heauen they make them more then their fellowes euen mediatours of intercession betweene them and God Lastly for mutuall praying for one another here wee haue both an expresse commandement and plaine examples in the word of God but for praying to the Saints wee haue neither commandement nor example nor promise in the whole Scripture 57. But that I may leaue these things and come to the poynt in hand that Saints are made Idols by inuocation may appeare by these reasons First because they ascribe vnto them an omnipotent power to know the heart which is a peculiar property belonging vnto God onely Ier. 17. 10. Secondly an infinite presence in all places and that at once for when one prayeth to Saint Peter at Rome another at Paris another at London another at Constantinople and all at one instant must not he needs be present in all those places or else how can he heare their prayers Thirdly a diuine power to helpe and deliuer all those that call vpon them and that not onely from outward calamities but from inward sinnes and corruptions Fourthly a property belonging onely vnto God namely to bee beleeued in for how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued saith S. Paul Rom. 10. 14 And lastly a diuine worship which is sacrifice for prayer is a spiritual sacrifice of Christians Heb. 13. 13. which as all know pertaineth onely vnto God And as Saint Augustine well confesseth when he saith We doe not ordaine Priests nor offer sacrifices to the Martyrs because it is vnfit vndue and vnlawfull and due onely to God alone and againe in the same Chapter because not they but their God is our God 58. Against these arguments our aduersaries make a shew of opposition and but a shew after this manner First that they doe not ascribe to the Saints an omnipotent power or an infinite presence by inuocating them for they say Beatifica visione by that blessed vision of God they doe behold all things which pertaine vnto them to know in him tanquam in speculo as it were in a glasse Secondly that the Saints helpe not as Authours but as instruments and impetrators Thirdly that wee may beleeue in them though not as in God but as in our Patrons and Protectours And that Bellarmine proueth by Hierome vpon the Epistle to Philemon on these words When I heare of thy loue and faith which thou hast towards the Lord Iesus and towards all Saints Lastly that Prayer is an improper kind of sacrifice so called by a figure of speech and not so being in it owne nature 59. But all these are but meere shifts which may in some sort blanch the foulenesse of this errour to the dim eyes of the ignorant yet those that are quicke-sighted can easily discerne their falshood and therefore that I may a little discouer their iuggling I answere to their obiections in order to the first three things First that tâ— is glasse in which all things are said to be seene is no where to be found in the Scripture and therefore is a plaine forgerie of their owne braines for we reade Mat. 5. 8. That the pure in heart are therefore blessed because they shall see God From whence it may be gathered that Visio beatifica est beatitudo videntium In the blessed sight of God consists the happinesse of the Saints but that thereby they should behold as it were in a glasse all things which they would is no where to be sound in the Scripture of God Secondly it is contrary to Scripture for Reuel 6. 9. it is said that the Saints vnder the Altar cry How long Lord holy and true wilt thou not reuenge our bloud and Acts 2. 7. It is not â—aith our Sauiour-to his Apostles in you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his owne power And that this is meant not onely of the Saints in this life but also in heauen appeareth by that which Christ â—aith Mat. 24. 23. that the Angels know not the houre of the last Iudgement if not the Angels much lesse the Saints but all these things doe in some sort pertaine vnto theÌ„ as well as the prayers of the liuing and yet it is plaine that they see them not in that glasse Thirdly if that be certaine that they see in this glasse the prayers and necessities of their suppliants Why doth Coster and others affirme that they attaine this knowledge by the relation of Angels and yet they assigne to euery man but one Angell surely that Angel is well employed in ascending and descending euery houre to carry newes to the Saints And why doe others say that the Saints are after a sort by a wonderfull celerity of their glorified nature in euery place This is a wonderfull celerity indeed if it were possible for them to be so and yet be it as they would haue it it cannot euince an audience of those prayers which are made at one and the same instant in diuers and farre distant places And lastly why doe some others affirme that they haue this knowledge not by the vision of God but by ordinarie and continuall reuelation from God If by vision then not by reuelation and if by reuelation then not by vision And thus like men in the darke they fight with one another and whilest they forsake the light of the truth which shineth in the word of God they fall into grieuous errours hammered out of their owne fancies if they say it is no matter how they know our wants but certaine it is that they doe know them they take that for granted which is the question to be proued which by no sufficient argument they can euince 60. To the second obiection I answere that most ignorant persons esteeme the Saints to whom they pray as the very authours and giuers of those good things which they pray for without any respect vnto God saue that they thinke hee hath put them into their hands to bee distributed at their pleasure and therefore they pray to one for their Horses and to another for their Hogs and to a third for their Kine c. Yea not onely the simple sort doe this but it is the doctrine of their Church as may appeare by this rime in their authorized Seruice-Bookes to the blessed Virgin In te pluit inte fluit Deus suam gratiam Ergo tuanobis pluâ— gratiae clementiam Ad beati tui Nati transfer prasentiam Et cunctorum delictorum confer indulgentiam That is God raines his grace abundantly on thee Of that thy grace let vs partakers bee Bring vs vnto the presence of thy Sonne And pardon all the sinnes which we haue done Here the Virgin Marie is not made the Impetrator but the giuer of grace and so are the rest of the Saints as shall more fully appeare in the next Section 61. To the third I answere that to beleeue in a creature is to deifie that
