A Retractive from the Romish Religion, Motive 9

A Retractive from the Romish Religion · Motive 9

p. 297The IX. MOTIVE. That Religion, whoſe doctrines are in many points apparently oppoſite to the word of God and the doctrine of the Goſpell cannot bee the trueth: but ſuch is the Religion of the Church of Rome, ergo &c.

1 IN the Chapter going before, I hauehave ſhewed how the Romiſh Religion is contrary to it ſelfe, that is, falſhood to falſhood: now in this, my taske is to demonſtrate, how it croſſeth the word of God, that is, falſhood to truth; which being proued, I hope, no man which is not drunke with the poiſonous cuppe of the whoore of Babylons fornication, will doubt of the vanity and falſhood thereof. Now my purpoſe is not to enter into the liſts of diſputation, and confute their opinions by ſtrength of argument, (that combate hath beene valiantly performed by many of our Champions:) onelyonly my intent is, firſt to ſhew how their doctrines cōtradict the plain text of Gods word, and ſecondly, to wipe away their ſubtle and intricate diſtinctions, whereby they labour to make a reconciliation betwixt the word of God, and their opinions; which ſhall be my onelyonly taske in this Chapter: for it is to bee noted, that there was neuer any generation ſo happie, or rather ſo miſerable in diſtinctions, as the Romaniſts are: they maintain their kingdomes by diſtinctions, by them they blind the eyes of the ſimple, dazle the vnderſtanding of the vnaduiſed, ſet a gloſe vponupon their counterfeit ware, couer the deformity of their Apoſtate Church; and laſtly, extinguiſh the truth, or at leaſtwiſe, ſo darken and obſcure it, that it cannot ſhine ſo brightly as it would: but in ſeeking to extinguiſh the light of truth, they diſtinguiſh themſelues from the trueth: and as Iacob by his party-coloured ſtickes, occaſioned a brood of party-coloured ſheepe and goates: ſo they, by their fond diſtinctions, bring foorth a party-coloured and counterfeit Religion: as I truſt to lay open to the world, in this diſcourſe following.

2. The maior or firſt propoſition beeing without all controuerſie▪ p. 298I paſſe ouer in ſilence, and come to the minor or ſecondMinor. propoſition, which is, that the Religion of the Church of Rome in many doctrines is apparently oppoſite to the word of God.

3. The Goſpell teacheth, that … one onelyonly God is to bee1. Mat. 4. 10. Mat 6. 9. 1. Pet. 5. 7. Pſal. 50. 15. Ier. 17. 5, 7.Matt 4:10Matt 6:91 Pet 5:7Ps 50:15Jer 17:5Jer 17:7 inuocated and worſhipped, and that after that manner which he hath appointed in his word, and that all the confidence of our ſaluation is to bee placed in him alone: but the Romaniſts command not onelyonly to inuocate God, but alſo Angels and Saints departed, and in time of danger to expect helpe and ſuccour from them, and to repoſe our truſt and confidence in them alſo.

4. Bellarmine diſtinguiſheth and ſaith, that God alone indeedBell. de Roman. Pontif. l. 3. c. 23. is to be worſhipped, and inuocated with that kinde of adoration, which is due onelyonly vntounto God: but yet the excellent creatures may bee honoured, and ſome of them inuocated, not as gods, but as ſuch as are Gods friends, that is, with an inferiour kinde of worſhip.Anſwere. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. art. 3. l. 4. Concil. Trident. Seſſ. 13. cap. 5. Gregor. de Valent. de Idolat. l. 2. cap. 7. Cerem. Rom. Eccleſ. l. 1. tit. 7. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 96. art. 4. & part 3. q. 25. art. 4. Pontif. Rom. part. 2. tit. de benedict. nou… crucis. …r…uiar. Rom. in hymn. ad beat. virgin. Apoſt. martyr. & in …ff…c. defunct. Biel. lect. 80. in expeſ. can. miſſ.Sir 50:1

5. But theſe diſtinctions cannot extinguiſh the truth: for firſt they giuegive by name the higheſt worſhip that can bee, to wit, Latria, to the Image and reliques of Chriſt and the croſſe, and to a piece of bread in the Sacrament, inſomuch that Gregory de Valentia, a famous Ieſuite, and Bellarmines compeere, is in this regard driuen to ſay, that ſome kinde of Idolatrie is lawfull. Secondly, if they ſhould deny this, yet their doctrine and practice doth apparently proclaime aſmuch: for when they ſay to their Agnus deis, It breaketh and quaſheth all ſinne as Chriſts bloud, doe they not equall them to Chriſt? when they place their hope and confidence in Saints and reliques, doe they not equall them to God? when they pray, that by the merit of a golden, ſiluer, or woodden croſſe, they may be freed from ſinne committed, doe they not equall it with our Sauiour that dyed on the croſſe? when they deſire at the Saints hands grace and glory, doe they not equall them to the God of grace, and glory? when they call the bleſſed Virgine the Queene of Heauen, and giuegive vntounto her one halfe of Gods kingdome, euen the halfe of mercy, doe they not equall her p. 299to her maker? Laſtly, when they offer ſacrifice to reliques andMiſſal. Rom. tit. derit. ſeruand. in celebr. miſſ. Images, as namely, burne frankincenſe, ſet vp tapers, offer the calues of their lippes, doe they not equall them to God? for all theſe dueties are proper and peculiar parts of Gods ſeruice; and therefore in attributing them to creatures, they giuegive vntounto them plainely that ſeruice and worſhip, which belongeth to God alone.

6. The Goſpell teacheth, that remiſſion of ſinnes, and euerlaſting2. Eſay 63. 3. 1. Ioh. 1. 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 2. Act. 4. 14. Rhem. Col. 1. 24. Biel. 3. d. 19. art. 2. cond. 5. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 14. Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. b. 3. c. 23.Isa 63:31 John 1:71 John 2:2Acts 4:14Col 1:24 life, is beſtowed vponupon vsus freely, not for any works or merits ſake of our owne, but for Ieſus Chriſts ſake, the only begotten Sonne of God, who was crucified for our ſinnes, and roſe againe for our iuſtification: But the Romaniſts teach, that wee are iuſtified and ſaued, not by Chriſts merits onelyonly, but in part for Chriſts ſake, and in part for our owne contrition, obedience, and good works.

7. Bellarmine anſwereth, that their doctrine is falſely charged, to ſay that ſinners are iuſtified, partly for their owne works ſake, and partly by Chriſt: for (ſaith hee) by a diſtinction there bee three kinde of works; one, of thoſe that are performed by the ſtrength of nature onelyonly, without faith and the grace of God: another, of ſuch as proceede from faith and grace, but not from a man fully iuſtified: and therefore are called works of Preparation; as Prayer, Almes, Faſting, Sorrow for ſinne, and ſuch like: and the third, of ſuch which are done by a man iuſtified, and proceede from the Spirit of God dwelling in his heart, and ſheading abroad charity in the ſame. Now concerning the firſt, hee acknowledgeth that we are not iuſtified by them, by the example of Abraham, Rom. 4. and therefore that they moſt impudently belye their doctrine, that faſten this opinion vponupon them. As touching the ſecond, he ſaith, that theſe works Preparatiue are not meritorious of reconciliation and iuſtification by condignity and iuſtice: yet in as much as they proceede from faith and grace, they merite after a ſort; that is, obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes. The third ſort of works hee boldly and confidently affirmeth, to merite not remiſſion of ſinnes, becauſe that was obtayned before: but euerlaſting glory and happineſſe, and that truely and properly.

p. 3008. This Bellarminian diſtinction may be diſtinguiſhed byAnſwere. two eſſentiall qualities: firſt, Folly; ſecondly, Falſehood. Folly: for it maketh nothing to the taking away of the Antitheſis before mentioned: for when as he confeſſeth, that the ſecond kinde of works doe merite remiſſion of ſinnes after a ſort, and the third eternall life abſolutely, what doth …e but acknowledge that which wee charge them withall, and which himſelfe reiected a little before as a ſlaunder? namely, that wee are iuſtified and ſaued partly by our owne merits, and partly by the merits of Chriſt: for the Goſpell ſaith, We are ſaued by Chriſts merits alone: and he ſaith, We are ſaued by our owne merits alſo. And thus the folly and vanity of his diſtinction euidently appeareth.

9. The falſehood ſheweth it ſelfe in two things: firſt, in that hee affirmeth, that they doe not teach, that works done before grace doe merite any thing at Gods hand: for though it be a Canon of the Councill of Trent, charged with an Anathema,Concil. Trident. …eſſ. 6. can. 1. If any man ſhould ſay, that a man may bee iuſtified by his owne works, wrought by the power of nature, without the diuine helpe by Chriſt Ieſus: and Bellarmine ſeemeth to affirme as much in this place. Yet Andradius, that famous Interpreter of that forenamed Councill, one of the moſt learned men of his age, and that knew well the myſteries of that Councill, doth tell vsus, that by diuine helpe the Councill vnderſtood not the grace of regeneration, and ſpeciall worke of Gods ſanctifying Spirit, but heroicall motions, ſtirred vp in the vnregenerate and vnbeleeuers: and that by this ſpeciall helpe they might doe works void of all fault, and meritorious of ſaluation. And Bellarmine confeſſeth in other places,Bell. de Iuſtif. lib. 4. cap. 20. Salmer. t…. 5. pag. 41. Concil Trid. Seſſ 6. can. 7. that they are good, ſuogenere: that is, morally: and Salmeron the Ieſuite, that they diſpoſe and prepare a man for iuſtification: and the ſame Councill of Trent in the ſeuenth Canon following, doth curſe them that ſhall ſay they are ſinnes, or that they deſerue the hatred of God. Now if theſe kinde of works be good in their kinde, and preparatiues to iuſtification, and not ſinnes, nor deſeruing the hatred of God, but ſuch as whereby the Heathen were ſaued; then it is a probable p. 301falſehood in Bellarmine, when he ſaith by their doctrine, that theſe works doe not iuſtifie, nor helpe any thing to the iuſtification of a ſinner.

10. Secondly, it is falſe alſo which he affirmeth, concerning the ſecond kinde of works: to wit, of preparation, that though they proceede from faith and grace, yet they doe not iuſtifie: for Bellarmine in another place doth not ſtick toBell. de Iuſtif. lib. 1. cap. 13. Idem. cap. 17. ſay, that this faith iuſtifieth by way of merite, and deſerueth forgiuenes of ſinnes after a certaine manner: and here in this place, that theſe works proceeding from faith, doe merite after their manner, and obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes; which if it be true, then it muſt needes be falſe which he ſayd before, That they make not our works to concurre with the merits of Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſinnes, which is the point of oppoſition: and that which alſo he affirmeth here, That theſe works doe not iuſtifie, ſeeing remiſſion of ſinnes is of the verie eſſence of iuſtification: for none hauehave their ſinnes forgiuen, but they are iuſtified; and none are iuſtified, but they hauehave their ſinnes forgiuen: they concurre in one, if they bee not one and the ſame: And therefore if theſe works merite remiſſion of ſinnes, they muſt needs alſo merite iuſtification. And thus Bellarmines diſtinction doth no waies free their doctrine from oppoſition to the doctrine of the Goſpell.

11. The Goſpell teacheth, that hee which repenteth and3. Mark. 1. 15. Epheſ. 3. 12. Heb. 4. 16. Heb. 10. 19, 22. Mat. 9. 3. Mat. 9. 22. Ioh. 16. 33. Rom. 8. 15. 1. Ioh. 3. 14. Chytraus. com in Reuel. cap. 9.Mark 1:15Eph 3:12Heb 4:16Heb 10:19Heb 10:22Matt 9:3Matt 9:22John 16:33Rom 8:151 John 3:14Rev 9 heareth the promiſe, ought to beleeue it, and bee perſwaded, that not only other mens ſins, but euen his owne are pardoned for Chriſts ſake, and that he doth pleaſe God, and is accepted of God, and in this faith ought to come vntounto God by prayer. But the Church of Rome teacheth, that a man muſt alwaies doubt of the remiſſion of his ſins, and neuer be aſſured thereof; which doubting (as Chytraeus truely ſpeaketh) is plainely repugnant to the nature of faith, and a meere heatheniſh doctrine.

12. Bellarmine anſwereth here not by a diſtinction, but by a negation, denying flatly that the Scripture teacheth any ſuch doctrine, that a man may be aſſured of the remiſſion of his ſinnes, and his reconciliation with God: and this hee ſeemeth p. 302to prooue by two arguments; one, becauſe it is contraryEccleſ. 9.Eccl 9 to other plaine and manifeſt places of Scripture: another, becauſe all Gods promiſes almoſt hauehave a condition annexed vntounto them, which no man can iuſtly know whether hee hath fulfilled or no.

13. It is good for Bellarmine here to vſe a plaine negation:Anſwere. for their doctrine is ſo manifeſt, that it will admit no diſtinction: the Councill of Trent hath put that out of all queſtionConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 6. cap. 9. and diſtinction. For it teacheth in expreſſe words, that no man ought to perſwade and aſſure himſelfe of the remiſsion of his ſinnes, and of his iuſtification; no though he be truly iuſtified, and his ſinnes be truely and really pardoned. This doctrine is ſo euident, that Bellarmine could neither diſtinguiſh, as his cuſtome is, nor yet deny it; and therefore hee freely confeſſeth it: and yet Gropper condemned it as an impious doctrine:Gropper. Catharin. aſſert. & Apolog. Domin. Sot…. Apol. cap. 2. and Catharinus, at the Councill of Trent, defended the contrary, that the childe of God, by the certainty of faith, knoweth himſelfe to be in the ſtate of grace. And ſo did alſo Dominicus a Sot…, and diuers others of their owne ſtampe But there is great cauſe why the Church of Rome ſhould maintaine this doctrine of doubting very peremptorily: for as Chemnitius Chemnit. exam. pars 1. pag. 183.well obſerueth, all the Market of Romiſh ſuperſtitious wares is built vponupon this foundation: for when as the conſcience, being taught to doubt of ſolution, doth ſeeke for ſome true and ſound comfort, and not finding the ſame in faith, through the merits of Chriſt, then it flyeth to it owne works, and heapeth vp together a bundle of ſuperſtitious obſeruations, by which it hopeth to obtaine fauour at Gods hands: hence ariſe voluntary vowes, Pilgrimages, Inuocations of Saints, works of Supererogation, priuate Maſſes, ſale of Pardons, and a number ſuch like traſh: and when as yet they could not finde any ſound comfort in any of theſe, at laſt was Purgatory found out, and redemption of the ſoules of the dead out of that place of torment, by the ſuffrages and prayers of the liuing. Now the Romaniſts, fearing leſt theſe profitable and gainefull wares, whereby an infinite tribute is brought into their coffers, ſhould be bereft them, hauehave barred p. 303out of their Church this doctrine of certainty of ſaluation by faith, of which if mens conſciences bee once perſwaded, they will neuer repoſe any more confidence in thoſe ſuperſtitious trumperies.

