an effect of omnipotency Dicitur enim Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult non patiendo quod non vult i. For God is sayd to be omnipotent by doing that which he will not by suffering that which he will not 8. From hence it must needes follow that heere can bee no miracle and that not onely because miracles are extraordinary works of God and this change of substances is ordinary in euery Sacrament as they say and miracles are not contrary but aboue or beside nature but this is flat contrary not onely to nature but to God himselfe the Authour and Creator of nature and miracles are alwaies sensible but this is insensible and cannot bee discerned by any outward meanes but also for that no miracle can imply contradiction in it selfe as this must needes doe if it were as they would haue it For when Aarons Rodde was turned into a Serpent it left to be a Rodde and when it turned into a Rodde it left to be a Serpent And when the Water was turned into Wine it left to bee Water it was impossible that it should haue beene both Water and Wine at one time in one and the same respect or a Rodde and a Serpent at once And so of all other miracles there is not one to be found that enwrappeth contradictions Besides all which Saint Augustine concludeth peremptorily that Sacraments may haue honour vt Religiosa but not amazement vt admiranda as miracles And Thomas Aquinas more plainely saith Ea quae contradictionem implioant sub diuina potentia non continentur i. Those things which imply contradiction cannot fall vnder the power of God 9. They reply that they teach no more then Cyprian did thirteeene hundred yeeres since who said that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands at the last Supper I answere that Cyprian in that place the rest of the Fathers elsewhere did often vse hyperbolicall speeches to extoll the dignity of the Sacrament and to shew the certainty and efficacy of our communion with Christ and of our spirituall eating of him but they neuer meant so as the Romanists doe that Christ bore his reall naturall substantiall body in his owne hands and gaue it to his Apostles after a fleshly manner For Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in another place when hee saith that Sacraments haue the names of those things which they signifie And Saint Augustine more plainly saith that Christ did beare himselfe in his owne hands after a sort If it had beene really and substantially what neede hee haue added after a sort for this word as they vse to speake in Schooles is Terminus diminutiuus qui realitati vbique detrahit A diminitiue terme which detracteth from the realtie and true being of a thing And this speech Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands after a sort is all one with that in another place After a certaine manner the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs body So that it is playne that when the Fathers said Christ bore himselfe in his owne hands they meant nothing but that he bore in his hands the Sacrament of himselfe and thus this first contradiction is irreconciliable I come to a second and that in the Sacrament which is no lesse palpable 10. It is a principle of their Religion and of the truth it selfe that Christ after his resurrection ascended into heauen and there filleth a place and hath figure forme and disposition of parts and is circumscribed within a certaine compasse according to the nature of a body This is Bellarmines owne assertion and it is consonant to sound doctrine confirmed both by manifest Scripture and vniforme consent of ancient Fathers for Scripture Christ is said to bee like vnto vs and not barely like but like in all things that is both in nature and in the qualities and quantities of nature And to put the matter out of doubt onely one thing is excepted wherin he is not like vnto vs and that is Sinne whereby he is absolutely left to bee like vnto vs in all other things And lest any should thinke that that was true onely whilst he was here vpon earth the Apostle in the forenamed places applyeth it to him being in heauen for hee saith Wee haue not an High-priest which cannot be touched with our infirmities and therefore let vs boldly goe vnto the throne of grace where the Apostles argument were of no force if he were like vnto vs here on earth onely in the state of his humilitie and not also now being in heauen in the state of glory for sinfull man might thus reply True Christ was like our nature whilst he liued amongst vs but now being glorified he hath put off our nature and therefore we dare not presume to come vnto him Yes saith the Apostle he is still like vnto vs and hath not put off our nature but the infirmities of our nature onely which were the sequels of sinne as we also shall doe when we shall be translated into heauen after the resurrection And this Saint Luke more plainely auoucheth when he saith that after he had blessed them he departed from them and was carryed vp into heauen and that whilst they beheld he was taken vp by a cloude out of their sight Where we see plainely a locall motion of Christ from earth to heauen and therefore there must needs be of him a locall situation in the heauens As also Saint Peter in expresse words doeth affirme when he saith that the heauens must containe or receiue him vntill the time of restauration of all things Thus this doctrine is consonant to holy Scripture 11. Now let vs see how it was entertayned by the ancient Fathers thus they write Athanasius When Christ said I goe to the Father he spake of the humane nature which hee haed assumed for it is the propertie of him to goe and come who is circumscribed with certaine limits of places and forsaking that place where it was commeth to the place where it was not Nazianzene saith Wee professe one and the same Lord passible in the flesh impossible in his Godhead circumscribed in body vncircumscribed in deity the same both earthly and heauenly visible and inuisible comprehended in place and not comprehended Againe Christ as man is circumscribed and contayned in place Christ as God is vncircumscribed and contayned within no place Augustine saith Christ as man according to his body is in a place but as God filleth all places Cyril saith Though Christ hath taken from hence the presence of his body yet in the maiestie of his deitie hee is alwayes present Fulgentius saith One and the same Christ a locall Man of a Woman his mother who is the infinite God of God his Father Vigilius the Martyr Christ is in all places according to the nature of his deitie but is contayned in one place according to the nature of his humanity Damascene The difference of natures
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
him my grace is sufficient for thee And besides what is it but a teÌ„pting of God to refuse the ordinary remedy which God hath ordained which is marriage and to flye to extraordinary meanes as if a man should refuse all bodily sustenance on earth in hope that God will feed him extraordinarily from heauen at his deuout request because he hath promised that those which feare him shall want nothing and whatsoeuer we aske in the name of Christ shall be graunted Let Saint Augustine determine this doubt whose resolution is this concerning all things which men pray for which are not necessary to saluation Aliquando Deus iratus dat quod petis Deus propitius negat quod petis Sometimes God granteth in anger and sometimes denyeth in mercie that which thou desirest And let Origens practice put it out of all doubt who to auoid incontinencie and to quench the fiery lusts of the flesh offered violence to his own flesh by cutting off those parts wherin concupiscence raigneth If he had beene persâ—aded that by fasting and prayer he could haue obtained that gift from heauen surely he would haue macerated his body with the one and brawned his knees with the other rather then to haue fallen to that desperate and vnnaturall remedy 28. But to leaue this their vaine obiection and to come a little neerer to the poynt how can that doctrine choose but lead to loosenes which crosseth not onely the ordinance of God who was the first ordainer of Marriage but also the instinct of nature for this was naturally instilled into all liuing Creatures especially Man at the first creation that he should encrease and multiply by vertue of which institution of nature a desire is engrafted in all the posterity of Adam of the propagation of their kind that they may as it were liue in their succession And whereas Bellarmine obiecteth that these words Encrease and multiply containe not a precept but an institution of nature and a promise of fecundity because the same words are vttered to other Creatures which are not capable of precepts and also because if it were a precept it should bind all to encrease and multiply and so imurie should be offered to Christ to Marie and other holie virgines I answere that aâ—beit one member of his reason is vnsound to wit that beasts are vncapable of precepts for God spake to the Fish and it cast vp Ionah on the dry land which sheweth that beasts in their kind vnderstand Gods precepts and obey yet we do not say that this is an absolute precept binding all without exception to marriage but onely a liberty granted to all that will to marrie that thereby mankind may be still propagated and therefore they which take away this liberty from all ecclesiasticall persons and monasticall Votaries offer iniury to nature and tyrannize ouer the bodies and soules of men For whence ariseth this necessary conclusion that the vow of single life is repugnant to nature and therefore none may take it vpon them but those either in whome nature is defectiue which our Sauiour saith were borne chaste from their mothers belly or that are endowed with a supernaturall gift as our blessed Sauiour the blessed Virgin his mother and other holy men and women and so by consequent it followeth because this gift is rare and extraordinary that most of them which by a rash vowe binde themselues from marriage should fall into fornication and promiscuous lust The course of nature in man-kind is like the source of a running streame which by no dammes nor artificiall barres can bee stopped but it will runne either the naturall course in the channell or some other by-passage and that the more it is stopped the more violently it rageth except the fountaine and spring be dryed vp So except the fountaine of concupiscence in incontinent persons be dryed vp by a supernaturall and extraordinary worke the more it is interrupted the more outragiously it fometh Therefore if the ordinary channell of marriage be dammed vp it must needs burst ouer the bankes of lawfulnes and spread it selfe ouer the pastures and medowes of adioyning neighbours This is the very case of our Romish shauelings being barred from marriage they burst sorth like wilde Bulls into other mens grounds and defile their beds by adultery and fill their houses with bastardy 29. If they challenge to themselues the supernaturall gift of continency experience sheweth that their challenge is vaine for not one of an hundred of them liueth chastly and besides as God hath giuen that gift often to the heathen and reprobate as Histories report so very often yea most ordinarily doth he deny it to his own children for ordinary grace doth not abolish but sanctifie nature so that this iâ— no gift of ordinary sauing grace but a superordinary worke aboue grace and that also many times without grace If then it be not in the power of any to quench the instincts of nature if â—t be not a worke of ordinary grace to abolish nature but it requireth extraordinary grace for the effecting thereof if the course of nature be stopped one way it will burst forth another then we may by sound reason conclude that the vowe of chastity and single life and the prohibition of marriage in the Church of Rome doth open a wide gappe to all loose and licencious liuing 30. Lastly that all this is true let the lamentable effects and fruits of this their doctrine stand vp for witnesse and vmpâ—ers in this matter for how shall a man better iudge of the goodnesse of the cause then by the effects a good â—ree cannot bring forth euill fruite nor an euill tree good fruit euery tree is knowne by his fruit and albeit often that which is not the cause is put for the cause and by the accidentall failing of the medium or instrument the cause may misse of his proper effect Yet when the effects are not rare but frequent yea infinite and such as are so like that they seeme as it were of one stampe and as it were all egges of one bird then it must needs follow that parentem sequitur sua proles like childe like parent such as the effect such must the cause needs be To beginne with Nicholas one of the seuen Deacons the prime Authour of the sect of the Nicholaitans condemned by Saint Iohn Apoc. 2. Let Epiphanius tell vs what his opinion was and what fruites issued there-from This Nicholas hauing a beautifull wife when hee sawe others in admiration for their single life that he might not seeme inferiour to them vtterly renounced the company of his wife and determined neuer to haue fellowship with her againe But when hee was not able to represse any longer the flame of concupiscence and being ashamed to returne to his wife lest he should be condemned of inconstancy he chose rather to giue ouer himselfe to all manner of vnlawfull lust yea to that which
