vpon the same though they bee now both made dumbe by their expurging Index speake asmuch for in them we fiude this proposition Anciently Priests were permitted to marry 41. For history to omit the Priests and Prophets of the old Testament Peter whose successours they claime to bee carryed a wife about with him in his preaching which was put to death at Antioch for consessing lesus Christ as witnes both Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius which writers do also affirme that Paul had a wise also and left her at Philippos a City of Macedonia that hee might with lesse cumbrance preach the Gospell abroad That Philip the Euange list was marryed Saint Luke testifyeth in the Acts of the Apostles for it is said there that he had foure daughters which were Prophetisses thus was it in the first age of the Church then afterward we read that Hilary a French Bishop was marryed and of Saint Basils Father that hee was a Bishop and in the state of marriage held that function and the like of Synesius the Bishop of Pâ—olomais and Athanasius reports that Bishops and Monks liued marryed and had children and Eusebius that in the Easterne Churches it was counted a yoke too heauy to bee borne to binde Church-men from marriage yea Gratian boldly affirmeth that except they will brand some of the Popes with bastardy and adultery they must confesse that Bishops were and might then bee marryed for Gregory the first was grand-child to Pope Felix the third and Alexander the sixt had two sonnes begotten of his owne body and Boniface Felix Gelasius and Agapetus were all sonnes of Bishops yea their owne Vicelius reckoneth vp a number both of Bishops and Priests that in the Primitiue Church were marryed In briefe though in all ages the Deuill by his instruments laboured to bring disgrace vpon Gods holy ordinance of marriage and by that meanes to make way to adulteries fornications and vnlawfull lusts and some learned and godly fathers were too lauish in commending virginity before marriage yet they were alwayes gainsaide by other some as learned godly as themselues whoÌ„ God stirred vp for the desence of his own ordinance neither was it euer propounded as a Law vntill Pope Siricius time who was the first that forbad and interdicted Priests to marry and afterwards Pope Nicholas the first or as some thinke the second about the yeere 867 did the like against whose proceedings Haldericus the Bishop of Ausbrough wrote that learned and pithy Epistle where of mention is made before and yet it was not vniuersally receiued vntill the time of Pope Calixtus about the yeere 1108. History is so cleare for this matter that it admitteth no iust exception and thus both by their owne confessions and by the light of history this doctrine is conuinced of nouelty 42. Another article of the Popes Creede is concerning Images to wit that God himselfe may bee represented by and worshipped before an Image and that the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be adored with the same worship which is due vnto their pâ—tternes or at least wise that they are to be worshipped in or at the Image This is the generall doctrine of that Idolatrous Church which that it hath no true warrant from antiquity is so cleare that none that is but meanely seene in ancient writers can doubt thereof For first in the Church of the Iewes it was vnlawfull either to make any Image of God beeing an inuisible and incomprehensible essence or to worship the Image of any other thing whatsoeuer this was the prescript of the second Commandement which was no ceremoniall Law As Azorius and Vasques two Iesuites haue not ashamed to auerre but morall and naturall as the grand Iesuite Bellarmine confesseth and may be further confirmed by the sentence of Varro alledged by Saint Augustine in his fourth book de Ciuitate who sayth that the Iewish nation worshipped God without any Image that they had no Image in the Temple ordained for worship Also Iosephus doth write that when Caius the Emperour would haue caused his statue to haue been set vp by Petroniâ—s to be worshipped in the Temple of Ierusalem the Iewes had rather expose themselues to present death then to admit that which was forbidden by the Law 43 Secondly in the age of Iesus Christ and the Apostles there was no precept nor example for the worshipping of Images nei her did they commend vnto the Lay people Images and Pictures as fittest bookes for their capacities but the word preached and committed to writing by which they should bee brought to saluation And when as they abolished the worship of Idols and brought in the worship of the true God wee doe not read that either they translated those Idolatrous statues to the worship of the true God or substituted other Images of God himselfe for of holy men to succeed in their roome but taught that God who is a Spirit ought to bee worshipped in Spirit and truth Now surely if it had beene so necessary as the Church of Rome maketh it our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles would neuer haue concealed it from them 