creature For as Augustine well obserueth Wee beleeue the Apostle we doe not beleeue in the Apostle and we beleeue the Church and not in the Church and therefore in the Apostles Creed where we say I beleeue in God wee doe not say I beleeue in the Catholicke Church but I beleeue the Catholicke Church whereby is plainely insinuated that none but God is to be beleeued in because to beleeue in a thing is to put our trust and confidence in that thing As for that place in the Epistle to Philemon it maketh nothing for this purpose for there the word Faith is referred to the Lord Iesus and Loue to the Saints neither ought Saint Hieromes authority more preiudicate vs in this interpretation then it doth them in many such like whom they reiect as they do the rest of the Fathers at their pleasures especially seeing no man else besides himselfe is of that minde at least wise if he vnderstand by faith to beleeue in the Saints and not to beleeue them onely the one whereof is proper to the Creator the other to the creatures 62. To the last I answere that Prayer is properly one of the sacrifices of the New Testament for here the sacrifices are not corporall but spirituall as may bee prooued in generall by that which our Sauiour saith Iohn 4. God will be worshipped in Spirit and truth And in particular by comparing Mal. 1. 11. with 1. Tim. 2. 8. for whereas Malachie prophecying of the Kingdome of Christ had said that Incense and a cleane offering should be offered to God in euery place Paul sheweth what is meant hereby when he commandeth to lift vp pure hands vnto God in euery place But suppose that it were improperly called a sacrifice yet it looseth not the knot for all kinde of sacrifices both proper and improper corporall and spirituall are due onely vnto God for to whome belongeth a Temple and Altar to him belongeth a sacrifice saith Saint Augustine but no Temple or Altar proper or improper is to be built or set vp to any but to God and therfore no sacrifice is to be offered but to him 63. Lastly touching the authority of the Fathers which are alleaged so frequently by Bellarmine to prooue the Inuocation of Saints and from which Cassander would draw this conclusion That it was not credible that those holy men would admit any doctrine or custome which they supposed to bee contrary to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine or detract any thing from the glory of God or the merit of Christ when as they vnderwent so heauie conflicts for Christs sake Here not to keepe the Reader in suspense referring a fuller satisfaction to this argument to a more fit place foure things are to bee noted first that for the space of two hundred yeares after Christ the Intercession and Inuocation of Saints were doctrines vnknowne vnto the Church and therefore they alledge no Father within that compasse saue Dionisius Areopagita Cap. 7. Eccles Hierarch which booke as diuers other that goe vnder that name Illyricus hath proued to bee counterfeit by impregnable reasons And Iraeneus Lib. 5. contra Haeres who saith that the Virgine Mary was made the Aduocate of the Virgine Eue by which hee could not meane that Eue did pray vnto Mary here on earth seeing Mary was not then borne when Eue liued nor that the Virgine Mary did pray for Eue whilst shee liued because then shee her selfe was not both which must needes be if by this testimony the Inuocation of Saints should be proued 64. Secondly those Fathers that liued in the next two hundred yeares speake of this matter very variously and doubtfully as if it were a doctrine which they knew not what to say to were not fully resolued in Thirdly of those Fathers which he alleageth though in some places they seeme to allow that custome which was then brought into the Church yet in other places they disallow the same Yea and they are disapprooued also of others that liued in the same age Thus true Athanasius condemneth Inuocation of Saints Orat. 2. 3. contra Arianos and false Athanasius alloweth it Sermon in Euangel de Sanctissima Deipara Basil approueth it but Nazianzene doubteth of it and Epiphanius that liued also about that time vtterly condemneth iâ— Chrysostome in some places seemeth to allow of it in others he speaketh against it and so doth Augustine and the rest as you may see at large prooued by Chemnitius in his examine of the Councill of Trent And that which is not to be forgotten they alleage many false and counterfeit Bookes vnder the name of the Fathers as Dionysius Areopagita Ecclesiast Hierar Athanas Serm. de Sanctissima Deipara Chrysost hom ad pop 66. and many others of the like impression as the same Chemnitius hath learnedly and vnanswerably prooued 65. Lastly those Fathers which doe defend this Inuocation yet do not defend it as it is now practised in the Church of Rome for first the Fathers if they did allow of this Inuocation yet it was in their priuate deuotions not in the publike Leiturgie of the Church for it cannot bee prooued that in any of the ancient Leiturgies this Inuocation was vsed vntill Gregorie the firsts time for as for that which was called Chrysostomes Masse all know it is a bastard brat and not a true Child of that good Father but in the Church of Rome it is practised in their publicke seruice and so is come from a matter of priuate deuotion to a generall practice of Religion Secondly the Fathers though they may seeme to haue prayed sometimes vnto the Saints out of the heate of their deuotion yet it was but now and then and as it were by the way whereas their ordinary prayers and deuotions were directed vnto God but in the Church of Rome the Saints are more prayed vnto then God he hath the least and they the greatest share in their deuotion witnesse the Letanie of the blessed Virgin Marie and the Marie Psalter and their Common practice Thirdly the Fathers albeit they directed their prayers sometimes to the Saints yet they reposed most confidence in their prayers to God and in the mediation of Christ as appeareth by that which Chrysostome saith Ad Deum non ostiarâ—o c. We need no Porter nor Mediator nor Minister to bring vs to God say but Miserere mei Deus c. And in another place hee saith that when wee pray our selues to God wee obtaine more then when others pray for vs. But the superstitious Romanists thinke to speede better when they pray to the Saints then when vnto God And therefore they are not ashamed to say that we must appeale from the Court of Gods iustice to the Court of his Mothers mercy Fourthly the Fathers did not so much as dreame of any merits of supererogation which should be in the Saints and by them should be communicated vntovs but all the interest
that entring into their Temples they were sprinkled not that they might be defiled but that if they had any sinne they might be purged from it Thus it plainely appeareth that this was a Heathenish custome which how it can agree with the Church of Christ I know not sure I am that in the Primitiue Church there was no holy-water besides the water of Baptisme that can be proued by any good authority for the testimonies of Alexander the first Clement and Basil alledged by Bellarmine are all counterfeit as partly the matter in them contayned and partly the censure of Eusebius and Erasmus doe sufficiently proue and might here bee demonstrated if I thought it necessary neither doth it agree with the nature of those times to the which S. Iohn so lately before had left this doctrine that the onely purgation of sinne was the bloud of Christ and not holy-water consecrated by a Priest 9. In like manner their vse of Incense on their Altars to driue away deuils as they say doth sauour both of Iudaisme and of Paganisme That the Iewes vsed to burne Incense in sacrifice to God is no question for they had their Altar of burnt Incense appoynted by God himselfe for that purpose this Altar without question was a type of Christ our Mediatour and the incense of the prayers of the Saints which are then acceptable vnto God when they are offered vp in the name of Christ who is the Altar that sanctifieth all our sacrifices This is so euident not only out of holy Scripture but froÌ„ the full consent of all Writers old new that it is needles to stand to prooue it And therefore offering of Incense being a shadow of things to come why should it still remaine seeing the Sunne of righteousnesse is risen in our Horizon and hath â—ispelled all shadowes by the glorious beames of his presence As touching the Pagans Polydore Virgil confesseth that it was their custome to offer Incense to their Idols And