Repentance
living within the precincts of the Church, professing the name of Christ, is certain of his salvation, and that by faith: but that he ought so to be, and must endeavor to attain thereto. And here is a great point in the mystery of iniquity, to be considered: for by this uncertain application of the promise of salvation, and this wavering hope they overturn half the doctrine of the gospel. For it enjoins two things: first to believe the promises therof to be true in themselves: secondly to believe, & by faith to apply them unto ourselves. And this latter part, without which the former is void of comfort, is quite overturned. The reasons which they allege against our doctrine, I have answered before: now therefore I let them pass.
To conclude, though in colored terms they seem to agree with us in doctrine concerning faith; yet indeed they deny & abolish the substance therof, namely, the particular & & certain application of Christ crucified and his benefits, unto ourselves. Again they fail in that they cut off the principal duty & office of true saving faith, which is to apprehend and to apply the blessing promised.
Of Repentance I. Our Consent Conclusion 1.
That repentance is the conversion of a sinner. There is a twofold conversion: passive and active. Passive is an action of God, whereby
He converts man, being as yet unconverted. Active is an action whereby man, being once turned of God, turns himself; and of the latter must this conclusion be understood. For the first conversion, considering it is a work of God turning us unto Himself, is not the repentance whereof the Scripture speaks so oft, but it is called by the
name of regeneration; and repentance, whereby we, being first turned of God, do turn ourselves, and do good works, is the fruit thereof.
Conclusion 2.
That repentance stands especially for practice, in contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction in work or deed. Touching contrition, there be two kinds thereof: legal and evangelical. Legal contrition is nothing but a remorse of conscience for sin in regard of the wrath and judgment of God, and it is no grace of God at all; nor any part, or cause of repentance, but only an occasion thereof, and that by the mercy of God. For of itself, it is the sting of the law, and the very entrance into the pit of hell. Evangelical contrition is when a repentant sinner is grieved for his sins—not so much for fear of hell or any other punishment, as because he has offended and displeased so good and merciful a God. This contrition is caused by the ministry of the gospel, and in the practice of repentance it is always necessary and goes before as the beginning thereof. Second, we hold and maintain that confession is to be made and that in sundry respects: first to God, both publicly in the congregation and also privately in our secret and private prayers. Second to the church, when any person has openly offended the congregation by any crime and is therefore excommunicate. Third, to our private neighbor, when we have upon any occasion offended and wronged him. "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, go first and be reconciled to him" (Matt. 5:23).
Now reconciliation presupposes confession. Lastly, in all true repentance, we hold and acknowledge there must be satisfaction made: First to God, and that is when we entreat Him in our supplications to accept the death and passion of Christ, as a full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for all our sins. Second, it is to be made unto the church, after excommunication for the public offences; and it stands in duties of humiliation that fitly serve to testify the truth of our repentance. Third, satisfaction is to be made to our neighbor. Because if he be wronged, he must have recompense
and restitution made [Luke 29:8]; and there repentance may justly be suspected, where no satisfaction is made, if it lie in our power.
Conclusion 3.
That in repentance we are to bring forth outward fruits worthy [of] amendment of life. For repentance itself is in the heart, and therefore must be testified in all manner of good works, whereof the principal is, to endeavor day by day—by God's grace—to leave and renounce all and every sin, and in all things to do the will of God. And here let it be remembered that we are not patrons of licentiousness and enemies of good works. For though we exclude them from the act of our justification and salvation, yet we maintain a profitable and necessary use of them in the life of every Christian man. This use is threefold: in respect of God, of man, of ourselves. Works are to be done in respect of God that His commandments may be obeyed [1
John 3:22], that His will may be done [1 Thess. 4:3], that we may show ourselves to be obedient children to God our Father [1 Peter
1:14], that we may show ourselves thankful for our redemption by Christ [Titus 2:14], that we might not grieve the Spirit of God [Eph.