God that hee cannot doe all these things by himselfe without them but rather of his omnipotencie in that hee was not onely able to doe these things himselfe but also to giue power to those creatures to doe them so it is an argument of greater power in Christs merits to giue strength to our workes to merit heauen then if hee did it for vs without our workes I but by Bellarmines leaue that I may speake with all humble reuerence to the diuine Maiestie the power of God had beene more manifest and his omnipotencie more conspicuous I doe not say had beene greater if he should doe these things immediatly by himselfe then it is by the glasse of the creatures As when the Lord came downe in person vpon mount Sinai and gaue the children of Israel the law from his owne mouth his glory was more famous and fearefull then when hee sent it them after by the hand of Moses though written with his owne finger as the other was spoken with his owne mouth And therefore it is said Exod. 20. that the people were so astonished at Gods voyce that they desired that hee would speake no more vnto them in his owne person but by his seruant Moses Adde herevnto that God in his wisedome ordayned those creatures to that end and purpose and therefore we must not dispute as Bellarmine doth whether it should haue beene a greater token of his omnipotencie if hee had or if hee had not created them but humbly submit our selues to his wisedome knowing that his thoughts are not like ours nor his counsels like ours but as the heauens are higher then the earth so are his wayes higher than ours and his thought aboue our thoughts but for the merits of Christ he hath reuealed in his word that in them onely wee are to finde saluation and therefore wee must beleeue that he is most glorified by that doctrine which teacheth vs to rely onely vpon them and as for the power in them to cause vs to merit it is no where to be found in Scripture and therefore not to be thought to be for the aduancement of his glory besides to say that Christs honour is encreased by mans merit is plaine blasphemie for who hath giuen any thing to God Rom. 11. 25. He standeth not in neede of our good decdes Psal 16. 2. Indeede we doe glorifie God by our good workes but that is not by encreasing but by publishing and proclaiming of his glory but the Romanists say that the glory of Christs merits is augmented by our merits which must needes be a most blasphemous speech In a word seeing we doe not finde in Scripture that Christ died to giue merit to our workes but to purchase pardon to our sinnes and obtaine life for vs wee must bee content to thinke that this serueth most for his glorie and that the contrarie is derogatory thereunto 35. Lastly where did we euer read that wee must be like vnto Christ in meriting we read that wee must bee holy as he is holy and humble and meeke as hee was humble and meeke and patient as he was patient to wit in quality not in quantity in imitation not in perfection but to merit as he did is no where to be found nay it is a thing impossible for it is an infinite and omnipotent worke of righteousnesse that can deserue any thing at the infinite iustice of the omnipotent God and it must bee of infinite valew that can purchase that infinite reward And therefore it was necessarie that he which should be our Redeemer should also be God because neither Angell nor Archangell nor any creature else could performe a worke of that price which might be sufficient to merit the kingdome of heauen It is therefore a most grosse blasphemie to say that we must be like vnto Christ in the point of meriting for it maketh euery man a Iesus that is a Sauiour and Redeemer to himselfe Therefore to conclude I say with S. Bernard Let the glory remaine to the Lord vntouched he hath triumphed ouer the enemie alone he hath freed the captiues alone hee hath fought and conquered alone and with S. Augustine To whom we are endebted for that we are to him we are endebted that wee are iustified let none attribute to God his being and to himselfe his iustifying for it is better which thou giuest to thy selfe than that which thou giuest vnto God thou giuest the lower thing vnto God and the higher to thy selfe giue all to him praise him in all This wee doe by our doctrine and they the contrary and therefore it is most manifest that by this doctrine of theirs mans glory is exalted and Christs defaced mans merits lifted vp and Christs pulled downe which cannot stand with the truth and sincerity of Christian Religion 36. The fourth doctrine which tendeth directly to the dishonor of God the abasing of Christs glory in the worke of our redemption is their paradox of humane satisfactions by which they teach that Christ by his death hath made satisfaction for the guilt of our sinnes and the eternall punishment due vnto them but wee our selues must satisfie the iustice of God for the temporall punishment either in earth or in Purgatory whereas we on the contrary teach and beleeue that by Christs death and passion a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction is made to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men and for all the punishment thereof both eternall and temporall As for our doings or sufferings we acknowledge the one to be sabordinately required as fruites of our faith and the other necessary to be sustained as meanes of our mortification And touching offences against our brethren we hold it necessary that we make satisfaction to such whom we haue wronged any wayes either by confession restitution or punishment as the case shall require yea wee acknowledge that a Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall satisfaction is to be made to the Church or any part thereof when as we haue giuen iust scandall and offence there vnto But in all these wee denie that there is any vertue or power to expiate our sinnes or to make satisfaction to God for the punishment thereof either temporall or eternall that to do is only proper and peculiar to the Crosse of Christ for as the disobedience of the first Adam brought vpon vs not onely eternall punishments but also temporall so the obedience and merit of the second Adam hath made satisfaction to God for both 37. And herein we agree both with the holy Scripture in many expresse places as 1. Iohn 2. 2. He is the propitiation for our sinnes And Rom. 5. 18. For the eternall punishment of them And Esay 53. 4. For the temporall for there it is said that he tooke vpon him our infirmities and bore our sicknesses And with the holy Fathers for Saint Augustine plainly affirmeth That temporal afflictions before forgiuenes are the punishments of sin but after forgiuenes
in Christ is not taken away by their vnion in one person but the proprietie of each nature is kept safe Leo one of their Popes Christ hath vnited both natures together by such a league that neither glorification doth consume the inferiour nature nor assumption doth diminish the superiour To these I might adde many more but these are sufficient to prooue that this doctrine touching the truth of Christs humanitie now glorified in the heauens that he hath retained our nature with all the proprieties sinne onely and infirmities excepted is concordant both with holy Scripture and with the voited opinions of all reuerend antiquitie 12. Now this doctrine is crossed and contradicted by that other doctrine of theirs touching Transubstantiation and the carnall and corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for this they teach that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament with the whole magnitude thereof together with a true order and disposition of parts flesh bloud and bone as he was borne liued crucified rose againe and yet they say that the same body in the Eucharist though it hath magnitude and extention and disposition of parts agreeable to the forme of an humane body neuerthelesse doth not fill a place neither is to bee extended nor proportioned to the place which it possesseth here be pregnant and manifest contradictions Christ hath one body and yet many bodies euen as many as there are consecrated hoasts in the world that is it may be a thousand bodies at once and so his body is one and not one at the same time Againe this body is in heauen in a place and the same body at the same instant is on the Altar without being compassed about with place to be in heauen and to be in earth at one instant are contradictory propositions being vnderstoode of finite substances and not of that infinite essence which filleth all places for they imply thus much to be in heauen and net to be in heauen to be in earth and not to be in earth which be the rules of Logicke and Reason the mother of Logicke cannot be together true Againe at one moment of time to be aboue and yet below to bee remooued farre off and yet bee neere adioyning to come to one place and yet not to depart from another are so meerely opposite to each other that they cannot be reconciled And lastly a body to haue forme magnitude extention and disposition of parts and yet not with these to fill a place is as much as to say it is a body and yet not a bodie it is in a place and yet not in that very same place these are contradictions so euident that it is impossible for the wit of man to reconcile them 13. Notwithstanding the aduocates of the Romish Synagogue labour might and maine in this taske and by many arguments endeauour to reunite these oppositions first by Gods omnipotency secondly by the qualities of a glorified body and thirdly by arguments from the discourse of reason From hence they thus argue All things are possible to God and therefore this is possible neither is there any thing excepted from the omnipotency of God saue these things Quae facere non est facere sed deficere as Bellarmine speaketh that is which to doe is not to doe but to vndoe and doe argue rather impotency then potency of which sort that one body should be in many places at once is not saith he because it is not in expresse words excepted in Scripture as to lye and to denye himselfe are To this I answere first that albeit the Scripture doth not expresly except this from Gods omnipotency to make one body to bee in two places at once yet implyedly it doth for it denyeth power or rather weaknesse to God to doe those things which imply contradiction of which kinde this is for one body to be in many places at once And Bellarmine himselfe saith that this is a first principle in the light of nature euery thing is or is not which being taken away all knowledge faileth Secondly I answere that the power of God is not so much to be considered as his will nor what he can doe but what he hath reucaled in his word that hee will doe for if wee argue from his power to the effect Wee may deuise God saith Tertullian to doe any thing because he could doe it And therefore the same Authour saith Dei posse velle est Dei nonposse nolle God can of stones raise vp Children vnto Abraham saith Iohn Baptist Now if any should hence conclude that any of Abrahams children were made of stones in a proper speech all would thinke him to haue no more wit then a stone And to this accordeth Theodoret when hee saith That God can doe all things which hee will but God will not doe any of these things which are not agreeable to his nature But for to make a body to be without quantity and a quantity to be without dimension and dimension without a place that is as much to say a body without a body and quantity without quantity and a place without a place is contrary to Gods nature and therefore cannot bee agreeable to his will and so hath no correspondence with his power And lastly I answere that it is no good reason to say God can doe such a thing therefore he doth it but rather thus God will doe such a thing therefore he can doe it and thus the Scripture teacheth vs to reason Whatsoeuer pleased the Lord that did hee in heauen and in earth and not whatsoeuer hee could doe but whatsouer it pleased him to do and the Leper said to our Sauiour Christ Master if thou wilt thou canst make me cleane no◠if thou canst thou wilt but if thou wilt thou canst 14. Secondly whereas they obiect that Christs bodie after his glorification is indued with more excellent qualities then any other naturall body by reason of that super-excellent glory wherewith it is adorned aboue all others and thereby as he came to his Apostles the dores being shut and rose out of his graue notwithstanding the stone that lay vpō it and appeared vnto Paul on earth being at the same time in heauen so he is in the Eucharist after a strange and miraculous manner and yet is in heauen at the same time I answere first with Theodoret that Christs bodie is not changed by his glorification into another nature but remaineth a true bodie filled with diuine glory And with Augustine that Christ gaue vnto his flesh immortality but tooke not away nature and in another place That though Christ had a spirituall body after his resurrection yet it was a true bodie because he said to his Disciples Palpate videte feele and see and as his body was then after his resurrection so it is now being in the heauens Secondly that when hee came out of the graue the Angell remoued the stone
