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
it had bene a truth vpon so fit an occasion neuer preferred Peter but exhorteth all and so Peter also to equality and humility yea not onely so but expressely forbad all king-like and monarchicall superiority amongst them and not onely tyrannicall as Bellarmine would haue it as may euidently appeare by comparing Luk. 22. 26. with 1. Pet. 5. 3. 52. Thus hee confesseth their doctrine next he commeth to distinguish of it namely that their Apostolicall power was equall in respect of the people but yet not equall betweene themselues in which respect Peter was not onely a common Pastour with his fellow Apostles but extraordinarily pastor pastoruÌ„ a Pastour of the Pastours that is of the Apostles theÌ„selues this is his distinction but it is idle and vaine as may appeare by this reason because if he were the chiefe Pastour of the Apostles then he either ordained them to their offices or fed them with his doctrine or gouerned them by his authority or did some part of the office of a Pastour vnto them but hee neither ordained them for Christ himselfe did that norâ—ed them with doctrine for they were all taught of God and equally receiued the holy Ghost which did lead them into all truth nor gouerned them for they sent him hee did not send them and called him to an account he did not call them and therefore was no wayes to be esteemed their Pastour and super-intendent but their equall and Co-Apostle 53. And whereas hee defendeth the extrauagant of Pope Boniface which is so rightly termed for containing a most extrauagant doctrine from the truth hee must needs defend this double iurisdiction by the speech of Peter to our Sauior Ecce duo gladii behold heere are two swords and his answere to the same It is enough with how absurd a collection it is let his owne fellowes bee Iudges Franciscus de Victoria Stella Maldonate Arias Montanus and Suares the Iesuite All which with many others reiect this collection of theirs as most absurd and impertinent I conclude if Pope Boniface did extrauagate in that extrauagant in the application of this place why doe they hold that the Pope cannot erre iudicially If hee did not whydoe so many learned men of his owne side contradict him Either sure the Popes two swords are ruâ—â—ie and cannot bee vnsheathed or els hee would neuer suffer his authority to bee thus diminished not onely by his enemies but euen by those that fight vnder his owne banner And thus this Antithesis also stands vnblemished for all that is yet said to the contrary 54. The Gospell teacheth that there is but one Mediator betwixt God and man euen the God-man Iesus Christ and that hee beeing the onely Propitiatour is also the onely Mediatour But the Church of Rome teacheth that as many Saints as are in Heauen so many Mediatours and Intercessours wee haue to God and among the rest the blessed Virgin the mother of our Lord whom they call their Aduocatresse Deliueresse Mediatresse Sauiouresse and Comfortresse 55. Bellarmine seeketh to escape from this Contradiction by a threefold distinction first hee sayth that Christ indeed is the onely Mediatour of redemption because hee onely made reconciliation betwixt God and vs by paying the ransome for our sinnes but neuerthelesse the Saints are Mediatours of intercession by praying for vs. This he barely affirmeth without any proofe and therefore it seemeth he would haue vs take it vpon his word for current coyne without any tryall but wee haue learned out of Gods word to try the spirits and to weigh all such ware in the balance of the Sanctuary and therefore finding by the Scripture that Christ did not onely pay the ransome for our sinnes but also that hee maketh request for vs. and not finding in all the booke of God that the Saints in Heauen either doe present our prayers vnto God or make request for our particular necessities wee haue iust cause to reiect this distinction as too light ware and as counterfeit coyne 56. I but sayth hee the Saints triumphant pray for the Saints militant therefore they are their Mediators I answere Though it be granted that they do pray for them in generall which indeed is not denyed and in particular which can neuer be proued yet the argument hath no good consequence that therefore they should bee our Mediatours for as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth A Mediatour must bee a middle-man differing from each party at variance after some sort but the Saints triumphant are not mediâ— betwixt God and vs both because in presence they are alwayes with God and neuer with vs and also in semblance more like to God then vnto vs for they are perfectly happy holy and righteous we beeing miserable sinfull and wicked and in knowledge they are satisfied with heauenly obiects and haue no participation