4:30], but walk according to the same [Gal. 5:22], that God by our good works may be glorified [Matt. 5:16], that we may be good followers of God [Eph. 5:1]. Again, works are to be done in regard of men, that our neighbor may be helped in worldly things [Luke 6:38], that he may be won by our example to godliness [1 Peter 3:14], that we may prevent in ourselves the giving of any offence [1 Cor. 10:32], that by doing good we may stop the mouths of our adversaries. Third and lastly, they have use in respect of ourselves, that we may show ourselves to be new creatures [2 Cor. 5:17], that we may walk as the children of light [Eph. 5:8], that we have some assurance of our faith, and of our salvation [2 Peter 1:8, 10], that we may discern dead and counterfeit faith from true faith [James 2:17], that faith and the gifts of God may be exercised and continued unto the end [2 Tim. 1:6], that the punishments of sin, both temporal and eternal, may be prevented [Ps. 89:32], that the reward may be obtained, which God freely in mercy has promised to men for their good works [Gal. 6:9].
II. The Difference We dissent not from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance itself, but in the damnable abuses thereof; which are of two sorts: general and special.
General [abuses] are those which concern repentance wholly considered; and they are these: The first, is that they place the beginning of repentance [partly in themselves and] partly in the Holy
Ghost, or in the power of their natural freewill, being helped by the Holy Ghost; whereas Paul indeed ascribes this work wholly unto
God: "Proving if God at any time will give them repentance" (2 Tim.
2:25). And men that are not weak, but dead in trespasses and sins, cannot do anything that may further their conversion, though they be helped never so much; no more than dead men in their graves can rise from thence. The second abuse is that they take penance, or rather repentance, for that public discipline and order of correction that was used against notorious offenders in the open congregation.
For the Scripture sets down but one repentance, and that common to all men without exception, and to be practiced in every part of our lives for the necessary mortification of sin; whereas open ecclesiastical correction pertained not to all and every man within the compass of the church, but to them alone that gave any open offence. The third abuse is that they make repentance to be not only a virtue but also a sacrament; whereas for the space of a thousand years after Christ, and upward, it was not reckoned among the sacraments. Yes, it seems that Lombard was one of the first that called it a sacrament; and the schoolmen after him disputed of the matter and form of this sacrament, not able any of them certainly to define what should be the outward element. The fourth abuse is touching the effect and efficacy of repentance, for they make it a meritorious cause of remission of sins and of life everlasting, flat against the Word of God. Paul says notably, "we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom
God hath sent to be a reconciliation by faith in his blood" (Rom.
3:24–25). In these words, these forms of speech, "redemption in
Christ," "reconciliation in his blood by faith," [and] "freely by grace," must be observed and considered. For they show plainly that no part of satisfaction or redemption is wrought in us or by us, but out of us only in the Person of Christ. And therefore, we esteem of repentance only as a fruit of faith, and the effect—or efficacy of it—is to testify remission of our sins and our reconciliation before God. It will be said that, "Remission of sins and life everlasting are promised to repentance." Answer. It is not to the work of repentance but the person which repents; and that not for his own merits or work of repentance, but for the merits of Christ, which he applies to himself by faith. And thus are we to understand the promises of the gospel, in which works are mentioned, presupposing always in them the reconciliation of the person with God, to whom the promise is made.
Thus we see wherefore we dissent from the Roman Church touching the doctrine of repentance.
