for a more filthy bottle Besides which is more vnreasonable he maketh things to be of a contradictory opposition which are one and the same in nature for to giue diuine honour to the creature is not Idolatry saith hee but to worship a creature as God is Idolatry whereas in verie truth to giue diuine honour to a creature is to worship that creature as God and to worship a creature as God is no more nor lesse then to giue diuine honour vnto it as any man of vulgar sense may easily discerne 9. Scripture for if none were Idolaters but they which accounted the Idols which they worshipped to be very Gods then were not the Israelites Idolaters when they adored the golden Calfe in the Wildernesse nor the tenne Tribes when they offered sacrifice to Ieroboams Calues at Dan and Bethel nor the Iewes when they bowed the knee and buâ—nt Incense to the Image of Baal for they did not esteeme these Images as very Gods but in them the two former worshipped the true God and the latter the God of the Sidonians which was the same and yet all these are condemned as Idolaters in the Booke of God nay many of the Heathen themselues were to be freed from Idolatry as the Athenians who on that Altar which was dedicated to an vnknowne God worshipped ignorantly the true God which made the world and all things that are therein as Saint Paul declareth Acts 17. 23. and the Ephesians who worshipping the great Goddesse Diana did not ascribe diuine power to the Image which was like vnto a great pillar full of dugs but vnto nature represented by that Image or rather God the nourisher and conseruer of nature of all things in nature and the rest of the wiser rancke of the Gentiles who as some of the Romish Writers themselues confesse worshipped vnwittingly that same God which was preached by the Apostles and though they set before them diuers Images yet their meaning was to worship in them the true God 10. Fathers for all of them with one consent define Idolatry to be nothing else but the attributing of diuine honour to the Creatures as Thomas Aquinas out of them all concludes that this is Idolatry quando honor soli Deo debitus exhibetur creaturae that is when that honour which is onely due vnto God is bestowed vpon a creature Hee that would see the Fathers particular definitions hereof let him reade the places quoted in the Margent which for breuity sake I ouerpasse And to conclude to see how grosly this Iesuite doth erre from the scope of truth and how vnaduisedly he brings in that fond addition as vnto God the Catechisme of the Councill of Trent doth plainly affirme that the Heathen set vp vnto God the Images of diuers creatures that the Israelites worshipped the true God in the golden Image of the Calfe These are the two vaine euâ—sions of these two great pillars whose workes are approued by the censure of the Church to bee wholly Orthodex and to containe nothing contrary to the Catholike verity 11. But enough of them let vs leaue the two Cubs in their holes and come to the hunting of the olde Foxe the Idolatrous Church it selfe That the Church of Rome attributes diuine honour to creatures appeareth by this because trust and confidence inuocation vowes sacrifice adoration all which are giuen by them vnto creatures are all parts of diuine honour and worship For trust and confidence the Prophet Ieremie so appropriateth it to the Lord that he denieth it to all other Ier. 17. 5 7. Cursed be hee that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme and withdraweth his heart from the Lord. And then he addeth but blessed bee the man that trusteth in the Lord and whose hope the Lord is And S. Peter more plainely 1. Pet. 5. 7. doth bid vs to cast all our care vpon God Now if all confidence and our trust or care is to be reposed in the Lord then there is no part nor piece thereof to beeb stowed vpon any creature and that as all so onely it belongeth to the Lord. Christ himselfe teacheth Math. 4. 10. interpreting that place of Deut. 6. 13. and 10. 20. for whereas Moses saith Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and serue him Christ the best Expositor of the Law that euer was himselfe being the end and perfection of the Law doth thus alledge it adding this word onely vnto the Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serue Whereby he euidently declareth that all the parts of Gods worship are to bee restrained by this word onely that is that they so belong vnto the Lord that it is sacriledge if not Idolatry to communicate them to any other and so of inuocation vowes sacrifice and adoration the Scripture doth ascribe them to God as parts of his worship and therefore by the same rule onely to God and none else the reason hereof is giuen by the Lord himselfe Esai 42. 5. I am the Lord saith he this is my name and my glory will I not giue to any other but his worship is his glory therefore no part of this may be giuen to any other 12. To this also consent all the Fathers Ierome saith If we must put our confidence in any let vs haue our affiance in God alone And Basil As it is meete to worship nothing beside God so wee must fixe our hope in one God Augustine thus Saints are to be honoured for imitation and not to be adored for Religion Epiphanius thus Let Mary bee honoured but not adored let the Father Sonne and holy Ghost bee adored Lastly Ambrose determines the poynt most effectually thus Is any so mad saith hee that will giue to the Earle the honour of the King Yet these men marke this you idolatrous brood of Babylon doe not thinke themselues guilty who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature and leauing the Lord adore their fellow seruants as though there were any thing more reserued for God This is iust your case and therefore by the iudgement of this good Father you stand as guilty before Gods iudgement seat of Idolatry 13. But all these are but generall considerations let vs therefore see in particular how these parts of Gods worship are by the Religion of the Church of Rome assigned vnto creatures and to what creatures they are assigned that the Strumpet of Babylon may haue no mantle to couer her vncleannesse I might here begin with the Pope himselfe and shew how hee is made an Idoll in the Church of Rome and worshipped as God yea takes to himselfe the titles of God and suffers himselfe to be called God and receiueth adorations prostrations and kissing of the seete from all his followers as is testified by their owne corrected Canon Law and diuers of their learned Doctours whereby hee doth plainely shew himselfe to be Antichrist according to S. Pauls description I might
three hote moneths of the yeare And Iohannes a Casa Archbishop of Beneuentum and Legate to Pope Iulius the third set forth a Booke in Italian Meeter in commendation of this execrable sinne 6. Adultery and fornication But they affirme and hold that the Pope hath power to dispence with all manner of persons in the contract of Matrimonie the Father with his daughter and the mother with her Sonne onely excepted And therefore Vladislaus King of Hungarie and Ludouicus the French King by meanes of dispensation purchased from the Pope put away their lawfull wiues and married others And for Fornication the Popes Canon is famous Hee that hath not a wife but for a wife or instead of a wife a Concubine let him not for that be kept from the Communion And Bellarmines doctrine confirmeth the same Canon of the Pope and crosseth the Canon of Christ for thus he writeth that speech of the Apostle they that cannot containe let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne cannot bee rightly said of them that haue vowed for both are naught both to burne and to marrie yea it is worse of the two to marrie whatsoeuer the Protestants say to the contrarie This is the 75. Grauamen complained of by the Germanes that the Bishops and their Officials did tolerate Priests to haue Concubines vnder the paiment of a certaine annuall rent of money Which also Espensâ—â—s a learned Bishop of their owne confesseth and complayneth of both in his second Booke de Continentia and in his Commentarie vpon Titus Nay that which is horrible to speake and almost incredible to beleeue the Germans in their 91. Grauamen coÌ„plained that not onely those Priests that had their whores payd yearely rent for it but euen those that were continent and would haue no Conenbines must pay the rent and then be it at their choyce whether they would haue a Concubine or no. And lest any should thinke that Priests onely were thus dispensed withall and that their Concubines were in stead of wiues though for the auoyding of scandall they might not haue that name as if the name of a wife were more scandalous then the name of a Concubine O height of impiety let all the world know that not onely the Clergie but also the Laity were in this case dispensed withall as might be prooued by many examples if need were May not this Church than rightly be sâ—led The Whore of Babylon which thus authoriseth whoredome in all degrees and turneth a filthy sinne into a lawfull and warrantable act 7. Periurie But it is a prouerbe in the Popes Court as testifieth Peter Martyr Quòd non est Regum Magistratuum sed Mercatorum stare iuramentis It is not the part of Kings and Magistrates but of Marchants to stand to their oaths And this is one of their renowned positions The Pope may dispense with any oath be it neuer so lawfull Vpon which ground Azorius the Iesuite defendeth Pope Gregorie the twelfth who in the time of a great schisme did openly and solemnly sweare that if he were made Pope he would giue it ouer againe but being elected he performed nothing lesse And also the same Iesuite auoucheth that other mens oaths may be dissolued by the Pope And the glosse vpon the Decretals sayth That a man is no further bound