44. Thirdly the age also after the Apostles was free from Images for amongst those Ecclesiasticall rites which are recorded to haue been vsed in the first 300. yeeres after Christ there is not so much as any mention made of Image-worship except it bee amongst those that were condemned for Heretikes as the followers of Simon Magus who worshipped his Image and of his harlot Selene and the Disciples of Basilides whom Irenaeus affirmeth to haue vsed Images and Inuocations and the Carpocratians and Gnosticks who burned incense to the Images of Christ and Paul Homer and Pithagoras c. as testifyeth Saint Augustine but the true Church of God condemned these and abhorred all such kind of worship and therefore amongst the accusations which the Heathen obiected to Christians in that age this was one that they professed a Religion without Images as witnesse both Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen the one whereof liued 200. yeeres after Christ and the other 240. which trueth their Cassander confesseth in direct words that at the first preaching of the Gospell there was no publike vse of Images in the Church 45. Fourthly in the next age of the Church after the three hundreth yeere that Images were not approued wee haue the witnesse of the Councill of Eliberis which decreed that no Image should bee made in the Church lest that should be adored which is painted on walles and of Ierome who affirmed that it was condemned of all ancient Fathers and of Origen who called that worship a foolish and adulterous profanation and of Epiphanius who finding a painted Image in a Church rent it downe and said that it was against the authority of the Scripture that any Image should bee in the Church and of Augustine who condemned the vse of them in Churches as vnlawfull and lastly
liue sanctification and not be sanctified righteousnes and not be righteous redemption and not be redeemed for all these is Christ made vnto vs Life Righteousnes Sanctification and Redemption as the Scripture testifieth Bellarmine spendeth one whole Chapter in this argument to proue that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and therevpon expresly affirmeth that though they receiue him yet they receiue not his iustifying grace nor his merits nor the fruit and effect of his death and passion together with him Of the same mind is Aquinas the rest of their Diuines Now this position is contrary both to Scripture Fathers and to their owne diuinity To Scripture for our Sauiour saith in expresse words Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And againe He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him But say they The wicked yea the reprobate eate the very flesh and drinke the very bloud of Christ Therefore conclude that they haue eternall life and dwell in Christ and Christ in them neither can they escape by saying that the spirituall eating of Christ by faith and not the eating in the Sacrament is here vnderstood seeing they doe all for the most part interpret this place of the Sacramentall eating and drinking but more plaine if it be possible is that of S. Iohn Ioh. 5. 12. He that hath the Sonne hath life and hee that hath not the Sonne of God hath not life From which place thus a man may reason He that hath Christ hath eternall life but hee that receiueth Christ verily truely as all the wicked do in the Sacrament by their doctrine hath Christ therefore the very reprobate euen Iudas himself hath eternal life is saued for either they must deny that they receiue Christ in the Sacrament or else they must grant being conuicted by these Scriptures that together with him they receiue eternall life 25. They reply to this two things first that the wicked receiue Christ onely Sacramentally and not Spiritually and therefore they haue no benefite by him and secondly because they receiue him vnworthily therefore they receiue their owne iudgement and not saluation not discerning the body and bloud of Christ To which I answere that though they receiue Sacramentally and vnworthily yet by their doctrine they receiue vâ—ry Christ and so by these Scriptures it must needs follow that they also receiue the fruite and effect of his death which is life and saluation Adde hereunto that the termes here vsed are generall both in respect of the persons that receiue and also the manner of receiuing without any such exception or distinction as they deuise and therfore I conclude that it is as impossible to make a separation betwixt Christ and his sauing grace as to separate the Sunne from light fire from heate or the soule from naturall life 26. Thus this position is an opposition to Scripture so it is also to the opinions of the Fathers To giue a taste of some two or three Origen saith That Christ is that true meat which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer which no wicked man can eat Augustine more effectually saith Hee that is in the vnity of Christs body that is a member of Christ he is truely said to eate Christs body and drinke his bloud Note hee saith truely to signifie that all