14. But we, with Luther, may boldly ſay, that ſo odiousLuther in Gen. cap. 41.Gen 41 and impious is this doctrine, that if there were no other error in the Romane Church but this, we had iuſt cauſe of ſeparation from them: and with Chytraeus, that it is repugnant to the nature of faith, and a meere heatheniſh doctrine. For it doth not onelyonly nouriſh mens infirmities, who are too much pro…e to doubting, but euen encourage them thereunto, and teach that we ought to doubt. But that we may come to the point, is not this indeede the doctrine of the Goſpell, that wee ſhould not doubt of our ſaluation? why then doth our Sauiour command all to repent, and beleeue the Goſpell? ByMat. 1. 15.Matt 1:15 which he plainely teacheth, where true repentance goeth before, there beleefe in the Goſpell, that is, aſſurance of forgiueneſſe of ſinnes by the bloud of Chriſt, doth follow: and that wee ought eueryevery one to be thus aſſured, ſeeing this is a precept Euangelicall, which doth not onelyonly giuegive charge of doing the thing commanded, as the Law doth; but alſo inſpireth grace and power to effect it: as Saint Auguſtine wellAug. de Spiritis & liter. informeth vsus, when he ſaith, The Law was giuen, that grace might bee ſought; and grace was giuen, that the Law might bee fulfilled. Why doeth Saint Paul ſay, that the Spirit of GodRom. 8. 15.Rom 8:15 witneſſeth vntounto our ſpirits that wee are the ſonnes of God? Neither is this witneſſe of the Spirit a doubtfull and vncertaine certificate: for Saint Paul, in the words going before, calleth it, the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father, and not the ſpirit of bondage, to feare any more. When therefore God doth ſhead abroad his Spirit into our hearts, crying, and making vsus to cry, Abba, Father, in faithfull, not formall prayer, that is a certaine teſtimony to our ſpirits, that we are the ſonnes of God. For as Saint Ierome Hierom. in Gal. cap. 4.Gal 4well noteth, Wee neuer durſt call God, our Father, but vponupon conſcience of the Spirit dwelling in vsus. Neither doe we euer vponupon this ground call God, our Father, but withall p. 304we are, or ought to be perſwaded that we are his children.

15. Againe, why doth hee ſay in another place, that all they which beleeue the Goſpell, are ſealed with the holy Spirit of promiſe? Are Gods children ſealed? and can they notEpheſ. 1. 13.Eph 1:13 ſee nor know the Seale? Is not this one vſe of a ſeale, to confirme a couenant, aſſuring the certainty of the performance thereof to him to whom it is made? Yea, doth not Saint Iohn ſay, Hereby we know that we dwell in him, and he in vsus; becauſe Ioh. 4. 13.John 4:13he hath giuen vsus of his Spirit? And againe, doth not the holy Ghoſt ſo aſcribe this knowledge of iuſtification and ſaluation on to a mans ſelfe, that he denyeth it to all others? To him that ouercommeth, I will giuegive a white ſtone, and in the ſtone a new Reuel. …. 17.name written, which no man knoweth ſa… he that receiueth it. What is this white ſtone, but the abſolution and remiſſion of a ſinner? what is the new name written in it, but the childe of God? This no man knoweth, but he that hath it; therefore he that hath it, knoweth it. What can be more plaine? And yet this is the expoſition almoſt of all Diuines vponupon that place. To omit all other teſtimonies, doth not the Scripture now teach this doctrine, touching the certainty of ſaluation?

16. I but, ſaith Bellarmine, all Gods promiſes, for the moſt part, are conditionall, and no man can certainely know whether he hath performed the condition; and therefore cannot aſſure himſelfe of the promiſe. To which I anſwere, that albeit, in regard of our infirmitie, we are not able to fulfill the conditions required in Gods promiſes: yet wee are aſſured that we ſhall fulfill them, through him that ſtrengthneth vsus: and ſo, as the Apoſtle Paul ſaid in one place, Wee can doe nothing, no, not ſo much as thinke a good thought. Yet in another2. Cor. 3. 5.2 Cor 3:5 place he ſaith, I can doe all things through Chriſt that ſtrengthneth me. So may we ſay of our ſelues, We cannot doPhil. 4. 13.Phil 4:13 anything of our ſelues: yet in Chriſt Ieſus wee can doe all things: By his might wee can keepe his Commandements; though not perfectly, yet ſo, as our defects are made vp by his perfection, and our endeuours accepted in his mediation: for his ſake it is giuen vntounto vsus, not onelyonly to beleeue in him, but alſo to ſuffer for him: and by his neuer-faylingPhil. 1. 29.Phil 1:29 p. 305grace, and euerlaſting louelove, we are aſſured that we ſhall perſeuere vntounto the end. And therefore Origen ſaith, that it is Phil. 1. 6. Orig. in Ierem. hom. 1.Phil 1:6impoſsible that that which God hath once quickned ſhould either by himſelfe or any other be killed. Thus there is no condition required of the children of God; but they are aſſured that they can performe it, though not in full meaſure, and by their owne ſtrength, yet in that meaſure which God will accept, and by the ſtrength of his Spirit which dwelleth in them, and ſanctifieth them to doe his will. And thus this third Antitheſis is nothing empeached by Bellarmines cauill.

17. The Goſpell telleth vsus, that there is but one onelyonly propitiatory4 Heb. 9. 25. 28. Heb. 10. 12. 14.Heb 9:25Heb 9:28Heb 10:12Heb 10:14 Sacrifice in the world, which is Chriſt Ieſus the Sauiour of the world, who offered vp himſelfe once, and no more, for to take away the ſinnes of his people. But theConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 6. cap. 2. can. 1. 2. 3. 4. Church of Rome teacheth, that eueryevery Maſſe is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quicke and the dead: and that eueryevery Prieſt, as often as he ſaith Maſſe, doth offer vp Chriſt vntounto God the Father, as a Sacrifice for ſinne.

18. Bellarmine here diſtinguiſheth againe, and ſaith, thatBell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 3. 6. 23. indeede there is but one onelyonly propitiatory Sacrifice in the world, to wit, that which was once offered vponupon the Croſſe; but yet that one Sacrifice may be reiterated in myſterie by the ſame high Prieſt Chriſt Ieſus, by the hands of a carnall Prieſt. And againe, he in another place diſtinguiſheth this SacrificeIdem. de miſſa. lib. 1. cap. 25. into bloudy & vnbloudy, & ſaith, that there was but one bloudie Sacrifice of Chriſt, and that on the Altar of the Croſſe: but there are many vnbloudy ſacrifices of the ſame Chriſt in their dayly Maſſes. And laſtly, that the ſacrifice of the Maſſe is but an application of the Sacrifice of the Croſſe vntounto mens ſoules, for the actuall remiſſion of ſinnes purchaſed by Chriſt vponupon the Croſſe.

19. Here is much adoe to little purpoſe, three diſtinctions,Anſwere. and all not worth a ruſh: for all of them are mutually contrary to each others, and vaine, and friuolous in themſelues: firſt, if the ſacrifice of the Maſſe bee a repetition of the ſacrifice of the croſſe, then it is not an application of it: for it is one thing to reiterate, and another to apply: and therefore if the Prieſt p. 306doth reiterate it, then hee doth not apply it: and if hee doth apply it, then hee doth not reiterate: for to reiterate, is to doe againe that which was done before, and to apply, is to make vſe of that which was done, but not to doe it againe. Beſide, if the maſſe bee a repetition, and application of the ſacrifice of the croſſe, then how is it an vnbloudy ſacrifice? can that bloudy ſacrifice bee repeated and applied after an vnbloudy manner? that is aſmuch as to ſay, it is a ſacrifice, and yet not a ſacrifice, eſpecially no propitiatory ſacrifice: ſeeing as the ApoſtleHeb. 10.Heb 10 ſpeaketh, without the ſhedding of bloud, there is no remiſſiō of ſinnes. Againe, if the maſſe be a repetition of that bloudy ſacrifice of Chriſt on the croſſe, then it is a repetition of Chriſts death, and a crucifying of him againe; for the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and the death of Chriſt is all one: and if it bee ſo, then it muſt needs be bloudy aſwell as that: for the repetition of a thing, is the doing of the ſame thing againe. And laſtly, if it bee an application of it, then it cannot bee a repetition of it: nor indeed the ſame in ſpecie with it; for the application of a thing, is not the thing it ſelfe in any reaſon: and thus theſe diſtinctions are at ciuill warre with each other: and indeed like deadly enemies doe cut each others throats.

20. But let one of their own learned maſters, Peter Lumbard, Lumbard. lib. 4. o…ſt. 12.conclude this point for vsus; who ſaith that Chriſt dying vponupon the croſſe, offered himſelfe, & is ſacrificed dayly in the Sacrament, becauſe in this Sacrament there is a cōmemoration of that ſacrifice of the croſſe which was once offered: this he ſpake, conuicted by the truth. And the Councill of Trent alſo in another placeConcil. Trident. …eſſ. 22. v. cap. 1. doth almoſt, if not fully ſpeake aſmuch, when it ſayth, that Ieſus Chriſt left to his Church a ſacrifice, by which that bloudy ſacrifice which hee made vponupon the croſſe, might bee repreſented, and the memory thereof continued: which if it be true, then being conuicted by their owne conſciences, and confeſſions, it remaines, that that doctrine which holdeth that the maſſe is a true, reall, propitiatory ſacrifice, is oppoſite to the doctrine of the Goſpell, which teacheth the contrary: and ſo this fourth Antitheſis is ſafe and ſound, for all that Bellarmine can ſay againſt it.

p. 30721. The Goſpell teacheth, that both parts of the Sacrament are to bee miniſtred to all Chriſtians; and of the cup it ſayth expreſly, Drinke ye all of this: but the Church of Rome hath decreed, that none ſhould drinke of the cup, but theConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 5. cap. 1. & 3. Clergie, and that the people ſhould content themſelues with the other part of the Sacrament.

22. Bellarmine diſtinguiſheth of the word (All) and ſaith,Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 3. c. 23. By it is not to be vnderſtood all the faithfull, but the Apoſtles onelyonly; which hee prooueth by Saint Marke, who ſayth, that they dranke all of it, that is, all the Apoſtles which ſate at table with our Sauiour Chriſt, and not all the Chriſtians that beleeued in him.

23. But to his diſtinction, (not all Chriſtians, but all Apoſtles)Anſwere. Cyprian. de c…na Domin. Baſil. de baptiſ. Cyril. catechiſm. myſt. …. Theodor. 1. Cor. 11. & 12. Theophil. 1. Cor. 11. Aug. in Job. tract. 26 Ambroſ. 1. Cor. 11. Chryſoſt. hom. 1…. in 2. Cor. Hier. in 1. Cor. 11 Aquin. 1. Cor. 11 Durand. Ration. l. 4. cap. 55. Biel. in Can. lect. 52. Alphonſ contra haereſ. l. 6. Lorichius de pub miſſa. G. oſſa. Caſſand. Conſult. art. 22.1 Cor 11 I anſwere, that this is Bellarmines conceit, or rather deceit; and hee borrowed it of Andradius the famous expoſiter of the Councill of Trent: but it is a miſerable gloſſe (woe bee to it) that ſo ſoully corrupts the text: firſt, the fathers vnderſtood by the vniuerſall All, all the faithfull; and that the Apoſtles heere in this great action, were not Paſtors, but ſheep, Chriſt himſelfe the great ſhepheard, beeing the diſtributer and diuider of this Sacrament. I ſhall not need to repeat their words, they are ſo euident and ordinary. Let the margent direct the Reader to them, if they deſire ſatisfaction in this point.

24. Secondly, many of their owne Doctors ſo interprete it, as Thomas Aquinas, Durand, Biel, Alphonſus de Caſtro, Lorichius, the author of the gloſſe, and diuers others. Caſſanders teſtimony ſhall ſtand in ſtead of all the reſt: he ſayth plainly, that the Weſterne Church beleeued for a thouſand yeeres, that our Sauiour Chriſt gaue this Sacrament to his diſciples, repreſenting the perſons of all the faithfull: and he addeth reaſons, why the wine as well as the bread was to bee receiued; both for a more full repreſentation of the paſſion of Chriſt▪ and ſignification of our full ſpirituall nouriſhment in Chriſt, and alſo the full and perfect redemption of our bodies and ſoules, by the body and ſoule of our Sauiour. This Caſſander repeats to hauehave beene the opinion of the Latine & Greeke Church, for p. 308the ſpace of a thouſand yeeres. What an vpſtart diſtinction then is this of Bellarmine, who notwithſtanding ceaſeth not to bragge that they hauehave all antiquity on their ſide?

25. Thirdly, wee hauehave Saint `Paul thus interpreting the words of his Lord and Maſter, who ſpake nothing but by the direction of the Spirit: for whereas our Sauiour ſayth, Drinke yee all of it, Saint Paul ſayth, Let a man examine himſelfe,1. Cro. 11. and ſo let him eat of this bread, and drinke of this cup. But all muſt examine themſelues before they come to the ſacrament: therefore, all are enioyned to drinke of the Sacramentall cup: let vsus chuſe then whom wee will beleeue, whether Saint Paul or Bellarmine: for Saint Paul interprets this All one way, and Bellarmine cleane contrary.

26. Laſtly, reaſon it ſelfe diſapprooueth this expoſition: for firſt I would aske him, whether that which our Sauiour commanded to bee done at his laſt Supper, were to bee done once and no more, or often, euen to the end of the world? If hee ſay once, and no more, the words will confute him which ſay, Doe this in remembrance of me: if often, then by All, he meant not the Apoſtles onelyonly; for the Apoſtles liued not till the end of the world. Againe, if by All was intended the Prieſts onelyonly, then not onelyonly the people ſhould bee excluded from the cup, but from the bread alſo: for if in theſe words, Drinke ye all of it, hee ſpeaketh to Prieſts onelyonly, then in theſe words, Eat ye all of it, hee ſpeaketh to none but Prieſts: for they are both ſpoken to one and the ſame perſons. And thus the people ſhould hauehave no part of the Sacrament at all: for the ſame All that is in one, is in the other. And to conclude, if the Apoſtles ſtood heere in ſtead of Paſtors or Prieſts, why did they not miniſter the Sacrament? It is the part of a Prieſt, as hee is a Prieſt, to miniſter the Sacrament to others, and when hee receiueth it himſelfe, then hee ſtandeth for a common Chriſtian, and not for a Prieſt, for a ſheepe, not for a ſhepheard. But they did not miniſter, but receiue; therefore they ſtood not here for Prieſts, but for the whole body of the faithfull. And thus this diſtinction being battered by the teſtimony p. 309of fathers, confeſſion of their owne Doctors, authority of Saint Paul, and ſtrength of reaſon, doth fall to the ground like Babel: and this fift Antitheſis is nothing weakened by Bellarmines Sophiſtrie.