to the obseruation of any oath then it shall like the Pope And the reason is added Quia in omni iurament o excipitur authoritas maioris in euery oath the authority of a superiour must bee excepted which superiour by their doctrine is the Pope And for their practice herein I appeale to Cardinall Iulian the Popes Legate in Hungarie who not onely licenced but perswaded Vladislaus the King to breake the league and falsifie his oath made to Amurath the Turke which was the cause not onely of his ouerthrow but of the losse of a great part of that famous Kingdome behold the fruits of these Romane Prophets And to leape from a Cardinall to a Pope I call to witnesse Clement the 7. who dispensed with Francis the French King for his oath sworne to Charles the fift at his deliuery out of prison And lest any should thinke this to be a particular blot of one Pope adde to him Gregorie the 7. who released Rodolph the King of Sueâ—ia from his oath of obedience to the Emperour Henrie the 4. and conferred the Empire vpon him And Pope Zachary Boniface the eight and Benedict de la lune who freed the French men from their oath of obedience which they ought vnto their Kings And lastly Pius Quintus who by his Bull of excommunication against our late famous Queene of blessed memory discharged her subiects from their oath of allegeance whereby many open rebellions were raised vp against the State and secret treasâ—ns plotted against her sacred person 8. Disobedience to Parents Rebellion against lawfull Princes and murdering of them also if they stand in their way but the Pope can dispense with children if they shall take vpon them the vow of single life after fourteene yeares of age and enter into a Sodomiticall Cloyster and the Father hath nothing to doe with his childe being there once encloistered except he cannot liue without his helpe And for Princes if the Pope shall excommunicate a Prince or suborne a wicked traytor to murder his Soueraigne then is this rebellion and murther not onely a warrantable but also a meritorious and an heroicall act Witnesse at home the Irish rebellion heartened forward by Doctor Saunders by the Popes instigation and abroad the murther of Henry the third the French King by Iames Clement which bloudy deed was after highly commended by the Pope in his consistoriall Oration to be seene in print And of Henry the fourth of late dayes by hellish Rauilliac with many such like which I could here produce but that fitter occasion will be offered hereafter for their larger discouery 9. These few particulars are sufficient to shew what a gap is layd open to all loosnes by this Romish doctrine of dispensations which that it is not our malicious collection as they affirme but a necessary consequence One of their owne learned Fryers confesseth as much Vidâ—mâ—â— quotidie à Romana curia c. We see daily sayth hee so large yea so dissolute dispensations come from the Court of ROME that the world is not able to endure them neither doe they tend onely to the scandall of the weake but of those also that are strong I omit here the Popes dispensing with the cure of soules whereby hee plainely declareth that though hee proudly stileth himselfe supremus pastor animarum the chiefe shepheard of soules yet he is maximus vastator animarum the greatest hauocker of soules that is on the earth the Deuill onely excepted who goeth beyond him a little I must needes confesse for when he licenceth some of his Cardinals to enioy some
it is Romish is not the true Catholique Religion of CHRIST but the seduction of Antichrist THE PREAMBLE THat which Ireneus an ancient and godly Father of the Church speaketh of all Heretickes that all the Helleborus in the world is not sufficient to purge them that they may vomit out their follie may truely be spoken of the Church of Rome and her adherents that it is a difficult matter if not almost impossible to reclaime her from her errors and to heale her wounds All the balme of Gilead will not do it nor all the spirituall phisicke that can be ministred for there are two sinnes which of all other are most hard to bee relinquished Whoredome and Drunkennesse the one because it is so familiar and naturall to the flesh the other because it breedeth by custome such an vnquenchable thirst in the stomacke as must euer anon be watered with both which spirituall diseases the Church of ROME is infected She is the Whore of Babylon with whome the Kings of the Earth haue committed fornication and who hath made drunke with the Wine of her fornications all the Inhabitants of the Earth In regard of the first Ieremie prophecied of her that though paines be taken to heale her yet shee could not be healed And in regard of the second Saint Paul prophecied that GOD would send them strong delusion that they should beleeue lies that all they might bee damned that receiued not the loue of the truth Notwithstanding though the hope bee as little of the reclaiming of most of them as of turning an Eunuch into a man or making a blacke Moore white yet I haue propounded in this discourse a strong potion compounded of ingredients which if they bee not past cure may purge and cleanse them of their disease and reduce them to the sanity of Christian Religion Which if their queasie stomackes shall eyther refuse to take or hauing taken shall vomit vp againe and not suffer them to worke vpon their consciences yet this benefit will arise that God shall be glorified the truth manifested and all that loue the truth confirmed and they also themselues that are so drowned in error that they will rather pull in others ouer head and eares vnto them and so drowne together then be drawne out of the myre by any helpe shall be conuinced in their consciences of their most grosse apostacie With this confidence towards Gods glorie and the good of his Church though with little hope of recouering them from their obdurate blindnesse I enter into my intended taske desiring the Lord to giue a blessing to these poore labours which I consecrate to my Lord and Master Iesus Christ whom I serue and the Church his Spouse of which I professe my selfe to bee one of the meanest members MOTIVE I. That Religion which in many points giueth libertie to sinne is not the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of ROME ergo c. THe first proposition is an vndoubted truth and needs no confirmation especially seeing S. Iames describeth true Religion by these attributes pure and vndefiled And S. Paul calleth it the mysterie of godlinesse and the doctrine according to godlinesse And herein consisteth an essentiall difference betwixt the true Religion and all false ones so that it must needs follow that that Religion which is essentially the cause and occasion of sinne and openeth a wide window to vngodlinesse cannot be the truth of God but must needs fetch it beginning from the deuill who is the author of all euill The Gospell indeede may by accident be the occasion of euill as S. Paul saith The law is the occasion of sinne for it stirs vp contention and strife and discouers the corruptions of Mans heart and by opposing against them as a damme against a streame makes them to swell and boyle and burst forth beyond the bounds howbeit here the cause is not in the Gospell or Lawe but in the corruption of mans heart which the more it is stirred the more it rageth and striueth to shew it selfe But neuer yet was the doctrine of godlinesse the cause of wickednesse nor the pure and vndefiled Religion of Christ Iesus an essentiall procurer and prouoker vnto sinne 3. This therefore being thus manifest all the question and difficultie remaineth in the second proposition to wit that the Religion of the Romish Church is such as openeth a gappe vnto sinne and giueth notorious libertie and scope to vngodlinesse and that not by way of accident or occasion but necessarily as the cause to the effect Qua data necessariò soquitur effectus as the Logicians speake and therefore being an â—npure and defiled Religion and the mysterie of iniquitie not the mysterie of godlinesse it cannot be that true Religion which Christ our Sauiour brought with him from heauen and left here vpon earth blamelesse and vnspotted like himselfe to be the way to lead vs vnto heauen where hee is 4. That the Romish Religion is a polluted and defiled Religion tending to libertie and loosenesse Let the indifferent Reader iudge by these few instances deriued out of the verie bowels of their Church and being articles of their faith and grounds of their Religion And first to beginne with their doctrine of dispensations whereby they teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with the word of God and with euery commandement of the Law and not onely with the Law but with the Gospell and Epistles of Paul to what horrible loosenesse and lewdnesse of life doth it tend for to omit that it containeth in it open blasphemie by their owne rule which is that In praecepto superioris non debet dispensare inferior the inferiour may not dispense with the precept of the superiour by which the Pope dispensing with Gods lawe is not oneâ—y equalled but exalted aboue God what sinne is there bee it neuer so hainous which there is not libertie giuen to commit by this licencious doctrine 5. Incest But Pope Martin the first gaue a dispensation to one to marrie his owne sister and not his wiues sister only as some of the Romish crue would dawbe ouer this filthie wall because it is in Antoninus Cum quadam eius germana for Siluester Prieriâ— Bartholomeus Fumus and Angelus de Clauafio speake more plainely Cumsua germana that is with his owne naturall sister Another Pope dispensed with Henry the eight to marrie his sister in law and with Philip of Spaine to marrie his owne Niece and Clement the 7. licenced Petrus Aluaradus the Spaniard to marrie two sisters at once and no maruaile seeing it is the very doctrine of the Romish Church that the Pope can dispense in all the degrees of Consanguinitie and Affinitie saue onely with the Father and his daughter and with the Mother and her Son Sodometrie But Pope Sixtus the fourth licensed the Cardinall of Saint Lucie and his familie to vse freely that sinne not to bee named in the