other eate him falsly that is in shew and not in substance And in another place yet more plainely Hee which disagreeth from Christ doth neither eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud though he take the Sacrament of so great a thing to his iudgement Theodoret as plainely saith That Christ is meate for his owne sheepe onely that is his elect And Cyrill that as many as eate his flesh haue life in them being ioyned to him who is life it selfe And Basill saith that they which are fed with the foode of life to wit the bread that came downe from heauen haue an inward mouth of the minde whereby they eate that spirituall food Many more such like sayings might be heaped together to this purpose which for breuity sake I passe ouer all which are contrary to that Romish position that the wicked eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ which they must needs doe if the bread and wine after the words of consecration be changed into the very body and bloud of Christ 27. Lastly it is contrary to their owne diuinity for they hold that the parts of this Sacrament as of all others are two to wit the matter and the forme the forme in this Sacrament is to the whole word of consecration together with the sense thereof the matter is the whole element with the signification thereof As for example in the Eucharist the matter is the species of Bread and wine containing vnder them the body and bloud of Christ and the forme is for this is my bodie this is my bloud Now hence I thus reason The wicked either receiue the whole Sacrament or they receiue it not if they do then there is no difference betwixt the faithfull and them for they receiue no more and why should not they be saued then as well as they if they do not then either they receiue not Christ at all because we are sure they receiue the outward Elements and therfore if any thing be wanting it must needs be the thing signified or there are more parts then these two of the Sacrament Againe thus if the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and yet not the vertue of Christ then they receiue not the whole Sacrament because the vertue of the Sacrament is in the Sacrament as the vertue of euery thing is in the thing it selfe And so it followeth that the wicked in the Sacrament receiue Christ and yet not Christ the whole Sacrament and yet but a part of the Sacrament and that there are but two parts of it and yet more then two Obserue gentle Reader these contradictions and wonder 28. Againe Transubstantiation is contradicted both by the doctrine of adoration of Images and by the Canon of the Masse by the doctrine of adoration of Images thus they teach that diuine adoration is to be giuen to the pictures of Christ and God the Father because they represent their most excellent and diuine persons and yet they would haue the very body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament transubstantiated because some of the Fathers pretend â—o say that it is to be adored with diuine worship Now if it bee true that they say that Images of God the Father and of Christ our Sauiour ought to be adored with diuine worship because they represent their persons then it must bee false that therfeore the bodie and bloud of Christ are really and carnally in the Sacrament because it is to be worshipped for why may not those mysteries of bread and
wine instituted by Christ to put vs in mind of his death and passion bee for such their effectuall representation adored and worshipped with diuine worship as well as Images and pictures for their representation especially seeing they carrie a more exact resemblance and liuely signification of him then any picture can doe Here is a plaine contradiction betwixt the proofe of their Transubstantiation and their doctrine of adoration of Images standing vpon these termes An Image must be worshipped because it representeth the person of Christ but the Sacrament is not to bee worshipped though it represents Christ more fully then any Image except he be corporally and substantially present in it 29. Secondly it is crossed by the Canon of the Masse diuers waies First by the praier that is vsed before the eleuation where the Priest desireth God to behold the same sacrifice with a propitious and fauourable countenance like as the sacrifices of Abel Abraham Melchizedech c. If Christ were really offered by the Priest hee need not pray that God would be propitious to that sacrifice for in him hee is euer well pleased neither can his sacrifice be possibly disrespected of God being of infinite merite and price to satisfie the rigour of his Fathers iustice it were therefore either horrible blasphemy in their Masse to equalize this absolute sacrifice of Christ with the imperfect sacrifices of Abel and Abraham which stood in need of Gods mercifull acceptation or it is false that Christ is really sacrificed in the Masse one of the two must needs be either blasphemy in the Canon of the Masse or falshood in their doctrine of Transubstantiation 30. Againe by another prayer which is vsed in