200. some 300. Benefices most of which they neuer saw nor knew nor regarded how they were serued or starued what doth hee but shew himselfe rather a Wolfe than a Shepheard This kind of dispensation Saint Bernard in his time calleth a dissipation And Iohn Picas the famous Earle of Mâ—randula in an Oration to Pope Leo the 10. complaineth of as a notorious corruption in the Church in his dayes Now then to conclude the poynt if to maintaine Incest Sodometry adultery fornication periury disobedience to Parents rebellion against Princes and murther be not to giue licence to most horrible and foule sinnes lâ—t all men iudge and then consider what that Religion is to be iudged of which giueth either open or secret dispensation to all these 10. This is the first Romish doctrine directly tending to liberty A second nothing inferiour to the former is their doctrine of popish pardons and Indulgences a doctrine indeed full of all licentiousnes stuft with impiety and letting the reynes loose to all manner of villany For thus they teach that the Pope being Christs Vicar heere on earth hath the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen in custody to admit in by Indulgence or to shut out by excommunication as hee shall see cause and that the merits of Martyrs to wit their workes of supererogation which they haue more then they need for their owne saluation which mixt with the merites of Christ they call the treasure of the Church are to bee dispensed and disposed at his pleasure 11. The limits and largenes of these pardons they stretch so farre that they make them of more force then the death and passion of Christ for as they teach Christs death freeth onely a culpa aterna poena that is from the guilt of the fault and the eternall punishment due vnto it but not a poena temporali from the temporall punishment but these popish pardons acquit and discharge both from the guilt and from the punishment temporall and eternall as some of them affirme and they that mince it finest from the guilt and temporall punishment so that Christs passion commeth short of his Vicars pardon and the seruant can doe more then the Master by their Religion for though the efficacie of these pardons dependeth vpon the merits of Christ yet that is but in part for the Saints merits must be mixed with them or else they alone make no good medicine and the Pope must dispence them or else they are of no value Neither doe they firetch onely to those that are aliue but to the dead also And that not onely in Purgatory but in Hell Out of both which places say they both the suburbs and the Citie the Pope is able to deliuer whom he pleaseth and place them in heauen the seate of the blessed this is the opinion of diuers of them Antoninus the Archbishop of Florence auoucheth almost as much leauing out hell for he saith that the Pope in respect of his absolute iurisdiction may absolue all that are in Purgatory and empty the prison at once marke his reasons for sayth he seeing Gregory by his prayer discharged Traiane from the paine of hell which is infinite Therfore much more may the Pope by communication of indulgences absolue all that are in Purgatory from that punishment which is but finite And for asmuch as Christ may take away all paine therefore the Pope also who is his Vicar may These be the Archbishops goodly reasons the one whereof is meere foolish and friuolous the other blasphemous but howsoeuer it be yet thousands of ignorant persons haue receiued these as their Creed and by them beene seduced to the vtter ruine and destruction of their soules 12. And to that height of impudency are these pardon-mongers growne that they stocke not to promise plenary remission of all sinnes to all that either come on pilgrimage to Rome or miscarry in their iourney or that visite the holy places there especially the 7. priuiledged Churches promising to some 50. to some a 100. to some 3000. yeares of pardon Yea Boniface the eight granted of his bountifull liberality 82000. yeares pardon for euery time saying a prayer of S. Augustine printed in a Table at Venice and that toties quoties Iohn the 22. granted twentie yeres pardon to euery one that doth but bow his head at the naming of Iesus Here is a notable pardon indeed a man may in one day prouide for millions of ages and not onely for himselfe but to helpe his friends out of Purgatory Besides all this their holy Father the Pope vseth to consecrate and hallow an infinite number of Crucifixes and Medailes and Agnus Dei's Holy graines or Beads and such like trash and send them abroad into the world that whosoeuer weareth one of them about him if he bee at the poynt of death and say but in his heart the name Iesus shall haue a plenary and full forgiuenesse of all his sins 13. But what should I rake any deeper into this filthy puddle I might spend much time and trauaile in deciphering the infinite and grosse absurdities of this monstrous doctrine the very naming whereof is a sufficient confutation I referre the Reader to others that haue amply discouered these secrets of the whore of Babylon But to returne to the poynt Is not this a doctrine I pray you of licentiousnesse who would feare to sinne when pardon may be obtayned at so low a rate for bowing the head saying ouer a short prayer visiting a Church creeping to a Crosse wearing a Crucifixe pardon may be purchased for sinnes without number and that for yeares without number What is the height of liberty if this be not But yet they ascend higher for there is a great Mart of all these Indulgences at Rome there you may haue them at a very lowe price rather then goe without yea cheaper than any other ware and lest Rome should seeme too farre to fetch them thence there are petty markets and faires of them in euery Country and the Pedlers that carry about this trash are the Priests and Iesuites Leo the tenth sent Tâ—â—elius about with his Pardons offering to euery one for the payment of tenne shillings and not a penny vnder to set at liberty the soule of any one which they should name in Purgatory And of late it is sayd that the Iesuites brought into England Agnus Dei's by thousands which they sold at what rate they list to poore seduced Papists Peroun the French Cardinall brought with him from Rome many such hallowed and holy things as some say by the sale thereof to helpe to defray his charges which he was at in that costly iourney 14. What should I name vnto you their odious marchandize and setting to sale of all manner of sinne called taxa poenitentiaria Apostolica whereby impunity is graunted to euery sinne be it neuer so grieuous so the party payeth according to the rate for his
a true reall sacrifice then which what can be more Iewish especially seeing all such Altars were abolished by the Crosse of Christ and there remaineth but one Altar in the Church Whereof they haue no power to eate which serue the Tabernacle to wit Christ as all the Fathers expound the place who is the onely true Altar and proper sacrifice of the new Testament True Altar I say and proper Sacrifice because the soule of euery iust man is called by them a metaphoricall Altar and their prayers good workes almes-deeds c. spirituall sacrifices And therefore Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen and Lactantius writing against the Pagans who obiected that Christians had no Altars nor sacrifices and therefore no religion answere That a iust and holy soule is a right holy Altar from which doe arise prayers as sweet incense and vpon which are offered vp to God iustice patience faith innocencie chastity and such other vâ—rtues And these are the onely Altars and Sacrifices now vpon earth for our true Altar and sacrifice is in heauen 7. Againe the Iewes had lampes continually burning in the Tabernacle and afterward in the Temple which were types of Christ who is the true light of the world and of the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospell who by their doctrine and preaching conuay this light from Christ the fountaine as it were by Conduits and Pipes to the illuminating of the whole world Quiâ— in candelabro saith Gregory nisi Redemptor humani gener is designatur Who is figured out by the candlesticke but the Redeemer of mankinde Hastile candelabro saith venerable Bede ipse qui est caput Ecclesiae debet intelligi By the shaft of the Candlesticke must be vnderstood hee that is the head of the Church And the sixe branches issuing out of the body of the Candlesticke what are they but the Apostles and Pastours of the Church saith Marbachius which as branches issue from Christ and make but one body with the shaft to signifie that they must conspire in preaching Christ alone and so vnited to each other by the bond of Concord Yet the Church of Rome retaine also this ceremonie for they haue multitude of Lampes and Candles in their Churches burning in the day time as if they would declare to the world that either they beleeue that Christ is not yet come or else that they haue not the cleare Sunne-shine of the Gospell amongst them but the dimme Candle-light of superstition Now that this Iewish ceremonie is vsed amongst them not onely experience sheweth in all places and their great solemne Candlemasle vpon the day of the purification of the blessed Virgin but also the decree of their owne Popes Gregory the first and Sabinian his successour the one of which appointed certaine Lands for the maintenance of Wax-candles and Lamps in Churches and the other ordained Vt accensae Lampades perpetuò in Ecclesys retinerentur That burning Lampes should be alwayes kept in their Churches And that they fetch their patternâ— from the Iewes Durand plainly acknowledgeth when he saith That the Church is enlightned by Gods commandement Whereupon it is read in Exodus Charge the children of Israel that they offer pure oyle of oliue that the Lamps may burne continually in the Tabernacle It is cleare then that this is a Iewish imitation at least if they had not rather bee counted to be followers of the Gentiles then of the Iewes amongst whom also this custome was in vse to haue lights and Lampes continually burning in their Idoll Temples as witnesse both Tertullian Lactantius Gregory Naezianzene with diuers others Lactantius saith plainly That they set vp lights to their God as if he dwelt in darknesse And so they did for their gods whom they worshipped were deuils who are reserued in the chaines of darknesse vnto the Iudgement of the great day But our God dwelleth in light inaccessible and he is all light and in him is no darknesse what neede any light or Lamps be set vp before him then If they say that they haue the example of the primitiue Church for their warrant I answere that it is true indeede as may appeare out of all Ecclesiasticall Histories and the Epistles of Plinie the second to Traiane that they had the vse of Lamps in their assemblies but this was in their night-meetings which they were constrained to vse in the time of persecution not daring to assemble together by day as is testified both by Eusebius Epiphanius Tertullian c. but neuer in the day time till Ieromes age when this superstition began to grow vpon the Church So that this custome is either Heathenish or Iewish let them chuse whether both which are equally disgracefull to the Church of Christ 8. So likewise they fetch the vse of their hallowed water from the Iewes if not from the Pagans for the Iewes had their Holy-water made of the ashes of a red Cow whereby were purged all legall vncleannesses so haue the Romanists their Holy-water sprinkles to purge and clense away all the impurities of the soule This is plaine not onely by their practice but also by the decree falsly fathered vpon Pope Alexander the first but indeede of some later Pope which thus speaketh We blesse water mingled with salt that all being sprinkled therewith may be sanctified and purified which wee enioyne all Priests to doe for if the ashes of a Cow being sprinkled did sanctifie and clense the people of the Iewes then much more doth water mixed with salt and consecrated by diuine prayers sanctifie and clense Christian people Which consequence how vaine and impious it is who seeth not Vaine I say for the Leuiticall Holy-water did onely clense from outward vncleannesses but the Romish by their doctrine doth purge the soule from spirituall pollutions Impious for the Scripture saith that it is the bloud of Christ that purgeth vs from all our sinnes and not water mingled with salt and it maketh the comparison not betwixt the ashes of an Heyser and Holy-water water but betwixt it and the bloud of Christ This imitation then is both vaine and impious if it bee of the Iewes and more if it be of the Gentiles for what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols And yet so it is also for Iustine Martyr telleth vs that the deuils when they heard out of the Prophets of the spirituall washing that should be in the Kingdome of Christ in an apish resemblance caused his worshippers to purge themselues by the sprinkling of hallowed water And Theodoret that Iulian the Apostate commanded their bread flesh fruits and all other kind of victuals to be purged as he supposed by holy-water and that Valentinian his Tribune who succeeded him in the Empire when Fortunes Priest sprinkled him with holy-water strooke the Priest with his fist saying Thou hast not clensed but defiled me Hipocrates also the Physician doth witnesse the same when he saith
are the fights exercises of the iust And Origen That which is to the iust the exercise of vertue is to the vniust the punishment of sin And Tertullian The plagues of the world are to one for punishment to the other for admonition aduertisement and this is the very substance of our doctrine 38. As for our aduersaries they blush not to affirme euen the Councill of Trent it selfe that when God forgiueth a sinner yet he forgiueth not all the punishment but leaueth the party by his owne workes to satisfie till it bee washed away and that the bloud of Christ doth not serue to acquite vs from the temporall punishment but that we must acquite our selues either by our owne works as prayer almes fasting c. or by our suffrings either in this life or in Purgatory Yes some of the chiefest of them are bold to auouch that the recōpence made by satisfaction respecteth not only the temporall punishment but some part of the offence also and the wrath of God And others say That a sinner by the grace of God may satisfie for his sinne condignely and equally and by that satisfaction obtaine pardon And that which is more then all the rest some of them affirme without blushing that Christ by his sacrifice on the Crosse satisfied onely for originall sinne and not for actuall after Baptisme Bellarmine indeed is ashamed of this doctrine as he might well bee but yet it is plainely maintained by Gregorie de Valentia And this in briefe is the dunghill of Popish satisfactions from whence steame forth like vapours their Purgatorie and Pardons and Penance and much more such like trumpery 39. But let vs leaue them to their manifold errours and come to the examination of this one poynt whether they or we bring more dishonour to the Crosse of Christ And to the purpose first the very nature of satisfaction which as they affirme is the yeelding of a sufficient recompence to God for a trespasse committed is inough to prooue that their doctrine tends to the singular impeachment of the Crosse of Christ for if Christ hath made a full and perfect satisfaction vpon the Crosse as without all doubt he did he himselfe contesting in that his last speech It is finished then what neede any addition of humane satisfactions If there be such a necessity of humane satisfactions as they make then Christs satisfaction must needs be imperfect and so no satisfaction at all for an imperfect satisfaction is no satisfaction as the very word it selfe implyeth importing a sufficient recompence to be made