27. The Goſpell teacheth, that true repentance, or conuerſion6 Luk. 24. 47. Act. 26. 18. Mark. 1. 15.Luke 24:47Acts 26:18Mark 1:15 to God, is an earneſt ſorrow of heart for ſinnes committed, and faith perſwading that they are certainely remitted for Chriſts ſake. But the Church of Rome teacheth, that contrition indeed is one of the parts of repentance: but they faine that it meriteth a remiſſion of ſinnes, and to it they adde auricular confeſſion not commaunded by God, & ſatisfaction, or voluntary workes, by which they ſay, that the puniſhments of ſinne are ſatisfied, & that theſe alſo may be redeemed by money and purſe-penance. All which whole doctrine is very blaſphemous againſt the merit of the Son of God, who onelyonly made ſatisfaction for our ſinnes.

28. Bellarmine heere from diſtinguiſhing, falleth to rayling, and accuſeth vsus of manifeſt lying and falſhood, in laying that to our charge which wee are not guilty of: but whether is the lyar hee, or wee, let the Reader iudge. Firſt therefore, that true repentance is not a bare ſorrow of heart for ſin, but ſuch a ſorrow, as is ioyned with, and ariſeth from faith, appeareth by this, becauſe contrition without faith, leads to deſperation, and not to ſaluation, as the wofull examples of Cain, Eſau, and Iudas declare: and therefore the Romaniſts themſelues doe not exclude all manner of faith from repentance, but onelyonly that faith which apprehendeth remiſſion of ſinnes by Chriſt, which ſpeciall faith, whereby remiſſion of ſinnes is beleeued and obtained, is ioyned with repentance, Luke 24. 47. Act. 26. 18. This is our doctrine, and it is warranted by the holy Scripture: though it pleaſeth Bellarmine to ſay, that it is a bare aſſertion, without Scripture.

29. As touching their croſſing of it, wee need fetch no other proofe, then from the Councill of Trent, which in expreſſeConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 4. cap. 3. can. 4. words denounceth Anathema to thoſe that make this faith, whereby wee beleeue the remiſſion of our ſinnes, a neceſſary ingredient into true repentance: and yet it propoundeth reconciliation and remiſſion of ſinnes to ſuch as doe repent: p. 310let all the world therefore know, to the eternall ſhame of the Romiſh Religion, that remiſſion of ſinnes, and reconciliation, by their doctrine, may bee obtained by repentance, without faith, then which, what can bee more oppoſite to the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt?

30. If they reply that they make faith the foundation of repentance, I anſwere, why doe they then exclude it out of repentance? is the foundation no part of the houſe? yes, it is the chiefeſt part: either therefore it is not the foundation of repentance, or els it is neceſſarily required to the eſſence of it; one or the other muſt needs bee falſe: but heere is the myſtery of this iniquity: by faith they meane nor a beliefe of the remiſſion of our ſinnes by the bloud of Chriſt, which is the true Euangelicall faith, but a generall perſwaſion of the truth of their Religion, and a particular conceit, that he which performeth the worke of penance, in the three parts thereof, ſhall thereby obtaine pardon of his ſinnes, and reconciliation with God.

31. Secondly, whereas hee ſayth, that wee doe not ſatiſfie for the eternall, but for the temporall puniſhments of our ſinnes, either heere in this life, or in Purgatory: hee ſpeaketh nothing for the clearing of their doctrine from oppoſition to the Goſpell▪ for the Goſpell teacheth, that Chriſt our Redeemer hath made a full and perfect ſatisfaction for the ſinnes ofIoh. 1. 29. 1. Ioh. 2. 2.John 1:291 John 2:2 all the world, yeelding a ſufficient and worthy recompence and contentment to God for them: and therefore, they which ſay that wee muſt giuegive any manner of ſatisfaction our ſelues, whether for the temporall or eternall puniſhment due vntounto them, doe euidently croſſe the doctrine of the Goſpell. AndAquin. part. 3. q. 48. art. 4. this Aquinas▪ one of their owne illumined Doctors, doth in effect confeſſe, when hee ſayth, that the paſſion of Chriſt was a ſufficient and ſuper abundant ſatisfaction for the ſinne and guilt of puniſhment of mankind, his paſſion was as it were a price or paiment, by which we are freed from both theſe obligations: to bring in then the foggy miſt of humane ſatisfactions, is to eclipſe and darken the glory of Chriſts all-ſufficient redemption.

32. Thirdly, whereas hee findeth fault with Chytraus, for p. 311ſaying without proofe, that auricular confeſſion is not commanded of God, and yet hee himſelfe doth not proue it is; we might driue out one naile with another, and returne vponupon him his owne anſwere: but I reply further, that diuers of his owne fellow Doctors hauehave auouched aſmuch: for Maldonate, Maldon. Sum. q. 18. art. 4. Eraſ. epiſtol. de amabil. …cel…ſconcord. Gloſſ. apud Grat. Decret. de poenitent. diſtinct. Rhenan. praefat. in …rg▪ Tertul▪ de poenit.Eraſmus, the gloſſe in Gratian, and Gratian himſelfe, and Rhenanus, with diuers others, are of the ſame minde, as may appeare in the texts quoted in the margent, whoſe wordes I forbeare to ſet downe, becauſe I ſhall hauehave occaſion to handle the ſame in a more proper place; one thing I cannot omit, that the teſtimony of Rhenanus is ſo plaine, that our aduerſaries, not able to giuegive anſwere ſufficient vntounto it, hauehave by their peremptory authority ſaid, Deleatur, let it bee blotted out: as they deale alſo with Polidore Virgill in the like point, and with all other that ſtand in their way.

33. Laſtly, the redeeming of penance by the purſe, though Bellarmine ſhuffle it ouer neuer ſo cunningly, yet is ſo palpable an abuſe, and ſo contrary to the doctrine of the Goſpell, that the very naming of it, is a ſufficient declaration of the foulneſſe of that Religion, which maketh a mart of ſinne, and ſetteth repentance, which is the gift of God, to ſale, for a little earthly droſſe, and exchangeth puniſhment due to the body and ſoule, for a little pinching of the purſe.

34. The Goſpell teacheth, that marriage is permitted and7 Heb. 13. 4. 1. Tim. 4. 3.Heb 13:41 Tim 4:3 ſet free for all men, both Prieſts and people; and that the prohibition of marriage and meats is a doctrine of Deuils. But the Romiſh Religion forbids marriage to a great part of men, to wit, Prieſts and Monkes, and commands to abſtaine from certaine meates, vponupon certaine dayes.

35. Bellarmine excepteth, and ſaith by a diſtinction, thatBell. de Roman. Pontif. l. 3. c. 23 when the Apoſtle ſayth, Marriage is honourable amongſt all men, hee meaneth not all in generall, for then it ſhould bee honorable betwixt the father and the daughter, the brother and the ſiſter; but onelyonly thoſe that are lawfully ioyned together, which they that are bound with a vow, cannot bee.

36. It is a ſtrange fore-head, (but no maruaile, ſeeing it p. 312is the fore-head of the whore of Babylon) when the Scripture ſayth, Marriage is honorable amongſt al men, to exempt their Votaries from this honour, as if they were not in the number of men, but beaſts: and as the aſſertion is ſtrange in impudency, ſo the reaſon is more ſtrange in folly: for though the father may not marry the daughter, nor the brother the ſiſter, without inceſt; yet the father may marry, and the daughter may marry, and the brother, and the ſiſter alſo, ſo that they take thoſe that are not prohibited by the Law of God, and nature. Now let him ſhew that Gods Law forbiddeth Votaries to marry, and then hee ſayth ſomething to the purpoſe: but by his owne confeſſion, together with many of his pewfellowes, the prohibition of marriage is no diuine, but humaneCaſſand. conſult. art. 23. …ell. de Cleric. lib. 1. cap. 19. Aquin. 2. 2 q. 88 art. 11. Gratian. conſ 26 q. 2. Eſponſae. in tit. c. 1. Concil. Trident. Seſſ. 24. Socrat. hiſtor. lib. 12. cap. 8. Synod. ſexta in Trullo. can. 13. Hierom. ad Oce…. epiſt. 83. c. 2. ordinance and inſtitution: yea, the Councill of Trent it ſelfe calleth it but an Eccleſiaſticall Law; and therefore not a Law of God, but a decree of the Church.

37. Adde to this impudency and folly, his croſſing of all antiquity: for in the Councill of Nice, Paphnutius alleadgeth this place of Scripture, againſt thoſe that went about to take away the vſe of marriage from the Clergie; and in the ſixt generall Synode, it is expreſſely applied to the ſame purpoſe. And Ierome, in defence of Charterius a married Biſhop, produceth the ſame text.

38. As touching Chryſoſtomes ſpeech to Theodorus the Monke, alledged by Bellarmine, though it ſeemeth a little to fauour them at the firſt view: yet in another place he cleereth himſelfe from that ſuſpition: for he ſaith plainely, that Marriage is ſo honourable and precious, that a man with it may aſcend into the ſacred Chaire of a Biſhop. What hath Bellarmine got now by Chryſoſtomes teſtimony? Surely this: If all that Chryſoſtome ſaith, bee ſound doctrine, then it is an error in the Church of Rome, to inhibite all that are conſecrated by holy Orders, from the vſe of the marriage bed: For byAug contra Fauſt. lib. 30. c. 6 Chryſoſtome, Biſhops may marry. Saint Auguſtines teſtimonies, alledged by him in the one and twentieth Chapter, are little to the purpoſe: for in the firſt he ſaith plainely, that the Church of God doth not forbid marriage; but onelyonly preferre p. 313virginitie before it, as a greater good: and in the ſecond hee approoueth onelyonly abſtinence from meates, and that from all in generall; and that to this end, for the caſtigation and mortification of the body: and not eyther for merite ſake, or that it is a thing vnlawfull, or that wee may glut our ſelues with ſome kinde, and may not ſo much as touch others, vponupon paine of hereſie, which is the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This is all that S. Auguſtines words import; which, as they doe not deliuer them from oppoſition to the Goſpell, ſo they manifeſtly imply theſe two concluſions: firſt, that the Synagogue of Rome is not the Church of God, for it forbiddeth marriage to Prieſts, not as a leſſer good, but as a thing ſimply euill. And ſecondly, that they maintaine in this their Church that doctrine, which of S. Paul is called, The doctrine of Diuels: for they forbid both Meates and Marriage at ſome times, and to ſome perſons, as things ſinfull and vnlawfull. And whereas the Fathers, almoſt in generall, ſay,Cyprian. lib. 1. cap. 11. Tertul. lib. de monogam. Coſter. Enchir. cap. 17. that it is better for ſuch as hauehave vowed continency, to marry, then to fall into the fire of luſt; they conclude filthily, to their eternall diſgrace, It is better for a Prieſt to play the whoremonger, and keepe a Concubine, then after his vow of continency to be coupled in wedlocke.

39. But Bellarmine couereth her nakedneſſe (whereof heBell. quo ſupra. is, as it ſeemeth, ſome what aſhamed) with a figge leafe of a diſtinction: for he ſaith, that fornication is not ſimply better then marriage, but in reſpect that a man hath before entred into a vow, in which regard to marry after the vow, is a greater ſinne then to commit fornication: and this hee proueth by an example from a married woman, whoſe huſband is eyther continually abſent or ſicke, ſo that hee cannot performe the marriage debt vntounto her. It is not ſayd vntounto her, It is better to marry then to burne; but ſhee ought to keepe her faith to her husband, and by faſting and prayer keepe vnderunder and tame the concupiſcence of her nature: and therefore, ſaith hee, that precept or permiſſion, Let him marry, is not ſpoken to all, but only to ſuch as are free, and not if they be bound and hauehave giuen their faith vntounto God.

p. 31439. To which I anſwere two things: Firſt, I aske him, whether this vow which … talke of, be onelyonly againſt marriage, or againſt all manner of incontinency? If they ſay that it is the vow of chaſtitie, and that it is againſt all manner of incontinency, then how can it bee that it ſhould bee broken more by marriage, then by fornication, by hauing a wife, then by keeping a whore? and that to marry, in reſpect of the vow, ſhould be a greater ſinne, then to commit whoredome? eſpecially, ſeeing marriage is Gods ordinance, and fornication, of the Diuels inſtitution: that an honourable and holy eſtate, and this a filthy and vgly ſinne. If they ſay that the vow is againſt marriage onelyonly, then what a Religion is Popery, that teacheth her people to vow againſt marriage, and not againſt fornication? againſt wiues and husbands, but not againſt whores and varlets? Surely that Religion that maintaineth this, cannot be of God.

40. Secondly, to his example I anſwere: Marriage cannot be inioyned to her that is married already, albeit her huſband bee eyther abſent or impotent: for that is contrary to Gods ordinance, Mal. 2. 14. Mat. 19. 5. But the vow of ſingle life is not Gods ordinauce, eſpecially in ſo high a degree as marriage is: for at the moſt it is but a Council, whereas the other is a flat Precept to all that cannot containe: and beſides, they that are married, may expect the bleſſing of God vponupon them, vſing the meanes for their reſtraint in a godly manner, and begging continency at Gods hand; becauſe they are in a calling ordayned by God: but they that are in a vow, who either enter raſhly, or are thruſt in againſt their wills, and contrary to Gods Commandement, not being able to abſtaine, but proudly preſume vponupon their owne ſtrength, how can they hope for Gods bleſſing vponupon them, to ſtrengthen them againſt the temptations of the fleſh? And thus this example, together with the diſtinction it ſelfe, maketh no whit to the iuſtifying of their doctrine; but that it ſtill remayneth in plaine contrariety and oppoſition to the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt.