Theodoret affirmeth that when Iulian distributed gold amongst his Souldiers hee commanded an Altar full of coales to bee set by him and Frankincense to bee layd on a Table to the end that euery one would recieue gold at his hand should first cast Frankincense vpon the Altar and this hee did to distinguish the Pagan from the Christian By which it is euident by the way that at that time this was not in vse in the Church This Iewish and Paganish custome then how commeth it to passe that it should now bee taken vp as a holy seruice of God Are not all Iewish Ceremonies at an end by the coÌ„ming of the body which is Christ And is it fit that Christians should learne to worship God froÌ„ the Gentiles which were worshippers of deuils These things are so dissonant to the nature of true Religion that they admit no iust reconciliation Sure it is that the Primitiue Church neuer knew the vse therof as appeareth both by that Example of Iulian before alleaged out of Theodoret and also by testimonies of Arnobius Eusebius and Augustine all which acknowledge that the Church in their time had no such custome We goâ—â—into Arabia saith Saint Augustine to fetch Frankincense God requireth of vs the sacrifice of praise As for the auncient Leiturgies and Dionisius that mention it in Gods seruice wee care not for them seeing all men either vehemently suspect them or vtterly reiect them as counterfeit 10. Againe the Iewes had their holy oyle wherewith their Kings Priests and Prophets were anoynted which was a type and figure of that spirituall vnction of grace wherewith Christ our head was anoynted aboue his fellowes and all his members in a due proportion The Church of Rome hath also reuiued this Ceremonie and that after a farre more superstitious manner for there was not halfe such a stirre at the making of the holy oyle of the Tabernacle as there is at the consecrating of their holy Chrisme it would euen prouoke the spleene to laughter and the gall to bitternesse to heare or behold the apish trickes that they vse at the making of their precious Chrisme such muttering such charming and enchanting such blowing and breathing such exorcising and coniuring the deuill by the mitted Bishop first and then twelue Priests in their order before they come to Aue Sanctum Chrisma All haile O holy Chrisme as is wonderfull What is this I pray you but a profest restoring of a Iewish Ceremony and a plaine declaration that their Priests are rather Iewish than Christian and that those graces of Gods spirit which were figured by their holy oyle are not to bee found in cheir Church seeing they retaine so superstitiously the type thereof If they say that Saint Iames mentioneth oyle to bee vsed at the visitation of the sicke whereby they recouered health I answer first that this was no such consecrated oyle as is in vse in the Church of Rome and secondly that it was applyed onely to the sicke that were in danger of death not to young Infants that are new come into the world at their baptisme thirdly that it was not an instrument of spirituall grace but of corporall health and lastly that it lasted onely during the time that miracles liued in the Church and dyed when they dyed so that Saint Iames his oyle maketh nothing for the maintenance of the Romish Chrisme and therefore I leaue it vnto them as a meere Iewish superstition 11. Lastly doth not the high Priest of Rome imitate the high Priest of the Iewes in his Pontificall garments are not their Fryers and Anchorites â—pâ—sh counterfeiters of the Leuiticall Nazarites doth not their Iubile both in name and nature represent the Iewish Iubile no man that knoweth the one and seeth the other but will confesse this to be true for Aaron wore a Crowne vpon his head to signifie the Kingly power of Christ the Bishop of Rome hath three Crownes to signifie forsooth his threefold power in Heauen Earth and Purgatory Or as Aretine iested one for the flesh another for the world and the third for the deuill and none for God Aaron had a plate on his Crowne wherin was engrauen Holinesse to the Lord. The Bishop of Rome vsed to weare a plate on his head wherein was written the word Mysterie as if he would professe himselfe to be the vpholder of that mystery of iniquitie spoken of by the Apostle Aaron had his Ephod and Robe the Bishop of Rome hath answerable therevnto his rich Pontificall attire which in many resemblances is like vnto the same yea the Romanists doe plainely Iudaize in bringing in againe into the Priestly order such variety of garments as the Pall the Miter the Crozier-staffe the Albe the Chimere the gray Amice the Sâ—oale with such like Insomuch that when their Bishops come forth to doe diuine seruice a man would thinke that he saw Aaron addressed with his attire to sacrifice at the Altar 12. As touching
in the seuenteenth chapter he auoucheth that the proportion betwixt the worke and the reward is ratione operis in respect of the worke Now I confesse that some of them affirme indeed the reason of meriting of our workes to arise partly from this that we are adopted the sonnes of God and haue vnion with Christ and so they are made meritorious by the dignity of the person which worketh them and partly because they proceede from grace and also partly by reason of the promise which God hath made vnto them whereby hee bindeth himselfe that he will reward them but let all these be granted though all of them bee denyed by many of their owne Writers who attribute merite to the worke without relation either to the person or to grace or to the promise yet it will not free their doctrine from palpable impiety as the sequent discourse shall I trust make apparant After that I haue in opposition to this doctrine set downe the summe of that which we hold touching the dignity of good workes I omit to name their merit of cōgruity because most of themselues are ashamed of it 28. This is therefore that doctrine which our Church maintaineth concerning good workes First wee beleeue assuredly that good workes are necessary to saluation but so Vt via regni non causae regnandi as the way to the Kingdome not causes of raigning and as signes of our Election and forerunners of our future happinesse as Saint Bernard testifieth This with one consent we all teach and the Romanists that slander vs with the contrary assertion cannot produce so much as one sentence out of any of our Writers which being rightly vnderstood doth import the contrary as shall be hereafter fully proued Secondly wee hold that as they are necessary in respect of vs so they are acceptable and well pleasing to God not for their own sakes but for our faith-sake in Christ in whome onely the Lord is well pleased both towards himselfe and all his members Thirdly we beleeue that they are not onely thus acceptable and well pleasing in Gods sight but also that the Lord will reward them assuredly both in this life with temporall blessings and in the life to come with eternall happinesse according to that of our Sauiour Whosoeuer shall giue vnto one of those little ones to drinke a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple he shall not lose his reward But lastly we constantly assure our selues that this reward is not giuen of God for the merite or desert of the worke but of the meere grace and mercy of God for the merits of Christ according to that of Saint Bernard The mercy of God is my merite and of Saint Augustine God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercy For a reward is not onely taken for a due debt in Scripture but also for a free gift as may appeare by comparing Mat. 5. 