practice Their principles are these As long as the Prince continueth excommunicate the Subiect is freed from the oath of subiection this is the Position of a Cardinall whose authority was so great in the Church of Rome that whatsoeuer he wrote was allowed as sound and authenticall without examination or supervizing To him I adde a Bishop whose writings after supervision and examination were approued as Catholique doctrine and to containe in them nothing contrary to the receiued faith of the Romane Church his Position is this Assoone as a Christian King becomes hereticall forthwith people are freed from their subiection The condition in the first Position is if the King be excommunicate in the second if he be hereticall which though different in termes yet in substance are all one for euery heretique is excommunicate quatenus apertè haereticus in that he is an open heretique if not by name yet in deed and by right and so Subiects may lawfully deny him obedience saith another Iesuite and what is an hereticke in their diuinity I pray you Marry Whosoeuer maintaineth any doctrine expresly condemned by the Church of Rome hee is to be accounted say they an obstinate hereticke To these adde the sentence of another Cardinall euen our owne Countriman Al in his Apology for Stanlies treason who ioyneth both these two conditions together as two twinnes By reason saith he of Queene Elizabeths excommunication and heresie it was not onely lawfull for any of her Subiects but euen they were bound in conscience to depriue her of any strength which lay in their power to doe and to deliuer her Armies Townes or fortresses into her enemies hands she no more being the right owner of them But all this while we haue not the pillar of Popery Bellarmine it may be he is of another mind heare therefore his resolution Non licet Christianis tolerare c. It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate a King that is an infidell or an heretike if he endeuour to draw his Subiects to his heresie or infidelity This is braue Bellarmines resolution of this case Neither doth he barely set it downe but laboureth to proue it by many arguments throughout that whole Chapter indeed he pinneth it all vpon the Popes sleeue he must pronounce the King to be an heretike and they like sheepe must auoyde him as a wolfe he must forbid them to obey and they must forthwith fall to rebellion that whole seuenth Chapter is worth the reading if any desire to know the full and compleat doctrine of the Romish Church concerning the poynt of rebellion and treason against Princes And that this was the doctrine not of some few among them but of all in generall Let a Fryer of their owne testifie about three hundred yeares since Sigebert mencioning the Popes proceeding against Henry the Emperor thus writeth Be it spoken with the leaue of all good men this nouelty that I say not heresie had not as yet sprung vp in the world that Gods Priests should teach the people that they owe no subiection to euill Princes and though they haue sworne allegeance to them yet they owe them no fidelity neither shall hee be accounted periur'd which thinketh against the King yea hee that obeyeth him shall be counted for excommunicate and he that doth against him shall be absolued from the guilt of iniustice and periurie Here we may behold the doctrine of that age and withall that by this Fryers iudgement concurring with vs it is not onely nouelty but a point of heresie to dissolue the bond of allegeāce which Subiects owe vnto their Princes vpon any pretence whatsoeuer 3. But all these are but the opinions of priuate men and not the decrees of the Church heare therefore what the Church speaketh by the pretended head thereof the Pope who as they affirme cannot erre whilest he sits in the chaire of Peter to determine matters of faith Gregory the seuenth alias Hildobrand thus determineth We by Apostolicall authority doe absolue all from their oaths which they haue giuen to persons excommunicate And another Pope of later time in his Bull against Queene Elizabeth thus We absolue all Subiects from their faith they haue plight with Elizabeth their Queen A third Pope Paulus Tertius did excommunicate Henry the Eight King of England and commanded his nobles to beare armes against him and to make vp the full squadron of Popes when as the Vniuersite of Salamanca determined that all Catholiques which did not forsake the defence of the English and follow the traytor One all in Ireland did sinne mortally and could not obtaine euerlasting life except they should desist Pope Xistus giueth this censure of their determination Those Diuines saith he haue done the parts of good Lawyers Confessours and Doctours Many more testimonies to this effect might be accumulated but these are sufficient because wee shall haue occasion to speake hereof more at large hereafter to all that are not either bewitched with the enchantments of the whore of Babylon or blinded with preiudice to shew how both in their principles and their practice they maintaine treason and rebellion against Princes contrary to the lawes of God of nature and of man 4. A doctrine Cousin german vnto this of the same kind though not of the same degree is that their Position touching the dissoluing of all bonds of naturall and ciuill society wherby they resolue that no communion or fellowship is to bee held with heretiques that is with Protestants by whatsoeuer bond of nature or ciuility they be obliged therevnto and therefore the Father is bound to dis-inherite and cast off his Sonne the Sonne to deny and disobey his Father the wife is forbidden to render due beneuolence to her husband the seruant is commanded to disobey his Master the debter to deny payment to his Creditor the Countriman to deny his owne Country the kinsman to disclaime his kindred if any of these be heretiques that is be Protestants What a religion is this that not only choaketh the breath of humane society but euen stifleth the life of nature it selfe Hee that desireth to see these things proued let them reade Doctor Mortons first Booke of Romish positions and practices of rebellion and also his reply vnto the moderate answere where he shall find them largely and foundly discouered and confirmed 5. Againe by their doctrine of equiuocation they teach and maintaine open and notorious lying and periury such as the very heathen of stricter life and simpler iudgement abhor'd their doctrine is this A man saith Tollet is not alwaies bound to answere according to the meaning of the asker but may sometimes vse equiuocation and deceiue the hearer this is lawfull saith he whē the Iudge requireth an oth against iustice or when he is not a competent Iudge as another speaketh as for example if the Iudge demand Hast thou done this he may answere I haue not though he
those marke you Romanists that say Let vs doe euill that good may come thereof whose damnation is iust 15. Their other reasons are vaine and idle for what greater liberty can they desire then to be authorized by the head of the Church who cannot erre as they teach and to follow their filthy lusts by letters Patents froÌ„ his vnholynesse for so here it iustly deserueth to be tituled And is this the way to reclaime conuert them froÌ„ their filthines to dwell in gorgious houses to ride opeÌ„ly in goodly chariots to be apparelled like Princes to haue atteÌ„ding on them men clad in braue attire with chaines of gold and costly ornaments yea to be maintained by the Pope and often visited by his Holynesse and his great Cardinals if this be the way to reclaime them let all men of sound sense and reason iudge indifferently 16. Lastly whether it be a meanes to stoppe the course of lust and to refraine whoredomes from spreading farre and wide let vs against Augustine oppose Saint Basill who expounding these words of the Psalme And hath not sit in the chaire of pestilence saith That whoredome stayeth not it selfe in one man but inuadeth a whole Citie for some one comming to an harlot taketh to himselfe a fellow and the same also seekth another fellow and so as a fire being kindled in a Citie stayeth not in the burning one house or two but spreadeth farre and wide and draweth a great destruction with it so this mischiefe being once kindled rangeth ouer all the Citie Oppose also to him Saint Ambrose who writing vpon the 119. Psalme thus sayth Who can nourish burning â—â—ales in his bosome and not bee burnt with them So how can harlots be nourished in a Citie and young men not bee corrupted with wheredome Yea oppose Tertullian also who affirmeth plainely That all Brothel-houses are detestable before God And lastly Iustinian the Emperour who in his Authentikes in the Title De Lenonibus willeth that harlots should bee vtterly banished out of the Citie and sorroweth because hee saw Brothel-houses so nigh vnto the Churches of God And indeed if it were true that it is a meane to restraine whoredome why is it not then restrained at Rome by that meanes I am sure they haue their Stewes And yet Mantuan doubteth not to affirme that for all their Stewes confined into one place Vrbs estiam tota lupanar The whole Citie was become a Stewes To conclude all in one briefe Sylogisme That Religion which is contrary to the Religion of God cannot bee of God but of the Deuill but the Romish Religion in this one poynt is contrary to the Religion of God for the Scripture saith There