41. The Goſpell teacheth, that there is one true and ſolide8. p. 315foundation, vponupon which the Church of God is built, … to wit,1. Cor. 3. 11. Act. 4. 11. 12.1 Cor 3:11Acts 4:11Acts 4:12 our Lord and Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt. But the Romiſh congregation cryeth out, that Peter, and the ordinary ſucceſſion of Popes, and the Church of Rome, is the foundation of the whole Church, and that the Church is built vponupon them, and not vponupon Chriſt alone.

42. Bellarmine diſtinguiſheth of foundations, and ſaith, that Chriſt is the primary and principall foundation of the Church: but that doth not hinder, but that there may be ſecundary foundations: and for proofe thereof he alledgeth, Epheſ. 2. 20. where it is ſaid, that we are built the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles: and, Apoc. 11. 14. where the twelue Apoſtles are made the twelue foundations of the Church.

43. To which I anſwere three things: Firſt, that though it be true…, that the Apoſtles bee the ſecundary foundations of the Church, layd vponupon Chriſt the true Rocke and foundation, as twelue goodly ſtones, and that vponupon them the Church is built, to wit, vponupon Chriſt primarily and principally, and vponupon them ſecundarily: yet it doth not take away the Antitheſis of their doctrine to the Goſpell: for they ſay, that Peter is the onelyonly ſecundary foundation, and that hee, as the chiefeſt ſtone, is layd next vntounto Chriſt; and the reſt of the Apoſtles built immediately vponupon him, and mediately by him vponupon Chriſt. But thoſe Scriptures ſay, that the twelue Apoſtles are twelue precious ſtones, laid one by one vponupon Chriſt, and not one vponupon another: and twelue foundations equally proportioned to each other, and not one placed vponupon the top of another: and ſo it is true, that as the prerogatiue of the onelyonly ſingular foundation belongeth to Chriſt, ſo the honour of being ſecundary foundations, is equally deuided among the twelue Apoſtles: and ſo Peter in this reſpect hath no greater prerogatiue then the reſt. And therefore this diſtinction deliuers them not from the ſnare, ſeeing that it maketh all the twelue Apoſtles altogether ioynt-foundations of the Church: and they would hauehave Peter to bee the onelyonly foundation next vntounto Chriſt, vponupon whom both the Church of p. 316God, and the Apoſtles themſelues are built.

44. Secondly, I anſwere, that when the Apoſtles are ſaidAug. de verb. Dom. ſer. 13. Greg. Nyſſen. in teſtim. ex veter. teſtam. de trinit. contra Iudaeos. Cyril. de trin. l. 4. Chryſ. in Mat. hom. 55. Ambr. in Epheſ. cap. 2. Hilar. de trinit. lib. 2. Bell. praefat. controuerſ. de ſum. Pont. Eſay 28. 16. 1. Pet. 2. 6. 8.Eph 2Isa 28:161 Pet 2:61 Pet 2:8 to be foundations of the Church, it is not meant of their perſons, but of their doctrine, as witneſſe almoſt all the Fathers: for concerning perſon, it is true which Saint Paul ſaith, No man can lay any other foundation beſide that which is layd, Ieſus Chriſt, 1. Cor. 3. 11. But the Romaniſts would not hauehave the doctrine of Peter, but the perſon of Peter to be this foundation: and for proofe thereof Bellarmine fetcheth this argument from the Prophet Eſay, ſaying, Behold, I will lay in Sion a ſtone, a ſure foundation: which is a playne and manifeſt Prophecie of Chriſt, and not of Peter, as the Apoſtle Peter himſelfe expoundeth it: where, by the way, we may note the feareful outrage of theſe Romiſh Rabbies againſt the truth of God, and the God of truth, whilſt, to the end they may aduance their Popes dignity by Peter, they wreſt and peruert the Scriptures, and apply the Prophecies belonging to the Sonne of God, to his ſeruant Peter, and ſo make Peter himſelfe, nay, the holy Ghoſt, a Lyar. It were not credible, that ſuch blaſphemous thoughts and words ſhould neſtle in the heart, and iſſue out of the mouth of any, but that the Apoſtle Saint Paul hath fore-told vsus, that in the time of Antichriſt, becauſe men would not receiue the louelove of the truth, that they 2. Theſ. 2. 10. 112 Thess 2:102 Thess 2:11might be ſaued: therefore God would ſend them ſtrong deluſions, that they ſhould beleeue lyes, &c. But to the point: If Chriſts perſon be the onelyonly true foundation of the Church, in whom all the building, being coupled together, groweth vntounto anEpheſ. 2. 21.Eph 2:21 holy Temple in the Lord: and that not the perſons, but the doctrine, and faith of the Apoſtles, are thoſe ſecundary foundations which the Scripture ſpeaketh of, as hath beene proued out of the Fathers: then the oppoſition is vndefeaſible, namely, that there is but one perſon the foundation of our Church, which is our Lord and Sauiour, the Sonne of God, Chriſt Ieſus; and yet that Peters perſon ſhould be the foundation of the Church alſo together with Chriſt.

45. Thirdly, I anſwere, that both in truth, and alſo in proprietie of ſpeech, there can bee but one foundation of p. 317one building: thoſe ſtones that are layd next to the foundation, are not properly a ſecundary foundation, but the beginning of the building vponupon the foundation: and for that cauſe, when Peter, and the reſt of the Apoſtles are called twelue foundations, it cannot bee vnderſtood, that they were any wayes properly foundations of the Church, either firſt or ſecond: but that our Sauiour, who is the ſubſtance and ſubiect of their doctrine, is the onelyonly true and ſingular foundation of the Church, and that there is none other beſides him: for if, when it is ſaid that we are built vpō the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, is meant the doctrine of the Prophets and Apoſtles, as muſt needes bee, becauſe the Prophets are coupled together with the Apoſtles, which liued not in the Chriſtian Church, and therefore could not be perſonall foundations of it, and Chriſt crucified is the ſubſtance of their doctrine: then it muſt needes follow, that the Apoſtles meaning is nothing elſe, but that we are built vponupon Chriſt, whom the Prophets and the Apoſtles preached and beleeued in. And thus S. Hilary vnderſtood it, and Saint Ambroſe, and Anſelmus, Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. & lib. 2. Ambroſe. Anſelmus.who giuing the foundation of the Church to Peter, expoundeth it ſometimes of his faith in Chriſt, and ſometimes of Chriſt himſelfe, in whom he beleeued. And thus doe alſo Salmeron the Ieſuite, and Cardinall Caietane in their commentariesSalmeron. Caietane. vponupon that place, and Peter Lumbard, together with the gloſſe vponupon the place, interpret. And ſo this diſtinction of a primary and ſecundary foundation, hath no foundation in the word of God.

46. The Goſpell teacheth, that no Apoſtle or Biſhop, or other9. Luk. 22. 26. Ioh. 20. 22, 23. Mat. 18. 18. 1. Cor. 3. 4. 5.Luke 22:26John 20:22John 20:23Matt 18:181 Cor 3:41 Cor 3:5 Miniſter of the Goſpell, is ſuperiour to another of the ſame ranke, or hath greater power and authority then another, in reſpect of their miniſterie; but that all Miniſters in their ſeuerall degrees, hauehave equall power of preaching the Goſpell, adminiſtring the Sacraments, binding, and looſing: But the Biſhop of Rome challengeth to himſelfe a ſupreme power ouer all other Biſhops, and ouer the whole Church, and braggeth that he hath by right, a title to both the ſwords, both ſpirituall and temporall, and that both iuriſdictions doe p. 318originally pertaine to him, and from him are conueyed to others, &c.

47. Bellarmine heere firſt confeſſeth, and ſecondly diſtinguiſheth: hee confeſſeth, that the Biſhop of Rome hath a ſupreme power ouer all other Biſhops and the whole Church: and denyeth that eyther thoſe places here quoted, or any other doe prooue the contrary.

48. To which I anſwere: firſt, that whereas out of Luke 22. 26. and 1. Cor. 3. 4. he extracteth a diſparity, and an inequality: I anſwere, that no man denyeth it; and therefore he fighteth with his owne ſhadow: hee ſhould prooue not a bare ſuperiority, which wee confeſſe, but a ſuperiority in the ſame degree; as of one Biſhop to another, and that in power, not in execution, wherein ſtandeth the point of oppoſition.

49. Secondly, whereas he ſaith, that though the power of remitting and retayning finnes, and binding and looſing, was communicated to all the Apoſtles, yet Peter was ordayned chiefe Paſtor ouer them all; becauſe our Sauiour Chriſt ſayd vntounto him alone, Feede my ſheepe: and, To thee will I giuegive the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen: I anſwere, that in this hee croſſeth both himſelfe, the Fathers, and the truth: himſelfe, for elſewhere hee confeſſeth, that the keyes, both of OrderBell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 22. and Iuriſdiction, were giuen to all the Apoſtles indifferently: and therefore it muſt needes follow, that Tibi dabo claues, was not ſpoken ſingularly, to Peter, but generally, to them all: for if Chriſt gaue the keyes to them all, as he confeſſeth, then without doubt he promiſed them to them all, or elſe his word and his deede ſhould not accord together. And againe, hee acknowledgeth that all the Apoſtles had both power and commiſſion to feede the ſheepe of Chriſt, when (Mat. 28.) he bade them all, Goe, teach and baptize: and they all did put that commiſſion in execution: therefore it muſt needes follow, that no ſingular power was giuen to Peter, when as Chriſt ſaid vntounto him, Feede my ſheepe, vnleſſe we will ſay, that the reſt had not the ſame commiſſion.

50. The Fathers: for Saint Cyprian ſaith plainely, that all Cyprian. de ſimplicit. praelat.the Apoſtles were the ſame with Peter, indued with equall fellowſhip p. 319both of honour and power, and that a primary was giuen vntounto Hilar de Trin. lib. 6.Peter, that the Church might appeare to be one. Saint Hilary is of the ſame minde, You, O holy and bleſſed men (ſaith he) for the merit of your faith, hauehave receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and obtained a right to binde and looſe in Heauen and earth. Saint Auguſtine ſaith, that if when Chriſt ſaid, To thee Aug. in Iohan. tract. 50.will I giuegive the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen, he ſpake onelyonly to Peter, then the Church hath not the power of the keyes: but if the Church hath it, then Peter receiuing the keyes, repreſented the Church. And laſtly, Leo, one of their owne Popes, confeſſethLeo ſer. 3. de vniuerſ. aſſump ſuae. aſmuch, when hee affirmeth, that the ſtrength of this power of the keyes, paſſed vntounto all the Apoſtles, and the conſtitution of this decree vntounto all the Princes of the Church.

51. Laſtly, the truth: for when the Apoſtles ſtroue for ſuperiority, Chriſt, who is truth it ſelfe, and would not hauehave concealed ſo neceſſary a trueth, if it had bene a truth, vponupon ſo fit an occaſion, neuer preferred Peter, but exhorteth all, and ſo Peter alſo, to equality and humility: yea, not onelyonly ſo, but expreſſely forbad all king-like and monarchicall ſuperiority amongſt them; and not onelyonly tyrannicall, as Bellarmine would hauehave it, as may euidently appeare by comparing Luk. 22. 26. with 1. Pet. 5. 3.

52. Thus hee confeſſeth their doctrine: next he commeth to diſtinguiſh of it, namely, that their Apoſtolicall power was equall in reſpect of the people, but yet not equall betweene themſelues; in which reſpect Peter was not onelyonly a common Paſtour with his fellow Apoſtles, but extraordinarily paſtor paſtorū, a Paſtour of the Paſtours, that is, of the Apoſtles thē ſelues: this is his diſtinction: but it is idle and vaine, as may appeare by this reaſon: becauſe, if he were the chiefe Paſtour of the Apoſtles, then he either ordained them to their offices, or fed them with his doctrine, or gouerned them by his authority, or did ſome part of the office of a Paſtour vntounto them: but hee neither ordained them; for Chriſt himſelfe did that:Ioh. 20. 21. Act. 2. 3.John 20:21Acts 2:3 nor…ed them with doctrine; for they were all taught of God, and equally receiued the holy Ghoſt, which did lead them into all truth: nor gouerned them; for they ſent him, hee did not p. 320ſend them, and called him to an account, he did not call them; and therefore was no wayes to be eſteemed their Paſtour and ſuper-intendent, but their equall, and Co-Apoſtle.

53. And whereas hee defendeth the extrauagant of Pope Boniface (which is ſo rightly termed, for containing a moſt extrauagant doctrine from the truth) hee muſt needs defend this double iuriſdiction by the ſpeech of Peter to our Sauior, Ecce duo gladii, behold, heere are two ſwords, and his anſwere to the ſame, It is enough: with how abſurd a collection it is, let his owne fellowes bee Iudges. Franciſcus de Victoria, Stella, Maldonate, Arias Montanus, and Suares the Ieſuite: All which, with many others, reiect this collection of theirs, as moſt abſurd, and impertinent: I conclude, if Pope Boniface did extrauagate in that extrauagant, in the application of this place, why doe they hold, that the Pope cannot erre iudicially? If hee did not, whydoe ſo many learned men of his owne ſide contradict him? Either ſure the Popes two ſwords are ru…ie, and cannot bee vnſheathed, or els hee would neuer ſuffer his authority to bee thus diminiſhed, not onelyonly by his enemies, but euen by thoſe that fight vnderunder his owne banner. And thus this Antitheſis alſo ſtands vnblemiſhed, for all that is yet ſaid to the contrary.

54. The Goſpell teacheth, that there is but one Mediator10 1. Tim. 2. 5. 6. 1. Ioh. 2. 1. Ioh. 14. 13. Ioh. 14. 6. Heb. 9. 15.1 Tim 2:51 Tim 2:61 John 2John 14:6Heb 9:15 betwixt God and man, euen the God-man Ieſus Chriſt, and that hee beeing the onelyonly Propitiatour, is alſo the onelyonly Mediatour. But the Church of Rome teacheth, that as many Saints as are in Heauen, ſo many Mediatours and Interceſſours wee hauehave to God; and among the reſt, the bleſſed Virgin, the mother of our Lord, whom they call their Aduocatreſſe, Deliuereſſe, Mediatreſſe, Sauioureſſe, and Comfortreſſe.