the consecration where the Priest prayeth that God would command those things to be carried by the hands of the holy Angell vp to the high Altar into the sight of the diuine Maiestie Now by these words those things haec cannot bee vnderstood Christ neither in Grammaticall construction nor in any religious sense for in true Grammaticall Latine he should haue said if he had ment Christ either hunc this or hoc viz. sacrificiâ—â— this sacrifice and not haec these things for though the elements be two yet by their own doctrine whole Christ is in each of them and therefore cannot bee spoken of in the plurall number as if he were either diuided in himselfe or multiplied to more then himselfe in the construction of religion it can be no lesse then blasphemy to imagine that an Angell must carry vp Christ into Heauen and present him there vpon the high Altar to the diuine maiestie for it implieth in him either inability or vnwillingnesse to present himselfe to say he is vnable is to deny him to be God and so Almighty and to say he is vnwilling is to deny him to bee our high Priest and Mediatour to whose office it onely pertaineth to offer vp the sacrifices of the faithfull vnder the Gospell as the Priest in the law of Moses might onely offer the sacrifices of the law and enter into the most holy place to make reconciliation for the people so that it remaineth that the composer of the Masse could not vnderstand by haec these things Christ himselfe but the elements Bread and Wine which are a representation and commemoration of that one all-sufficient sacrifice on the Crosse and so either the Masse is erronious or Transubstantiation a false doctrine for if the Masse be true then Transubstantiation is false and if Transubstantiation be true then the Masse is false 31. Thirdly it is crossed by their manifold crossings vsed by the Priest in the Masse for if Christ in person bee really present as a complete sacrifice what neede such signings or crossings by the earthly hands of a sinfull Priest is hee sanctified by them that were blasphemy to thinke He needeth no sanctification being the Holy of holies Is the diuell driuen away by these meanes that is a greater blasphemy to beleeue for hee once conquered the diuell in such sort that he dareth neuer meddle with him any more And yet the blasphemous Iesuites are not afraid to affirme that the diuels may and doe so come neere to their Sacrament that they can both carry it away and abuse it also Surely if this bee true then the diuels know Christ is not there for they durst not come so neere vnto him sacrificed on the Altar by whose true sacrifice on the Crosse they receiued such a deadly wound Lastly is God put in minde of his Sonnes sacrifice on the Crosse by their crossings of him vpon the Altar This is impudency to thinke for Almighty God cannot forget the sacrifice of his owne Sonne neyther can his Crosse bee any whit dignified by their crossings Which way soeuer they turne them here is eyther impietie in their Masse or falsity in their doctrine of Transsubstantiation 32. Thus much touching the contradictions in the Eucharist Now let vs see their concordance in other Articles of their Religion and that with greater breuitie And first in their Article of Iustification therein there lurke foure maine contradictions First they say that the first iustification when a man of vniust and wicked is made iust and good is the free gift of God and deserued by no precedent works and yet they say againe that a man doth prepare and make himselfe fit for this iustification by certayne acts of faith Feare Hope Repentance and the purpose of a new life Yea Bellarmine doth not sticke to say that this faith iustifieth by way of merite and deserueth forgiuenesse of sinnes after a certaine manner And all of them â—each that those dispositions and preparations arise partly from grace and partly from free-will as two seuerall and deuided agents and that it is in the power of mans will eyther to accept that grace of God or to refuse it as hath beene at large discouered in the fourth Reason Now heare the contradictions If it bee meerely Gods free gift then it is no wayes mans free-will and if it bee any waies mans free-will to prepare himselfe then it is not euery way Gods free gift For it is not in this case as in other externall donations the King may giue a pardon freely and yet the prisoner may haue power to receiue or to refuse the pardon because the pardon is one thing and the prisoners will on other but in the iustification of a sinner the gift it selfe is the very change of the minde and the will and the whole man for it is as they say when a sinner is made righteous and an vniust man is made iust and so the will hath no power to reiect it when God effectually giues it nor power to accept it till God alter and change it by his grace And hence it followeth that to say it is Gods free gift and yet that we in part prepare our selues thereunto by our owne free-will implyeth contradiction as also this to
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