with humane affaires being therefore thus far remooued from vs and so neere knit vnto God in all these by his owne rule they cannot any wayes bee our Mediatours neither of redemption nor intercession 57. His second distinction is that Christ is called the onely Mediatour because hee is the Mediatour not onely in regard of his office but also of his nature for that hee is in the middest betwixt God and man hee himselfe beeing God and man To which I answere that it is most true which hee sayth but yet it is both contrary to that which hee himselfe hath deliuered elsewhere and also ouerthroweth that which hee holdeth heere for the first he laboureth to proue in another place that Christ is the Mediatour onely in respect of his humane nature and here hee sayth in respect of both natures how can these bee reconciled mary by another distinction It is one thing sayth hee to bee a Mediatour in respect of person and another thing in respect of operation in the first Christ is the Mediatour by both natures in the second by his humane nature onely As if hee did not operate and worke the Mediation in the same respect that hee is Mediatour I but hee will say the chiefe worke of our redemption was the death of Christ but the God-head cannot dye therfore c. I answere Though Christ died as he was man yet the person that died was God and man for as Tolet his fellow Iesuite and Cardinall obserueth Christ dyed not as other men in whose power it is not either to hold the soule in the body or to recall it backe againe being expelled but Christ ioyned his soule and body together at his pleasure as hee that holding a sword in one hand and a scabbard in another puls it out or thrusts it in at his pleasure By which it is plaine that though Christ dyed in respect of his man-hood yet the author of his death was his God-head so he is our Mediatour in both natures Secondly he ouerthroweth his own positioÌ„ by this distinctioÌ„ for first if Christ bee the only Mediatour in respect of office and
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
should apply another to the patient It is the hand that applieth the medicine and not another medicine so it is faith that applieth Christs satisfaction vnto our sinnes and not our satisfaction Nay except the merits of Christ be applied to our best works and sufferings they cannot stand before Gods iustice neither can they be meritorious as they themselues confesse so that it will follow by this doctrine that our satisfactions are both the hand to apply Christs and the thing to which it is applied All which is most repugnant not only to Religion but euen to reason it selfe 42. Lastly when as Bellarmine affirmeth that ad maiorem c. that is for the greater glory of God who is satisfied and the greater honour of man satisfying it pleased Christ to ioyne his satisfaction to ours He plainely discouereth the scope of their doctrine to bee the aduancement of the dignity of man whereunto indeede he ioyneth the glory of God for else all men would cry fie vpon such a Religion but yet it both detracteth greatly from the glory of God in ascribing some dignity vnto man and peruerteth the true end of the Gospel which is not the partial but the entire honor glory of God For as S. Paul saith Gods power is most clearly seene in our weaknes and his righteousnes in the confession of our shame his glory in our basenes and vilenes that no flesh might reioyce in his presence but that he onely might be exalted at that day But by this Romish doctrine euery iust maÌ„ may reioyce in his own dignity may lift vp himselfe in the presence of God as if he were the ioynt cause of his own saluation together with Christ and that Christs satisfaction had beene nothing auaileable to him except he had applied it to himselfe by his owne satisfaction 43. Thus they deuide saluation as it were party parpale betwixt Christ and man and paralell them together And whereas they say that we must be like vnto Christ as in meriting so in satisfying what doe they but intrude man into the fellowship of Christs office for our imitation of Christ standeth in a conformity to his conuersation and life and of those things onely which concerne his person and are imitable but not in being like vnto him in his office and therefore when they say that we must be like vnto Christ in satisfying they make euery man that is saued a Iesus and Sauiour to himselfe because they make him to imitate him in those things wherein consisteth his being our Christ Then which what can be more contrary to the honour of Christ 44. These bee the foure principall poynts whereby the glory of Gods mercy and Christs merits and the holy Ghosts grace is greatly defaced and in stead thereof mans nature and merits exalted Besides these there are diuers other doctrines of the Church of Rome which