shall be no whore in Israel the Romanists say There must be whores in Israel that is in the Church for the auoyding of a further mischiefe then which what can be more contradictorie therefore the Romish religion cannot be of God but of the diuell I meane in those poynts wherein it thus crosseth the truth of God 17. But doe they stay at adultery and simple fornication No their religion maintaineth open and notorious incest and such as the better sort of the heathen abominated and this they doe by three doctrines first by that which giueth allowance at least wise toleration to common Stewes and brothel-houses for the auoyding of a further mischiefe as I haue declared in the former Section for Stewes cannot be tolerated but incest also needs must not onely be occasioned but euen after a sort approued the reason is because often it commeth to passe that the Father and the Sonne or two brethren and neere kindred are defiled with one and the same woman and so vnnaturall and horrible incest prohibited by the lawes of God and man is commited And albeit oftentimes this is a thing secret and vnknowne vnto them yet it doth not wash their consciences from the guilt of this foule crime because they are bound to know in what degree she is vnto them of whome they dare presume to haue carnall knowledge And besides the act it selfe being meerely vnlawfull doth take away all excuse together with a secret suspition they should haue if they be not wilfully ignorant that such a thing might be For if that rule of Saint Augustine bee good Vitandum est licitum propter vicinitatem illiciti that which is lawfull is often to be auoyded for the contiguity and neerenesse it hath with that which is vnlawfull how much more is this true that a thing vnlawfull in it owne nature is to be prohibited and auoyded not onely because it is vnlawfull but much more if it bring with it apparaÌ„t feare of a greater mischiefe Now that affinitie is contracted and therefore incest committed not onely by lawfull marriage but also by vnlawfull copulation I thinke no man doubteth seeing that Saint Paul plainely affirmeth That hee which cleaueth to an harlot is made one flesh with her And their owne law sayth that it skils not whether the kindred descendeth from the lawfull marriages or otherwise 18. Their second doctrine maintaining Incest is their opinion touching the Popes power in dispensations for they hold that hee being Christs Vicar on earth may dispense in degrees expresly prohibited by Gods law and so hath and doth if occasion be offered by vertue of this dissipation so it may better be termed with Saint Bernard then dispensation the King of Spaine and Charles the Arch. Duke of Austria married each of them their sisters daughters And Petrus Aluaradus married two sisters at once and such like as you may see more at large in the former demonstration What is this I pray you but to allowe and authorize incest when as they ascribe vnto their holy Father the Pope authority to dispense with it for according to the old rule in Logike Causa causae est causa causati which is the cause of the cause must needes bee also the cause of the effect when as their doctrine therfore vpholds the Popes power to dispense and this power to dispense brings forth Incest a bastardly brat by consequeÌ„t their doctrine must necessarily stand guilty â—f being the first moouer thereof 19. The third doctrine by which this soule sinne is authorized is the generall opinion of the Church touching the extent of degrees of Consanguinity prohibited in marriage for albeit in former ages it was forbidden to marrie within the seuenth degree yet in the Councill of Laterane that Pontificall constitution was abrogated and the prohibition of marriage restrained to the fourth degree inclusiuely so that beyond the fourth degree it might be lawfull for any to marry without exception Which constitution is at this day held for Authenticall and is of force in the Romane Church now this doth giue manifest allowance vnto Incest for whether the supputation be made after the rule of the Ciuill law by generations or of the Canon law by persons yet so â—e
when at any time they are conferred withall about their Religion presently not being able to answer their refuge is to referre vs ouer to their Priests of whose learning and iudgement they haue such a perswasion that though Scripture and reason be against them yet their opinions preuaile more with them then either of these So that hence it is most euident that as the Iewes are bound to beleeue all that their Cachamim teach and not to stand to examine what it is that they teach so the Romanists are bound by their Religion to entertaine into their Creed whatsoeuer is taught them by their ordinary Pastours without all enquirie and search into their doctrines whether they bee true or false And as this is one chiese cause of the Iewes obstinacie against Christian Religion so is it also of that miserable superstition which raigneth in the Church of Rome for if the people were but perswaded that their learned Doctours might erre and deceiue they would certainely suspect their doctrines and try them by the touchstone of the holy Scriptures and so at length might be reclaimed from their errours thus they march together in this point also 20. Againe the Romanists are like vnto the Iewes in their doctrine and practice of praying for the dead for they hold and teach that prayer sacrifice is to be offered for the dead grounding their opinion partly vpon the example of Iudas Maccabeus who as they affirme procured sacrifice to bee offered by the Priests for the dead that had trespassed by taking to themselues the idolatrous iewels of the Iamnites and partly vpon the Thalmudical traditions of diuers of their ancient Rabbines but they haue no ground nor warrant for the same in the word of God for as concerning the bookes of the Maccabees they themselues acknowledge that they are not Canonicall Scripture and for the Scripture we finde no such precept or example in the whole volume of the olde and new Testament neither is it likely that God would haue omitted in the law that kinde of sacrifice for the soules of men where he prescribeth sinne-offerings for bodily pollutions and euery light trespasse if he had thought it necessarie That this is the opinion and practice of the Iewes their practice at this day beareth witnesse for they vse to say ouer the dead bodies a certaine prayer called Kaddish by the vertue whereof as they thinke they are deliuered out of Purgatory especially if it bee said by the sonne for his father and if hee haue no sonne by the whole Congregation on their Sabboth dayes And that this also is the doctrine and vsage of the Church of Rome besides their Bookes their Masses for the quicke and the dead their Diriges and Trentals doe sufficiently testifie And that they fetch this custome from the Iewes may appeare by two reasons first because one mayne argument of theirs which they call a demonstration to proue the lawfulnesse hereof is deriued from the example of the Iewes as we may see both in Galatinus Coccius and our late English Apologists And secondly because as it is confessed by their owne Bredenbachius it is not found in all the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists in the new Testament and we may adde hereunto neither in the olde vnlesse by distorted and misalledged texts which are not worth the answering except onely that fore-named passage of the Maccabees which notwithstanding is corrupted both by the Translatour and also the Relatour Iason Cyreneus as is vnanswerably proued by our famous Country-man Doctour Reynolds the word Dead being cogged into the Text by some cunning Iuggler which is not in the Originall wherein lyeth the pith of the argument And therefore it must needes follow that the Romanists doe merely Iudaize herein And for the Fathers which they alledge for the proofe of this article let their owne Cassander giue satisfaction who affirmeth that the ancient Church vsed prayers for the dead either as thankfull congratulations for their present ioyes or esse as restimonies of their hope and desire of their future resurrection and consummate blessednes both in their bodies and soules and this hee proueth out of Cyprian Augustine Epiphanius Chrysostome and ancient Leiturgies 21. Againe they Iudaize in their doctrines of Limbus Patrum and Purgatorie for Purgatorie it hath beene alreadie touched in the former section and for Limbus Patrum it is coâ—sessed by our aduersaries themselues that it is the tenent of the Iewish Rabbines warranted as they say onely by a Text in Ecclefiasticus which being both corrupted in the translation as our worthy Champion Doctour Whitaker hath proued and being also no part of Canonicall Scripture doth plainely shew that it is a mere Rabbinish conceit hatched in their brainsick Thalmud and not bred in holy writ Yet our Romanists lay fast hold on the same opinion without any other certaine ground to build it vpon For as touching the places of Scripture collected by them to proue this assertion they are either so impertinent or distorted that the meanest iudgement may easily discry their weaknesse for either they are deriued from a word of an ambiguous signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the speach of Iacob Gen. 37. 35. which signifieth sometimes the graue and sometimes hell by the confession of their great Bellarmine or from a Parable as that place in Luke 16. concerning Abrahams bosome confessed by Maldonate to be parabolicall because bodies are not yet tormented in hell but here is mention of a finger and a tongue or from an allegorie as is that place of Zacharie 9. 11. where is mention made of loosing Prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water which both Salmeron and Bellarmine acknowledge to make more for Purgatory then for Limbus but in truth for neither it signifying literally nothing else but the deliuerance of the Israelites out of the Babylonish captiuity and tipically the redemption of the Elect from the bondage of Sathan and hell which they are liable vnto or lastly are merely impertinent as those places Heb. 11. 39. 4. 1. Reg. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 19 the first whereof intendeth the consummate and perfect blessednesse of body and soule which the Fathers had not attayned vnto The second meaneth not the true Samuel but the deuill in his shape and likenesse and the third is to bee referred not to Christs dâ—scension into hell but to the operation of his Diuinitie which he exercised from the beginning of the world preaching by the mouthes of iust men as both S. Augustine and Aquinas expound the place How can any sound conclusion now be drawne from Texts that are either equiuocall or allegoricall or parabolicall or impertinent and all by their owne confessions Therefore it must needes follow that seeing this doctrine hath no sure foundation in Gods word but is founded vpon the Iewes prophane Thalmud that it is no better then a mere Rabbinish