to the party offended And if it be perfect it must be full and absolute that is such as needeth nothing else to be added vnto it But they require something to be added to Christs satisfaction and therefore must needs hold that it is not a full perfect and absolute satisfaction for it implyeth a manifest contradiction to affirme any thing to be a full and perfect cause of it selfe alone and yet to adde another to it as a ioynt cause to produce the same effect 40. But they will answere that mans satisfaction is not to supply the want of Christs but to apply it vnto vs and to fulfill his will and ordinance for Christs satisfaction say they is of infinite value and might aswell haue taken away the temporall punishment as the eternall but that God will haue it otherwise for the mortifying of sinne in vs and making vs conformable to Christ our head This answere of theirs may seeme to carry a shew of sound reason but in very deed it is but a shift and a golden couer to blanch the vglinesse of their doctrine for it were odious for them to say plainely that Christs satisfaction stood in need of a supply or was any wayes imperfect and therefore they would not haue men to thinke so of them though in truth they both thinke and speake so of Christ when they a little forget what they are a doing and by infallible consequence their doctrine concludeth no lesse for plaine speech thus writeth Gabriel Biel Though the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which the grace of God and the opening of heauen and the glory thereof be giuen yet it is neither the sole nor totall meritorious cause but alwaies there concurreth some worke of him that receiueth the grace And Miletus Christ indeed is the generall cause of our saluation but yet particular causes are to be added to this and so he is not the totall and whole cause And Bellarmine himselfe by consequence confesseth as much when he saith that a righteous man hath right to the Kingdome of heauen by a two-fold title one of the merits of Christ another of his owne merits These bee plaine speeches and shew what their meaning is so that howsoeuer they gloze ouer the matter with goodly words yet it is nothing but poyson in a painted boxe wherewith the ignorant may be infected but the skilfull are able to discerne their fraud And here obserue the contrariety of Bellarmines speech to another saying of S. Bernard to the same purpose Christ saith Saint Bernard hath a double right vnto the kingdome of heauen one by inheritance as he is the Sonne of God another by purchase as he bought it by his death the first he keepeth to himselfe this latter he imparts to his members This by S. Bernards Diuinitie is all the right that a faithfull man hath to the kingdome of heauen by Christs purchase and vpon this onely doth that good man and all other of Gods children relie but Bellarmine giueth him another title to wit by purchase of his owne merits which as it is a straine of his owne wit so let him keepe it to himselfe and make merry with it for wee will haue nothing to doe with it 41. As for that which they say that our satisfactions serue not to supply the want but to apply the efficacie of Christs vnto vs is a more ridiculous and shifting deuice then the other for first how can that be when as sinne is first pardoned which is by the satisfaction of Christ and then long after commeth our satisfaction if not in this life yet sure in Purgatorie The applying of a thing is a present act arising betwixt the agent and the patient therefore if our satisfaction doe apply Christs vnto our soules then it followeth that Christ hath not satisfied for our sinnes till wee haue satisfied for the temporall punishment of them which is flat contrarie to their owne principles Secondly that which applieth hath relation to that which is applied as to the obiect but our satisfaction hath no relation to Christs satisfaction as the obiect but is onely referred to the temporall punishment and to the iustice of God as they affirme therefore it cannot apply it vnto vs. And lastly how dissonant is it vnto reason that a satisfaction should apply a satisfaction as if one medicine
c. Which words they interpret as spoken to Peter onely and consequently to the Pope his successour we to the rest of the Apostles as well as to him Where now doth the Scripture decide this doubt and speake plainely which is the truest sense Mary first in the very place it selfe by the due examination of the circumstances thereof they euidently shew that our sense is the truest for whereas the question is propounded to all the Apostles verse 15. and all the Apostles held the same faith that Iesus is the Sonne of God verse 20. it must needes be that Peter was but as the fore-man of the Quest and answered not for himselfe only but for them all thereby shewing forth not any preeminence of authority aboue the rest but a greater zeale and forwardnesse then the rest And herevpon it followeth that seeing this promise of the keyes is made because of that faith and confession therefore they all beleeuing and confessing the same haue an interest to the promise as well as Peter And this Anselmus in plaine tearmes affirmeth It is to be noted saith he that this power was not giuen alone to Peter but as Peter answered one for all so in Peter hee gaue this power to all 14. Secondly by the conference of another place which is more plaine to wit Ioh. 20. 23. where is a gift and an endowment of that power of the keyes which before was promised for to binde and to loose and to remit and retayne sinnes is all one in effect as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and containâ— the whole vertue of the keyes now here they are all inuested with equall iurisdiction the Holy Ghost is equally breathed vpon them all and equall authority be queathed vnto them all by these words of the Commission As my Father sent me so I send you which exposition is confirmed by the authority of most of the Fathers as Augustine Cyprian Hierome Theophilact Anselme c. and thus the Scripture by a most liuely voyce determineth this doubt and as of this so of all other questions and interpretations the Scripture onely must bee the Iudge which by searching the originals examination of circumstances conference of other places and consulting with the learned Fathers and Expoâ—itors together with feruent prayer to God for inward illumination will giue a most exact and precise satisfaction to all controuersies touching matters of â—aith necessarie to bee beleeued 15. To the third reason that the Scripture is the law and therefore cannot be the Iudge I answere that though the Law and the Iudge be diuers distinct things yet they are subordinate one vnto the other and so may both ioyne in the concurrence of one cause as when our Sauiour saith Call no man Father vpon earth for there is but one your Father which is in heauen his meaning is not to exclude earthly Fathers from their title but to shew that God is the primer and principall Father both in respect of time order and cause and that the other are but subordinate vnto him so in a Common-wealth the Iudge is subordinate vnto the law and the law is the Iudges Iudge and for that cause as the Law is said to be a dumbe Magistrate so the Magistrate is said to be a speaking Law and so in truth the Law is the Iudge primarily and principally and the Magistrate is but the Minister of the law and the Iudge subordinate Now if this be so in a Common-wealth gouerned by humane Lawes which are failing and imperfect in many things being the ordinances of erring men how much more may we deeme it to be so in the Church of God whose Law-giuer is God himselfe and the law the word of God and therefore though the Pastors and Ministers of the Church may interpret the Scriptures yet they must be tyed to this rule to doe it by the Scriptures and to expound the law by the law for shall not a temporall Iudge giue sentence out of his owne braine but secundum leges statuta according to the lawes and statutes of the Realme And shall any Pastour of the Church be it the Pope himselfe giue iudgement in any question out of his owne brest without the direction of Gods word This is to preferre humane lawes before Gods law and to make the state of the Church farre inferiour to the state politike and to haue a more certaine rule for the deciding of ciuill controuersies then for the determining of questions of â—aith so that in a word the Scripture is both the law and the interpreter of the Law the Iudge and the Iudgement 16. Secondly Bellarmine affirmeth and laboureth to proue that the proper and chiefe end of the Scripture was not to be the rule of faith but that it might be commonitorium quoddam vtile A certaine profitable commonitory whereby the doctrine deliuered by word of mouth might be conserued and nourished And to this end and purpose he vseth diuers reasons as first because it containes in it many things which are not necessary to faith as all the Histories of the Olde Testament and many of the New and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles all which were not therefore committed to writing because they were necessary to be beleeued but are therefore necessarily beleeued because they are written Secondly because all things necessary to be beleeued are not contained in the Scripture as by what meanes women vnder the law were clensed from originall sinne wanting circumcision and children that dyed before the eight day and many Gentiles that were saued againe which are the books of Canonicall Scripture and that these are Canonicall and those are not that the Virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin that the Passeouer is to be kept vpon the Sunday being the Lords day and that children of beleeuing Parents are to bee baptized and such like Thirdly because the Scripture is not one continued body as a rule should bee but containeth diuers workes Histories Sermons Prophecies Verses and Epistles These be his three reasons by which the Iesuite would euince that the Scripture is not giuen to this end to be the rule of faith 17. To all which I will answere briefly and distinctly and first in generall secondly in particular In generall if the Scripture be not giuen to be the rule of faith why is it called Canonicall It is therefore called Canonicall because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life this very inscription approued by all doth refute Bellarmines fond cauillation Againe if the Scripture was not giuen to bee the rule but onely a monitorie why were there so many Bookes written seeing fewer would haue serued for monition The multiplicity of Bookes proueth that they serue not onely to put vs in mind of our duty but also as an exact rule to square our faith and frame our life by And lastly if the Scripture was not giuen to be a rule why doth he himselfe
confesse afterward that it is indeed a rule but not a total and entire rule but a partiall and imperfect one If it bee any waies a rule then it was giuen by God and written by the men of God to that end to be the rule And so Bellarmines goodly reasons hang together like a sicke mans dreame the one part wherof ouerthroweth the other 18. But to answere in particular to them seuerally To the first I say that it is not farre from blasphemy to affirme that there is any thing in holy Scripture that is vnnecessary for though all things are not of equall necessity and profit yet there is nothing in the whole Booke of God from the beginning of Gen. to the end of the Reuel but may haue most profitable and necessary vse in the Church of God if not for the essentiall forme of faith yet for the adorning and beautifying of it and this may truely bee verified euen of those things which he excepteth against to wit the Histories of the Olde and New Testament and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles out of all which how many excellent doctrines may be deriued both for the confirmation of faith and edification of manners And therefore as in mans body God by nature hath not disposed all parts to be alike necessary but some haue no other vse but ornament and comelinesse so hath Almighty God mingled the parts of holy Scripture in that manner that some are as it were bones and sinews to our faith some flesh and bloud and some againe but exteriour beautie and fashion yet as in nature nothing is made in vaine so much lesse in Scripture is there any thing to be accounted superfluous and redundant nay in this diuine body there are no excrements that may be cast out and separated as it fareth in our earthly carkases but all is entire sound and perfect as the Prophet Dauid teacheth Psal 19. 7. when hee saith that the Law of God is perfect conuerting the soule and our Sauiour Math. 5. 