bring forth the same fruit some of which I will onely name and so conclude this thâ—â—â— argument And first by the doctrine of the Popes supremacie they detract from the power of Christ and consequently from his glory for both they endow the Pope with those titles which properly belong to Christ as to be the Father in Gods family the vniuersall Pastor the head of the Church the husband and bridegroome of it and all other names which are giuen to our Sauiour Christ in holy Scripture whereby it is shewne that he is aboue the Church and also they attribute the same power to the Pope which belongeth properly to Christ as to pardon sinne to dispense with the law of God to open and shut the gates of heauen not ministerially but absolutely and iudicially to depose Kings and to dispose of Kingdomes and such like Now what a dishonour is this to him in whose thigh is written this glorious title The King of Kings Hee must not be the onely head of the Church but the Pope must be a ioynt head with him nor hee the sole Gouernor but the Pope must be his Vicar nor the sole husband of the Church but the Pope in his absence must be her husband in his roome Could a mortall man endure this iniurie And doe wee thinke that the Sonne of God will beare it Either Christ is not able to gouerne alone or not willing they will not say not able lest their blasphemy should be too too odious and if they say not willing how can hee not be willing to maintaine his owne glory or not bee vnwilling to be confederated with a sinfull Pope for so often they are in the disposition of his Kingdome Let them make the best that they can of it yet it appeareth that Christs gouernment is diuided betwixt the Pope and him and so must the glory also needs be diuided 45. Secondly by their doctrine of the Inuocation and Intercession of Saints what doe they but diuide the office and so the glory of the Mediatour-ship betwixt Christ and them for they teach that Christ is our Mediatour of Redemption but the Saints Mediatours of Intercession whereas we with the Scripture make Christ Iesus to be the onely and sole Mediatour both of Redemption and Intercession Wee honour the Saints but wee pray vnto God alone in the name of his Sonne they adore the Saints and make their prayers vnto them as well as vnto God yea more prayers do they powre out by numbers vnto them then vnto God What is to dishonour God and Christ if this be not 46. Thirdly by their doctrine of traditions they derogate greatly from the glory of Gods mercy towards his Church for they hold that the written word is not sufficient for a Christian man to saluation without the helpe of Ecclesiasticall traditions whereby they plainely insinuate that either God had not that care of his family the Church as he might haue had seeing hee left not for it a perfect and certaine rule for the gouernment thereof but sent it ouer to vncertaine traditions or that wisedome which all Law-giuers labour to attaine vnto seeing hee could not at the first prouide for all future occasions or that loue that he would not one of these doth necessarily follow from their doctrine 47. Lastly by their doctrine of worshipping of Images whereby they giue vnto stockes and stones part of that religious worship which is due vnto God We teach that all religious worship is due vnto God alone They on the contrary maintaine that latria that is diuine worship is Gods due but dulia that is seruice is to be giuen to Images Yea that the Crucifixe is to be worshipped with diuine worship which is due onely to God Who seeth not what manifest iniury they offer to Gods glory by this superstitious worship of dumbe and dead Images 48. And thus omitting many other like poynts which might be inserted in this place I hope that the Minor proposition is sufficiently demonstrated that the Church of Rome doth by many doctrines derogate from the
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
vrge Command him though Redeemer that â—e be By right of Motherhood which is giuen to thee 71. And this the Rosarie of the Virgine Mary doth more euidently manifest for Dominicke who was the first inuentor of it ordayned that fiftie Ane Maries should be recited and at euery tenth one Pater noster which together make a Rosarie and for this purpose the same Dominicke framed fiue and fiftie Stones or Beades and hung them together on a string betwixt euery ten little ones one great one and called them Patriloquia as it were prayers to the Father which he might more properly haue called Matriloquia prayers to the Mother for here are ten Aues to each Pater noster And this was the originall of praying vpon Beads Now out of these Rosaries sprung there Mary Psalters for three Rosaries to wit an hundred and fifty Aue Maries and fifteene Pater nosters make one Mary Psalter because forsooth