55. Bellarmine ſeeketh to eſcape from this Contradiction,Bell. de Sanctor. beatit. l. 1. c. 20. by a threefold diſtinction: firſt hee ſayth, that Chriſt indeed is the onelyonly Mediatour of redemption, because hee onelyonly made reconciliation betwixt God and vsus, by paying the ranſome for our ſinnes; but neuertheleſſe the Saints are Mediatours of interceſſion, by praying for vsus. This he barely affirmeth, without any proofe; and therefore it ſeemeth he would hauehave vsus take it vponupon his word for current coyne, without any p. 321tryall: but wee hauehave learned out of Gods word, to try the ſpirits, and to weigh all ſuch ware in the balance of the Sanctuary: and therefore finding by the Scripture, that Chriſt did not onelyonly pay the ranſome for our ſinnes, but alſo, that hee maketh requeſt for vsus. and not finding in all the booke of God, that the Saints in Heauen either doe preſent our prayers vntounto God, or make requeſt for our particular neceſſities, wee hauehave iuſt cauſe to reiect this diſtinction, as too light ware, and as counterfeit coyne.

56. I but (ſayth hee) the Saints triumphant pray for the Saints militant, therefore they are their Mediators. I anſwere, Though it be granted that they do pray for them in generall, which indeed is not denyed: and in particular, which can neuer be proued; yet the argument hath no good conſequence, that therefore they ſhould bee our Mediatours: for (as Bellarmine Ball. de Chriſt… Mediat. l. 5. c. 5.himſelfe confeſſeth) A Mediatour muſt bee a middleman, differing from each party at variance, after ſome ſort: but the Saints triumphant are not medi…, betwixt God and vsus, both becauſe in preſence they are alwayes with God, and neuer with vsus, and alſo in ſemblance more like to God, then vntounto vsus, for they are perfectly happy, holy, and righteous, we beeing miſerable, ſinfull, and wicked: and in knowledge they are ſatisfied with heauenly obiects, and hauehave no participation with humane affaires: being therefore thus far remooued from vsus, and ſo neere knit vntounto God in all theſe, by his owne rule, they cannot any wayes bee our Mediatours, neither of redemption, nor interceſſion.

57. His ſecond diſtinction is that Chriſt is called the onelyonly Mediatour, becauſe hee is the Mediatour, not onelyonly in regard of his office, but alſo of his nature, for that hee is in the middeſt betwixt God and man, hee himſelfe beeing God and man. To which I anſwere, that it is moſt true which hee ſayth, but yet it is both contrary to that which hee himſelfe hath deliuered elſewhere, and alſo ouerthroweth that which hee holdeth heere: for the firſt, he laboureth to proue in another place, that Chriſt is the Mediatour onelyonly in reſpect of his humane nature, and here hee ſayth, in reſpect of both natures: p. 322how can theſe bee reconciled? mary, by another diſtinction: It is one thing (ſayth hee) to bee a Mediatour in reſpect of perſon, Bell. de Chriſto Mediat. l. 1. cap. 1. 3. 4.and another thing in reſpect of operation: in the firſt, Chriſt is the Mediatour by both natures in the ſecond, by his humane nature onelyonly. As if hee did not operate and worke the Mediation in the ſame reſpect that hee is Mediatour. I, but hee will ſay, the chiefe worke of our redemption was the death of Chriſt, but the God-head cannot dye: therfore, &c. I anſwere, Though Chriſt died as he was man, yet the perſon that died, was God and man: for (as Tolet his fellow Ieſuite and CardinallTolet. comment. in Iob. 10.Job 10 obſerueth) Chriſt dyed not as other men, in whoſe power it is not, either to hold the ſoule in the body, or to recall it backe againe, being expelled: but Chriſt ioyned his ſoule and body together at his pleaſure: as hee that holding a ſword in one hand, and a ſcabbard in another, puls it out, or thruſts it in at his pleaſure. By which it is plaine, that though Chriſt dyed in reſpect of his man-hood, yet the author of his death was his God-head, & ſo he is our Mediatour in both natures. Secondly, he ouerthroweth his own poſitiō, by this diſtinctiō: for firſt, if Chriſt bee the only Mediatour in reſpect of office and of nature; then the Saints are no wayes our Mediatours: for if they bee, they muſt bee one of theſe two wayes, vnleſſe wee will ſay, that they doe that which belongs not vntounto them, but like buſy-bodies, are pragmaticall in anothers charge: which, farre bee it from vsus to thinke of thoſe bleſſed creatures; but both theſe wayes (he ſayth) Chriſt is the onelyonly Mediatour; therefore the Saints, by his owne concluſion, are no Mediatours at all.

58. His third diſtinction is, that therefore Chriſt is called the onelyonly Mediatour, becauſe hee prayeth for all, and none for him: but the Saints are ſuch Mediatours, that they themſelues ſtand in need of a Mediatour. I anſwere, that therefore they are no Mediatours at all: for if the Saints in Heauen ſtand in need of a Mediatour themſelues, then it muſt neceſſarily follow, that they are not Mediatours at all: for they that are parties, cannot bee vmpiers. And this is that whichAug. contra …ar. l. 2. cap. 8. Saint Auguſtine plainely affirmeth (though Bellarmine laboureth p. 323to diſtort his words to another ſenſe) when he ſayth, He, for whom none intreateth, but hee intreateth for all, is the onelyonly true Mediatour. And thus it is cleare, that the doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the mediation of Saints, is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Goſpell.

59. The Goſpell teacheth, that Chriſt Ieſus hath made aII 1. Ioh. 1. 7. 1. Ioh. 2. 2. Eſay. 53. 45.1 John 1:71 John 2:2Isa 53:45 full and perfect ſatisfaction for all our debts, and ſo is our full and perfect Redeemer: But the Church of Rome teacheth, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied but in part for our debts, to wit, neither for all our ſinne, nor for all the puniſhment due vntounto all our ſinne, and ſo that he is not our full and perfect Redeemer.

60. This doctrine of the Goſpell is ſo euidently propounded in holy Scripture, that our aduerſaries themſelues acknowledge it in generall to bee true: for Aquinas, where the Apoſtle ſayth, I ſuffer all things for the Elects ſake, that they may alſo obtaine the ſaluation which is in Chriſt Ieſus, askethAqui in 2. Tim. 2. lect. 2.2 Tim 2 this queſtion, What, was not the paſſion of Chriſt ſufficient? and anſwereth to the ſame, Yes; as touching the working of ſaluation. And Bayus ſayth, that there is but one ſatisfaction onelyonly vntounto God, and that of Chriſt: yea, Bellarmine himſelfeBayus de Indulg. cap. vlt. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 9. cap. 10. acknowledgeth aſmuch in generall; for hee affirmeth, that the merit of Chriſt is ſufficient to take away all ſinne and puniſhment: neither dare any of the reſt for ſhame in plaine words deny the ſame: becauſe, if they did, many manifeſt texts of Scripture would conuince them of impiety and hereſie.

61. And that the other is the doctrine of the Church ofConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 4. ſub Iuli… cap. …. Catechiſm. Rom. tract. de ſatisfact. Tapper. explicat. art. Lovan. art. 6 Vega lib. 13. cap. 36. Rome, the Councill of Trent will witneſſe, which thus defineth: When God forgiueth a ſinner, hee forgiueth not all the puniſhment, but leaneth the party by his owne workes to ſatisfie, till it bee waſhed away. Yea, they affirme not onelyonly, that wee our ſelues muſt ſatisfie for the temporall puniſhment, but alſo for the relikes of ſinne, and for the fault it ſelfe; yea, for that puniſhment that ſhould bee ſuffered in hell, excepting the eternity: yea, ſo impious and ſhameleſſe are ſome of them, whoſe bookes are notwithſtanding authorized by the Church of Rome, that they affirme, that Chriſt dyed onelyonly for originall p. 324ſinne, and that the ſatisfaction of Chriſt deſerueth not theAquin. tom. 17. Opuſ 58. Sacra. Altar. cap. 1. fol. 41. Col. 2. Tapper. tom. 1. art. 6. pag. 154. Biel. 3. Diſt. 18. & 19. Scot. Durand. Biel. in Suares tom. 1. diſp. 4. ſect. 11.Col 2 name of a ſatisfaction for our ſinnes. Let the world iudge now, whether theſe poſitions of the Church of Rome bee not flat contrary of the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt: for the Goſpell attributeth to Chriſt all ſufficiencie of meriting and ſatisfaction: but theſe fellowes make him a Satisfier party parpale for the ſinne, but not the puniſhment, & yet not for all our ſinnes neither, but for a part of them: as for originall, & not actuall; or iffor actuall, yet for mortall onelyonly, and not for veniall. And this is the Romiſh Religion, though palliated with the name of Catholicke, and hidden from the ſight of the common people, vnderunder the vaile of an implicite faith: which, if they ſhould but ſee, they could not chuſe but abhorre.

62. For the healing of this wound, Bellarmine applyeth his wonted playſter of a diſtinction. Chriſts ſatisfaction (ſaithBell. de Purgat. …. 1. cap. 10. he) is in vertue ſufficient, but not in act efficient, except it bee applyed by our ſatisfaction: and therefore that there is but one onelyonly actuall ſatisfaction, which is ours; which by the grace and efficacy of Chriſts ſatisfaction, taketh away the puniſhment of our ſinne, and maketh a iuſt recompence to God for the ſame.

63. But this diſtinction firſt vndermineth it ſelfe: for if Chriſts bee a ſatisfaction, then it is an actuall ſatisfaction: if it bee not an actuall one, then it is none at all. Did not he actually dye, and riſe againe? Did not hee actually by that death of his, ſatisfy Gods iuſtice for all the Elect? Doth not the ſtrength and efficacy ofhis death ſtretch it ſelfe backward to Adam, and forward to the laſt beleeuing child of Adam vponupon earth? If all this bee true, then it muſt needs bee intolerable blaſphemy, to ſay, that actually there is no ſatisfaction, but our owne, and that Chriſts ſatisfaction which hee made for our ſinnes, is indeed no ſatisfaction, except it bee by the meanes of ours, which muſt apply it, and as it were, giuegive efficacy vntounto it.

64. Againe, the ground of his diſtinction is abſurd: for where doth the Scripture make our ſatisfaction a meanes to p. 325apply Chriſts ſatisfaction vntounto vsus? It telleth vsus of otherRom. 10. 17. 1. Cor. 10. 16. Gal. 2. 27. Epheſ. 3. 17.Rom 10:171 Cor 10:16Gal 2:27Eph 3:17 meanes of application, to wit, outward, the Word and Sacraments: inward, faith in reſpect of vsus, and the Spirit, in reſpect of God: but no where of this new-deuiſed meanes, which they talke of: and beſides, how can our ſatisfactions apply Chriſts vntounto vsus, whereas they are both ſatisfaction, and that to God, and that for our ſinnes? Nay, when as hee ſayth, that our ſatisfaction doth include the ſatisfaction of Chriſt in it, and ſo both together make but one compound ſatisfaction: if they be of one natur… how can one apply the other? If they bee one in mixture, and compoſition, how is the one ſeuered from the other? Theſe bee abſurd inconſequences, and irreconciliable.

65. Laſtly, if the ſtrength & power of ſatisfying, which is in our ſufferings, is wholly from the grace of God, & the vertueScot. Durand. Biel. in Suares …om. 1. diſſ. 4. ſect. 11. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 10. of Chriſts ſatisfaction, why doe ſome of them hold, that a man by power of nature, without grace, may bee able to ſatify for Veniall ſinnes, and expell them? nay, why doth Bellarmine ſay, that a righteous man hath right to Heauen, by a twofold title; one of the merits of Chriſt, by grace communicated vntounto him; and another of his owne merits? By which, he plainely diuideth our merits from Chriſt, and aſcribeth a ſatisfactory power to them, equall to the death of Chriſt it ſelfe, and that without the helpe of grace. Nay, why do they not ſay plainly, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied for vsus, without any intermixing of our owne; but that their wiſedome perceiued, that then Purgatory, Maſſes, Penance, Romiſh pardons, yea, and the Popes Kitchin it ſelfe, and the very marrow of all their Pompe, ſhall fall to the ground? And this indeed is the very ground of this blaſphemous doctrine.

66. Doctour Biſhop, miſliking this diſtinction, as itBiſhops anſwere to Maſter Perkins reformed Catholike. ſeemeth, flyeth to another. In ſinne (ſayth hee) there are two things, the one is the turning away from God, whom wee offend: The other is, the turning to the thing, for the louelove of which wee offend. Now, the turning away from GOD, both the ſinne, and the eternall paine, p. 326due vntounto it, are freely through Chriſt pardoned: but for the pleaſure we tooke in ſinne, wee our ſelues are to ſatisfie, and according to the greatneſſe thereof, to doe penance. Thus dreameth Doctor Biſhop: but let his owne fellow Doctor waken him, and he of greater credit then himſelfe: Aquinas it is, who reiecteth thisAquin. ſuplem. q. 13. art. 1. diſtinction, as nothing worth, and giueth this reaſon of his reiecting, becauſe ſatisfaction anſwereth not to ſinne, but according as it is an offence to God, which it hath not of conuerting to other things, but of auerting and turning from God. And ſurely his reaſon is paſſing good: for to v… the Creatures, and to louelove the Creatures, is not ſinne: but to vſe them diſorderly, and to louelove them immoderately: which diſordered vſe, & immoderate louelove, is the very turning, and auerſion from God: and therefore, to ſay, that wee ſatisfy not for our auerſion from God, but for our conuerſion to the creatures, is to ſay, either that wee ſatisfy for that which is no ſinne, or els, that ſome part of ſinne is not an auerſion from God: both which, are equally abſurd, and Doctor Biſhop cannot giuegive a third: and therefore his diſtinction is a meere foppiſh dreame, without head or foote.

67. The Goſpell teacheth, that there is giuen no other12 Act. … ▪ 12. name vnderunder Heauen, whereby wee muſt bee ſaued, but the name Ieſus. But the Church of Rome propoundeth vntounto vsus other names to bee ſaued by, as, the Virgin Mary, the Saints, and Martyrs, yea, Francis, and Dominick, &c. For they make them Mediatours of interceſſion to God for vsus: which office belongeth only vntounto Chriſt, as hath been ſhewed; and they teach, that we are ſaued by their merits, aſwell as by the merits of Chriſt; and that as there are diuers manſions in Heauen, ſo among the Saints there are diuers offices; ſome hauehave power ouer one thing, ſome ouer another, as Saint Peter againſt infidelity. Saint Agnes for Chaſtity. Saint Leonard for Horſes. Saint Nicholas againſt ſhip-wracke. Saint Iames for Spaine. Saint Denis for France. Saint Marke for Venice, &c. Yea, they would make men beleeue, if a man, being otherwiſe a vyler ſinner, dye in the habit of Saint Francis, or Saint Dominick, &c. muſt needes goe ſtraight to heauen, p. 327without any more adoe: and that, as it may ſeeme, though he hath neyther faith nor repentance.