46. with Luk. 6. 32. In the one place wherof the Holy Ghost vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the one and the same thing So that the summe of our doctrine is this in few words wee renounce not good workes but the merit of workes and wee verily beleeue that Christ is the store-house of all merite and that out of him there is no merite to be found in any no not in the iustest that euer liued and yet the merits of Christ as his righteousnesse are made ours by imputation and in that sense onely we may bee said to merit and deserue eternall life As for our best workes though they bee wrought in vs by grace yet passing through the corrupt channell of our defiled nature they get themselues such a tincture and staine as in regard of the corruption which cleaueth close vnto them they can deserue nothing at Gods hand if he should lay them to the rule of his iustice and not weigh them in the ballance of his mercy This is our doctrine and that it is so I appeale to Bellarmine himselfe who confesseth that by faith alone wee doe not exclude other vertues but the merit of them and that we make good workes necessary to saluation Necessitate praesentiae non efficientiae as he termeth it By necessitie of their presence not by necessitie of efficiencie Let vs therefore now come to the examination of both these doctrines and search which of them doth giue most glory to God and honour to Christ our Sauiour in this maine pillar of our Redemption 29. And first doth not that doctrine tend manifestly to the embasing of Gods mercy which teacheth men not to relie wholly vpon that for their saluation but partly vpon their owne merits Especially seeing grace and workes merit and mercy cannot stand together no more then light and darknes as the Apostle teacheth If it be of grace it is no more of workes or else were grace no more grace but if it be of workes it is no more grace or else were worke no more worke So may we truely say If saluation be of mercy then it is not of merit or else were mercy no more mercy but if it be of merit it is no more of mercy or else were merit no more merit and so by kindling the fire of merits they vtterly dry vp the fountaine of mercy And for that cause Saint Bernard maketh the mercy of God his onely merit And Saint Augustine disclayming all merits and laying clayme onely to Gods mercy saith as before God bringeth vs to eternall life not for our merits but for his owne mercie And in another place His promise is sure not according to our merits but according to his mercy And Chrysostome saith That no man sheweth such conuersation of life as that he may bee worthy of the Kingdome of heauen but it is wholly the gift of God In all these places merit is opposed vnto mercy as things of their owne condition incompatible and therefore one must needes exclude the other And sure in reason it must needs be so for mercy is free Grace is not grace in any sort if it be not free in euery sort sayth Augustine but merit requireth the reward of debt Mercies obiect is misery and vnworthinesse but merit is dignity and worthinesse and therefore cannot bee the obiect of mercy Mercy reioyceth against iustice but merit appealeth vnto iustice and challengeth God of vniustice if it bee not recompenced Lastly in mercy God is the Agent and sinfull Man the Patient but in merit righteous Man is the Agent and God the Patient And therefore betwixt these two things Merit and Mercy there is such a disproportion and contrariety that they cannot be reconciled together 30. I but they say our workes are not meritorious of themselues but partly as they proceede from grace and are wrought in vs by Gods Spirit and so it is Gods mercy that we
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
for a more filthy bottle Besides which is more vnreasonable he maketh things to be of a contradictory opposition which are one and the same in nature for to giue diuine honour to the creature is not Idolatry saith hee but to worship a creature as God is Idolatry whereas in verie truth to giue diuine honour to a creature is to worship that creature as God and to worship a creature as God is no more nor lesse then to giue diuine honour vnto it as any man of vulgar sense may easily discerne 9. Scripture for if none were Idolaters but they which accounted the Idols which they worshipped to be very Gods then were not the Israelites Idolaters when they adored the golden Calfe in the Wildernesse nor the tenne Tribes when they offered sacrifice to Ieroboams Calues at Dan and Bethel nor the Iewes when they bowed the knee and buâ—nt Incense to the Image of Baal for they did not esteeme these Images as very Gods but in them the two former worshipped the true God and the latter the God of the Sidonians which was the same and yet all these are condemned as Idolaters in the Booke of God nay many of the Heathen themselues were to be freed from Idolatry as the Athenians who on that Altar which was dedicated to an vnknowne God worshipped ignorantly the true God which made the world and all things that are therein as Saint Paul declareth Acts 17. 23. and the Ephesians who worshipping the great Goddesse Diana did not ascribe diuine power to the Image which was like vnto a great pillar full of dugs but vnto nature represented by that Image or rather God the nourisher and conseruer of nature of all things in nature and the rest of the wiser rancke of the Gentiles who as some of the Romish Writers themselues confesse worshipped vnwittingly that same God which was preached by the Apostles and though they set before them diuers Images yet their meaning was to worship in them the true God 10. Fathers for all of them with one consent define Idolatry to be nothing else but the attributing of diuine honour to the Creatures as Thomas Aquinas out of them all concludes that this is Idolatry quando honor soli Deo debitus exhibetur creaturae that is when that honour which is onely due vnto God is bestowed vpon a creature Hee that would see the Fathers particular definitions hereof let him reade the places quoted in the Margent which for breuity sake I ouerpasse And to conclude to see how grosly this Iesuite doth erre from the scope of truth and how vnaduisedly he brings in that fond addition as vnto God the Catechisme of the Councill of Trent doth plainly affirme that the Heathen set vp vnto God the Images of diuers creatures that the Israelites worshipped the true God in the golden Image of the Calfe These are the two vaine euâ—sions of these two great pillars whose workes are approued by the censure of the Church to bee wholly Orthodex and to containe nothing contrary to the Catholike verity 11. But enough of them let vs leaue the two Cubs in their holes and come to the hunting of the olde Foxe the Idolatrous Church it selfe That the Church of Rome attributes diuine honour to creatures appeareth by this because trust and confidence inuocation vowes sacrifice adoration all which are giuen by them vnto creatures are all parts of diuine honour and worship For trust and confidence the Prophet Ieremie so appropriateth it to the Lord that he denieth it to all other Ier. 17. 5 7. Cursed be hee that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme and withdraweth his heart from the Lord. And then he addeth but blessed bee the man that trusteth in the Lord and whose hope the Lord is And S. Peter more plainely 1. Pet. 5. 