Special abuses do concern contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
The first abuse, concerning contrition, is that they teach it must be sufficient and perfect. They use now to help the matter by a distinction, saying that the sorrow in contrition must be in the highest degree in respect of value and estimation. Yet the opinion of Adrian was otherwise, that in true repentance a man should be grieved according to all his endeavor. And the Roman Catechism says as much, that "The sorrow conceived of our sins must be so great, that none can be conceived to be greater; that we must be contrite in the same manner we love God, and that is, with all our heart and strength, in a most vehement sorrow; and that the hatred of sin must be not only the greatest, but also most vehement and perfect, so as it may exclude all sloth and slackness." Indeed afterward it follows that true contrition may be effectual though it be imperfect. But how can this stand if they will not only commend but also prescribe and avouch that contrition must be most perfect and vehement? We therefore only teach that God requires not so much the measure as the truth of any grace, and that it is a degree of unfeigned contrition to be grieved because we cannot be grieved for our sins as we should. The second abuse is that they ascribe to their
contrition the merit of congruity. But this cannot stand with the allsufficient merit of Christ. And an ancient council says, "God inspires into us first of all the faith and love of Himself, no merits going before, that we may faithfully require the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism do the things that please Him." And we for our parts hold that God requires contrition at our hands, not to merit remission of sins, but that we may acknowledge our own unworthiness, and be humbled in the sight of God, and distrust all our own merits; and further, that we may make the more account of the benefits of Christ, whereby we are received into the favor of God.
Lastly, that we might more carefully avoid all sins in time to come, whereby so many pains and terrors of conscience are procured. And we acknowledge no contrition at all to be meritorious, save that of Christ, whereby He was broken for our iniquities. The third abuse is that they make imperfect contrition, or attrition arising of the fear of hell, to be good and profitable. And to it they apply the saying of the prophet, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." But servile fear of itself is the fruit of the law, which is the ministry of death and condemnation. And consequently, it is the way to eternal destruction if God leaves men to themselves. And if it turns to the good of any, it is only by accident, because God in mercy makes it to be an occasion going before, of grace to be given. Otherwise remorse of conscience for sin is no beginning of repentance, or the restrainment of any sin; but rather is, and that properly, the beginning of unspeakable horrors of conscience, and everlasting death, unless God show mercy. And yet this fear of punishment, if it be tempered and delayed with other graces and gifts of God in holy men, it is not unprofitable; in whom there is not only a sorrow for punishment, but also, and that much more, for the offence. And such a kind of fear, or sorrow, is commanded: "If I be a father, where is my honor? If I be a Lord, where is my fear?" (Mal. 1:6). And Chrysostom says, that, "The fear of hell in the heart of a just man, is a strong man armed against thieves and robbers to drive them from the house." And Ambrose says that "Martyrs in the time of their sufferings, confirmed themselves against the cruelty of persecutors by setting the fear of hell before their eyes."
Abuses touching confession are these. The first is that they use a form of confession of their sins unto God, uttered in an unknown language; being therefore foolish and ridiculous, withal requiring the aid and intercession of dead men and such as be absent. Whereas, there is but one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus
Christ. The second is that they in practice make confession of their sins not only to God, but to the saints departed, in that they make prayer to them in which they ask their intercession for the pardon of their sins. And this is, not only to match them with God in seeing and knowing the heart, but also to give a part of His divine worship unto them. The third and principal abuse is that they have corrupted canonical confession by turning it into private auricular confession, binding all men in conscience by a law made to confess all their mortal sins, with all circumstances that change the kind of the sin (as far as possibly they can remember) once every year at the least, and that to a priest, unless it be in the case of extreme necessity. But in the Word of God there is no warrant for this confession, nor in the writings of orthodox antiquity for the space of many hundred years after Christ, as one of their own side avouches. And the commandment of the Holy Ghost, "Confess one to another and pray one for another" (James 5:16), binds as well the priest to make confession unto us, as any of us to the priest. And whereas it is said, that "many were baptized confessing their sins" (Matt. 3:6), and "many that believed came and confessed and showed their works"
(Acts 19:18), the confession was voluntary and not constrained. It was also general and not particular of all and every sin, with the necessary circumstances thereof. And in this liberty of confession the church remained 1,200 years until the Council of Lateran, in which the law of auricular confession was first enacted, being a notable invention serving to discover the secrets of men and to enrich that covetous and ambitious see with the revenues of the world. It was not known to Augustine when he said, "What have I to do with men that they should hear my confessions, as though they should heal all my diseases?" Nor to Chrysostom, when he says, "I do not compel you to confess your sins to others."