18. when he auoucheth that till heauen and earth perish one iote or title of the Law shall not c. 19. To his second reason I answere three things first that it is entirely false that the Scripture doth not contayne all things necessarily required to the Essence of faith for if the Scripture be perfect and giueth wisedome to the simple if nothing may bee added to it nor taken from it if to teach any thing besides the Scripture deserueth the fearefull Anathema if it be able to make the man of God perfect to euery good worke if in them onely wee may finde eternall life if the Church of God be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and lastly if our faith and hope doe arise from the Scriptures then there is nothing necessary to saluation but is fully and plenarily contained in them but the first is true as appeareth by all those testimonies before alledged and therefore the latter must by necessary consequence be true also 20. Secondly I answere that Bellarmine by that assertion crosseth the whole streame of the Fathers for most of them affirme the flat contrary Tertullian saith that when we once beleeue the Gospell Hoc prius credimus non esse quod vltra credere debemus This we beleeue first that there is nothing besides which we ought to beleeue Iraeneus saith that the Apostles committed to writing the Gospell which they preached Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum To be the foundation and pillar of our faith Basil saith Quicquid extra diuinam scripturam est cum ex fide non sit peccatum est Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture because it is not of faith is sinne Cyrill saith that all those things were written in holy Scripture which the Writers thought sufficient Tam ad mores quà m ad dogmata As well touching conuersation as doctrine Augustine saith that those things were chosen out to be written Quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur Which seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue And againe he saith in another place Whether concerning Christ or concerning the Church of Christ or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith or life we will not say if we but if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed Chrysostome saith Si quis eorum If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost doe speake any thing of him selfe and not out of the Gospell beleeue it not Ierome speaking of an opinion touching the death of Zacharias the father of Iohn Baptist saith Hoc quia ex Scripturis non habet authoritatem This because it hath not authority out of the Scriptures is as easily contemned as approued I supersede for breuity sake the residue of the Fathers who with full consent conspire in the same opinion yea not onely the Fathers but many also of their owne most learned Authors as Thomas Aquinas Antoninus Durandus Peresius Clingius and diuers others by all which we may see how little reckoning Bellarmine maketh of the ancient Fathers where they make for him hee magnifieth and exalteth them to the skies but when they are opposite to him he reiecteth them as drosse and the like account he maketh of his owne Doctors 21. Lastly I answere that of those things which he affirmeth not to be contayned in holy Scripture and yet to be of necessity of beliefe some of them are farre from either necessity or profit as that of the meanes whereby women vnder the Law were purged from originall sinne and how the Gentiles were partakers of the couenant hauing not the Sacrament and that Easter is to be celebrated vpon the Lords day If these things be of that necessity of beliefe which hee maketh them how many thousand then haue sinned greatly in being ignorant thereof for at this day not the hundreth part of Christians euer heard these things once named and yet by this ignorance they neither offended God nor hindered their owne saluation And what shall we thinke of Iraeneus and other godly Bishops in the East that held that Easter was not to bee celebrated euer vpon the Lords day Againe the other things nominated by him as that the books of the sacred Bible are the Canonicall Scripture and the word of the liuing God that the children of beleeuing parents are to be baptized that Christ descended into hell may easily be proued out of Scripture either by expresse testimonie or by necessarie consequence and deduction which is all one for Perinde sunt â—a quae ex Scripturis colliguntur atqueâ—a quae scribuntur c. saith Nazianzene 22. Thirdly being driuen by the power of truth to acknowledge the Scripture to be a rule he commeth in with a leaden distinction to wit that is not a totall but
call the Scripture a dumbe Iudge some a dead Letter and without a Soule others dead Inke others a Nose of Waxe to be wreathed this way or that way others say that it is no better then Aesops Fables without the authority of the Church all of them ioyne in this that it is not simply necessary that it was written not to rule our faith but to be ruled by it and that Christ neuer commanded his Apostles to write any Scripture and that it is subiect and inferiour to the Church all these and many other bitter and blasphemous speeches they belch out against the Scripture whereby they plainely bewray their cankred hatred against the Scripture and all because they finde it contrary to their humour and an enemie to their Religion 33. Thus the Minor proposition in this demonstration is I hope sufficiently prooued to wit that the Religion of the Church of Rome doth professedly disgrace the holy Scripture as both by their doctrine their practice and their blasphemous speeches against it doth manifestly appeare and so the conclusion is of necessary and vndeniable consequence that therefore it deserueth to be suspected and reiected of all those that professe themselues to be friends to the Scripture and hope from it either consolation in this life or saluation in the life to come MOTIVE VII That Religion is to be abhorred which maintaineth commandeth and practiseth grosse and palpable Idolatry but so doth the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo c. WHen I consider the fearefull Idolatry of the Church of Rome which for that cause is called The Whore of Babylon and The Mother of fornications Reuel 17. 1. 2. I cannot choose but wonder that any should be so bewitched with the sorceries of this Iezabel or made drunke with the wine of her fornication that they should take her marke vpon their forheads and right hands and ioyne with her in her abominations and not rather come out of her with all speed as they are admonished by the Angell lest they bee partakers in her sinnes and haue a share also with her in her plagues but then againe remembring that which S. Paul faith that the comming of Antichrist should be in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse and that God should send vpon them strong delusion to beleeue lies I turne my wondering at their sottishnesse into the admiration at Gods Iustice and Truth the one in punishing their contempt of his Gospell with such a giddinesse of spirit and the other in making good his owne word after such an euident and manifest manner that there by it most clearely appeareth that the Pope of Rome is that Man of sinne and Sonne of perdition there spoken of euen that Antichrist which exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God and sitteth in the Temple of God as if he were God As this appeareth in many grosse errors which they hold so in none more then in the horrible idolatry practised and preached defended in this Antichristian Church of which I may truely say as Plutarch said of the heathen that they mingle heauen with earth because they made Gods of men men of Gods So these whilst they giue diuine worship to earthly creatures as the crosse pictures of Christ and to the Saints in heauen or attribute earthly affections to heauenly creatures make a plaine mixture of heauen and earth spoyling the Creatour of his honour due vnto his Dietie and adorning the creature therewith and ascribing that vnto men which is onely proper vnto God That the Church of Rome is guilty of this impiety I hope by Gods grace so to proue in this Motiue that no Iesuite though neuer so subtill shall bee able with any shew of sound reason to hisse against 2. The first proposition in this Argument though it be of so euident a truth that it needeth no further demonstration yet because S. Paul saith that an Idoll is nothing in the world and thereupon some may peraduenture conclude that Idolatrie is a matter of nothing and a small and triuiall sinne I will therefore very briefly shew the greatnesse and haynousnesse of this sinne and how odious and abominable it is in the sight of God As touching therefore that phrase of Saint Paul An Idoll is nothing it is not to bee vnderstood either in respect of matter for euery Idoll hath a materiall being and subsisting as the matter of the Calfe which the Israelites made in the Wildernesse was gold and of the brazen serpent which was abused also as an Idoll was brasse and of those Idols which the Prophet Esay declameth so against were wood nor yet in respect of forme as Bellarmine and Caietane would haue it As though the Apostle should meane thus that an Idoll though it hath matter yet it hath no forme that is to say is the representation of such a thing as hath no being in nature for many of the Idols of the Gentiles were of such things as truly were but the Apostles meaning is as Tertullian obserues and many other both of ancient and late Writers that an Idoll is nothing in respect of that which it is intended to bee that is that it is no God nor hath any part of the Diuinitie in it which deserueth to bee worshipped or that it is nothing in regard of efficacie and power that is as the Psalmist speaketh is not able to doe either good or bad to hurt or to helpe to saue or to kill and this interpretation is authorized by S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome the one saying thus There are Idols indeede but they can doe nothing neither are they Gods the other thus Sunt Idola sed ad salutem nihil sunt There are Idols but they auaile nothing to the attaynement of saluation and it is also approued by many other Expositors both ancient and moderne Protestants and Papists and is most agreeable to the whole current of the Text. This then that S. Paul saith That an Idoll is nothing is both so farre from extenuating the sinne of Idolatrie that it aggrauateth the same and also so farre from clearing the Church of Rome from the guilt of that crime that it rather layeth a greater stayne thereof vpon it 3. As for the greatnesse of the sinne it may appeare by three considerations first of the precept for there is no one commandement of the Law so frequent in the whole Scripture and so strictly vrged and mounded and fenced about with so many reasons as that is against Idolatrie as we may see in the Decalogue Secondly in respect of the punishment denounced against and inflicted vpon the committers thereof to wit not onely eternall death from the iustice of God which is the wages of all sinne vnrepented of but also temporall death from the iustice of man as being vnworthy to breathe this common ayre or to tread vpon the earth that thus sinne against the Maiestie of God and that
and secondarily it amounteth to God 53. These be Bellarmines goodly but scarce godly distinctions for these and such like as these are hee vseth as engines to vndermine the truth and as vizards to couer the face of vgly falshood But they may well bee ouerthrowne with this one blast that the holy Scripture neuer taught them neither haue they any warrant from Gods Spirit and therefore they are rather to be accounted forgeries of a frothy wit then fruits of truth But let vs examine them a little A Church is dedicated to God as it is a Temple and to a Saint as it is a Basilica Why then it seemeth that either sometimes it is a Temple and sometimes not a Temple according to the fancie of those that approach vnto it or else it is alwaies a Temple and yet alwaies a Basilica too and then the honour must be diuided betwixt God and the Saints let them take which they will the first is impiety the second Idolatry Againe for Vowes though we vow chiefly vnto God and secondarily to the Saints yet the same worship in nature is giuen to these as to him onely it is not in the same degree but Idolatry is to afford any part of Gods worship to a creature as hath beene shewed And lastly touching feast daies if they be immediately applied to the honour of the Saint and in a mediate and secondarie respect to God as his distinction importeth then the creature is adored not onely with the like worship in nature but with a higher degree then God himselfe And thus the mist which he seeketh to cast ouer mens eyes by the subtiltie of his distinctions is quickly dispelled assoone as the light of truth sheweth it selfe and therefore as Ixion imbracing a cloud in stead of Iuno beg at a monstrous off-spring so the entertaining of those cloudie distinctions without deciphering them to the quicke hath bred and doth breed most of those monstrous errors in the Church of Rome Thus we see that this outward adoration is tainted with most grosse Idolatrie 54. The second branch of their Idolatrie to the Saints is by Inuncation and Prayer directed vnto them For Prayer is a proper and peculiar part of Gods worship and therefore not to be giuen to any other besides without a plaine touch of Idolatry for the commandement of God is in the Olde Testament Call 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 not vpon my â—â—gels or my Saints but vpon 〈…〉 nd tâ—â—â— be alone is 〈…〉 inuocated the reason following declareth 〈…〉 d I will deliuer thee from whence ariseth this conclusion he alone is to be inuocated by prayer that is able to deliuer vs in the day of trouble but God alone can doe that therefore he alone is to be prayed vnto Againe it is the commandement of our Sauiour Christ in the New Testament to his whole Church that it should thus pray O our Father not O our mother nor O our brother nor O our sister nor O our fellow-seruants as the Popish Church prayeth but O our Father If there had been any necessity of praying to Saints sure our Sauiour would here haue prescribed it where he setteth downe a perfect forme of prayer to be vsed in his Church for euer Infinite be the places of Scripture â—ending to this end neither is there so much as one precept or example in the whole Booke of God that either inioyneth or approueth Inuocation of Saints as Cassander confesseth albeit his inference therevpon is absurd that therefore it may be done because as there is no mandate nor example extant to warrant it so there is no prohibition to interdict it as if it were not necessarily required that as all our actions so our prayers should bee grounded vpon faith without which it is not onely impossible to please God but also whatsoeuer we doe is sinne but saith is grounded vpon the word of God only It commeth by hearing saith the Apostle and hearing by the word of God How then can the Inuocation of Saints bee but vaine and vnprofitable yea impious and dangerous seeing it is without saith and so without all hope of Gods acceptance 55. Suarez and Salmeron two famous Iesuites confesse as much as Cassander for the one saith that we neuer reade that any directly prayed vnto the Saints departed that they should pray for them and the other that the Inuocation of Saints is not expressed in the New Testament because it would haue beene a harsh precept to the Iewes and dangerous to the Gentiles