68. Laſtly, they are not aſhamed to ſay, that the death and paſſion of Chriſt, and of the holy Virgine together, wasGalat. de arcan. Catholic. verita…. Briget. Reuel. pag. 21. for the redemption of mankinde: and as Adam and Eue ſold the world for one Apple; ſo Mary and her Sonne redeemed the world with one heart: and therefore as they called him Sauiour, ſo her Sauioureſſe: as him Mediator, ſo her Mediatreſſe: as him the King of the Church, ſo her, the Queene. If this be not to repoſe the confidence of our ſaluation vponupon other names, beſides the Name of Ieſus, let the world be iudge.

69. Yet for all this, they thinke to couer this their filthineſſe by a diſtinction: for they ſay that they doe not flyeBell. de Sanct. beatit. l. 1. c. 17. to the Saints, as authors and giuers of good things; but as Impetrators and Interceſſors. To which I anſwere▪ that to omit their doctrine which hath at large beene diſcouered before, the very forme of their prayers doth extinguiſh this diſtinction: for when they cry and ſay, O Saint Peter, hauehave mercy on me, Saue mee, Open mee the gate of heauen, GiueGive mee patience, GiueGive mee fortitude, &c. And to the bleſſed Virgine, O Mediatrix of God and men: ô Fountaine of mercy, Mother of grace, Hope of the deſolate, Comforter of the deſperate, &c. receiue this my humble petition, and giuegive me life euerlaſting: And to Saint Paul, Vouchſafe to bring vsus, whom thou haſt cauſed to know the light of truth, after the end of this mortality, thither, where thou thy ſelfe art: Doe they not make them authors and giuers of theſe things? Yes, in word, (ſaith Bellarmine) but not in ſenſe: for the meaning of theſeBell. Ibid. petitions is, that by their prayers and merites they would obtaine of God theſe good things. But, alas, how ſhould the common people vnderſtand their meaning, ſeeing the ſound of their words are ſo playne to the contrary? Againe, why doe they not propound their ſenſe in playner termes, but leaue it thus inuolued vnderunder darke riddles, to the great offence of thouſands? And laſtly, how harſh an interpretation muſt this needs be in the eares of all men, GiueGive me euerlaſting life, that is, Pray to God that he would giuegive mee it? If a man p. 328ſhould ſpeake ſo in his common talke, no man would vnderſtand him otherwiſe then his words ſound: how much leſſe can theſe ſpirituall matters be otherwiſe vnderſtood then they are ſpoken? Surely this ſhift is ſo filly, that if it might ſtand good, what might not a man ſpeake, and yet excuſe it ſufficiently after this manner? And though the Councill of Trent ſeeme to graunt to the Saints the power onelyonly of interceſſion, as Bellarmine alſo doth: yet the Romane Catechiſme, ſetCatechiſ. Rom. foorth by the commandement of the Pope, and decree of the ſame Councill, doth cleerely and expreſſely attribute vntounto the Saints the power of Mercy, Grace, and Donation of benefits. Whereby it appeareth, that this is not the opinion of ſome priuate men, but the receiued and approoued doctrine of the Church. And thus this diſtinction vaniſheth before the truth, as ſnow againſt the Sunne.

70. The Goſpell teacheth, that eueryevery ſoule bee ſubiect to 13 Rom. 12. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13.Rom 12:11 Pet 2:13the higher powers: and that we ſubmit our ſelues vntounto all maner of ordinance for the Lords ſake, whether vntounto King or vntounto Gouernours, &c. And our Sauiour himſelfe confeſſeth, thatIoh. 19. 11.John 19:11 Pilate had power euer him from God, when he faith, Thou couldeſt hauehave no power at all againſt me, except it were giuen thee from aboue. But the Church of Rome teacheth, that neyther the Pope himſelfe, nor any of his Clergie, are ſubiect to the temporall power of Princes, eyther to be iudged of them, or puniſhed by them, no not in caſes of fact, when they are guilty of haynous crimes; as of Treaſon, Murther, Theft, &c.

71. This doctrine, though it bee contradicted by many learned Doctors of their owne ſide: as, Occham, Marſilius, Pataninus, Barclay a late French Lawyer, and others, yet is maintayned by their Popes and Cardinalls, Ieſuites, and Canon Lawes, which are the very ſynewes of Popery, as not onelyonly true, but neceſſary to ſaluation: and therefore we may well call it, The doctrine of their Church. For Popes: Iohn Auguſt. Triump. de poteſt. eccleſ. 4. 4. art. 1.the two and twentieth commaunded Auguſtinus Triumphus of Ancona, to write a Booke, wherein he maintaineth this poſition, That all the power of Emperours and Kings is ſubdeligate, in reſpect of the power of the Pope. And againe, that all ſecular power is to be reſtrayned, enlarged, and executed p. 329at the commaundement ofthe Pope. This is the aſſertion of that man, who was authoriſed firſt to write by Pope Iohn the two and twentieth, and after, his Booke was ſet foorth, by the priuiledge of Gregory the thirteenth. So that here we hauehave two Popes maintayning this doctrine. Clement the firſt was of the ſame minde, who affirmeth, that hee, andClement. lib. 2. de ſentent. & re iudicat. can. 2. the reſt of the Popes, had a ſoueraignity and ſuperiority ouer the Empire: and vponupon that ground he diſſanulled all the Sentences and Proceſſes made by Henry the ſeuenth Emperour. And ſo alſo was Boniface the eighth, who in that famous Canon,Extrauag. Com. lib. 1. de maior. & obedient. c. vnam Sanctam. Vnam ſanctam, &c. directly affirmeth, that the Temporall authority muſt be ſubiect to the Spirituall: and that it is neceſſary to ſaluation, to beleeue that eueryevery humane creature is ſubiect to the Pope of Rome. Now the reſt of the Popes muſt needes be of the ſame minde, or elſe they ſhould condemne theſe of error, and that ſpeaking definitiuely, which is contrary to their Religion. And ſo indeede that they are, Bellarmine their Champion, in his late Booke againſt Barclay the Lawyer, doth manifeſtly declare, who moſt impudently maintayneth this poſition with all his wit againſt that learned man: as alſo in his laſt doting Apologie againſt our King, wherein, without doubt, he is authoriſed, and as it were tapped on the backe, and called, A good childe, by the Popes Holineſſe himſelfe.

72. Thus we ſee this doctrine maintayned by the Popes and their Lawes. Let vsus ſee alſo what the Cardinalls and the Ieſuites ſay vntounto it. Cardinall Baronius, a notable clawer ofBaronius. the Popes, holdeth, that the Pope hath power directly ouer Princes, agreeing with Bozius and Triumphus: but Cardinall Bellarmine, with others on his ſide, quallifieth the matter, andBell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 4 & 5. ſaith, that the Popes power ouer Princes in temporall matters, is not direct, but indirect, as depending vponupon his ſpirituall power, and in order & relation vntounto that. Let vsus leaue theſeGreg. de Ʋalen. tom. 3. Com. Tollet. in Ioh. cap. 21.John 21 two Cardinalls fighting about direct & indirect, and come to the other Ieſuites. Gregory de Valentia ſaith, that the Pope is ſubiect to none; but that by a certaine hereditary right he is exempted from all humane juriſdiction. Tollet affirmeth, that there may bee in the Church many holier and learneder then p. 390the Pope, but none ſuperior or equall vntounto him in dignitie. Turrian the Ieſuite ſaith, that Chriſt hath tranſlated all hisTurrian. de Eccleſ. l. 1. c. 3.Sir 50:1 Kingdome on earth vponupon the Pope, who beareth his perſon, and carryeth his Image. And laſtly, all of them, like lines in a circle, meeting in a Center, ioyne in this, that the Pope hath power to depoſe Kings, to tranſlate Kingdomes, and to conferre them vponupon others, if it ſeeme to him neceſſary for the good of mens ſoules.

73. Thus we hauehave their doctrine concerning their Head, the Pope. Now let vsus heare what they ſay touching the body that hangs vponupon his head, their Clergie: Kings are not now any more Soueraignes ouer Clerks (faith Bellarmine,) and Bell. de Cleric. cap. 28.therefore Clerks are not bound to obey them by Gods law or mans, except it be in reſpect of directiue lawes. And Emanuel Sa. affirmeth,Emanuel. Sa. Aphoriſ. confeſ. verb. Cler. that a Clergie man cannot be a Traytor, though hee rebell, becauſe he is no ſubiect. And it was long agoe the doctrine of the Fryers; continued by the Ieſuites, that the King was not Lord ouer the Clergie; but that the Pope was their Lord: and therefore though a Clergie man had committed theft, murther, or treaſon, yet hee ought not to bee called in queſtion, much leſſe puniſhed for it by a temporall Magiſtrate: butHoueden. Hen. 2 ought to be iudged by Eccleſiaſticall Iudges, & in the Eccleſiaſticall Court: and if hee were conuict, hee ſhould loſe his Orders, and ſo being excluded from Office & Benefice Ecclefiaſticall: if after this he incurred the like fault, then might he be iudged at the pleaſure of the King: yea, they goe ſo farre,Maynard de Priuiledg. eccleſ. art. 17. nu. 10. that if any offence were committed by diuers perſons, amongſt whom there were one Clergie man, none of the offenders were ſubiect to temporall iuriſdiction. And thus we ſee, that neyther the Pope nor his Clergie will bee ſubiect to theſe higher Powers, to which the Goſpell commaundeth all men to ſubmit themſelues.

74. How will they diſtinguiſh here? Mary, they hauehave two diſtinctions to helpe this doctrine out of the myre, and yet all too weake. Firſt, they ſay, that when the Apoſtles, Paul and Peter, commanded eueryevery ſoule to bee ſubiect, &c. they meane generally, that all ſubiects ſhould obey their ſuperiors, p. 391whether Spirituall or Temporall: and not that eueryeveryBell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 29. one ſhould particularly bee ſubiect to the King or ſecular power: which interpretation is firſt flat contrary to the text: for both Paul and Peter mention expreſſely Kings and Princes, and ſuch as hauehave the right of the ſword: which they would neuer hauehave done, if Kings ſhould hauehave beene ſubiect to Popes, and not Popes to Kings: for then they would hauehave inſtanced in Popes, and not in Kings: and though Chriſtians were falſely accuſed of treaſon and rebellion to Princes, yet this could not be a ſufficient reaſon to mooue the Apoſtles to conceale ſo neceſſary a truth, eſpecially ſeeing they write to Chriſtians and not to Infidels.

75. Secondly, it is contrary to reaſon: for if Peter, and ſo the Pope, his pretended ſucceſſor, had beene in their iudgement ſuperiors to Kings, then ſurely Peter himſelfe, writing not onelyonly to the people, but alſo to the Elders of the Church, as appeareth, 1. Pet. 5. 1. would neuer hauehave enioyned them all to the obedience of the Ciuill Magiſtrate, but would hauehave reſerued ſome to his owne iuriſdiction, and bidden them all, both Magiſtrate and people, to ſubmit themſelues vntounto him, as the head of the Church: or if he for modeſtie might forbeare this imperiall iniunction; yet, without queſtion, Paul (had he beene of that minde) would not hauehave ſent eueryevery ſoule to bee ſubiect to Kings, but would hauehave told them, that Kings and all ſhould be ſubiect to Peter: but ſeeing that neither of them both doth it, neither here nor elſewhere; and it is, as they thinke, ſo neceſſary a thing to be beleeued of all men, it is moſt euident that they neuer meant it.

76. Thirdly, and laſtly, whereas the Apoſtle Paul commaundeth eueryevery ſoule to be ſubiect, wee may conclude, that if the Pope be a ſoule, or hauehave a ſoule (for ſome of them hauehave thought that a man had no more a ſoule then a beaſt) then he muſt be ſubiect. And this concluſion a learned man, that wasAeneas Siluius in geſt. Concil. Baſilienſ. Chryſoſt. & Oecumen. in Rom. 13. 1.Rom 13:1 afterward a Pope himſelfe, made, when he plainly confeſſed, that the Apoſtle did not except animam Papae, the Popes ſoule from this ſubiection. I omit heere S. Chryſoſtomes and Oecumenius expoſition of the ſame place; both which affirme, that p. 392by eueryevery ſoule, the Apoſtle included both Prieſts, Monks, and Apoſtles, and that this ſubiection was not contrary vntountoAug. Confeſ. lib. 3. cap. …. Nazianz. in orat. ad ſubdit. & Imper. Gregor. lib. 2. indict. 11. c. 100. Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. ca. 29. piety. And to this expoſition ſubſcribe moſt of the Fathers.

77. Secondly, they diſtinguiſh vponupon that place of Iohn, where our Sauiour confeſſeth himſelfe to be vnderunder the power of Pilate, to be iudged by him, and ſay, that eyther it is to bee vnderſtood of a permiſſiue power graunted by God, without the which, no not ſinnes can be committed: with Cyrill and Chryſoſtome: or, if of the power of iuriſdiction, with Auguſtins and Bernard, that then Pilate had power ouer Chriſt, not ſimply, but by accident: to wit, as he was reputed to bee a priuate Iew, and ſo no more then a meere man: by which ignorance of the perſon, his power was iuſtified to be lawfull: as if a Ciuill Magiſtrate ſhould condemne a Clerke in the habite of a Lay man, not knowing him to be a Clerke, he ſhould be free from blame. To which I anſwere: Firſt, that the power of the Emperour, though a heathen, was lawfull, and ordayned by God, as they themſelues confeſſe▪ and as the Scriptures in many places prooue: but Pilates Mat. 22.Matt 22power was from the Emperour, therefore it was a lawfull, & not a lawleſſe power; and ſo not only by permiſſion, but alſo by ordination. Secondly, if it were onelyonly a power by permiſſion, then Pilate had ſinned in executing that power vponupon Chriſt: but becauſe of the miſtaking of the perſon, therefore hee ſaith, he was free from fault: as a Ciuill Magiſtrate, that ſhould iudge a Clerke, taking him for a Lay man. And ſo one part of his anſwere croſſeth the other. Laſtly, I anſwere, that though Pilate might erre in the perſon of Chriſt, yet Chriſt could not erre in the power of Pilate, who affirmeth of it plainely, that it was of God; and ſo it was indeede, in reſpect of the power it ſelfe, though the abuſe of it, in the condemning of an Innocent, was a ſinne: and ſo from the Diuell, and not from God.

