vncleannesse and some Angels of the bottomles pit by couetousnes and a little after Not a few of our moderne Priests doe serue the most vild and filthy God Priapus Panormitane a man of great fame in the Councell of Basill after he had shewen the vowe of continencie not to be of the essence of Priest-hood nor by the lawe of God but a constitution of the Church addeth these words I beleeue that it were a wholesome ordinance for the good saluation of soules to leaue it to mâ—ns owne wils to marrie or not because experience doth show that now a daies they doe not liue spiritually and vndefiledly but that they are defiled by vnlawfull copulation whereas they might liue chastly with their owne wiues 37. I could adde vnto these testimonies the report of Iohn Gerson touching his time who complained that some Cloysters of Nunnes were become Stewes of strumpets and whores And of Mantuan a Carmelite Italian Frier whose verses touching this poynt are sufficiently knowne Patrum vita fuit melior cum coniuge quà m nunc Nostra sit exclusis thalamis coniugis vsu The life of the Fathers was better being married then ours to whom marriage is forbidden and of Polidor Virgill who liued in King Henrie the Eights daies whose censure is this that this enforced chastity is so farre from excelling that marriage-chastity that no crime hath brought more shame to the order of Priesthood more euill to Religion nor more griefe to all good men then that blot of the filthinesse of Priests But that I feare I haue too much offeÌ„ded chaste eares already with raking into this dunghill I conclude with the report of Martin Luther he saith that he saw Cardinals at Rome which were accounted holy for no other cause but that they were content onely to commit fornication and adultery with women and did not giue themselues to other vnnaturall lusts Thus as it were in a mappe I haue described the filthy and abominable fruites that proceed from that Romish doctrine of vowed chastitie Is it possible that the spring should be good when the streams are thus corrupt 38. The fift doctrine of Poperie giuing manifest occasion of liberty to the professours thereof is their doctrine of veniall sinnes By which they teach that many acts which are transgressions of the laws of God men yet are not properly sins nor deserue the wrath of God but of their nature are pardonable and therfore he which committeth any such doth neither offer iniury to God nor breake charity in respect of his neighbour and so deserues not hell nor is bound to be sorry for them but that the knocking of the brest going to Church being sprinckled with holy water or the Bishops blessing or crossing ones selfe or doing any worke of charity though we neuer thinke actually of them is a sufficient satisfaction for them This is the doctrine not onely of the Schoolemen but also of the finest and refyning Iesuites euen of Bellarmine himselfe who thus distinguisheth veniall sinnes that some are veniall of their own nature and kind to wit such as haue for their obiect an euill and inordinate matter but which is not repugnant to the law of God and of our neighbour others are veniall by the imperfection of the worke which imperfection ariseth partly ex surreptione that is by vnaduised falling into them without full consent of will and partly ex paruitate materiae by the smalnesse of the matter which is committed as if a man should steale a halfe-peny or some such trifle This is the Cardinals doctrine which as neere as I could I hauâ— word for word set downe And that wee may more fully vnderstand their meaning they affirme in very deede that they are no sinnes but aequiuoce that is so called but not â—o in truth for the word peccatum sinne doth not vniuoce aâ—â—ee 〈…〉 eniall sinnes as it doth to mortall and therefore it is their generall opinion that they are not against but beside the lawe that is in plaine words not sinne for euery sinne is a transgression of the law Now let the Readeriudge whether our doctrine that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall and deserue condemnation except they be repeÌ„ted of or heirs that some are veniall and binde not the offender to condemnation doe more tend to liberty whether we restraine more the people from sinning that thus say vnto them All your sinnes though neuer so small are of their owne nature damnable except by faith in the bloud of Christ they be purged away and by repentance which is a fruite of faith sorrowed for and laboured against or they that say thus to them A number of your ordinarie sinnes are not damnable you neede not faith in Christs bloud to purge them nor repentance to bewaile them nor care and endeuour to preuent them who seeth not that our doctrine pulleth in and theirs letteth out the reynes of libertie to our corrupt nature for when a man beleeueth that he may do many things which are in deed transgressions of Gods lawe without offence to God or hurt to his neighbour or wounding of his owne conscience and that after he hath committed them he needeth not greatly to repent of them or to be sorry for them but that they are done away by saying a Lords prayer or hearing a Masse or creeping to a Crosse or receiuing a little Holy water what neede he make any conscience of these so sleight trifles nay how can hee choose but neglect and make light account of them This is one of the deuils subtile deuices or iuggling trickes which Saint Paul speaketh of where with hee laboureth to seduce simple soules for either hee will aggrauate our sinnes to driue vs to desperation or extenuate and excuse them to draw to presumption the rocke and gulfe whereat many thousand soules suffer shipwracke And this last the most dangerous wherein the Papists shew themselues the deuils agents and factours by this their doctrine of veniall sinnes for what is this but to excuse sinne and to extenuate it and so to make men presume to commit those things which they esteeme of no greater moment 39. The truth of this will more clearely appeare if wee take a suruay a little of those particular sinnes which they account as veniall To sweare by the bloud of God or wounds or bodie of Christ is no blasphemie saith Cardinall Caietane if it be spoken in a brawle or in some perturbation of mind neither is it to be counted any more than a veniall sinne Againe formall cursing saith Gregorie de Valentia although in it owne kinde it be a mortall sinne yet it may be onely a veniall to wit in respect either of the smalnesse of the matter or the want of deliberation in the speaker and hereby saith he Parents cursing their children with bitter words and deuoting them to the deuill may often be excused from mortall sinne
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