And, "If you be ashamed to confess them to any man, because you have sinned, say them daily in your own mind. I do not bid you confess them to your fellow servant that he should mock you.
Confess them to God that cures you."
The abuse of satisfaction is that they have turned canonical satisfaction, which was made to the congregation by open offenders, into a satisfaction of the justice of God for the temporal punishment of their sins. Behold here a most horrible profanation of the whole gospel, and especially of the satisfaction of Christ, which of itself without any supply is sufficient every way for the remission both of fault and punishment. But of this point I have spoken before.
Hitherto I have handled and proved by induction of sundry particulars that we are to make a separation from the present Church of Rome in respect of the foundation and substance of true religion.
Many more things might be added to this very purpose, but here I conclude this first point, adding only this one caveat, that we make separation from the Roman religion without hatred of the persons that are maintainers of it. No, we join in affection more with them than they with us. They die with us not for their religion (though they deserve it) but for the treasons which they intend and enterprise
[Deut. 13:5]. We are ready to do the duties of love unto them enjoined us in the Word. We reverence the good gifts in many of them; we pray for them, wishing their repentance and eternal salvation.
Now I mean to proceed and to touch briefly [on] other points of doctrine contained in this portion of Scripture which I have now in hand. In the second place therefore, out of this commandment, "Go out of her, my people," I gather that the true church of God is and has been in the present Roman church as corn in the heap of chaff.
Though popery reigned and overspread the face of the earth for many hundred years, yet in the midst thereof, God reserved a people unto Himself that truly worshipped Him. And to this effect, the Holy
Ghost says that the dragon, which is the devil, caused the woman,
that is, the church, to flee into the wilderness, where he sought to destroy her but could not. "And she still retains a remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 12:17). Now this which I speak of the Church of Rome, cannot be said in like manner of the congregations of Turks and other infidels, that the hidden church of God is preserved among them; because there is no means of salvation at all; whereas the Church of Rome has the Scriptures, though in a strange language— and baptism for the outward form—which helps God in all ages preserved, that His elect might be gathered out of the midst of Babylon. This serves to stop the mouths of papists, which demand of us where our church was fourscore years ago, before the days of Luther; whereby they would insinuate to the world that our church and religion is green or new. But they are answered out of this very text, that our church has ever been since the days of the apostles, and that in the very midst of the papacy. It has been always a church and did not first begin to be in Luther's time, but only then began to show itself, as having been hidden by a universal apostasy for many hundred years together. Again, we have here occasion to consider the dealing of God with His own church and people. He will not have them for external society to be mixed with their enemies, and that for special purpose; namely, to exercise the humility and patience of His few servants. When Elijah saw idolatry spread over all Israel, he went apart into the wilderness and in grief desired to die [1 Kings 19:4].
And David cried out, "Woe is me that I am constrained to dwell in Mesheck and to have my habitation in the tents of Kedar" (Ps.
120:5). And just Lot must have his righteous soul vexed with seeing and hearing the abominations of Sodom.
Third, by this commandment we are taught what opinion to carry of the present Church of Rome. It is often demanded whether it be a church or no; and the answer may hence be formed on this manner:
If by this church be understood a state or regiment of the people, whereof the pope is head, and the members are all such as do acknowledge him to be their head, and do believe the doctrine established in the Council of Trent, we take it to be no church of God.