the Psalter of Dauid consists of so many Psalmes and to the fraternitie of this Psalter and the sayers thereof were giuen by diuers Popes as Sixtus the fourth and Innocent the eighth threescore thousand yeeres of indulgence and plenary remission both from the punishment and fault one in the time of life and one in the houre of death Is not heere I pray you the worship of the Virgine Mary exalted aboue the worship of Christ who can doubt of it seeing the proportion is ten to one fifty to fiue an hundred to ten an hundred and fifty to fifteene And no maruell if it bee thus in their prayers seeing it is as euill or worse in their deeds for whereas wee haue one Church or religious house dedicated to Christ we shall finde ten dedicated to Mary the Mother of Christ and so the Mother is aduanced aboue the Sonne and yet she but a woman of flesh and bloud saued by her Sonne and blessed by that faith which shee had in him and hee the Sonne of God as well as the Sonne of Man the Sauiour and Redeemer of mankinde 72. But the most horrible Idolatrie and blasphemy of all the rest is to be found in another Mary Psalter of theirs compiled as they say by Bonauenture and authorised in the Church of Rome wherein they apply all the whole Psalter of Dauid to the Virgine Mary and wheresoeuer they finde the name Dominus Lord they put in Domina Lady as for example in the third Psalme for Lord how are my foes increast they say Lady how are my foes increast and in the sixt Psalme for O Lord correct mee not in thy wrath they say O Lady correct me not in thy wrath And in the 31. Psalme for Blessed are they O Lord whose sinnes are forgiuen they say Blessed are they whose hearts loue thee O Virgine Mary for their sinnes shall be forgiuen them by thee and so cleane through the Psalter If any desire to see the gulfe and dunghill of Superstition and Idolatrie practised in the Church of Rome vnder the Inuocation of Saints let him but read this one Psalter which alone if there were no other argument is sufficient to conuince their whole Church of open and notorious Idolatrie and that Cassander himselfe confesseth in the place aboue quoted 73. Thus they exalt the Virgine Mary aboue Christ and equall her with God yea which is horrible to speake and fearefull to be recorded they place her aboue God himselfe for they teach that a man may appeale to the Virgine Mary not onely from a Tyrant and from the Diuell but euen from God himselfe This writeth Bernardine de Busto about 120. yeeres since and his booke was authorised by Pope Alexander the sixt and yet remaines so farre from all disallowance that it is approoued by Posseuine as a learned and godly booke Out of which it must needes follow which I tremble to vtter that by their doctrine the Virgine Mary is greater then God because euery appeale is from the lesser to the greater 74. But no maruell if they preferre Mary to Christ that is the Mother before the Sonne seeing they doe as much to two Fryers Francis and Dominicke He that would see how Francis is matched and exalted aboue Christ let him read the booke of his Conformities and hee will bee astonished at their madnesse Also of Dominicke they write most strange things and such as Christ neuer did the like as for example Christ raysed but three dead saith Antoninus but Dominicke raysed three at Rome and forty that were drowned in a Riuer neere to Tholosse Christ being made immortall after his resurrection entred twice into the house the dores being shut but Dominicke being a mortall man entred into a Church in the night the dores being shut that he might not waken the brethren Christ had all power committed vnto him in heauen and earth and Dominicke did partake the same power with him for the Angels serued him the Elements obeyed him the Diuels trembled at him Christ was the Lord absolutely and by authority but Dominicke principally and by possession Christ was laid at his birth in a Manger and wrapped in clouts to keepe him from cold but Dominicke being an infant would often get out of his bed and as if hee abhorred all delights of the flesh lye vpon the bare ground Christ neuer prayed but hee was heard if he would except in the Garden when hee prayed that the Cup might passe away from him where praying according to his sensuall part would not be heard according to reason but Dominicke neuer desired any thing of God but it was graunted vnto him Christ being borne a Starre appeared in the East which directed the Wise-men to him and foreshewed that he should be the light of the world but Dominicke being borne and ready to bee baptized his Godmother saw a Starre in his forehead foretelling a new light of the world Lastly Christ loued vs and washed away our sinnes by his bloud so did Dominicke for hee whipt himselfe thrice euery day with an Iron chayne and