7. doth bid vs to cast all our care vpon God Now if all confidence and our trust or care is to be reposed in the Lord then there is no part nor piece thereof to beeb stowed vpon any creature and that as all so onely it belongeth to the Lord. Christ himselfe teacheth Math. 4. 10. interpreting that place of Deut. 6. 13. and 10. 20. for whereas Moses saith Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and serue him Christ the best Expositor of the Law that euer was himselfe being the end and perfection of the Law doth thus alledge it adding this word onely vnto the Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serue Whereby he euidently declareth that all the parts of Gods worship are to bee restrained by this word onely that is that they so belong vnto the Lord that it is sacriledge if not Idolatry to communicate them to any other and so of inuocation vowes sacrifice and adoration the Scripture doth ascribe them to God as parts of his worship and therefore by the same rule onely to God and none else the reason hereof is giuen by the Lord himselfe Esai 42. 5. I am the Lord saith he this is my name and my glory will I not giue to any other but his worship is his glory therefore no part of this may be giuen to any other 12. To this also consent all the Fathers Ierome saith If we must put our confidence in any let vs haue our affiance in God alone And Basil As it is meete to worship nothing beside God so wee must fixe our hope in one God Augustine thus Saints are to be honoured for imitation and not to be adored for Religion Epiphanius thus Let Mary bee honoured but not adored let the Father Sonne and holy Ghost bee adored Lastly Ambrose determines the poynt most effectually thus Is any so mad saith hee that will giue to the Earle the honour of the King Yet these men marke this you idolatrous brood of Babylon doe not thinke themselues guilty who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature and leauing the Lord adore their fellow seruants as though there were any thing more reserued for God This is iust your case and therefore by the iudgement of this good Father you stand as guilty before Gods iudgement seat of Idolatry 13. But all these are but generall considerations let vs therefore see in particular how these parts of Gods worship are by the Religion of the Church of Rome assigned vnto creatures and to what creatures they are assigned that the Strumpet of Babylon may haue no mantle to couer her vncleannesse I might here begin with the Pope himselfe and shew how hee is made an Idoll in the Church of Rome and worshipped as God yea takes to himselfe the titles of God and suffers himselfe to be called God and receiueth adorations prostrations and kissing of the seete from all his followers as is testified by their owne corrected Canon Law and diuers of their learned Doctours whereby hee doth plainely shew himselfe to be Antichrist according to S. Pauls description I might
with Hierome and Iustine Martyr and when he entred into the house the dores being shut that the dores and walls yeelded vnto him a passage as vnto their Creator with Theodoret and Cyrill and that when hee appeared vnto Paul going to Damascus if it was in the aire or on the earth as it may be doubted that then this body was not in heauen at the same instant for farre bee it from vs so to pin vp our Lord in the Heauens that he cannot be where he pleaseth And this is Thomas Aquinas opinion in expresse words which Bellarmine as expresly contradicteth 15. Thirdly by discourse of reason hee thus laboureth to reconcile these contradictions and thus disputeth God being but one simple and inuisible essence is in infinite places at once and he might create another world and fill it with his presence and be in two worlds at one instant and the soule of man is wholy in euery part of the body and God is able to conserue the soule in a part that is cut off from the body therefore it implieth no contradiction to be in two places at once againe one place may containe two bodies and yet be not two places but one as when Christ rose out of the graue the Sepulchre being shut therefore one body may be in two places at once and yet not two bodies but one Lastly there be many other mysteries of religion as strange and difficult to be conceiued as this and yet are beleeued therefore this also is to be beleeued as well as they 16. A miserable cause sure that needeth such defences the weakenesse of these reasons argueth the feeblenesse of the cause for who knoweth not but that there is no similitude betweene the infinite God and a finite Creature nor any proportion betwixt a Spirit and a body and that à posse ad esse from may bee to must bee is no good consequence Adde that one place cannot hold two bodies nor euer did except they were so vnited that in respect of place they made but one And lastly that all those mysteries of Religion which he nameth to wit the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection the Creation and Annihilation c. haue their foundation in holy Scripture and therefore are to be receiued as doct ines of truth though transcending the spheare of nature and reason but this strange mysterie of Transubstantiation hath no ground in Scripture as he himselfe confesseth and therefore it is not to be beleeued as the other are without better reasons then he bringeth for the defence thereof but like lips like lettuces such as the cause is such are the defences both nought and weake as any man may see that is not muffled with errour and thus this second contradiction remaines irreconciliable 17. A third contradiction is also in and about the Sacrament which is this they teach that the matter in Sacrament is partly the outward Elements and partly the thing signified and represented by them and that betwixt these there is a certaine relation and similitude as in Baptisme the outward signe which is water and the thing signified which is the bloud of Christ make the matter of that Sacrament or the outward wasting by water and the inward by the Spirit and the relation is as the water washeth and purgeth away all filthinesse of the body so Christs bloud purgeth away both the guilt and filth of sinne from the soule and so in the Eucharist the Elements of Bread and Wine together with the bodie and bloud of Christ are the matter of the Sacrament and the relation is as those elements doe feed nourish and strengthen and cheare the bodie of man so the body and bloud of Christ doe seed nourish and strengthen and cheare the soule vnto eternall life and as those elements must be eaten and digested or else they nourish not so Christ must also be eaten and as it were digested and after a sort conuerted into our substance or else he is no food vnto our soules This is the very doctrine of the Church of Rome and it is agreeable to the truth for Bellarmine thus speaketh Species illae significant quidem cibum spiritualem sed non sunt ipsae cibus spiritualis that is The signes in the Scrament signifie our spirituall foode but they are not the spirituall foode it selfe And in another place he saith that signum in Sacramento reisignatae similitudinem gerit The signes in the Sacrament doe beare the similitude of the thing signified And in the same Chapter hee sayth more plainely that God would neuer haue ordained one thing to signifie another vnlesse it had a certaine analogie or similitude with it And herein he accordeth with the Master of sentences who defines a Sacrament thus To be a visible forme of an inuisible grace bearing the Image of that grace And with