Thus here are three and those not of the meanest that acknowledge the inuocation of Saints not to bee found in Scripture And yet Bellarmine and â—â—â—ius and Coster and others 〈…〉 ashamed to â—â—est di 〈…〉 laces of Scripture to prooue it but with what impudeâ—â—y of spirit and euill successe I shall not neede to shew being sufficiently discouered by others and the very fight of them being a sufficient refutation 56. As for his reason which he braggeth to be vnanswerable me thinkes it halts of all foure for because we entreat Gods children here in this world to pray for vs doth it therefore follow that we must pray vnto them being departed out of this world By the same reason it may bee inforced that we ought to giue almes vnto them and entertaine them into our houses and wash their feete and comfort them and aduise them and preach vnto them for all these duties of charity wee performe to Saints militant If they say Why but they are remooued from vs and also from their bodies and therefore as they stand not in neede of our charity so wee cannot extend it vnto them The same answere cutteth the throte of this argument they are so farre exalted aboue vs and seuered from all commerce with our affaires that though we vsed their prayers here on earth yet it is in vaine to inuocate them in heauen our prayers as our deeds of charity being not able to stretch so farre This I take to be a sufficient solution to that vnsoluble argument Albeit we haue also another answere in readinesse to wit that there is not the same reason of the inuocation of Saints in heauen as of the mutuall prayers of Gods children on earth but a great difference here we know one anothers necessities there the Saints know not our wants here we are present with them whom we request to pray for vs but we are not present with the Saints in heauen nor they with vs and therefore the one is a fruite of charity but the other a practice of piety and religion here one liuing man may request anothers helpe by word of mouth or letter but inuocation of Saints is often performed by the secret desires of the heart without the vtterance of any speech here we stand as fellow members in our prayers and make request for each other not in our owne names but in the name of Christ our Mediatour but when men inuocate the Saints in
with Hierome and Iustine Martyr and when he entred into the house the dores being shut that the dores and walls yeelded vnto him a passage as vnto their Creator with Theodoret and Cyrill and that when hee appeared vnto Paul going to Damascus if it was in the aire or on the earth as it may be doubted that then this body was not in heauen at the same instant for farre bee it from vs so to pin vp our Lord in the Heauens that he cannot be where he pleaseth And this is Thomas Aquinas opinion in expresse words which Bellarmine as expresly contradicteth 15. Thirdly by discourse of reason hee thus laboureth to reconcile these contradictions and thus disputeth God being but one simple and inuisible essence is in infinite places at once and he might create another world and fill it with his presence and be in two worlds at one instant and the soule of man is wholy in euery part of the body and God is able to conserue the soule in a part that is cut off from the body therefore it implieth no contradiction to be in two places at once againe one place may containe two bodies and yet be not two places but one as when Christ rose out of the graue the Sepulchre being shut therefore one body may be in two places at once and yet not two bodies but one Lastly there be many other mysteries of religion as strange and difficult to be conceiued as this and yet are beleeued therefore this also is to be beleeued as well as they 16. A miserable cause sure that needeth such defences the weakenesse of these reasons argueth the feeblenesse of the cause for who knoweth not but that there is no similitude betweene the infinite God and a finite Creature nor any proportion betwixt a Spirit and a body and that à posse ad esse from may bee to must bee is no good consequence Adde that one place cannot hold two bodies nor euer did except they were so vnited that in respect of place they made but one And lastly that all those mysteries of Religion which he nameth to wit the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection the Creation and Annihilation c. haue their foundation in holy Scripture and therefore are to be receiued as doct ines of truth though transcending the spheare of nature and reason but this strange mysterie of Transubstantiation hath no ground in Scripture as he himselfe confesseth and therefore it is not to be beleeued as the other are without better reasons then he bringeth for the defence thereof but like lips like lettuces such as the cause is such are the defences both nought and weake as any man may see that is not muffled with errour and thus this second contradiction remaines irreconciliable 17. A third contradiction is also in and about the Sacrament which is this they teach that the matter in Sacrament is partly the outward Elements and partly the thing signified and represented by them and that betwixt these there is a certaine relation and similitude as in Baptisme the outward signe which is water and the thing signified which is the bloud of Christ make the matter of that Sacrament or the outward wasting by water and the inward by the Spirit and the relation is as the water washeth and purgeth away all filthinesse of the body so Christs bloud purgeth away both the guilt and filth of sinne from the soule and so in the Eucharist the Elements of Bread and Wine together with the bodie and bloud of Christ are the matter of the Sacrament and the relation is as those elements doe feed nourish and strengthen and cheare the bodie of man so the body and bloud of Christ doe seed nourish and strengthen and cheare the soule vnto eternall life and as those elements must be eaten and digested or else they nourish not so Christ must also be eaten and as it were digested and after a sort conuerted into our substance or else he is no food vnto our soules This is the very doctrine of the Church of Rome and it is agreeable to the truth for Bellarmine thus speaketh Species illae significant quidem cibum spiritualem sed non sunt ipsae cibus spiritualis that is The signes in the Scrament signifie our spirituall foode but they are not the spirituall foode it selfe And in another place he saith that signum in Sacramento reisignatae similitudinem gerit The signes in the Sacrament doe beare the similitude of the thing signified And in the same Chapter hee sayth more plainely that God would neuer haue ordained one thing to signifie another vnlesse it had a certaine analogie or similitude with it And herein he accordeth with the Master of sentences who defines a Sacrament thus To be a visible forme of an inuisible grace bearing the Image of that grace And with Hugo who saith That a Sacrament is a corporall or materiall element propounded outwardly to the senses by similitude representing and by institution signifying and by Sanctification containing some inuisible and spirituall grace And that this relation is in eating and nourishing Bellarmine in another place confesseth in direct words when he saith that That same outward eating in the Sacrament doth signifie the inward eating and refreshing of the soule but is not the cause thereof and that that is so necessarie a condition that without it we should not be partakers of that diuine nourishment And to this agreeth Saint Augustine who plainely affirmeth that if Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were not Sacraments at all And what this similitude is he declareth in another place where hee saith that We receaue visible meate in the Sacrament but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And Thomas Aquinas giueth this as a reason why Bread and Wine are the fittest matter of this Sacrament because men most commonly are nourished therewith his words are these As water is assumed in the Sacrament of Baptisme to the vse of spirituall washing because corporall washing is commonly made by water so bread and wine wherewith most commonly men are nourished are taken vp in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the vse of the spirituall eating By which it followeth that if water did not wash it was no fit element for the Sacrament of Baptisme so if bread and wine doe not nourish they are no fit signes for the Lords Supper and for this cause our Sauiour at the institution of this Sacrament gaue this commandement to his Disciples that they should take and eate and the Apostle calleth it the Lords Supper and the Lords Table 18. This therefore is their own doctrine and it is grounded vpon the truth But listen a little how they contradict this by their miraculous monster Transubstantiation for when they say that the substance of the bread and wine is vtterly
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
errour 86. Secondly hee sayth that there are two kindes of Readers One that read with fruit and profit others that read without fruit yea rather with hurt Now the Scripture may bee read of the first but not of the second But I would know of him againe who hath that power to discerne betwixt these two Doe they know the heart of a man Or can they prophecy of that which is to come If they cannot doe these things then they ought not to locke vp the Scriptures from any vpon this surmise but permit the vse of that which is good to all and leaue the successe to God Againe because some peruert the Scripture to their damnation shall therefore all bee forbidden to reape comfort by it Because the theefe robs and kils with his sword shall not therefore an honest man vse one for his owne defence Because the Spider sucks vp poyson out of the flowre therefore shall not the Bee suck honey This is to take away the vse of all good things For as the Poet sayth Nil prodest quod non laedere possit idem Nothing so profitable in the vse but in the abuse may be hurtfull and nuisant 87. Lastly are the ignorant common people more subiect to erring and heresie then the learned Let Espensaeus a learned Bishop of their owne informe him to the contrary I remember sayth hee that an Italian Bishop told me that his countrey-men were scarred from reading the Scriptures lest they should become heretikes as if heresies did spring from the study of the Scriptures and not rather from the neglect and ignorance of them And if he will not beleeue him let another learned Roman si step out tel him that very few ignorāt persons were the authors of heresie another that learned men indued with great wits fall by their pride into heresie so that he need not so much feare lest heresie should build her nest in the bosome of the poore ignorant man as lest like the Eagle shee should flye aloft and set her selfe in the top of the high Cedars of the Church 88. But what doe I stand to ouerthrow this vaine exception since it is no better then a meere deception confuted by the practice of their owne Church for without difference any that will pay for it beeing neuer so ignorant might haue a licence to read the Scriptures And we had heere in England in Queene Maries dayes a Romish indulgence that hee that could dispend a certaine reuenue by the yeere might read the Bible in English as is reported by Master Cartwright in his answere to the Preface of the Rhemes Testament So that is as cleare as the day that it is not the fruit and benefit that should come to the Reader that they regarded but the profit and gaine that should accrue to their owne purses neither was the feare of erring the cause of their prohibition but rather the feare of too much knowledge lest thereby the grosse and foule abominations of their Church should bee discouered and so come to bee abhorred and detested 89. The Gospell teacheth that none can forgiue sins but God because sinne is a preuarication of Gods Law and therefore none can remit it but hee against whom it is committed Vpon which ground venerable Bede writing vpon these words of the fift of Luke Who can forgiue sinnes but God sayth that the Pharises said truely therein because no man can forgiue sinnes saue God alone who also forgiueth by them to whom hee hath committed the power of the keyes and therefore Christ is proued to bee truely God by this that hee can forgiue sinnes as God and it may be proued further to bee true because our Sauiour himselfe approoueth of that speech of theirs not shewing any manner of dislike thereunto And therefore Saint Ambrose affirmeth plainely that to forgiue sinnes is not common to any man with Christ This is sayth he the onely office of Christ who tooke away the sinne of the world And Cyprian as directly Onely the Lord can take pitty and grant pardon to sinnes which are committed against him But the Synagogue of Rome teacheth that though this power bee originally and fundamentally in Christ yet he hath committed the same to his Vicar the Pope and from him it is deriued to Cardinals Bishops and infetiou◠Priests vnder the commission and authority of the keyes and that not ministerially and by way of declaration onely which wee confesse but absolutely and iudicially and as Christ himselfe and that not onely to the liuing but to the dead also that are in Purgatory For it is a rule without exception amongst them that all satisfactory punishments may bee released by a pardon And it is as sure that a pardon for any manner of sinne may bee obtained for a price And therefore there is a certaine rate set downe for all kinde of sinnes as Murther Incests Sodomy Sacriledge c. And Aquinas thus reasoneth If Christ might release the fault without any satisfaction then so may it be that the Pope By which wee see that according to their doctrine the Pope hath asmuch power to forgiue sins as Christ himselfe hath which is the Scribes and Pharises liued and heard they would cry out O blasphemie This is the expresse doctrine of the Church of Rome 90. For the making good of this doctrine they haue a double distinction answerable to the double manner of remitting sin vsed in their Church one touching the absolution of a sinner by the Priest in their Sacrament of penance The other touching the Popes indulgence out of the Sacramēt groūded vpon the treasure of supererogatory works which they say is in the Church and consequently in the Popes dispensation Concerning the first they say that Christ absolueth a sinner by his owne power but the Priest by the power of Christ committed vnto him in that famous Legacy Whose sinnes yee remit on earth they are remitted in Heauen 91. To which I answere two things First that heerein they cōtradict their ancient schoole For Peter Lumbard one of the masters of the schoole doth plainly affirme that such only are worthily absolued by the Church who are absolued in Heauen because by the error of man it may so happen that hee that seemeth to bee cast out of Gods family bee still within and he who may be thoght to remaine within is notwithstanding cast ou◠And that therefore God absolueth differently from the Church God by remitting the sinne purging the soule from the blemish thereof and freeing it from eternall punishment the Church by declaring who are absolued by God By which not onely his opinion is manifest that the Priest hath no absolute power of absoluing a sinner but onely of declaring that hee is absolued which is our doctrine but also his reason is inuincible that because the Priest may erre in his absolution therefore hee hath no such absolute power committed