drew bloud each time out of his sides once for his owne sinnes which were very small the second for those that were in Purgatory and the third for those that liue in the world Is not Dominicke heere in some things equalled and in others preferred before our blessed Sauiour Iesus Christ 75. And thus to passe ouer all their false and counterfeit Saints which eyther neuer were in rerum natura or were not such as they make them as Christopher George Catherine and such like For it is a true saying of Augustine or of some other Multorum corpora honorantur in terris quorum animae torquentur in inferno The bodies of many are honoured on earth whose soules are tormented in hell And to omit that the Pope may erre in the canonizing of Saints it being grounded vpon false miracles as Caietane acknowledgeth and others though Bellarmine be of another minde and laboureth to prooue the contrary but God wot with
be tormented restlessely in those burning flames which in their iudgement are equall for extremitie and anguish excepting onely continuance to the paines of Hell to be at rest and to sleepe in peace is Purgatorie become a Paradise and the skirts of Hell the suburbes of Heauen this is new strange Doctrine and yet this must needes bee if both their practice of praying for the dead in their Masse and their doctrine of the same in their bookes bee true 56. Concerning inuocation of Saints it is intangled with diuers absurd contrarieties for first if it bee true which the former Doctrine requires that wee must pray for the Saints which are in blisse that their glorie may bee increased then it is false that wee must pray vnto them For if they stand in need of our Praiers as they doe if by them their glorie is increased then they should pray vnto vs aswell as wee vnto them and if they stand in need of our helpe being in Heauen how can they helpe vs being on Earth if we be Mediatours for them how are they Mediatours for vs True it is that here below one man prayeth for another because they stand in need of one another but by another Doctrine which is also the truth the Saints enioy the sight and presence of God and therefore are most blessed for in him they enioy all sinnesse of ioy and glorie so that nothing can bee added to that happinesse which in their soules they enioy and therefore one of these two necessarily are false either we must not pray vnto them or we need not pray for them 57. Againe they a leage testimonies out of the olde Testament to prooue the inuocation of Saints as that Praier of Moses Remember O Lord Abraham Isaac and Iacob thy seruants and Ier. 25. If Moses and Samuel stand before mee my soule should not bee to this people and Gen. 48. 16. and Iob the 51. 2. Machabees 15. with diuers others and yet they teach that before Christ there was no Saint in Heauen but all in Lymbo Now if they were in Lymbo and could not help themselues vntil the Mediatour came how could they help others and if they did not enioy the presence of God themselues how could they be certified thereby as by a glasse of the necessities and Praiers of the liuing so that it must needes follow that either the Saints were not praied vnto or else if they were then they were in Heauen and not in Lymbo Especially seeing Bellarmine confesseth that the Saints in Lymbo did not ordinarily know the necessities of the liuing that being a prerogatiue of perfect blessednesse neyther tooke care of humane affaires nor were protectors of the Church as the Saints in Heauen are Bellarmine indeede seeing this absurditie acknowledgeth that for the reasons afore alleaged it was not a custome in the olde Testament to direct their Praiers purposely to the Saints but in their praiers to God to alleage the merits of the Saints but herein hee both crosseth himselfe and all his fellowes for if it be so why doth he and they produce testimonies out of the olde Testament to prooue their inuocation which is made directly vnto the Saints 58. Lastly they affirme that no Saints may bee worshipped publikely that is in the name of the Church vnlesse hee be canonized by the Pope for the auoiding of misprision and yet they confesse that none were canonized till 800. yeeres after Christ by Pope Leo the third and also that it is lawfull priuately to worship any of whose sanctity I haue an opinion now I would gladly know if this bee a way to auoide mistaking why was it forborne so long or why is it not vrged priuately aswell as publikely if canonization were necessary 800. yeeres after Christ to auoide mistaking then there was much mistaking before or else this remedy would not haue beene hatched and if it was necessary in the publicke seruice then is it much more in priuate deuotions seeing priuate men are more propense to false suppositions then a whole congregation is and so this new