Hugo who saith That a Sacrament is a corporall or materiall element propounded outwardly to the senses by similitude representing and by institution signifying and by Sanctification containing some inuisible and spirituall grace And that this relation is in eating and nourishing Bellarmine in another place confesseth in direct words when he saith that That same outward eating in the Sacrament doth signifie the inward eating and refreshing of the soule but is not the cause thereof and that that is so necessarie a condition that without it we should not be partakers of that diuine nourishment And to this agreeth Saint Augustine who plainely affirmeth that if Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were not Sacraments at all And what this similitude is he declareth in another place where hee saith that We receaue visible meate in the Sacrament but the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another And Thomas Aquinas giueth this as a reason why Bread and Wine are the fittest matter of this Sacrament because men most commonly are nourished therewith his words are these As water is assumed in the Sacrament of Baptisme to the vse of spirituall washing because corporall washing is commonly made by water so bread and wine wherewith most commonly men are nourished are taken vp in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to the vse of the spirituall eating By which it followeth that if water did not wash it was no fit element for the Sacrament of Baptisme so if bread and wine doe not nourish they are no fit signes for the Lords Supper and for this cause our Sauiour at the institution of this Sacrament gaue this commandement to his Disciples that they should take and eate and the Apostle calleth it the Lords Supper and the Lords Table 18. This therefore is their own doctrine and it is grounded vpon the truth But listen a little how they contradict this by their miraculous monster Transubstantiation for when they say that the substance of the bread and wine is vtterly
Prophet Esay saying Behold I will lay in Sion a stone a sure foundation which is a playne and manifest Prophecie of Christ and not of Peter as the Apostle Peter himselfe expoundeth it where by the way we may note the feareful outrage of these Romish Rabbies against the truth of God and the God of truth whilst to the end they may aduance their Popes dignity by Peter they wrest and peruert the Scriptures and apply the Prophecies belonging to the Sonne of God to his seruant Peter and so make Peter himselfe nay the holy Ghost a Lyar. It were not credible that such blasphemous thoughts and words should nestle in the heart and issue out of the mouth of any but that the Apostle Saint Paul hath fore-told vs that in the time of Antichrist because men would not receiue the loue of the truth that they might be saued therefore God would send them strong delusions that they should beleeue lyes c. But to the point If Christs person be the onely true foundation of the Church in whom all the building being coupled together groweth vnto an holy Temple in the Lord and that not the persons but the doctrine and faith of the Apostles are those secundary foundations which the Scripture speaketh of as hath beene proued out of the Fathers then the opposition is vndefeasible namely that there is but one person the foundation of our Church which is our Lord and Sauiour the Sonne of God Christ Iesus and yet that Peters person should be the foundation of the Church also together with Christ 45. Thirdly I answere that both in truth and also in proprietie of speech there can bee but one foundation of one building those stones that are layd next to the foundation are not properly a secundary foundation but the beginning of the building vpon the foundation and for that cause when Peter and the rest of the Apostles are called twelue foundations it cannot bee vnderstood that they were any wayes properly foundations of the Church either first or second but that our Sauiour who is the substance and subiect of their doctrine is the onely true and singular foundation of the Church and that there is none other besides him for if when it is said that we are built vpō the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles as must needes bee because the Prophets are coupled together with the Apostles which liued not in the Christian Church and therefore could not be personall foundations of it and Christ crucified is the substance of their doctrine then it must needes follow that the Apostles meaning is nothing else but that we are built vpon Christ whom the Prophets and the Apostles preached and beleeued in And thus S. Hilary vnderstood it and Saint Ambrose and Anselmus who giuing the foundation of the Church to Peter expoundeth it sometimes of his faith in Christ and sometimes of Christ himselfe in whom he beleeued And thus doe also Salmeron the Iesuite and Cardinall Caietane in their commentaries vpon that place and Peter Lumbard together with the glosse vpon the place interpret And so this distinction of a primary and secundary foundation hath no foundation in the word of God 46. The Gospell teacheth that no Apostle or Bishop or other Minister of the Gospell is superiour to another of the same ranke or hath greater power and authority then another in respect of their ministerie but that all Ministers in their seuerall degrees haue equall power of preaching the Gospell administring the Sacraments binding and loosing But the Bishop of Rome challengeth to himselfe a supreme power ouer all other Bishops and ouer the whole Church and braggeth that he hath by right a title to both the swords both spirituall and temporall and that both iurisdictions doe originally pertaine to him and from him are conueyed to others c. 47. Bellarmine heere first confesseth and secondly distinguisheth hee confesseth that the Bishop of Rome hath a supreme power ouer all other Bishops and the whole Church and denyeth that eyther those places here quoted or any other doe prooue the contrary 48. To which I answere first that whereas out of Luke 22. 26. and 1. Cor. 3. 4. he extracteth a disparity and an inequality I answere that no man denyeth it and therefore he fighteth with his owne shadow hee should prooue not a bare superiority which wee confesse but a superiority in the same degree as of one Bishop to another and that in power not in execution wherein standeth the point of opposition 49. Secondly whereas he saith that though the power of remitting and retayning finnes and binding and loosing was communicated to all the Apostles yet Peter was ordayned chiefe Pastor ouer them all because our Sauiour Christ sayd vnto him alone Feede my sheepe and To thee will I giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen I answere that in this hee crosseth both himselfe the Fathers and the truth himselfe for elsewhere hee confesseth that the keyes both of Order and Iurisdiction were giuen to all the Apostles indifferently and therefore it must needes follow that Tibi dabo claues was not spoken singularly to Peter but generally to them all for if Christ gaue the keyes to them all as he confesseth then without doubt he promised them to them all or else his word and his deede should not accord together And againe hee acknowledgeth that all the Apostles had both power and commission to feede the sheepe of Christ when Mat. 28. he bade them all Goe teach and baptize and they all did put that commission in execution therefore it must needes follow that no