Because Babylon, which I have proved to be the Church of Rome, is here opposed to the church or people of God; and because we are commanded to come out of it, whereas we may not wholly forsake any people until they forsake Christ. Some will haply say, "The Church of Rome has the Scriptures and the sacrament of baptism." I answer first of all, they have indeed the books of Holy Scripture among them; but by the rest of their doctrine they overthrow the true sense thereof in the foundation, as I have proved before. And though they have the outward form of baptism, yet they overturn the inward baptism, which is the substance of all, standing in the justification and sanctification of a sinner. Again, I answer that they have the Word and baptism, not for themselves, but for the true church of God among them—like as the lantern holds the candle, not for itself, but for others. Second, it may be—and is alleged—that if the pope be
Antichrist, he then sits in the temple—that is, the church of God— and by this means the Roman church shall be the true church [2
Thess. 2:4]. Answer. He sits in the temple of God, but mark further how: as God, that is, not as a member, but as a manifest usurper; like as the thief sits in the true man's house. For the popish church and God's church are mingled like chaff and corn in one heap. And the Church of Rome may be said to be in the church of God, and the church of God in the Church of Rome; as we say the wheat is among the chaff and the chaff in the wheat. Again, he is said to sit in the temple of God, because the Roman church, though falsely, takes unto itself the title of the true catholic church. Some go about to delay and qualify the matter, by comparing this church to a man lying sick full of sores, having also his throat cut, yet so as body and soul are joined together, and life is remaining still. But all things well considered, it is rather like a dead carcass, and is void of all spiritual life, as the popish errors in the foundation do manifest. Indeed, a known harlot may afterward remain a wife and be so termed: yet after the bill of divorcement is given, she ceases to be a wife though she can show her marriage ring. Now the church has received the bill of her divorcement in the written Word, namely [in] 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13:11–12, etc.
Furthermore, in this commandment we may see a lively portraiture of the state of all mankind. Here we see two sorts of men: some are pertaining to Babylon, a people running on to their destruction; some again are a people of God severed from Babylon and reserved to life everlasting. If any ask the cause of this distinction, I answer,
"It is the very will of God vouchsafing mercy to some, and forsaking others by withdrawing His mercy from them for the better declaration of His justice." Thus says the Lord, "I have reserved seven thousand that never bowed the knee to Baal" (Rom. 11:4). And the prophet Isaiah says, "Unless the Lord had reserved a remnant, we had been as Sodom and Gomorrah" (Isa. 1:9). By this distinction, we are taught above all things to seek to be of the number of God's people and to labor for assurance of this in our own consciences. For if all should be saved, less care would suffice. But this mercy is not common to all, and therefore the more to be thought upon.
Lastly, here I note the special care that God has over His own children. He first gives them warning to depart before He begins to execute His judgment upon His enemies with whom they live—that they might not be partakers of their sins or punishments. Thus, before God would punish Jerusalem, an angel is sent to mark them in the forehead that mourned for the abominations of the people
[Ezek. 9:4]. And in the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt, the angel passed over the houses of the Jews that had their posts sprinkled with the blood of the paschal lamb [Ex. 12:23]. And this passing over betokens safety and preservation in the common destruction, to those that have their hearts sprinkled with the blood of Christ. This blessing of protection should move us all to become true and hearty servants of God. Men usually become members of those societies and corporations where they may enjoy many freedoms and privileges. Well, behold, in the society of the saints of God, which is the true church, there is the freedom from danger in all common destructions, and from eternal vengeance at the last day.
When Esther had procured safety for the Jews, and liberty to revenge themselves upon their enemies, it is said that many of the people of the land became Jews. Even so, considering Christ has procured
freedom from hell, death, and damnation for all that believe in Him, we should labor above all things to become new creatures, enjoining ourselves always to the true church of God.
Hitherto I have spoken of the commandment. Now follows the reason thereof drawn from the end: "that they be not partakers of her sins: and that they receive not of her plagues." Here I might stand long to show what be the sins of the Church of Rome, but I will only name the principal [sins].