doctrine of canonization not onely condemneth the Idolatry offormer times in the inuocation of Saints but also openeth a wide doore to priuate superstition in that kind and so indeed crosseth and vndermineth it selfe for Bellarmine confesseth out of Sulpitius that the people did long celebrate one for a martyr who after appeared and tolde them that hee was damned and Alexander the third reprehendeth certaine men for giuing the honour of a martyr to one that dyed drunke and no doubt but many such Saints are in their Martyrologe at this day notwithstanding their canonization so that by canonizing they preuent mistaking by giuing liberty to priuate inuocation they giue occasion if not cause of mistaking then which what can be more contradictory 59. Againe when they barre all children that are vnbaptized out of Heauen and confine them to Limbo there to endure the punishment of losse for euer doe they not contradict another doctrine of theirs which teacheth that men dying without the baptisme of water if they haue baptismum flaminis vel sanguinis that is either suffer martyrdome for Christs sake or bee regenerated by his Spirit and so haue a desire to bee initiated by that Sacrament but are preuented by some meanes may notwithstanding goe to Heauen for if want of baptisme bee a sufficient cause to keepe from Heauen then it is so as well in men growne as in infants and if it bee not a sufficient cause to shut vp Heauen gates against men of yeeres then how can it be to yong infants especially seeing infants by their doctrine are equall to men in two things first that they may bee martyrs as well as they as the children whom Herod slew in Bethlâ—em are celebrated in their leiturgies and secondly that they may bee sanctified as well as they as Iohn Baptist was in his mothers wombe and in these two are precedent vnto them first that they are void of actuall transgressions with which men of yeeres are infinitely stayned and so neerer to Heauen then those and secondly though they haue no desire of baptisme in themselues yet they are deuoted thereunto both by the desire of their parents and by the purpose and intent of the Church And therefore all considerations being equall in the persons and the oddes remaining if there be any on the infants side it can bee no lesse then a direct contradiction that children vnbaptized cannot bee saued and men vnbaptized may bee saued for it implieth thus much in effect that the outward baptisme of water is necessary to saluation and yet the outward baptisme of water is not necessary to saluation 60. Againe concupiscence in the regenerate is denyed by them all to bee in it owne nature sinne and yet they all confesse that it is malum an euill and vitium a vice Is any thing naturally euill which is
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
grace not deluding their soules with a fond expectation of other mens deuotions Sure it is that the opinion of purgatorie and prayer for the dead must of necessitie nourish a presumption of veniall sinnes at the least which our doctrine adiudgeth to hell without repentance aswell as any other and because few are able to distinguish betwixt mortall and veniall sinnes but iudge them veniall which are to Gods iudgement mortall as their Iesuite Coster confesseth when hee sayth that that may seeme a light offence vnto man which is haynous in Gods sight therefore it must needs also bee in danger to breed a secret presumption of mortall sinnes also And so whilest they haue a blind conceit of the suburbes which is Purgatorie they cast themselues into the Citie it selfe which is hell 34. Lastly this may be demonstrated to the conscience of any not preiudiced with a blind zeale to the Romish Church by this reason for that neyther Purgatorie nor Prayer for the dead can directly be proued out of Scripture as hath bin proued before concerning Purgatory and is apparent concerning prayer for the dead there being neither precept nor promise nor direct example in the whole volume of Gods Booke for the same as is confessed by their owne Bredenbachius and besides hauing no sound foundation in the consent of ancient Fathers as hath beene also prooued but being founded vpon vaine apparitions and strange reuelations of soules departed which many of the Fathers were of opinion could not bee as testifieth Maldonate one of their owne Iesuites for feare lest vnder that colour we should be drawne to superstitions and others thought that Deuils did faine themselues to be the soules of dead men as witnesseth Pererius another Iesuite yea and some of their owne Doctours haue beene perswaded that all apparitions about Churches are eyther demoniacall or phantasticall whereas on the contrarie our doctrine of two places is direct in Scripture and was neuer denied by any authoritie either