lurking in his den, profeſſing himſelfe and his followers to bee the onelyonly true Church of God, and pretending himſelfe to be the Prince of the couenant, as Saint Ierome ſpeaketh, that is aſmuch as to ſay, the Vicar of Chriſt: and without doubt, as the ſweet harmonie in Chriſtian Religion, and eueryevery part thereof with it ſelfe, is a pregnant argument of the infallible truth thereof: ſo the miſerable oppoſition and contrariety in the Religion of the Church of Rome, and that moſt of the doctrines therein contained, either with themſelues, or with other, as I hauehave in part here ſhewed, leauing a fuller demonſtration thereof to ſome other that ſhal more deeply ſearch into them, doe euidently euince, that it is the Religion of Antichriſt; and therefore not onelyonly to be ſuſpected, but euen to bee abhorred of all them that louelove the truth, or that deſire the ſaluation of their ſoules.