somewhat longer let the Reader beare with mee for so the nature and nouelty of the matter requireth Their next practice then to defend their Church and Religion is by grosse and palpable lying and falshood yea so grosse and palpable that any ciuill honest man would blush to be reputed the author of such fables which they obtrude vpon silly people as verities necessary to bee beleeued and which they like simple creatures giue faith vnto asmuch as vnto the Gospell it selfe and neither is the one or the other any maruaile seeing Saint Paul prophesied long agoe that on the one side Antichrist his comming should be according to the efficacy of Sathan in all power in lying signes and wonders and on the other that God would send vpon them that receiued not the loue of the truth strong delusion that they should beleeue lyes so that by this prophecy one of the chiefest props of Antichrists kingdome must bee lyes and therefore the Church of Rome making no conscience thereof sheweth it selfe to be no better then the Synagogue of Antichrist If they say that they doe it to a good end namely to maintaine the truth I answere with Iob Nunquid Deus indiget mendacio vestro vt pro illo loquamini dolos Doth GOD stand in need of your lye that you should speake deceitfully for his cause no he will surely reprooue you for it and with Saint Augustine Cum humilitatis causa mentiris si non eras peccator antequam mentireris mentiendo efficieris quod euitaras that is If thou tellest a lye for humility sake or for the truths sake if thou were not a sinner before by lying thou art made that which thou didst auoid what can bee more pithily spoken for the reproofe of these men who by falshood pretend to establish the truth and by lying to vphold their Religion and if neither the Scripture nor this holy Father are regarded by them then let them heare the censure of the Heathen Cicero who concludeth that in virum bonum non cadit mentiri emolumenti sui causa It falleth not to a good man to lye no not for his owne profite sake what are they then in his account who make a common practice to lye for their aduantage But lest I should bee thought to accuse them falsely and in reproouing their lying to fall into the same vice my selfe let vs take a short view of some of their notorious vntâ—uths which are sparsed in their bookes And heere to omit their lying Reuelations lying priuiledges false Canons forged donations counterfeit de lying martyrologies all which are stuffed with notorious falsities and that by the confession of their owne Doctours I will insist onely vpon their lying miracles wherein they vaunt themselues as a marke of their Church and wherewith they labour to vphold most of their erronious opinions 11. And first touching their miraculous transubstantiatioÌ„ and adoration of the Sacrament not finding in Scripture sufficient proofe for it it is strange to see how many monstrous miracles they haue deuised for to win credit thereunto Bozius a man of great fame amongst them telleth vs these three tales first that Anthony of Padua caused his horse to kneele downe and worship the holy hoast by which strange sight a stout Heretike was conuerted to the true faith And secondly Saint Francis had a Cade Lambe which vsed to goe to Masse and would duely kneele downe at the eleuation and adore And thirdly that a certaine deuout woman to cure her Bees of the murren and to make them fruitfull put a consecrated hoast into the Hiue which when after a time shee tooke vp shee not onely found a miraculous increase but saw also a strange wonder the Bees had built a Chappell in the Hiue with an Altar and windowes and doores and a steeple with Bells and had laid the hoast vpon the Altar and with a heauenly noyse flew about it and sung at their Canonicall houres and kept watch by night as Monkes vse to doe in their Cloisters Who would not beleeue now but that the hoast is to be adored if hee be not more senslesse then a horse or a Bee or a Cade Lambe But if this be true why are Mice so prophane that they dare rend it with their teeth And why doth not the Popes Hackney kneele downe and doe reuerence vnto it when hee carrieth it on his backe accompanied with muletters and horse-keepers and Courtisans and Cookes with sumpter-horses and all the baggage of the Court as oft as his Holinesse is to trauell abroad when hee himselfe followeth mouÌ„ted vpon a goodly white palfrey accoÌ„panied with Cardinals Primates Bishops Potentats Is more honor to be giuen to Christs Vicar then to Christ himselfe Or was Anthonies horse more religious then all the Popes horses yea then the Pope himselfe and all his traine And if the hoast bee so soueraigne a preseruatiue for Bees why doe any good housewiues suffer their Bees to perish seeing they may haue the hoast for God amercy or at least wise for a very small price In the booke of the conformities of Saint Francis wee finde this miracle On a time Fryer Francis saying Masse found a Spider in the Chalice which hee would not for reuerence to the Sacrament cast out but drunke it vp with the blood afterward rubbing his thigh and scratching where it itched the Spider came whole out of his thigh without any harme to either O strange miracle and yet not so strange as this that Christs bloud in the Chalice should poyson Pope Victor except Francis a Fryer were more holy then Victor a Pope or the blood in one Chalice were of greater force then in the other but peraduenture the Priest in the one had no intention to turne the wine into blood as the Priest in the other had and then wee know there can be no conuersion but no maruaile if this be true seeing in the festiual of Corpus Christi day we read as great a wonder as this to wit of a Priest that hauing lost the hoast in a wood as hee came to housell a woman that was sicke and hauing whipt himselfe for his negligence went backe to seeke his Lord God and at last spying a pillar of fire that reached from the earth to heauen ran thereunto and found Gods body at the foot of that pillar and all the beasts of the forrest about it kneeling on their foure knees and adoring it with great deuotion ex ept one blacke horse which kneeled but on one knee and that blacke horse sayth the story was a fiend of hell who had turned himselfe into that shape that men might steale him and bee hanged as many had beene This as it was reported to bee done not far from Exbridge in Deuon-shire so it was as solemnely read in the Church and as verily beleeued as any miracle that euer Christ wrought who can doubt now but that the bread in the
assertion that God can not make those things that bee done to be vndone doth not destroy but build vp the omnipotency of God seing as Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth Facere contradictoria non est efficere sed deficere to doe things contradictorie is not to effect and doe but to faile and vndoe and therefore an argument of impotency rather then of omnipotency and for that cause Pererius another Iesuite auoucheth the same doctrine with vs in these words God is said to be omnipotent not onely because he can do whatsoeuer is contained in the world but also because nothing is impossible vnto him except that which to be done implieth contradiction what an impudent flander then is this to say that wee deny Gods omnipotency by affirming that hee cannot make that to bee vndone which is done especially seeing wee say further with Tertullian and Saint Augustine that therefore God cannot do it because he will not do it he cannot therefore deny himselfe not make that to be vndone which is done because hee will not and he will not because it would rather be an argument of weakenes then a power in him so to doe 76. Againe they challenge Caluine of denying the immortality of the soule And why thinke you Because they would make him to say that the soules of the iust are kept in certaine secret receptacles till the day of Iudgement and doe not till then inioy the presence of God Another palpable slander for first Caluine doth not say so secondly if hee did yet it doth not follow thereupon that hee denyeth the immortality of the soule for the first let Caluine first speake for himselfe and then let his aduersaries also speak for him Touching the place where the soules of the iust remaine after death he affirmeth plainely in diuers places that they liue with God and enioy the happy felicity of his kingdome though their perfect happinesse is deferred till the second comming of Christ when their bodies and soules shal be re-united and made partakers of the same blessednes This he testifieth not in one or two but in many places how therefore can they lay to his charge that opinion touching secret receptacles where soules are reserued till the day of the resurrection 77. Mary sayth Bellarmine in two respects first because he maketh Christ alone to haue entred into the Sanctuary of heauen and there to present the prayers of the people resting in the vtter court to God secondly because he sayth that the Saints departed are ioyned together with vs by faith therefore sayth Bellarmine He must needs deny that they see God seeing where faith is there is not sight But his conclusion in both is false though the premises be true for as the Atrium or vtter Court of the Temple to which Caluine alludeth was a part of the Temple so by proportion the vtter Court of Heauen is a part of Heauen witnesse their owne Ribera expounding that place of Exodus whereunto Caluine alludeth and therefore Caluine if hee did say so doth not banish the iust soules out of Heauen but onely placeth Christ our high Priest betwixt God and them But what if hee speake onely of the Saints liuing and not departed and meane by the vtter Court not any part of Heauen but the Church militant heere on earth If this be true what shamelesse slaunderers are these fellowes to wring a sense out of Caluine whereof there is no show in the words let the place be consulted and viewed and their malice and impudency will appeare most notorious 78. Againe that faith which hee speaketh of in the second place is nothing else but their stedfast beliefe and expectation of the resurrection of their bodies which liueth in the faithfull soules separated from this mortality vntill the full accomplishment of their happinesse aswell as in the Saints militant neither can I conceiue any absurdity in this that the Saints departed should haue faith in this respect seeing they must needs haue hope which two Theologicall vertues are so perplexed together that one cannot bee without the other and therefore Clemens Alexandrinus calleth hope the blood of faith and Saint Paul sayth 1. Cor. 13. that faith and hope shall cease together when charity shall suruiue and remaine If then the Saints departed hope for the resurrection of their bodies why may they not bee said also to beleeue it and yet for all that be in heauen too 79. Neither is the other place obiected out of Caluine by Bellarmine any whit repugnant to this doctrine for though he sayth that it is a foolish and rash part to dispute curiously what the place is that the Saints possesse in Heauen and whether they inioy the full ioyes of heauen or no yet in the very same place hee affirmeth that they are in the presence of Christ in Paradise and that they onely expect the fruition of that promised glory which their bodies also shal be possessors of at the comming of Christ 80. Thus we haue heard Caluine speake for himselfe Let vs now heare his enemies speaking for him in this case then which there cannot be a stronger argument of his innocency and in this two may stand for all Bellarmine is the first hee directly confesseth that Caluine placed the soules of the Saints in heauen euen before the comming of Christ and to him subscribeth Fenardentius another Iesuite who affirmeth that this was Caluines opinion that the faithfull when they should depart out of this world doe behold God neere vnto them and as it were set before their eyes And thus Caluine is quit from this enditement by the witnesse of his profest aduersaries 81. Secondly let it be granted which neuerthelesse can no wayes be prooued that Caluine held this opinion touching the residence of soules in some secret place yet it doth not follow that therefore he denyed the immortality of the soule For then Origen Iustine Martyr Tertullian Irenaeus Lactantius Victorinus Chrysostome Theodoret Theophilact Ambrose Bernard and diuers others of the ancient godly Fathers should be enwrapped within the same errour who all held that opinion touching soules departed and yet were as farre from gain-saying or once imagining any opposition to the soules immortality as these backbiting Shemiâ—s are from charity and truth 82. Another lowde and lewde slander of theirs against our Religion is that it maintaineth and warranteth rebellion and disobedience against lawfull Princes Which if they could prooue wee would confesse that our Religion was naught seeing Gods word commandeth euery soule to be subiect to the higher powers but yet not worse then theirs which is without all contradiction guilty of this crime which they impute vnto vs as hath beene prooued but let vs heare their proofes they are of two sorts first from the doctrines of some of our learned writers and secondly from the practice of our professors In the first kind they obiect Caluine Beza Luther Knox Buchanan