The first sin is atheism, and that I prove on this manner. Atheism is twofold: open, [and] colored. Open atheism is when men, both in word and deed, deny God and His Word. Colored atheism is not so manifest, and it has two degrees: The first is when men acknowledge
God the Creator and Governor of heaven and earth, and yet deny the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus the Ephesians, before they received the gospel, are said to be without God, whom in their natural judgment they acknowledged [Eph. 2:12]—because they denied Christ and consequently worshipped an idol of their own brain in that they worshipped God out of Christ. And in this respect, though the Samaritans worshipped the God of Abraham, yet our
Savior Christ says, "they worshipped they knew not what" (John 4:22). And the psalmist says of the Gentiles that "their gods are idols" (Ps. 96:5). In this degree of atheism are placed Turks and Jews at this day, the anti-Trinitarians and Arians, and all that conceive and worship God out of the Trinity. The second degree is, when men do rightly acknowledge the unity of the Godhead in the Trinity of persons, yet so, as by other necessary consequents partly of their doctrine and partly of the service of God, they overturn that which they have well maintained. And thus I say, that the very religion of the Church of Rome is a kind of atheism. For whereas it makes the merit of the works of men to concur with the grace of God, it overthrows the grace of God [Romans 11]. In word they acknowledge the infinite justice and mercy of God, but by consequent both are denied. How can that be infinite justice, which may any way be appeased by human satisfaction? And how shall God's mercy be
infinite when we—by our own satisfactions—must add a supply to the satisfaction of Christ? Again, "He that hath not the Son, hath not the Father" (1 John 2:23). And he that has neither Father nor Son, denies God.
Now the present Roman religion has not the Son—that is, Jesus Christ, God and man, the Mediator of mankind—but has transformed Him into a feigned Christ. And I show it thus: For one,
Jesus Christ, in all things like unto us in His humanity, sin only excepted, they have framed a Christ to whom they ascribe two kinds of existing: one natural, whereby He is visible, touchable, and circumscribed in heaven; the other not only above but also against nature; by which He is substantially—according to His flesh, in the hands of every priest, in every host, and in the mouth of every communicant—invisible, untouchable, uncircumscribed. And thus, in effect, they abolish His manhood. Yes, they disgrade Him of His offices. For one Jesus Christ, the only King, Lawgiver, and Head of the church, they join unto Him the pope; not only as a vicar, but also as a fellow, in that they give unto him power to make laws binding conscience, to resolve and determine infallibly the sense of Holy
Scripture, properly to pardon sin both in respect of fault and temporal punishment, to have authority over the whole earth and a part of hell, to depose kings, to whom under Christ every soul is to be subject, [and] to absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance, etc. For one Jesus Christ, the only real priest of the New Testament, they enjoin many secondary priests unto Him, which offer Christ daily in the mass for the sins of the quick and the dead. For one Jesus Christ, the all-sufficient Mediator of intercession, they have added many fellows unto Him to make request for us, namely, as many saints as be in the pope's calendar. Lastly, for the only merits of Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased, they have devised a treasury of the church, containing—beside the merits of Christ—the surplus of the merits of saints, to be dispensed to men at the discretion of the pope. And thus we see that Christ, and consequently God Himself to be worshipped in Christ, is transformed into a fantasy or idol of man's conceit. Again, there is always a proportion between the
worship of God and our persuasion of Him. And men, in giving unto God any worship, have respect to His nature, that both may be suitable, and He well-pleased. Let us then see what manner of worship the Roman religion affords: It is for the greatest part mere will-worship, without any allowance or commandment from God, as Durand in his Rationale in effect acknowledges. It is a carnal service standing of innumerable bodily rites and ceremonies, borrowed partly from the Jews and partly from the heathen. It is divided between God and some of His creatures, in that they are worshipped both with one kind of worship, let them paint it as they can. Thus then, if by their manner of worshipping God, we may judge how they conceive of Him—as we may—they have plainly turned the true God into a fantasy of their own. For God is no otherwise to be conceived than He has revealed Himself in His creatures and Word—and especially in Christ, who is the graven image of the Person of the Father.