not onely the worshippers of Idols themselues but they that should entice or perswade any to Idolatry The execution of which Lawes wee see put in practice vpon the Israelites Gods owne people in the 32. of Exod. and 23. of Numbers Thirdly and lastly in respect of the nature of the sinne which is first a senslesse sinne full of folly contrary to the very light of reason and nature as both the Prophet Dauid and Esay at large proue And secondly a sinne full of impiety because they that worship an Idoll worship the Deuill as S. Paul affirmeth 1. Cor. 10. 20. And lastly a sinne most opposite to the glory of God and consequently sooner procuring the vengeance of God then any other for it is called in the Scripture spirituall fornâ—cation and adulterie because the Idolater forsaketh God and prostituteth himselfe to an Idoll and that in Gods presence And therefore as corporall fornication is the onely cause of diuorce betwixt man and wife so this sinne onely causeth God to diuorce himselfe from his Church and to take from her all her ornaments and Iewels that is his Word and Sacraments and to giue her ouer into the hands of her enemies Thus the greatnesse of this sinne of Idolatry is manifest and from thence I may conclude my first proposition that that Religion which maintayneth and commandeth this sinne so full of folly impiety and contrariety to God is worthy not onely to be suspected but euen abhorred and detested of all men 4. But let vs come to the examination of the second proposition to wit whether the Church of Rome bee guilty of this great sinne or no. The Romanists mainly denie it as they haue great reason for if their Religion bee proued to maintaine Idolatrie they know that it must needes fall to the ground and therefore they deuise all manner of shifts to deliuer themselues from this imputation But we on the other side confidently affirme it and that the world may see wee doe it not without great reason wee confirme our affirmation with this strong argument Whosoeuer ascribeth diuine honour to any creature is an Idolater but the Romanists ascribe diuine honour to many creatures therefore they are Idolaters and lest any should thinke this to bee the errour of priuate persons and not the heresie of their Religion I adde vnto the Minor that all the Romanists doe this from the very grounds of their faith and that in so doing they are warranted from their Religion it selfe 5. They deny both the Maior and Minor proposition in this argument and in denying them especially the Maior they giue iust cause of vehement suspition if not of plaine demonstration that they are guilty of the crime whereof wee accuse them for if a thiefe standing at the barre being accused of a robbery by the high way side should answere that to take money from a man by the high way side at Noone-day was not theft all men would thinke that hee was guilty of the robbery and so the Iurie would finde him then certainely the Romanists by denying this to be the true definition of Idolatry which is propounded in the first proposition bewray their owne guiltinesse and giue vs more cause to suspect them then we had before 6. But let vs heare their shifts they principally are two one of Bellarmine the other of Valentia two maine posts in the house of Popery Bellarmine would faine vndermine this proposition to giue to creatures diuine honour is Idolatry by a distinction betwixt an Idol and an Image affirming that an Image is the similitude of a thing that hath a true being but an Idol of a sained thing that indeed is not and therevpon he seemes to conclude that to ascribe diuine honour to some Images is not Idolatry because euery Image is not an Idoll In the proofe of this distinction he labours much and profits little for like the heedlesse fish hee leapes out of the Frying-pan into the fire and tyes the knot faster which he would seeme to vntie for first all the Idolatry of the Church of Rome consisteth not in worshipping of Images but in many other things as shall appeare in the Discourse following Secondly if to worship the Image of a true thing be not Idolatry then the Gentiles were not Idolaters in worshipping the Image of Iupiter and Mars and Diana and Romulus and Aesculapius and the Sunne because as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth all the Idols of the Gentiles were the statues of men And Saint Augustine also affirmeth That the Gentiles did worship those things which were in being but were not to bee worshipped and then the Israelites did not commit Idolatry in the Wildernesse when they adored the golden Calfe nor was that Calfe an Idoll contrary to the expresse Text of Scripture Acts 7. 41. because it was a representation of a true thing namely of the true Iehouah as it is euident Exodus 32. 5. Thirdly let it be graunted that an Idoll is onely the similitude of an imaginary and fained thing yet will not this acquite them of Idolatry seeing they worship in the Romish Church the Images of things which either neuer were or were not such as they are taken to bee as the Image of S. Katharine and Saint Christopher and Saint George and such others the truth whereof they are not able to proue by any approoued Historie Nay it is confessed that many are worshipped in the Church as Saints which are tormented in hell fire for their sinnes This shift therefore of Bellarmine to wipe off the blot of Idolatry is but a silly one and blurres them more then they were before 7. Gregory de Valentia labours to creepe out at another hole to wit not by a distinction but by addition for hee would adde vnto the definition of Idolatry these words sicut Deo as to God and so Idolatry should bee not a giuing of diuine honour to a creature but when it is so giuen to the creature as vnto God Wherein as he vnmannerly crosseth his fellow Iesuite in calling the Images of Christ Idols and saying that they are to bee worshipped latria with diuine honour the one whereof Bellarmine simply and absolutely denyeth and the other he alloweth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respectiuely so likewise â—e crosseth reason Scripture Fathers and consequently all sound diuinity 8. For Reason If an adulteresse woman being taken in bâ—d with another man should excuse her selfe thus I am not guilty of adultery because though I lent the vse of my body to a stranger yet I did it not to him as vnto my husband would this excuse her no it would rather adde vnto her crime So the Romish harlot committing spirituall fornication with her Idols when shee goeth about to colour her crime with tâ—is vermillion I giue diuine honour indeed to Images but yet not as vnto God What doth shee else but adde carâ—all impudency vnto spirituall vnchastitie A filthy stopple