thereof 18. This is Bellarmines But to the first I answere That though the people ought to doe so that is adore vpon condition which notwithstanding is a thing neuer heard of before in any diuine worship and implieth necessity of danger yet because not one amongst a thousand doe so hauing neuer heard that distinction once named in their liues nor vnderstanding what it meaneth therefore they are for this neuer a whit freed from Idolatry To the second I answere that oftentimes the Priest hath neither actuall nor vertuall intention for what intent had the Monke Bernhardine that poysoned the hoast to the intent that he might poyson the Emperour Henry of Lucenburgh as he also did at the instigation of Robert King of Sicily What intent had that Priest that either did or would haue poysoned Pope Victor the second as witnesseth Baronius or those Priests that poysoned William Archbishop of Yorke for hee was poysoned at the Masse by the treason of his owne Chaplins both with that which was in the Chalice If the Priest bee an Athiest as many of the Popes themselues were what intention haue they of consecrating Christs body when they beleeue not that Christ hath a body or that there is a Christ now liuing in the heauens and sitting at the right hand of his Father to be present in the Sacrament or what intention can they haue to doe that which the Church doth when as they beleeue not that there is a Church but that all Religion is a fable and a matter of policy Here must needes be grosse and notable Idolatry by their owne confession for I argue Ex concessis that is out of their owne grounds So that we must iustly conclude notwithstanding all their distinctions and shifts that the Church of Rome in worshipping the consecrated hoast and that with such worship as is due vnto God is guilty of Artolatry that is of worshipping a piece of bread in stead of God then which what can be more Heathenish and palpable Idolatry 19. Secondly wee indite them of Idolatry for that they teach that Images are to bee worshipped with diuine worship and in their practice they giue vnto stockes and stones the honour which belongeth vnto God For this is their doctrine that the Images of the blessed Trinity and of Christ and of the Virgin Mary the mother of Christ and of other Saints are to be had and retained especially in Churches ijsque debitum honorem venerationem impertiandam and that due honour and worship is to be giuen vnto them they be the words of the Councill of Trent Now what that due honour and worship is that is a great question among them some thinke it is the same which appertaineth to the persons whom they represent as if it be the Image of God or Christ then it is to be worshipped latria that is with the highest degree of worship if of the Virgin Mary then with a little lower degree called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if of the Saints then with the lowest which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this is the tenet of many of their Rabbies as reporteth Vasques the Iesuite to wit Aquinas Caietane Bonauenture Alexander Coster and diuers others Others thinke that the Image is not to be worshipped at all but onely the Samplar before the Image Of this opinion were Durandus Alphonsus de Castro and some others but it is confuted by Catharine and vtterly reiected by Bellarmine A third sort were of opinion that Images ought to bee worshipped in themselues and properly with a lesse honour then the Samplar and therefore that no Image was to be worshipped with Latria Of this opinion were Peresius Catharinus Sanders Gabriel c. But the Councill of Trent which is their Church in the wordes of the decree and Bellarmine which is their chiefe champion doe manifestly incline to the first opinion for this is the summe of his propositions First that the Images of Christ the Saints are to be worshipped not onely by accident and improperly but euen by themselues and properly so that they doe limit the worship as they are Images and not onely as they stand in stead of their patternes Secondly that in truth and deed Images may be worshipped with the same kind of worship which belongeth vnto their patternes improperly and by accident and so with Latria in that condition Thirdly and lastly that though this be true yet especially in the pulpits and before the people it is not to be said that Images are to bee worshipped with this kind of worship but rather the contrary Heere is excellent diuinity the people must not bee taught the truth nay the contrary rather which is a lie and that in the pulpit beholde here a doctor of lies and that by his owne confession whilst he goeth about to maintaine Images which Habacuk calleth doctors of lies Hab. 2 18. 20. This is the summe of their doctrine Out of all which these three conclusions doe arise First that the blessed Trinity that sacred and incomprehensible deitie by their doctrine may be pictured on a wall and worshipped in or at an Image yea that such an Image ought at least improperly bee worshipped with the same worship that is due vnto God himself as whē they picture God the Father in the similitude of an old man God the Son in the likenes of a yong child God the holy Ghost in the likenesse of a Doue which the Scripture in the second Commandement condemneth as Idolatrie and that the intendment of that Commandement is not against the Images of false gods onely as the Romanists would haue it but also of the true Iehouah Moses the best expounder of himselfe teacheth most plainely Deut. 4. 16. when hee saith Take heed that you make not to your selues any grauen Image or representation of any figure for you saw no Image in the day that the Lord spake vnto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire and the Prophet Esay confirming the same exposition saith To whom will you liken God or what similitude will yee set vp vnto him Esay 40. 18. as if he should say it is impossible to represent God by any likenesse or similitude If they reply that they worship not the Image but God in the Image I answer First that the very Image of God is an Idoll by this Commandement and therefore the erecting of it to a religious vse is Idolatry Secondly that it is false which they say that they worship not the Image but God in the Image for their doctrine is contrary as hath beene shewed and their practice is contrary as shall be declared hereafter Thirdly though it be true which they alledge yet the worshipping of God before an Image is Idolatry for when the children of Israel worshipped the two golden calues at Dan and Bethel they were not such calues to worship the outward calues but
that the Spirit of God witnesseth vnto 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 vs 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 well noteth Wee neuer durst call God our Father but vpon conscience of the Spirit dwelling in vs. Neither doe we euer vpon this ground call God our Father but withall we 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 not 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 vs because he hath giuen vs 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 giue a white stone and in the stone a new name written which no man knoweth saâ—â— 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 vpon 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 vs 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 another place he saith I can doe all things through Christ that strengthneth me So may we say of our selues We cannot do 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 vnto vs not onely to beleeue in him but also to suffer for him and by his neuer-fayling grace and euerlasting loue we are assured that we shall perseuere vnto the end And therefore Origen saith that it is impossible 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 vs that there is but one onely propitiatory 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 the Church of Rome teacheth that euery Masse is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quicke and the dead and that euery Priest as often as he saith Masse doth offer vp Christ vnto God the Father as a Sacrifice for sinne 18. Bellarmine here distinguisheth againe and saith that indeede there is but one onely propitiatory Sacrifice in the world to wit that which was once offered vpon 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 Sacrifice 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 vnto mens soules for the actuall remission of sinnes purchased by Christ vpon the Crosse 19. Here is much adoe to little purpose three distinctions 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 doth 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 Apostle speaketh without the shedding of bloud there is no remissioÌ„ 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 conclude this point for vs who saith that Christ dying vpon the crosse offered himselfe is sacrificed dayly in the Sacrament because in