singular power was giuen to Peter when as Christ said vnto him Feede my sheepe vnlesse we will say that the rest had not the same commission 50. The Fathers for Saint Cyprian saith plainely that all the Apostles were the same with Peter indued with equall fellowship both of honour and power and that a primary was giuen vnto Peter that the Church might appeare to be one Saint Hilary is of the same minde You O holy and blessed men saith he for the merit of your faith haue receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and obtained a right to binde and loose in Heauen and earth Saint Augustine saith that if when Christ said To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen he spake onely to Peter then the Church hath not the power of the keyes but if the Church hath it then Peter receiuing the keyes represented the Church And lastly Leo one of their owne Popes confesseth asmuch when hee affirmeth that the strength of this power of the keyes passed vnto all the Apostles and the constitution of this decree vnto all the Princes of the Church 51. Lastly the truth for when the Apostles stroue for superiority Christ who is truth it selfe and would not haue concealed so necessary a trueth if
euery man As the multitude of the Nineuites knew not their right hand from their left so this rabble know not the right hand of Religion from the left As for the maine points of the Catechisme how can they know them whereas they are ignorant of the grounds thereof For the Lords Prayer the ten Commandements and the Creede they rumble vp in the Latine tongue not vnderstanding one word what they speake They say Pater noster and Credo in Deum and yet they know not what Pater meaneth nor what Credo signifieth Yea for the most part they so mistearme the words thereof that their language is more like to the babling of Infants or rather the prattling of Parrats then the speech of men Neither is this ignorance onely to be found among the basest of the people which haue no teaching and education but euen amongst the better sort of them that are well borne and brought vp and after so strange and strong a fashion that by no meanes can they be withdrawne from this inueterate and continued custome of their Ancestors Hence springeth all that grosse superstition which is vsed of them as creeping to the Crosse falling downe before Images adoring and beautifying them with new-fashioned garments running a Pilgrimage to this Saint and that setting vp Tapers before their shrines wearing about their necks the beginning of the Gospell of Saint Iohn as a preseruatiue against the Diuell and the herbe Veruine being crossed and blessed against blasts the white Pater noster and the little Creede with an infinite number of such like superstitious vanities whereof there is neyther head nor foote Would any that are not plunged ouer head and eares in ignorance put any affiance in such trumperie and yet herein is all the Religion of the vulgar who repose euen the hope of their saluation in these things and thinke it a greater sinne to neglect or omit one of these Ceremonies then to breake any of the Commandements of God 28. Now let any man iudge whether this can be the true Religion which nourisheth this barbarous and monstrous ignorance and superstition amongst the people and whether that can be a good tree which bringeth forth such bitter and sowre fruits This is the conclusion which groweth out of the premises by necessary consequence The XI MOTIVE That Religion which was neuer knowne nor heard of in the Apostles time nor in the Primitiue Church cannot be the truth but such is the Romish Religion in most points thereof therefore that cannot be the truth 1. THe Romanists triumph in no one thing so much as in the antiquitie of their Church and Religion and therefore they cast euermore into our teeth that our Religion is but vp-start and our Church of yesterday euen since Luthers time being neuer extant in the world before But herein they play but the Sophisters for if they speake of true antiquitie we will ioyne issue with them in this point and doubt not but to prooue that theirs is the vp-start Church and their Religion the new Religion in those points wherein they differ from vs and that our faith and Religion was taught and professed by Christ himselfe and his Apostles and exercised and maintained in the pure and primitiue Age of the Church For the cleere manifestation of which point it is first to be obserued that there is a double antiquitie one primary another secundary Primary is that which was from the beginning though discontinued and interrupted by the corruption of times Secundary is that which indeede is aged and gray-headed but yet reacheth not to the spring head Thus our Sauiour Christ controlleth the law of Diuorce Mat. 19. 8. though it was aged and of long continuance euen two thousand yeeres old yet Nonsic fuit ab initio It was not so from the beginning where we see that Diuorce was old and full of yeeres and yet farre from true antiquitie for true antiquitie is that which is deriued ab initio from the beginning In regard of this it is truely said of Tertullian Verum quod primum falsum quod posterius That which is first is alwaies true and that which commeth later is false but in respect of the other it is also as truely spoken of Saint Augustine Estmos diabolicus vt per antiquitatis traducem commendetur fallacia It is a diuellish custome that error should be commended by the descent of antiquitie Secondly it is to be obserued that no antiquitie be it neuer so ancient and hoare-headed is to be reuerenced or regarded if it bee not grounded vpon the truth of the Scriptures and that which seemeth nouelty if it bring Scripture for it warrant is truely ancient and hath true certaine and vnresistable authoritie the reason is giuen by Aquinaâ— Because the Law of God proceedeth from the will of God and therefore may not be altered by custome proceeding from the will of man whence it is that no custome ought to preuaile against the Law of God To which purpose is that of Tertullian Heresies are to bee conuinced not so much by noueltis as by verity whatsoeuer sauours against the truth that shall bee heresie yea though neuer so ancient And of Cyprian If onely Christ is to bee heard wee ought not to regard what any before vs hath thought fit to bee done but what Christ who is before all hath first done for we must not follow the custome of man but the truth of God and in another place Custome without truth is nothing but antiquitie of error Vpon this ground also Clemens Alexandrinus in an Oration to the Gentiles who pretended antiquitie for their errors as the Romanists now doe saying that they and their Fathers before them were borne and bred in that Religion and therefore will not now giue it ouer saith Let vs flye custome as a rocke or the threates of Charybdis or the fabulous Syrenes for it choaketh a man it turneth from the truth it leadeth from life it is a snare a hellish gulfe an euill fanne c. And Saint Augustine Truth being knowne custome is not to be followed for our Sauiour did not say I am custome but I am truth Now vpon these grounds wee offer to ioyne issue with them First that they haue no true and primitiue antiquitie for their Religion and secondly though some of their opinions be of long continuance yet being not warrantable by Scriptures they ought not to preiudice by a conceit of nouelty that primitiue and Apostolicall truth which by corrupt time hath beene interrupted And this I hope to discourse so plainely in this Argument following that no indifferent reader that seemeth not forestalled with preiudice shall depart vnsatisfied 2. Concerning the first proposition I take it to bee of an vndeniable truth for without all question all truth was taught by the Apostles to the Primitiue Church and no part thereof was left vnreuealed for so Saint Paul saith in plaine tearmes to