The second sin is idolatry, and that as gross as was ever among the heathen. And it is to be seen in two things: First, that they worship the saints with religious worship, which without exception is proper to God. Yes, they transform some of them into detestable idols, making them in truth mediators of redemption, especially the virgin
Mary, whom they call "a Lady, a Goddess, a Queen, whom Christ her Son obeys in heaven, a mediatress: or life, hope, the medicine of the diseased." And they pray unto her thus, "Prepare you glory for us: defend us from our enemies, and in the hour of death receive us, loose the bonds of the guilty, bring light to the blind, drive away all devils. Show yourself to be a mother. Let Him receive your prayers."
Again, their idolatry is manifest, in that they worship God in, at, or before images; having no commandment so to do, but the contrary.
They allege that they use and worship images only in a remembrance of God. But this is all one as if an unchaste wife should receive many lovers into her house in the absence of her husband and, being reproved, should answer that they were the friends of her husband and that she kept them only in remembrance of him. Third, their idolatry exceeds the idolatry of the heathen, in that they worship a
breaden god, or Christ in and under the forms of bread and wine.
And if Christ according to His humanity be absent from the earth, as I have proved, the popish host is as abominable an idol as ever was.
The third sin is the maintenance of adultery. And that is manifest: first of all, in the toleration of the stewes, flat against the commandment of God. "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a whore keeper of the sons of Israel"
(Deut. 23:17). And this toleration is an occasion of uncleanness to many young men and women that otherwise would abstain from all such kind of filthiness. And what an abomination is this, when brother and brother, father and son, nephew and uncle, shall come to one and the same harlot, one before or after the other? Second, their law beyond the fourth degree allows the marriage of any persons; and by this means they sometime allow incest. For in the unequal collateral line, the person next the common stock is a father or mother to the brother's or sister's posterity, as for example:
1. John Anne Nicholas 2. Thomas 3. Lewis 4. Roger 5. Anthony 6. James Here Anne and Nicholas are brother and sister, and Anne is distant from James six degrees, he being her nephew afar off. And the marriage between them is allowed by the Church of Rome, they not
being within the compass of four degrees, which nevertheless is against the law of nature. For Anne, being the sister of Nicholas, is instead of a mother to all that are begotten of Nicholas, even to James, and James's posterity. Yet thus much I grant, that the daughter of Anne may lawfully marry James or Anthony, the case being altered, because they are not one to another as parents and children.
The fourth sin is magic, sorcery, or witchcraft, in the consecration of the host in which they make their breaden god; in exorcisms over holy bread, holy water, and salt; in the casting out or driving away of devils, by the sign of the cross, by solemn conjurations, by holy water, by the ringing of bells, by lighting tapers, by relics, and such like. For these things have not their supposed force either by creation or by any institution of God in His Holy Word; and therefore if anything be done by them, it is from the secret operation of the devil himself.
The fifth sin is that in their doctrine they maintain perjury, because they teach with one consent that a papist examined may answer doubtfully against the dire intention of the examiner, framing another meaning unto himself in the ambiguity of his words. As for example, when a man is asked whether he said or heard mass in such a place. Though he did, they affirm he may say no, and swear unto it, because he was not there to reveal it to the examiner. Whereas in the very law of nature, he that takes an oath should swear according to the intention of him that has power to minister an oath; and that in truth, justice, judgment. Let them clear their doctrine from all defense of perjury if they can.
The sixth sin is, that they reverse many of God's commandments, making no sin [that] which God's Word makes a sin. Thus they teach,
"that if any man steal some little thing that is thought not to cause any notable hurt, it is no mortal sin"; that, "the officious lie, and the lie made in sport, are venial sins"; that, "to pray for our enemies in particular, is no precept, but a counsel, and that none is bound to
salute his enemy in the way of friendship," flat against the rule of Christ in Matthew 5:47, where the word ἀσπἀσησθε signifies all manner of duty and courtesy. That, "rash judgment, though consent come thereto, is regularly but a venial sin." That, "it is lawful otherwise to fain holiness." That, "the painting of the face is ordinarily but a venial sin." That, "it is not lawful to forbid begging," whereas the Lord forbad there should be any beggar in Israel
[Deuteronomy 15]. Again, they teach that men in their choler, when they are chiding and swear, wounds and blood, are not indeed blasphemers.