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 vs that in the time of Antichrist because men would not receiue the loue of the truth that they might be saued therefore God would send them strong delusions that they should beleeue lyes c. But to the point If Christs person be the onely true foundation of the Church in whom all the building being coupled together groweth vnto an 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 one building those stones that are layd next to the foundation are not properly a secundary foundation but the beginning of the building vpon 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 onely 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 vpon Christ whom the Prophets and the Apostles preached and beleeued in And thus S. Hilary vnderstood it and Saint Ambrose and 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 commentaries vpon that place and Peter Lumbard together with the glosse vpon 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 other 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 haue 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 originally 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 vnto him alone Feede my sheepe and To thee will I giue 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 Order 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 vnto 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 the Apostles were the same with Peter indued with equall fellowship both of honour and power and that a primary was giuen vnto 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 haue 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 will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen he spake onely 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 confesseth asmuch when hee affirmeth that the strength of this power of the keyes passed vnto all the Apostles and the constitution of this decree vnto 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 haue concealed so necessary a trueth if
Father that is God the word being taken personally and not in the abstract as if the essence of the Deity of the Sonne should bee from the Father which is entirely subsisting in of and by it owne eternall incomprehensible and most glorious nature and this without question was the true intendement of the Councill for els it had not confuted but fauoured the blasphemous heresie of Arrius against whom it was assembled which Caluine and Beza doe not any wayes crosse but onely bring vnto it a fit and fauourable exposition Thus we haue Bellarmine Caluines and Bezaes patrone in this doctrine though full ill against his will and not onely him but Ribera and Gregory de Valentia two other no meane Rabbies both which doe conclude that the Sonne as he is a person is of another but as he is a simple Ens is not of another and that the Essence doth not beget the Essence but the Father the Son so that either they are slanderers of the truth or their Catholike doctrines may bee Atheisme and blasphemy 72. Againe they accuse Caluine of another blasphemy against our Lord and Sauior Iesus Christ to wit that he should make him inferiour to his Father in respect of his Deity This is Arrlanisme indeed as Bellarmine calleth it or Atheisme as Posseuine if it were to bee found in Caluines diuinity or any other but it is as farre from him thus to thinke as it is from their malice to speake the truth This is all that Caluine affirmeth that the Father is God per excellentiam that is after a more excellent manner And what errour I pray you is in this doth hee not speake of the personall relation that is betwixt the Father and the Sonne and not of the nature and essence of the God-head that is in both of equall dignity and excellency This is cleare both by the former article wherein he sloutly auoucheth him to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe and not to receiue the essence of his Deity from his Father and so not to be inferiour to his Father in that respect and also by infinite places in his books where he directly maketh the Son Iehouah equall to the Father in dignity excellency eternity and all other properties of the Deity therefore he speaketh this in respect of the person of Christ in which consideration the Father that begetteth respected with the Sonne that is begotten may truely bee said to haue a certaine priority of order ānd to be God after a more excellent manner Here is now neither Arrianisme nor Atheisme nor indeed any error in Caluines doctrine but malicious lying and slaundering in in these Iesuites accusation 73. Nay that Caluine may bee cleared from all suspition of errour and those fellowes condemned as notorious slaunderers Tollet one of their owne fraternity affirmeth that Athanasius Basil Nazianzene Hilary and Origen all strong maintainers of Christs diuinity and profest enemies to Arrius heresie interpret that place Iohn 14. My Father is greater then I in Caluines sense Maldonate another Iesuite in his commentary vpon Iohn addeth to these Epiphanius Cyrillus Leontius Chrysostome Theophilact and Euthemius as patrones of the same opinion yea and this last Iesuite himselfe subscribeth to their exposition for he sayth that the Father is greater then the Sonne in that respect that hee is the Sonne for the Name of the Father is more honorable then the Name of the Son and the Schoolmen say asmuch as Caluine when they ascribe to the Father authority and to the Sonne subauthority What is this but to say that the Father is God after a more excellent manner Now then if this were neither Atheisme nor Arrianisme nor heresie in the Fathers nor in their owne Doctors why should it bee branded with those infamous titles in Caluine I see no reason but that malice is blinde and that the hatred they bare to that good man made them to say and do they cared not what so they might wound his credite thereby 74. Luther is likewise traduced by them as a denyer of the blessed Trinity and that because the word Trinity is said to dislike him for which cause he dispunged out of the Germane Lyturgies this sorme of prayer Sancta Trinitas vnus Deus miserere nostri a notorious calumniation for Luther indeed blotteth out of the Germane prayers a certain forme like vnto that obiected but not so as he setteth it downe for the word vsed in the Germane tongue signifieth rather a triplicity then a Trinity which mooued Luther in a desire to maintaine the pure doctrine of the Trinity as Iunius obserueth to blot out that word thinking it a dangerous matter to vse such a word in so holy and high a mystery By which practice he is so farre from impugning or denying that blessed principle that he sheweth himselfe rather a zealous defender and maintainer thereof and in a word to discouer their falsity and his innocency List how diuinely and soundly and orthodoxally he writeth else-where of that mystery Vnitas Trinitatis est magis vna c. The vnity of the Trinity is more one then the vnity of any creature euen mathematically neuertheles this vnity is a Trinity or the diuinity of three distinct persons that euery person is the whole diuinity as if there were no other and yet it is true that no person is the fole diuinity as if there were no other Againe vpon the transfiguration of Christ Mat. 17. hee thus commenteth Heere the whole Trinity doth appeare to the confirmation of all the faithfull Christ the Son in a glorious forme God the Father by his voyce declaring his Son to be God and the holy Ghost in the bright cloud ouer-shadowing them Againe we beleeue sayth he that there is one God the Father begetting the Sonne begotten and the holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and Son we determine such a plurality in God which is of an vndiuided substāce an indiuisible vnity again the mystery of the Trinity was discouered in the beginning of the world after vnderstood by the Prophets and lastly plainly reuealed by the Gospell when our Saviour commandeth to baptize in the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost A number of such like places might bee alledged out of his workes wherein most constantly hee auoucheth that doctrine which our and his vnequall aduersaries accuse him to bee an enemy vnto Let enuy it selfe now bee iudge whether this bee not a slander when as they both falsisy those sayings out of which they would deriue their accusation and conceale those which they knew to bee a iust defence and apologie for his innocency 75. Againe they condemne Beza and Martyr and other Protestants for denying the omnipotency of God and why because forsooth they say Quod facta vt infecta sint facere nequeat Hee cannot make those things that bee done to bee vndone An absurd inference for that