78. The Goſpell teacheth, that before regeneration wee14. Epheſ. 2. 1. Rom. 6. 13. Luk. 15. 31. & 9. 60.Eph 2:1Rom 6:13Luke 15:31Luke 9:60 are dead in ſinne, and hauehave no more power to mooue in any worke of grace, then a dead carkaſſe hath in the works of p. 333nature: and therefore can neither will nor doe that which is good. But the Church of Rome teacheth, that a man vnregenerateConcil. Trident. Seſſ. 6. cap. 1. can. 6. Bell. de grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 10. Salmer. tom. 13. pag. 32. & 38. Coſter. Enchirid. pag. 204. Ecchius, Enchir. Molyn. diſp. 12. is not ſpiritually dead, but wounded, like the man that fell among theeues betwixt Ierico and Ieruſalem: or, like a Priſoner with ſetters on his heeles: or, like a Bird entangled in a lime-buſh: and therefore that there is remayning in him ſo much power, both in his will and vnderſtanding, that being but helped a little by grace, hee can begin his conuerſion, and ſo deſerue a more plentifull grace of iuſtification. All this they affirme: then which, what can bee more contrary to the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt, which ſaith, that wee are ſtarke dead in ſinne, and are not able to thinke a good thought of our ſelues: but that all our ſufficiency is in God, and that he worketh in vsus both the will and the deed, &c?

79. Bellarmine heere likewiſe endeuoureth to eſcape byBell. de grat. & lib. arbit. l. 6. c. 13. a double diſtinction: Firſt, he ſaith, that a ſinner, becauſe he is ſpiritually dead, cannot of himſelfe, or by his owne power, recouer life, or prepare himſelfe thereunto: but yet being preuented and helped by grace, he may cooperate with God that quickneth him: for that he doth not, as being dead, but as hauing a vitall vertue inſpired into him by God.

80. For anſwere whereunto, let me propound vntounto him this queſtion, namely, Whether this ſpirituall life, which is the firſt degree of a ſinners conuerſion, bee inſpired into him altogether by the Spirit of God, without the helpe of his owne will? or whether it ariſeth partly from grace, and partly from his will. If he ſaith, Altogether from the Spirit, without the helpe of his will: then how doth the ſinner cooperate with God in his firſt conuerſion? If he ſay, Partly from grace, and partly from free-will: then how is the ſinner dead, when yet he doth worke towards the obtayning of his owne life? Can a dead man cooperate at all, much more towards his owne life? I, but hee is preuented and excited to grace, and ſo doth worke: but then I would know, whether in that firſt exciting and ſtirring vp, hee doth worke with Gods Spirit? whether he be actiue in that firſt motion, or paſſiue onelyonly? If actiue, then hee is not dead: if paſſiue, then the firſt p. 334degree of his conuerſion and ſpirituall life is only from grace, without the coadiution of this free-will: for this excitation and ſtirring vp of his will, is the firſt ſparke of ſpirituall life in a ſinner; and this is that which S. Auguſtine affirmeth, ſaying,Aug. de grat. & lib. arbiter. c. 17. that God without vsus worketh in vsus to will, (that is the firſt ſparke of life:) then worketh with vsus, and helpeth vsus when we doe will, (this is the ſecond.) And againe, The will is firſt changed from Idem. cap. 20. Idem. Enchirid. cap. 32.euill to good, and helped when it is good. And againe, He prepareth the good will that is to be helped; and helpeth it when it is prepared. In all which paſſages, the firſt conuerſion of a ſinner is aſcribed to God alone, and mans will is a dead thing that mooueth not: but the ſucceeding works are attributed ioyntly to God and vsus. And this is the very doctrine of the Goſpell: which Bellarmine plainely croſſeth by his diſtinction, though ſubtilly hee ſeemeth to doe nothing leſſe: for he ſaith plainely in another place, that in the act of our conuerſion, Bell. de grat. & lib. arbit. lib. 6. cap. 15. & lib. 4. cap. 16. Alex. part. 3. m. 1. art. 2. ad. 1.will is truely free, and determineth it ſelfe, though God moue and apply it to the worke. And another compareth the will to an eye in a darkeplace, which though it ſee not, yet can ſee as ſoone as light commeth, becauſe in it ſelfe it hath the faculty of ſeeing: then which, what can bee more contrary to the Goſpell? the one affirming, that a ſinner is dead before his regeneration: the other, that he is but halfe dead, and wounded, and hath ſome power, and therefore life in himſelfe to grace and rghteouſnes.

81. Bellarmine perceiuing the weaknes of this diſtinction, flyeth for ſuccour to another: and that is, though a ſinner be dead to grace, yet hee is aliue to nature; and ſo is not altogether dead: and that by the power of that naturall life, hee being helped by grace, can cooperate with God in his conuerſion: and therefore that the ſimilitude of a dead man doth not in eueryevery reſpect agree vntounto the vnregenerate; becauſe a dead man hath no life in him at all; but a man vnregenerate hath notwithſtanding the life of nature in him. But this is more abſurd then the former: for, firſt it is plaine, that the vnregenerate are as dead in reſpect of grace, as a dead carkaſſe is in reſpect of nature: for they hauehave no more ability p. 335to the workes of grace, then a dead man to the workes of nature. A dead man hath no appetite or deſire to naturall things: no more hath the vnregenerate to ſpirituall things. A dead man hath no vnderſtanding of the things of this world: no more hath the vnregenerate of the things that are of God. A dead man cannot moue the members of the body, nor vſe the naturall ſaculties of the ſoule: no more can the vnregenerate mooue one haire bredth to Heauen-ward, nor vſe any graces of the Spirit. A dead man hath no ſenſe, nor feeling, though hee bee neuer ſo ſharply handled, ſeeth not, though the Sunne ſhineth neuer ſo bright, heareth not, though a trumpet be ſounded in his eare: no more can the vnregenerat feele the wounds of Gods Lawes, heare the ſound of the Goſpell, nor ſee the cleare light of truth that ſhinethround about him. Laſtly, in a dead man, there is a ſeparation of the ſoule frō the body: ſo, in the vnregenerate, there is a ſeparation of Gods Spirit from the ſoule, which is the ſoule of the ſoule. For this cauſe S. Aug. likened the vnregenerate man, to the ShunamitesAug. de verbis Apoſtol. ſer. 11. ſonne, beeing dead, whom the Prophet Elizeus raiſed from death, to life; and others, to Lazarus ſtinking in the graue, or, to the widowes ſonne of Nai…, lying dead; vponupon the beare; or, to Iairus daughter, that was dead in the houſe: noting three degrees of ſinnes, one more notorious then the other, yet all in the ſtate of death, vntill Chriſt by his Spirit ſhall inſpire life into them: and this is the perfect analogy and proportion, betwixt a dead man, and a ſinner: and therefore Bellarmines exception is falſe, that they doe not agree in all things: for there is nothing, wherein they doe agree, not, if the compariſon bee rightly proportioned.

82. Secondly, if they did diſagree in other things, yet in this, wherein lyeth the life of the ſimilitude, they muſt needs agree, that as a dead man hath nothing, whereby he can helpe himſelfe, for the recouery of his life: ſo man ſpiritually dead, hath nothing in him, no faculty, or power of the ſoule, whereby he can any way further the obtaining of his cōuerſiō. And this was Saint Auguſtines opinion, agreeable to the Goſpell:Aug. de grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 5. for his words are plaine, concerning Pauls conuerſion, that he p. 336was called from Heauen, and by that mighty and effectuall calling conuerted. Gratia Deiſolaerat: It was onelyonly the grace of God. And no otherwiſe did Iuſtine Martyr conceiueIuſtin. Martyr. Apolog. 2. thereof, when hee ſayth, That as to hauehave beeing at the firſt, when wee are created, was not of our ſelues: ſo to chooſe and follow that which is pleaſing to God, is (not by vsus) but by his perſwading, and mouing vsus to the faith. In this therefore, which is the point of the queſtion, the ſimilitude holds moſt ſtrongly, and ſo Bellarmines exception is nothing to the purpoſe.

83. Thirdly, and laſtly, it is moſt abſurd of all, which hee ſayth, that becauſe a ſinner liueth naturally, therefore he moueth towards grace, more then a dead carkas to nature, which hath no life at all: for in reſpect of grace, it is all one to hauehave no life at all; and to hauehave no life of the Spirit. For nothing can worke aboue the compaſſe of it owne beeing. Naturall life cannot tranicend the Spheare of nature, nor any way moue to the Spheare of grace. For as Plants that liue the vegetatiue life, cannot ariſe to the ſenſitiue life, which is in beaſts, nor they to the rationall, which is in men: So neither can theſe ariſe vp any whit to the life of the Spirit, which is in Gods Saints, till a new life bee inſpired into them: which new life, as it is the conuerſion of the ſoule to God, ſo it is the foundation of all ſpirituall actions, ſeeing life in eueryevery kinde is the foundation of all the actions in that kind. For vntill there bee life in a plant, it doth not grow, vntill it bee in a beaſt, it doth not moue nor feele, vntill in a man, hee doth not thinke, ſpeake, or remember; and ſo vntill this life of the Spirit bee in the ſoule, it cannot will, nor worke any thing that is good. Therefore I conclude, that though a ſinner liue naturally, yet beeing dead to grace, that that life doth no more helpe to his conuerſion, then the ſenſitiue life of a beaſt doth to the obtaining of reaſon, or the vegetatiue15 Ioh. 5. 39. Col. 3. 16. 1. Pet. 3. 15. 1. Ioh. 2. 12. 13. 14. Luk. 16. 19.John 5:39Col 3:161 Pet 3:151 John 2:121 John 2:131 John 2:14Luke 16:19 life of a Plant to the obtaining of ſenſe.

84. The Goſpell teacheth, that all ſhould read the Scriptures, for ſo our Sauiour chargeth; and his Apoſtles Paul and Peter, and Iohn, charge not Prieſts onelyonly, but all others. And Abraham ſendeth the rich Gluttons brethren to Moſes, and p. 337the Prophets. And the Eunuch is not rebuked, but approuedActs. 8 28. Acts 17. 11.Acts 8:28Acts 17:11 by Philip, for reading the Propheſie of Eſay. And the Bereans are commended for examining Pauls doctrine by the Scripture: which ſhould neuer hauehave beene, if it had not beene lawfull for them to doe it. This is the doctrine of the Goſpell,Bell. de verbo Det. lib. 2. cap. 15 Azorius Inſtit. moral. l. 8. c. 26. Concil. Trident. Regul. 4. Iud. librer. Coſter. Enchirid. moſt plaine and euident. But the Church of Rome teacheth, that all men muſt not read the Scripture, to wit, Laymen, except they bee permitted by their Ordinary, becauſe pearles are not to bee caſt amongſt ſwine: nor a ſword, or a knife put into a childes hand; nor occaſion of errour offered to the ignorant, nor matter of offence to the weake: as alſo, becauſe they are more obſcure then can bee vnderſtood of the Laicks, and common ſort of people. Thus they paint ouer the foule wrinkled face of Iezabel, with falſe colours: but yet the contrariety is plaine. All ought to read the Scriptures: and ſome ought not to read the Scriptures. The one is the doctrine of Ieſus Chriſt: The other, of the Pope and his Church.

85. But Bellarmine diſtinguiſheth two wayes. Firſt, that there is a double way of knowing the Scriptures; one by hearing, and another by reading. The firſt is commanded to all, and therefore neceſſary to be vſed of all. But this laſt is not commanded to any, but to the Clergie, and thoſe whom they ſhall thinke fit to read them with profit, and without danger. But who ſeeth not, that when our Sauiour willeth to ſearch the Scriptures, hee ſpeaketh of reading? And when the Bereans examined Pauls ſermon by the Scriptures, they did it by reading. And when Abraham remitteth Diues brethren to Moſes, and the Prophets, hee ſendeth them to reading. For Moſes, and the Prophets were dead in their perſons, and liued onelyonly in their writings. And laſtly, when the Apoſtles wrote their Epiſtles to the ſeuerall Churches, they wrote them to this end, that they might bee read of all. For ſo Saint Paul chargeth the Coloſſians, after they had read the Epiſtle, that they themſelues would cauſe it alſo to bee read in the Church of the Laodiceans. Beſides, if it bee a dangerous thing for the ignorant to read the Scriptures, for feare they ſhould peruert the ſenſe, & ſo fal into hereſie, or impiety; then p. 338much more dangerous is the hearing of it, ſeeing there is no preaching ſo pure as the word it ſelfe; man euer mixing ſome dregs of his own corruption, with the pure wine of the word; nor any preacher ſo ſincere, but he doth often erre: and ſo the hearer being debarred from trying his doctrine by the touchſtone of the Scripture, muſt needs irrecouerably fall into errour.

86. Secondly, hee ſayth that there are two kindes of Readers.Bell. quo ſupra. One that read with fruit and profit; others that read without fruit, yea rather with hurt. Now the Scripture may bee read of the firſt, but not of the ſecond. But I would know of him againe, who hath that power to diſcerne betwixt theſe two. Doe they know the heart of a man? Or, can they prophecy of that which is to come? If they cannot doe theſe things, then they ought not to locke vp the Scriptures from any, vponupon this ſurmiſe; but permit the vſe of that which is good to all, and leaue the ſucceſſe to God. Againe, becauſe ſome peruert the Scripture to their damnation, ſhall therefore all bee forbidden to reape comfort by it? Becauſe the theefe robs, and kils with his ſword, ſhall not therefore an honeſt man vſe one for his owne defence? Becauſe the Spider ſucks vp poyſon out of the flowre, therefore ſhall not the Bee ſuck honey? This is to take away the vſe of all good things. For as the Poet ſayth, Nil prodeſt quod non laedere poſſit idem: NothingOuid. de triſt. lib. 2. ſo profitable in the vſe, but in the abuſe may be hurtfull and nuiſant.

87. Laſtly, are the ignorant common people more ſubiectEſpe.ſ. us com. in tit. c. 1. & 2. to erring and hereſie, then the learned? Let Eſpenſaeus, a learned Biſhop of their owne, informe him to the contrary. I remember (ſayth hee) that an Italian Biſhop told me, that his countrey-men were ſcarred from reading the Scriptures, leſt they ſhould become heretikes: as if hereſies did ſpring from the ſtudy of the Scriptures, and not rather from the neglect and ignorance of them. And if he will not beleeue him, let anotherAlphouſ. de caſt. haereſ. l. 1. cap. 13 Maldon. in Euangel. learned Roman ſi ſtep out & tel him, that very few ignorāt perſons were the authors of hereſie: & another, that learned men, & indued with great wits, fall by their pride into hereſie: ſo that he p. 339need not ſo much feare, leſt hereſie ſhould build her neſt in the boſome of the poore ignorant man, as leſt like the Eagle ſhee ſhould flye aloft, and ſet her ſelfe in the top of the high Cedars of the Church.