of olde or new Diuines I meane possitiuely that there is a Heauen and a Hell wherefore this wee may safely beleeue and repose our soules vpon but to entertaine the beliefe of the former is as dangerous to the conscience as doubtfull to the vnderstanding seeing hee that doubtingly vndertaketh any action is condemned as a sinner because hee doth it not in faith Faiths obiect being Gods Word alone and not the vncertaine coniectures of humane opinions much lesse the vaine apparitions of dead ghosts 35. Againe their doctrine of the absolute necessitie of baptisme excluding thereby infants from Heauen and confining them to a Prison in the brimme of Hell there to indure the euerlasting punishment of losse is a dangerous doctrine both in respect of pietie towards God and charitie towards our neighbour and certaintie to a mans conscience and consequently our doctrine that holdeth the contrarie is more safe in all those respects For touching pietie it is a great imbasing to Gods mercie and a detracting from the glorie of his grace to thinke that Almightie God should in iustice cast away the infinite myriades of vnbaptized infants or that his sauing grace is so tyed to the outward Sacrament that he cannot or at the least will not saue any without it the first of these is confessed by many of the learned Romanists themselues to be à Dei misericordia alienum not agreeable to the mercie of God which exceedeth not onely the deserts but euen the hopes of men The second is confirmed by a due comparing of the olde couenant of the Law with the new couenant of the Gospell for if it be true that children dying vnder the Law vncircumcised were saued by the faith of their Parents as Saint Bernard thinketh yea and is also agreeable to the tenure of the Scripture for many children dyed in the Wildernesse without the Sacrament of Circumcision it being omitted for those fortie yeeres by Gods own allowance and Dauid hearing of the death of his childe before hee had receiued the outward character of Circumcision as may be gathered out of the Text. did solace himselfe with this confidence that the childe was saued Then it must needs follow if the same priuiledge be not granted to the children of Christian Parents that the couenant of the Gospell is not so large as the couenant of the Law nor Gods mercie so bountifull to Christians as to Iewes nor the merits of Christ so effectuall after his comming in the flesh as they were before by all which the glorie of the Gospell and grace of Christ is much defaced and the vnbounded Ocean of Gods mercie limited and stinted 36. Touching charitie is it not an vncharitable conceit to despaire of the saluation of poore infants dying without Baptisme and that both towards the infants themselues who though they are borne in originall sinne yet are innocent from actuall transgressions and towards the Parents who being themselues within the couenant hereby are depriued of that chiefe comfort of the couenant which is that God is not onely their God but the God of their seed and towardes the Church that hereby is robbed of a great part of her children and made vnable to present young infants to her Husband Christ Iesus Children are little beholding to them for this doctrine Parents lesse and the Church the mother of the faithfull least of all And indeed so farre is it from charitie that it is full of damnable crueltie 37. Lastly touching the perilous consequences that follow vpon this doctrine I need name but these three to wit first that it maketh God more mercifull to men of yeeres then vnto tender infants for they teach that men of yeeres as Valentinian the Emperour may be saued by the Baptisme of the Spirit or by the Baptisme of bloud which is Martyrdome though they want the Baptisme of water but infants albeit they may haue the Spirit of sanctification euen in the wombe as Iohn Baptist had and may be Martyrs according to their opinion as the children that Herod caused to be slaine yet if they want the Sacrament of water they adiudge them peremptorily to be banished from Gods presence for euer Now then children and men being in the same predicament either the one must be admitted to Gods fauour aswell as the other or it must needs follow that God is partial and more fauourable to the one then the other If they say that men though they haue not the act of Baptisme yet they haue votum a desire vnto it which being intercepted by some sodaine accident is supplied by inward grace I answere with Bellarmine that as another mans sinne was the cause of the damnation of infants so other mens faith sufficeth them vnto baptisme Why should then the desire of one man be of more efficacie to his saluation then the desire and purpose of the Church for the saluation of infants To this purpose their owne learned Schooleman sayth that