teach his proceeding in age is his proceeding in wisdome And therefore Saint Luke sets his growth in age First that thou mightest know that it is spoken of him as he is man And Chrysostome thus The wisemen gaue honour not to his childhood vnderstanding nothing but to his diuinitie knowing all things and Maldonate doth confesse that Athanasius Gregory Nazianzene Theodoret Cyril and the authour of the imperfect worke on Mathew did al teach that Christ as man was ignorant of the day of Iudgement Neyther do these fathers alleadged by Bellar. for the contrarie opinion in truth deliuer any thing else if they bee rightly vnderstood for most of them when they say that our Sauiour was full of grace knowledge and wisedome from his verie conception and that hee did not increase and grow therein as other men they speake eyther of his person in the concret or of his diuine nature apart as their owne words alleadged by him doe clearely shew And to this opinion Thomas Aquinas their grand Schooleman and angellical Doctor setteth his hand and seale For thus hee writeth Though I haue elsewhere written otherwise yet it is to be said sayth bee that in Christ there was scientia acquisita knowledge acquired or gotten which is properly knowledge according to the measure of man and that not onely in respect of the subiect receiuing but also of the cause agent c. 90. Secondly al ignorance is not sin by the doctrine of their own schoole For that ignoraÌ„ce which is called purae negationis of pure negation doth not oppugne the state of innocencie seeing that it was in AdaÌ„ before his fal and is now in the Angels in their perfection may be in any without the spot of sin as witnesse Lumbard Aquinas Pererius al their learned Doctors for the most part yea their Iesuite Suarez telleth vs it is not to be called ignorance at al. Because ignorance sayth he doth not signifie euery want of knowledge but the priuatioÌ„ of that knowledge which ought to be in a subiect according to the state of the nature thereof as man is not to bee called ignorant because he wanteth angellicall knowledge so Christ was ignorant of none of these things which was behoofefull for him to know in respect of the dignitie of his person so that of two kindes of ignorance one of pure negation that is when a man knoweth not some thing which hee is not bound to know and the other of wicked disposition when a man is 〈…〉 of something which he ought to know This last is a sinne but not the first and therefore to say that Christ was ignorant of some things in his humane nature and that hee increased in knowledge as in age is not to impute vnto him any blot either of originall or actuall sinne 91. For the other part of the obiection wherewith Caluine is touched concerning our Sauiours correcting of his owne speech it is no other then that which Ierome before him many hundred yeeres vttered and Origen also two famous fathers of the Primitiue Church the one affirming that Christ returning to himselfe auouched that as he was the Sonne of God which hee had staggeringly spoken as hee was a man the other that he recalled his desire and as it were thinking better vpon it said Not as I will yea they themselues acknowledge asmuch for Bellarmine sayth that when our Sauiour prayed Let this cup passe from me but not as I will but as thou wilt it was asmuch as if he should haue said Volo vt non fiat voluntate naturali quod voluntate deliberata volo vt fiat I will that it may not come to passe to wit by my naturall will which by my deliberate will I desire may come to passe Here is a plaine correction as Caluine calleth it or a returning to himselfe as Hierome or a reuocation of his natural desire by a more aduised desire as Origen the like interpretation is giuen by Iansenius Pererius and Maldonate all agreeing in tâ—is that they admit of a correction and reuocation of his naturall inferiour humane wil by his spirituall superior diuine will and yet without all blemish and suspition of sin this correction presuposing no corruption So that either Caluine must be excused or themselues must bee inwrapped within the folds of the same fault But this is their rancour against that good man and all other of our side that which is orthodox in the Fathers and themselues is notwithstanding heresie in vs because they looke vpon vs thorow the spectacle of malice but vpon themselues with the eyes of selfe-loue 92. And to cleere him altogether and ridde him out of their hands the most receiued doctrine both by Caluine and all our whole Church concerning this point is that this was not in our Sauiour Christ either a rebellion of the sensuall part of the soule against the rationall as Perâ—rius maketh it which is in the vnregenerate nor of the flesh against the spirit as Iansenius would haue it which is in the regenerate nor a repugnance of Christs will as he was a man to his will as he was God which Maldonate sâ—emeth to affirme but onely the strife of two contrarie desires in the humane soule of Christ for dominion both which notwithstanding were good and holy though the one not so good as the other and in that respect this desire to auoid death which was the lesse might without any great offence bee said to bee corrected when it yeelded vnto that other which was more excellent 92. Lastly to omit a number more of their sslanders in this kind they charge our Religion it selfe to lead to loosenesse and sensualitie by diuers doctrines thereof especially these foure to wit freewill iustification by faith alone perseuerance in grace and impossibilitie to keepe the Commandements but with what spirit of malice let the indifferent Reader consult and iudge 93. First for our doctrine touching the inabilitie of free-will doth it lead a man to loosenesse nay rather doth it not teach him to deny himselfe and to seeke for all grace and goodnesse from God humilitie and prayer are the fruits of this doctrine and not loosnesse and libertie and to make it cleare to any single eye We teach that a man is onely voyde of freewill to grace before his regeneration and that hee is passiue onely in the very act of regeneration but after his will being quickned and stirred vp by Gods spirit he willeth and worketh forth together with the spirit of God his owne saluation Now few or none there are that are Christians but presume though falsely that they are regenerate and therefore this doctrine cannot giue libertie to any to sinne but rather bindeth them fast to obedience nay doth not their doctrine rather open a gappe to libertie For when they teach that it is in a mans power either to accept or reiect the grace of God offered vnto him What doth this
learned and iudicious Diuine of their owne confesseth in the originall tongue of Chrysostome it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shee which is also agreeable to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines of the Bible O but because this reading in the translated Copie maketh for the worship of the Virgin Mary therefore in our Iesuites diuinitie it must be preferred The second is out of Chrysostome too in his Sermon of Inuentius and Maximus whom Bellarmine to proue that the relickes of Saints ought to be worshipped bringeth in thus speaking tumulos Martyrum adoremus let vs worship the sepulchres of Martyrs whereas indeede the word in Chrysostome is adornemus let vs adorne and garnish their sepulchres as both the originall Greeke and the Latine translations that are of any standing doe read it The third is of Cyril who is not onely changed and altered but plainly dismembered by them for whereas hee writeth thus excellently concerning the power of faith This faith which is the gift and grace of God is sufficient to clense and purge not onely them which find themselues somewhat ill but also those which are verie dangerously diseased c. The Spanish Index hath censured him and commanded these words to bee blotted out with this peremptorie charge Extextu deleantur illa verba The fourth and last is of Cyprian in his Booke De bono patientiae where for gustatam Eucharistiam they read to maintaine the idolatrous circumgestation of the Eucharist gestatam contrarie to their owne copies as on the contrarie in Leo ser 14. de passione for gestemus Bellarmine readeth gustemus and thus they turne Cat in panne as the Prouerbe saith and with the Apothecaries art put quid pro qu◠103. Thus they handle the Fathers putting words into their mouths that they neuer spake nor meant and that in no few places of their writings And as for later Writers their Iudices Expurgatorij are sufficient testimonies of their purging expunging wiping out and foysting in what they list into their Bookes it is a profest allowed and maintained practice of theirs which at the first was kept in darknesse as a worke of darknesse by secret conueyance but after that by Gods prouidence it came to light is now publikely defended as a thing not onely lawfull and commendable in it selfe but also profitable for the Church of God so that there needs no further proofe of their forgerie and falsification in this kind seeing we haue confitentes aduersaries Onely for a conclusion let vs a little consider the reasons that are vsed by these good men for the defence of this their dealing 104. One May an English Priest out of Gretzer Posseuine the author as it is supposed of the grounds of the old and new Religion in the latter end of that Booke taking vpon him to answere Master Crashaw that laid to their charge the same crime that I now doe answereth three wayes First that it is a practice both lawfull and commendable Secondly that if it be vnlawfull we are more guiltie of it then they And lastly though they meddle with new Writers yet the Fathers workes are sincere and free from all corruption 105. To whom I reply briefly thus that as touching his last answere which concerneth the Fathers it is manifestly false as I haue alreadie discouered in foure particulars and is by Doctor Iames in his Booke in many more and I doubt not but shall be more fully ere long made knowne to the world and therefore though that there was no rule prescribed by the Councell of Trent for the purging of the Fathers as of yonger Writers Yet it followeth not but that they might doe it without rule which also Gretzer the Iesuite perceiuing to be true seeketh to mend the matter by a fine distinction by which indeed he matres it vtterly