foreheads 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is not so safe as ours may appeare by comparing our principall doctrines together and first to begin with the Sacrament That the bodie of Christ is truely really and effectually present in the Eucharist both they and we hold grounding vpon that text of Scripture this is my bodie but concerning the maner of this presence the Romanists hold that it is by transub stantiation we by a spirituall presence which notwithstanding is true and reall both in relation to the outward signes and to the faith of the Receiuer Now see the dangers that arise from their doctrine which are not incident to ours 2. First if there be not a corporall presence of Christ and a reall Transubstantiation as they suppose then this doctrine leadeth to horrible and grosse Idolatrie for they must needs worship a piece of bread in stead of Christ And this not onely if their doctrine bee false but being supposed to bee true in case hee that consecrateth be not truly a Priest or haue not an intention to consecrate as oftentimes it falleth out for in both these cases by the grounds of their owne Religion there is no change of substances and therefore as much danger of Idolatrie as eyther of a false Priest or of a true Priests false intention But in our doctrine there is no such danger and yet as true reall and powerfull an existence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament as with them if not more seeing the more spirituall a thing is the more powerfull it is according to the rules of reason for wee are not in danger to worship a creature in stead of the Creatour but wee worship the Creatour himselfe euen Iesus Christ our Redeemer who is there present after a spirituall manner and that as reuerently deuoutly and sincerely as they doe a piece of bread 3. Secondly by this doctrine our aduersaries incline to fauour the Capernaites who had a conceit of a corporall and fleshly eating of Christs bodie and giue iust cause to the Pagans to slander Christian Religion to bee a bloudy and cruell Religion Whereupon the Fathers to crosse the one and stop the mouth of the other taught that Christs speech in the sixt of Iohn was to be vnderstood spiritually and not carnally and that it was a figure and not a proper speech But our doctrine doth giue no such occasion eyther to the Heretikes on the one side or to the Pagans on the other neyther hath it any consanguinitie with the Capernaites and yet wee retaine as certaine and powerfull a participation of our Sauiours bodie and bloud as they doe I know they thinke to escape from this rocke by a distinction of visible and inuisible eating as if the Capernaites dreamed that Christ would haue his bodie to bee eaten visibly but they inuisibly that is say they spiritually which indeed is no cuasion for an inuisible eating is a true eating As when a blind man eateth or a seeing man in the darke and cannot therefore be called a spirituall eating but a corporall neyther doth this free them from approching neere to the Capernaites though they somewhat differ from them nor from giuing iust cause of offence to the Heathen from both which our doctrine giueth full and perfect securitie 4. Thirdly and lastly their doctrine of transubstantiation doth not onely countenance but confirme the ancient heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and Eutychians that impugned the truth of Christs humane nature for they taught that he had not a true but a phantasticall bodie and what do our aduersaries but approue the same indeede though they seeme to detest it in word when they teach that his bodie is present in the Sacrament not by circumscription nor determination but by a spirituall and diuine presence quomodo Deus est in loco as God is in a place which is asmuch as to say that his bodie is not a true bodie but a spirituall bodie that is indeed a phantasticall bodie Againe the bread which they say is the bodie is not bread in truth but in shew after it is consecrated for there is nothing of bread but the mere accidents without a substance according to their doctrine and so it is in all reasonable construction no better then a phantasticall thing seeming to the outward sense to bee that which in truth it is not Why may not those Heretikes then reason from these doctrines thus If Christs bodie be a spirituall bodie in the Eucharist and the bread be phantasticall bread then why might not his bodie be so also when he was on the earth But the former is true by your doctrine O ye Romanists therefore why may not the latter which is our doctrine be also true But none of these Heretikes can haue any such aduantage from our doctrine which teacheth that Christ in respect of his humane nature is resident in the heauens circumscribed by place and that hee is present in the Sacrament by the efficacie of his inuisible and powerful grace after a spirituall manner as Saint Augustine speaketh and that both the bread remaineth bread after consecration and the bodie of Christ remaineth still a naturall bodie after the resurrection retaining still the former circumscription as Theodoret auoucheth this taketh away all aduantage from Heretikes which their doctrine doth manifestly giue vnto them For these causes Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinall doth confesse that from our doctrine no inconuenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And Occham that it is subiect to lesse incommodities and lesse repugnant to holy Scripture Thus wee see that in this first doctrine touching the Eucharist there is more securitie and lesse danger in our doctrine and Religion then in theirs 5. I come to a second point which is touching the merits of works whereby the Romish Religion doth cast men into three eminent dangers which by our doctrine they are free from First of vaine glory for when a man is perswaded that there is a merit of condignitie in the worke which hee hath wrought how can he choose but reioyce therein and conceiue a vaine-glorious opinion of his owne worthinesse as the proud Pharise did when he bragged that he had fasted and prayed and payd his tithes seeing it is impossible but that the nature of man which is inclinable vnto vaine-glory and selfe-loue if it haue a conceit of any selfe-worthinesse should bee puffed vp with a certaine inward ioy and pride and therefore Chrysostome taketh it for wholesome counsel to say that wee bee vnprofitable seruants lest pride destroy our good workes 6. Secondly of obscuring and diminishing Gods glorie and Christs merits For where merit is there mercie is excluded and where something is ascribed to man for the obtaining of saluation there all is not ascribed vnto Christ and although they colour the blacke visage of this doctrine with a faire tincture to wit that all
this to rely vpon for his saluation then the other Thomas Aquinas seeing this ascribeth an infinitie to humane satisfactions in respect that they are informed by grace but therein hee crosseth both all his fellowes and their doctrine it selfe for if they be infinite then they must needes answere aswell for the eternall punishment as for the temporall which they denie 13. Thirdly they themselues cannot agree about their satisfactions as whether they bee by precept and commandements or only by counsell and perfection and not commanded whether the vertue of satisfying bee in the outward or inward act or in both whether they serue to take away the temporall punishment onely or the gilt of the sinnes or the punishment of hell excepting the eternitie whether they be so necessarie that there can bee no absolution without them or that a sinner may be absolued by his contrition and confession without penal satisfaction and lastly whether the least satisfaction be sufficient for the greatest temporall punishment or that a due proportion is to be obserued All these intricate questions are exagitated in this doctrine some holding one thing some another without any iust and sure resolution what a dangerous thing is it then to relye vpon these vncertainties which they themselues are not able to bring into grounded principles how much safer is it to repose our selues wholly vpon that blessed satisfaction of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ in which neyther Romanist nor Protestant could euer find any ambiguitie or doubt but that it is of absolute necessitie for mans saluation of infinite efficacie to appease the wrath of God and of proportionable dignitie to the iustice of God 14. Lastly after they haue with one hand stretched the worthinesse of their satisfactions to the highest straine yet they pull them downe againe with the other and make them of no force for let the satisfaction bee what it will yet the Popes pardon can dissolue the bonds thereof for it is a ruled case in their Religion that all satisfactorie punishment may bee released by a pardon and this pardon may bee obtained by saying not onely ouer certaine prayers visiting certaine Churches worshipping certaine relickes and kneeling to certaine pictures c. but also by disbursing certaine monie out of their purses that may come to the Popes purse and coffers Behold now the greatest danger of this doctrine thy satisfaction is released and made no satisfaction and it is released by him of whom thou maist iustly doubt whether hee hath authoritie so to doe and whether he may erre in doing it hee doth it de facto not examining whether thou bee truly penitent or no but whether thou hast payd thy penitentiall tax or no and that which is worst of all hee so granteth it that it is alwayes reuocable at his secret pleasure so that satisfaction is made no satisfaction by the Popes pardon the Popes pardon is made no pardon because it is bought with monie thy monie perish with thee that thinkest this gift of the holy Ghost can bee obtained with monie and the mony is cast away because the Pope may both erre in his pardoning and also reuoke his pardon when he list without giuing any notice of the cause vnto the partie what securitie can a Christian conscience find in these vnsure principles How much safer a course is it to rely vpon Christs satisfaction onely which is a true satisfaction indeed not disanulled by any act eyther of God or man not pardoned but performed not purchased by monie but by faith which is more precious then gold and lastly not reuocable by any power in heauen or in earth but standing firme as an euerlasting foundation for the saluation of the elect 15. Touching Antichrist whether side doth more incline to take part with his Apostacie and is in most danger to bee inthralled to his dominion let any indifferent man iudge for wheras it is granted by all both Romanists and Protestants yea and Fathers also that Antichrist should bee a Monarch clayming an vniuersall iurisdiction throughout the whole World and should also challenge to himselfe an infallibilitie of iudgement Protestants abhorring all such manner of subiection and renouncing all such power in any creature cannot possibly fall into the Antichristian gulfe But Papists professing the Pope to be the sole Monarch of the Church and his iudgement to bee of infallible truth in the defining of matters of faith must needs bee in more danger to bee in Antichrists Kingdome we cannot be slaues to Antichrist because we admit no gouernment like vnto his in the Church nor any such peremptorie power of not erring in the gouernment But they professing a gouernment and a power in that gouernment so agreeable to the state of Antichrist may suspect themselues to bee fallen into that Apostacie as they are indeed ouer head and eares Our religion then is more secure in this respect whereas theirs by their owne principles hath some affinitie and correspondence therewith and Antichrist himselfe may be in their Church but cannot by any probable coniecture be in ours 16 Againe for the Article of Inuocation of Saints the Romanists that hold the affirmatiue are in many respects subiect to many more and greater dangers then the Protestants which hold the negatiue for first if their doctrine bee not true they manifestly detract from the glorie of the Creatour and giue the same vnto his creatures Whereas if our doctrine bee false wee onely detract from the glorie of the creatures and giue it vnto the Creatour Now by how much it is a greater sinne to doe iniurie to the Creatour then to the creature by so much the more dangerous is their doctrine then ours and as it is safer to ascribe that glory to God which is due to man then to man that that is due to God so is there more safetie in our doctrine then in theirs 17. Secondly in respect of charitie if they erre in this opinion then doe they turne the holy Saints of God into abominable Idols and so offer that wrong vnto them which they being iealous of Gods glorie of all things most detest as the examples of Paul and Barnabas and of Peter and the Angell declare but if wee erre wee onely being iealous that Gods glorie may not be communicated to any other depriue them of a little worship which wee thinke belongeth vnto God and in the meane while esteeme them as blessed Saints and honour them by praysing God for them imitating their godly examples and keeping an honourable remembrance of them in our Churches Now in charity whether is a greater wrong to the Saints to turne them into Idols that is into deuils or for zeale of Gods glorie to take from them a little of their due honour 18. Thirdly in respect of conscience if they doe sinne in this it is the horrible and fearefull sinne of Idolatrie which being spirituall adulterie causeth a diuorce