Lastly, their writers use manifest lying to justify their doctrine. They plead falsely that all antiquity is on their side, whereas it is as much against them as for them; and as much for us as them. Again, their manner has been and is still to prove their opinions, by forged and counterfeit writings of men, some whereof I will name:
1. Saint James's Liturgy.
2. The Canons of the Apostles.
3. The books of Dionysius Areopagita, and namely, De Hierarchia Ecclesiastica.
4. The Decretal Epistles of the Popes.
5. Pope Clement's Works.
6. Some of the epistles of Ignatius.
7. Origen's book of repentance. His homilies in diversos sanctos, Commentaries on Job, and Book of Lamentation.
8. Chrysostom's Liturgy.
9. Basil's Liturgy and his Ascetica.
10. Augustine's book de 8 quest. Dulcitii, A Book of True and False Repentance, Serm. de secto commemorationis animarum, Book de dogm., Ecclesiast. Serm. ad fratres in Hereom., Ser. of Peter's Chair,
Book of Visiting the Sick, etc.
11. Justin Martyr's Questions and Answers.
12. Athanasius's Epistle to Pope Felix.
13. Bernard's Sermons of the Lord's Supper.
14. Jerome's epistle ad Demetriadem favoring of Pelagius.
15. Tertullian's de Monogamia.
16. Cyprian's de Chrismate & de ablutione pedum.
17. In the Council of Sardica, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th canons are forged.
18. In the Council of Nice, all save 20 are forged.
19. Certain Roman Councils under Sylvester are forged. For he was at this time dead, and therefore could not confirm them. Zozom. lib 2.
20. To the sixth canon of the Council of Nice are patched these words, "That the Roman Church has always had the supremacy."
21. Lastly, I will not omit that Pope Sozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus, falsified the canons of the Council of Nice, to prove appeals from all places to Rome; so as the bishops of Africa were forced to send for the true copies of the said Council from Constantinople and the churches of Greece.
I might here rehearse many other sins which with the former call for vengeance upon the Roman church, but it shall suffice to have named a few of the principal.
Now in this reason, our Savior Christ prescribes another main duty to His own people: and that is to be careful to eschew all the sins of the Church of Rome, that they may withal escape her deserved plagues and punishments. And from this prescribed duty I observe two things: The first is that every good servant of God must carefully avoid contracts of marriage with professed papists, that is, with such as hold the pope for their head and believe the doctrine of the Council of Trent. For in such matches men hardly keep faith and good conscience, and hardly avoid communication with the sins of the Roman church. A further ground of this doctrine I thus propound: In God's Word there is mentioned a double league between man and man, country and country. The first is the league of concord, when one kingdom binds itself to live in peace with another for the maintenance of traffic without disturbance. And this kind of league may stand between God's church and the enemies thereof. The second is the league of amity, which is when men, people, or countries bind themselves to defend each other in all causes, and to make the wars of the one the wars of the other. And this league may not be made with those that be enemies of God.
Jehoshaphat, otherwise a good king, made this kind of league with Ahab and is therefore reproved by the prophet, saying, "Wouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate the Lord?" (2 Chron.
19:2). Now the marriages of Protestants with papists are private leagues of amity between person and person, and therefore not to be allowed. Again, [the Lord says,] "Judah hath defiled the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughters of a strange god" (Mal. 2:11), where is flatly condemned marriages made with the people of a false god. Now the papists by the consequents of their doctrine and religion turn the true Jehovah into an idol of their own brain, as I have showed, and the true Christ revealed in the written
Word into a feigned "christ" made of bread. Yet if such a marriage be once made and finished, it may not be dissolved. For such parties sin not simply in that they marry, but because they marry not in the Lord, being of divers religions. The fault is not in the substance of marriage, but in the manner of making it. And for this cause the apostle commands the believing party not to forsake or refuse the