and that is that the Fathers workes as they are Fathers need no purging but being considered as Sonnes their words may bee corrected and censured by the Church or not as Fathers but as Fathers-in-law for when they feed the Church with sound and wholsome doctrine they are Fathers if otherwise Fathers-in-law thus by this fine distinction he granteth that when a Father speaketh any thing which they account false doctrine he may be corrected or rather corrupted for then they esteeme him not a Father but a sonne nor a true Father but a Father-in-law so that it is apparently false which our new Author affirmeth that none of the Fathers are corrected by them 106. Secondly touching his middle answere that if it be a fault we are more guiltie thereof then they I answere that that is as false as the former for let it bee granted that some Bookes are corrected by some Protestants yet first they are the deeds of priuate persons and not the acts of the Church not at all approued much lesse authorized by the Church as theirs are nay all of sounder iudgement in our Church doe asmuch condemne that practice in our owne as in any else Secondly such corruptions or corrections are not frequent with vs but rare and seldome I dare boldly say for one place altered by vs in any Writer there are twentie by them as their owne expurging Iudices doe beare witnesse and for this I challenge any Iesuite or Romish Priest whatsoeuer to the encounter Thirdly most of those Bookes which they lay to our charge to haue beene corrupted by vs as Augustines Meditations Granadoes Meditations The conuersion of a Sinner The Christian Directorie Osianders Enchiridion with other more are not corrected in the originall themselues but in their translations into our Language some things are left out some added some changed and altered as the Translators thought good whereas they corrupt the verie Texts and originall Copies of most Writers without difference Fourthly we seldome alter or change any Booke in the translation but withall we eyther confesse in the beginning of the said Bookes or professe in the publishing of the same this correction or alteration but they haue practised this in secret by certaine Enquisitors appointed to that purpose the mysterie of which art was long hid from the World and had still lien in darknesse had not the prouidence of God for the good of the Church first discouered the Belgicke Index by mere accident to that godly and bright starre of our Church Iunius who made it presently knowne to the world and at this day few there are that vnderstand the mysteries of that art so closely and cunningly doe they conuay their matters as for the Books themselues they do seldome or neuer acknowledge their correction in the forefront and beginning of them as wee doe but by all meanes labour to hide and conceale the same Lastly though some amongst vs haue more rashly then wisely falsified some Writers of lesser note in some few things yet they haue not meddled with the Fathers nor Councels neither haue
the child before it bee baptized is in some sort partaker of the Sacrament of Baptisme euen by the faith of the Church which hath vowed him thereunto And Bonauenture as hee is reported by Cassander sayth that infants are disposed vnto Baptisme not according to any act of their owne but according to the act of other because the mercie of God imputeth to them as their owne will the will of another Insants therefore stand still in as good case in euery respect as men of yeares if not in better both being vnbaptized and the one dedicated to God by their owne desire the other by the purpose desire of the Church and therefore either these may bee saued aswell as they or else God is not so mercifull to them as to these which is no lesse then impietie to thinke and blasphemie to pronounce 38. Another wicked consequence that followeth vpon this doctrine is that it maketh God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost euen that blessed Trinitie that is the fountaine of all truth and goodnesse to be lyars and teachers of vntruth For God the Father sayth to Abraham I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed And that this is not to bee vnderstood of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh onely to wit the Iewes but much more of his seed according to the Spirit which are faithfull Christians may appeare both by that which is in the verie same place where it is called an euerlasting couenant and by Saint Pauls testimonie who affirmeth that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Christ Iesus aswell as on the Iewes God the Sonne sayth Suffer little children to come vnto me for of such is the Kingdome of Heauen plainly affirming that the Kingdome of Heauen is pertaining to little children and not barred vp against any as our Romanists teach it is against such little ones as dye without baptisme Our Sauiour saith without exception that the Kingdome of Heauen belongeth vnto them they as it were to make him a lyar bring in an exception and say that except they bee baptized not Heauen but Lymbus belongeth vnto them And the holy Ghost by the mouth of Saint Paul sayth That the children of beleeuing Parents are holy the reason is because the root is holy and therefore the branch must needs be holy and if children may be holy before they be baptized then by the same rule they may goe to Heauen before they be baptized for as no man without holinesse can see God so with holinesse none can be banished out of the sight of God And thus this doctrine giueth the lye to euery person of the blessed Trinitie 39. If they say that it is our Sauiours doctrine that except a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost hee cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen and therefore all those generall promises are to bee restrained by this exception if they bee baptized I answere out of Bellarmine that God is not tyed to his Sacraments but can saue them by his especiall grace as also witnesse diuers others of their learned Doctours And therefore whereas our Sauiour saith Except a man be borne againe c. it must needs be vnderstood by another exception to wit of cases of necessitie where Baptisme cannot be obtained and is not contemned for not the want but the contempt of Baptisme is damnable 40. The third and last inconuenience that ariseth from this doctrine is that it is the mother of diuers strange paradoxes and grosse absurdities as not onely of Lay mens Baptisme yea of Pagans and that in scorne but also of changing the true element into lee or broth or puddle water and that which is most strange of baptizing the childe in the mothers wombe before it bee borne or ripping vp the mothers belly in case the child be in danger of death c. some of all which absurdities are held by them all and all by some Is it not then more safe to hold that opinion which is more respectiue to Gods glorie agreeable to Christian charitie and free from all these dangerous consequences 41. To conclude omitting many other of their doctrines which might easily bee shewne to stand in the same case of dangerous tenure and hath in part alreadie beene manifested as their doctrine of set fasts implicite faith veniall sins dispensations with others more I propound for the last instance that doctrine of doctrines the verie groundcell of their ruinous Religion touching the veritie authoritie and singularitie of their Church which they vaunt and bragge to be the onely true Catholike Church of Christ and to haue a preeminence ouer the Scriptures and without the which to be no possibilitie of saluation that there is no safetie in these positions many reasons will euince as first if it should bee true that out of the bounds of that Church none could bee saued then those famous Churches of Asia which were in Pope Victors time that opposed themselues against the predominance of the Church of Rome were all damned wherein flourished many holy Martyrs that gaue vp their liues for the testimonie of Iesus Then Saint Cyprian and all the Bishops of Carthage to the number of fourescore that in a Councell at Carthage set themselues against Pope Stephen and his Councell were damned and Saint Cyprian must bee no longer a Martyr but a Schismaticke and then S. Augustine with the whole Church of Africa and troupes of Martyrs and Confessors should not bee crowned with blisse but tormented in hell for they reiected the yoke of the Bishop of Romes authoritie and would not admit that any should make appeales from them to Rome This horrible and vncharitable inconuenience doth arise from that dismall doctrine The Church of Rome is the onely Catholike Church and out of it there is no hope of saluation now that these holy and heauenly Martyrs and Confessors of Iesus Christ were out of it appeareth by their most receiued definitions of a Catholike and a Schismaticke A Catholike faith Bellarmine is he that is subiect to the one Pastor the Pope whereby hee makâ—th the essentiall forme of a Catholike to be his vnion and coniunction with his head the Pope and a Schismatike sayth Tollet is hee that doth separate himselfe from the head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ I assume but Cyprian Augustine and those other famous Bishops did not acknowledge any subiection to the Pope but separated themselues from his dominion therefore they were by their doctrine no Catholickes but Schismatickes and consequently out of the Church and so out of saluation a damnable conclusion 42. Secondly they peremptorily auouch that none of vs being not members of their Church can bee saued we on the contrarie charitably beleeue that many of them that are ignorantly members of their Church if they hold the foundation of Iesus Christ and depend vpon his merits not their owne