88. But what doe I ſtand to ouerthrow this vaine exception, ſince it is no better then a meere deception, confuted by the practice of their owne Church? for without difference, any that will pay for it, beeing neuer ſo ignorant, might hauehave a licence to read the Scriptures. And we had heere in England in Queene Maries dayes, a Romiſh indulgence, that hee thatCartwrights anſwere to the Preface of the Rhemes Teſtament. could diſpend a certaine reuenue by the yeere, might read the Bible in Engliſh, as is reported by Maſter Cartwright, in his anſwere to the Preface of the Rhemes Teſtament. So that is as cleare as the day, that it is not the fruit and benefit that ſhould come to the Reader, that they regarded, but the profit and gaine that ſhould accrue to their owne purſes: neither was the feare of erring the cauſe of their prohibition: but rather the feare of too much knowledge, leſt thereby the groſſe and foule abominations of their Church ſhould bee diſcouered and ſo come to bee abhorred and deteſted.

89. The Goſpell teacheth, that none can forgiue ſins, but16 Eſay 43. 25. luk. 5. 21.Isa 43:25 God: becauſe ſinne is a preuarication of Gods Law; and therefore none can remit it, but hee againſt whom it is committed. VponUpon which ground venerable Bede writing vponuponBeda in Luk. 5.Luke 5 theſe words of the fift of Luke, Who can forgiue ſinnes, but God? ſayth, that the Phariſes ſaid truely therein: becauſe no man can forgiue ſinnes, ſaue God alone: who alſo forgiueth by them to whom hee hath committed the power of the keyes: and therefore Chriſt is proued to bee truely God by this, that hee can forgiue ſinnes, as God: and it may be proued further to bee true, becauſe our Sauiour himſelfe approoueth of that ſpeech of theirs, not ſhewing any manner of diſlike thereunto. And therefore Saint Ambroſe affirmeth plainely, that to Ambroſ. epiſt. 16.forgiue ſinnes, is not common to any man with Chriſt. This is (ſayth he) the onelyonly office of Chriſt, who tooke away the ſinne of the world. And Cyprian as directly; OnelyOnly the Lord can take Cyprian ſer. de lapſis.pitty, and grant pardon to ſinnes which are committed againſt him. p. 340But the Synagogue of Rome teacheth, that though this powerGregor. de Valent tom. 4. pag. 1876. Eman. S…. in Aphoriſ. T…et▪ lib. 6. … ▪ 21 bee originally and fundamentally in Chriſt, yet he hath committed the ſame to his Vicar the Pope; and from him it is deriued to Cardinals, Biſhops, and infetiou… Prieſts, vnderunder the commiſſion and authority of the keyes: and that not miniſterially, and by way of declaration onelyonly, which wee confeſſe: but abſolutely, and iudicially, and as Chriſt himſelfe; and that not onelyonly to the liuing, but to the dead alſo, that are in Purgatory. For it is a rule without exception amongſt them,Bell. de Purgat. l…. 2. cap. 16. Suarez▪ …om. 4. diſp. 50. ſect. 3. that all ſatisfactory puniſhments may bee releaſed by a pardon. And it is as ſure that a pardon for any manner of ſinne may bee obtained for a price. And therefore there is a certaine rate ſet downe for all kinde of ſinnes, as Murther, Inceſts,Aquin. Su…lem. in 3. part. q. 25. …rt. 1. Sodomy, Sacriledge, &c. And Aquinas thus reaſoneth, If Chriſt might releaſe the fault, without any ſatisfaction, then ſo may it be that the Pope. By which wee ſee, that according to their doctrine, the Pope hath aſmuch power to forgiue ſins, as Chriſt himſelfe hath: which iſ the Scribes and Phariſes liued and heard, they would cry out, O blaſphemie. This is the expreſſe doctrine of the Church of Rome.

90. For the making good of this doctrine, they hauehave a double diſtinction, anſwerable to the double manner of remitting ſin, vſed in their Church; one touching the abſolution of a ſinner, by the Prieſt, in their Sacrament of penance. The other, touching the Popes indulgence, out of the Sacramēt, groūded vponupon the treaſure of ſupererogatory works, which they ſay, is in the Church, and conſequently, in the Popes diſpenſation. Concerning the firſt (they ſay) that Chriſt abſolueth a ſinner by his owne power; but the Prieſt, by the power of Chriſt, committed vntounto him in that famous Legacy, Whoſe ſinnes yee remit on earth, they are remitted in Heauen.

91. To which I anſwere two things. Firſt, that heerein they…a…d … 4. …. 1…. … ▪ cōtradict their ancient ſchoole. For Peter Lumbard, one of the maſters of the ſchoole, doth plainly affirme, that ſuch only are worthily abſolued by the Church, who are abſolued in Heauen: becauſe by the error of man, it may ſo happen, that hee that ſeemeth to bee caſt out of Gods family▪ bee ſtill within; p. 341and he who may be thoght to remaine within, is notwithſtanding caſt ou…. And that therefore God abſolueth differently from the Church; God by remitting the ſinne, & purging the ſoule from the blemiſh thereof, and freeing it from eternall puniſhment; the Church by declaring who are abſolued by God. By which not onelyonly his opinion is manifeſt, that the Prieſt hath no abſolute power of abſoluing a ſinner, but onelyonly of declaring that hee is abſolued, which is our doctrine: but alſo his reaſon is inuincible, that becauſe the Prieſt may erre in his abſolution; therefore hee hath no ſuch abſolute power committed vntounto him. And that wee may not thinke that this Maſter of theirs is without ſchollers, the gloſſe of their decrees doth ſet down aſmuch, when it ſayth, Dimi…tantur, Diſtinct 23. cap. 2. gloſſ.id eſt, dimiſſa oſtendantur: Let them bee forgiuen, that is, let them bee declared to bee forgiuen. Which, becauſe it ſpeakes too boldly; therefore their iudicious Cenſurers hauehave cauſed it either to bee blotted out, or compelled it to ſpeakeIndex. expurg. Belg. edit. Greg. otherwiſe.

92. Secondly, I anſwere, that this doctrine is croſſed by it ſelfe. For they do not profeſſe any other abſolution, but ſuch as may be hindered by the party to by abſolued, to wit, if by want of faith, or repentance, he put an inuiſible bar to ſtop the power thereof. Now, if the ſinner may hinder his own abſolutiō, then the Prieſt hath no power to abſolue him, except he be fitly diſpoſed for the receiuing of it; & this diſpoſition is meerly from God: and therefore in God is the onelyonly power to abſolue; and in the Prieſt, onelyonly to declare who is abſolued, and that conditionally, if h… be thus qualified, and hauehave no barre to hinder. For if the power of abſoluing, or not abſoluing, depend vponupon the putting in, or taking away the barre of impenitency; then he onelyonly can iudicially abſolue a ſinner, that can giuegive him repentance: but neyther the Pope, nor any mortall man is able to doe this, as the Scripture teſtifieth in many places: and therefore neyther Pope nor Prieſt can abſolue a ſinner any further then by a declaratiue ſentence.

93. Laſtly, it croſſeth their owne practice: for they teach, that dead m…n, dying in excommunication, may be abſolued: p. 342and they practiſe the ſame, to wit, as Bellarmine ſaith, whenBell▪ de Indulg. lib. 1. cap. 14. Toll…t. Inſtruct. ſacerdot. l. 1. c. 16 it is diſcouered, that the partie was erroniouſly excommunicate: and, as Tollet ſaith, when he ſhewed manifeſt ſignes of contrition before his death: in which caſe their abſolution can bee no more then a declaration that hee did repent, and that he is abſolued before the tribunall … at of God.

94. And thus this firſt diſtinction wi…l hold no water. Let vsus heare the ſecond. Touching the Popes power to pardon out of the Sacrament, this it is: They ſay, that the Pope doth not by his pardon take vponupon him, eyther to remit the guilt ofBell. Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 7. ſinne, or the eternall puniſhment due vntounto it: but onelyonly the temporall puniſhment which it ought to ſuſtaine, eyther here in this life, òr in Purgatory. But I anſwere, that h…e which can remit any part of the puniſhment due vntounto ſinne, can alſo remit the guilt it ſ…l…e: for guilt and puniſhment are vnſeparable companions; inſomuch, as in the Hebrew tongue, Sinne and Puniſhment are notified by one and the ſame word, to ſhew, that where the one is, there the other is alſo: and therefore he that can pardon the ore, may alſo releaſe the other. Adde hereunto, that to pardon a ſinne, is nothing elſe (as our common phraſe of ſpeech, together with reaſon, teacheth vsus) but to remit the puniſhment thereof: as when the King, in the Court of Iuſtice, pardoneth a Malefactor, he releaſeth him from the puniſhment which by the law he ſhould ſuffer: ſo in the Court of Conſcience, he that doth remit any part of the puniſhment due by Gods Law vntounto a ſinner, (as the Pope doth vndertake to doe) by the ſame labour doth remit ſo much of the guilt it ſelfe. And ſo this diſtinction filleth to the ground, being as feeble and brittle as the former.

95. Laſtly, the Goſpell teacheth, that when we hauehave done all that we can, yet we may ſay, that we are vnprofitable ſeruants, Luke 17. 10. But the Church of Rome teacheth, that…u… ▪ 17. 10. a man may doe more then he ought, and then the law requireth:Bell. de Monach. lib. 1. c. p. 13. Salmer tom. 7. p…g▪ 97. and ſo may ſay, and thinke himſelfe to be, not onelyonly a profitable, but more then a profitable ſeruant: for hee m…y (ſay they) ſupererogate: now hee doeth ſupererogate, who p. 343layeth out more then he receiued: as he that to the precepts of Chriſt, adioyneth the commaundements of the Church; and to the precepts of the law, the counſels of the Goſpell.

96. Bellarmine anſwereth firſt out of Saint Ambroſe, Bell. de Iuſt…f. lib. 5. cap. 5.that it is to bee vnderſtood of vsus whilſt wee are in the ſtate of nature, and not of grace: as if by nature we are vnprofitable, but by grace profitable: but our Sauiour ſpeaketh this to his Diſciples, who were now in the ſtate of grace, and not of nature. And Saint Ambroſe his meaning is nothing elſe but this, thatAmbroſ. i… Luk. lib. 8. cap. 1…. our naturall imbecillity, though it be ſanctified, yet it is not aboliſhed by grace: and therefore that we, in regard thereof, are ſtill bound to remember, that when we doe all we can, yet we are vnprofitable.

97. Secondly, he anſwereth, that we are vnprofitable indeede; but to God, not to our ſelues, which hee ſaith, is Beda's interpretation: but hee leaueth out that which followeth in Beda: for ſo farre is hee from building hereupon theBeda in Luc. cap. 17.Luke 17 merite of works, that he ſaith plainely, that by whoſe mercy we are preuented, that we may humbly ſerue him; by his gift wee are crowned to raigne with him. By which it is euident, that if wee b… profitable to our ſelues, it is becauſe God accepteth our ſeruice, and in mercy rewardeth the ſame; not becauſe we deſerue any thing at his hands. To omit that the word Seruants hath relation to Maſters, and not to themſelues: and therfore in ſaying they are vnprofitable ſeruants, it muſt needs be vnderſtood in reſpect of God, and not of themſelues.

98. Thirdly, hee anſwereth out of Saint Auguſtine, that we are ſaid to bee vnprofitable in reſpect of the couenant of the law: but in reſpct of the free couenant of grace, we may be profitable, and more then profitable. But this is Bellarmines fraudulent collection, and not Saint Auguſtines intention: for he ſaith onelyonly, that we can require no reward for our labour, though Aug. ſer. 3. de verb. Dom.we hauehave kept all the commandements, vnleſſe God of his free grace had couenanted with vsus to reward vsus. He ſaith not that wee are made profitable by grace, eyther to God our Maſter, or to our ſelues. And therefore in another place he diſclaimeth vtterly all profite and merite in our ſelues, when he ſaith, Lord, p. 344Aug. in Pſal. 142.Ps 142for thy Names ſake quicken me, in thy righteouſnes, not in mine; not becauſe I hauehave deſerued it, but becauſe thou art mercifull. Thus this generation is not aſhamed to wreſt and wring the godly Fathers, to make them ſpeake to their purpoſe.

99. Laſtly, hee anſwereth out of Saint Chryſoſtome, that our Sauiour ſaith not, Yee are vnprofitable ſeruants; but bids them ſay ſo of themſelues, to teach them humility, and to auoyd pride. But how doe this follow, that becauſe Chriſt biddeth vsus to ſay ſo, to auoyd pride, therefore we are not ſo? yea, rather therefore we are ſo: for would he bid vsus to lye? Chryſoſtome himſelfe in another place cleereth this doubt, whenChryſoſt. ad pop. Antioch. hom. 53 he ſaith, that all that euer wee doe, we doe vponupon dutie: for which cauſe Chriſt ſayd, When yee hauehave done all, ſay, yee are vnprofitable ſeruants: So that Chryſoſtome did not onelyonly thinke it fit for vsus to ſay ſo for humility ſake, but alſo that wee were ſo in truth and indeede. Let Saint Bernard, for an vpſhot, wipe awayBernard. de tripl. cuſtod. this diſtinction: Wilt thou (ſaith he) ſay, that Chriſt hath taught thee to ſay ſo for humility ſake? true, indeed it was for humility; but what, againſt truth? And thus none of theſe ſhifts and diſtinctions can deliuer this doctrine from oppoſition to the Goſpell: for it followeth ineuitably, if the beſt be no better then vnprofitable ſeruants, then none can worke ſuch works, whereby hee may not onelyonly merite for himſelfe eternall life, but hauing a ſurpluſage of redundant merits, beſtow ſome of them for the ſupplying of others wants.

100. And thus wee hauehave a ſhort view of the cleere and manifeſt oppoſitions that are betwixt the doctrines of the Goſpell, and the doctrines of the Church of Rome. And we ſee with what ſubtill and intricate diſtinctions, they labour to reconcile them together: but truth is naked, and needeth no ſuch ſhiftings. Both the one and the other therefore, namely, their direct oppoſition to the Goſpell on the one ſide, and their elaborate diflinctions, to make good their cauſe on the other, doth euidently euince the concluſion of this ninth demonſtration, that that Religion, which is built vponupon ſuch deſperate and dangerous principles, cannot be the truth of Chriſt, but the doctrine and Religion of Antichriſt.