without question an Innouation 55. Secondly that it is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles appeareth by this because the Apostle Saint Paul sometimes calleth the ministration of the Sacrament a breaking of bread and that through housholds By which is necessarily insinuated a distribution and dispensation of it to others besides the Priest Sometimes the communion or communication of the body and blood of Christ Yea the Apostle sayth plainly that wee that are many are one bread and one body because wee are partakers of one bread but if it bee priuate then there is no communion neither are there many and neither is the bread which is made of many graines of corne nor the wine crushed out of many grapes a representation of the mysticall body of Christ as all diuines confesse aswell as of the naturall if there bee no mysticall body that is no Congregation to participate Lastly Chrysostome writing vpon 1. Cor. 11. sayth that this was the fault which the Apostle blameth in the Corinthians because they made that priuate which was the Lords for the Supper of the Lord sayth hee ought to bee common 56. Thirdly what the example of the Primitiue Church was after the Apostles the ancient Lyturgies then in vse doe declare in none of which can wee finde any colour for this practice which euidence caused iudicious Cassander to confesse that solitary Masses are most manifestly confuted by the ancient Greeke Lyturgies and that which hee sayth of the Greeke may bee iustly auerred of all the other ancient missals that were in vse of the Church and are extant in the writings of the Fathers as Chrysostomes Ambroses Gregories and such like yea the Canon of the Romish masse it selfe is against this errour for it is said there As many of vs haue beene partakers and Blesse O Lord these Sacraments to vs which wee haue receiued Now how can this bee said without mockage when there is none present but the Priest 57. But besides those Lyturgies wee haue the plaine testimonies of ancient Fathers one Chrysostome for breuities sake shall stand insteed of all hee thus propoundeth the custome of the Church in his time The dayly oblation sayth he is made in vaine when there is none to participate and again Whosoeuer is not partaker of the mysteries stand by as a foolish and wicked man This is flat contrary to the Romish practice where the Priest masseth alone the people kneele by knocking their brests and lifting vp their eyes to their breaden God you see then there was no such custome in Chrysostomes time and this further may bee confirmed by the tenth Canon of those that are called Apostolicall which doth forbid any to be present but such as doe communicate saying that they are disturbers of the order of the Church the same Canon also is repeated and confirmed in the Councill of Antioch cap. 2. And in the Councill Naxâ—â—tense it is said that it is a ridiculous thing to murmure to the walles that which should belong to the people Bellarmine himselfe acknowledgeth that it is a more perfect and lawfull Masse where communicants are present then where they are absent so doth Cardinal Humbertus and Walasred all which laide together caused Erasmus and Cassander in expresse words to affirme this practice to bee a nouelty not instituted by Christ nor vsed either in the Apostles times or in the Primitiue Church 58. The next point may bee touching the sacrifice in the Masse for they teach that there is offered vp by the Priest a true reall propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead this is the direct doctrine of the Romish Church canonized in the Councill of Trent which doctrine how true it is I will not dispute onely I am to shew how new it is which may appeare first in that throughout all the new Testament where there is any mentioÌ„ made of the Lords supper there is not one word spoken of a sacrifice for neither doth our Sauiour himselfe say that hee offered a sacrifice when he first instituted it neither doth Saint Paul call it by that name when hee deliuers the full doctrine thereof to the Corinthians neither doth Saint Luke affirme that the Apostles offered a sacrifice when they put it in practice but onely that they broke bread from house to house now if this had beene so essentiall a part of the Eucharist as the Romanists make it yea if it had beene any part at all our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles would neuer haue concealed it from the Church 59. If they obiect that though a sacrifice bee not mentioned yet it was acted both because Melchizedek was a type of Christ and he offered bread and wine and also because these words Hoc facite Doe this asmuch as Sacrificate sacrifice I answere that neither did Melchizedek offer bread and wine but brought it foorth onely to the refreshing of Abraham and his fellowers as the Chaldy Paraphrase the Greeke interpretours Iosephus Cyprian and Chrysostome doe interpret the place and the words themselues in the originall doe import neither doth the verbe facere signifie to sacrifice in that place seeing as euery schoole-boy knoweth then it should bee construed with an Ablatiue and not with an Accusatiue case as heere it is and this they themselues doe euidently prooue when they cannot agree among themselues in which action of the Sacrament consisteth the essence and perfection of this sacrifice whether in the eleuation which Sotus thought to belong vnto it or in the consecration as Suares or in the oblation as Ecchius or in the intinction as Canus or in the dispensation and distribution as others or in the consumption as Bellarmine and Ledesima and so they know not where to fixe the center thereof hauing indeed no footing in the whole circle of our Sauiours example 60. And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed by Saint Luke it signifieth no more but Sacra administratio the performance of holy duties or the seruing of God in any sort of religious worship as the Fathers doe all interpret the place and not to offer a sacrifice as Erasmus translates it or to say Masse as our Rhemists would interpret it for then the Angels should say Masse in Heauen because they are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. which some of them are not ashamed to say they doe but I beleeue it all alike as I doe that tale in their Legend of Bees singing Masse in their Hyue about the hoste put in by 2 woman to make her swarmes to thriue Againe of the like nature is that fond conclusion of Genebrard who because by the Leuitical Law God coÌ„manded Cakes of new corne to be offered vpoÌ„ the day of Pentecost which is there called A new offering therefore the Apostles sung the first Masse vpon that great day of Pentecost Act. 2. and that Iames being Bishop of Hierusalem was the chiefe
as it appeareth Acts 16. but rather is to bee thought to bee the extraordinary gift of the holy Ghost as Saint Paul plainly insinuateth 2. Tim. 1. And secondly though it should bee sauing grace yet it is not promised to all others though it were then giuen to Timotheus neither were all that receiued holy orders partakers thereof for then Nicholas the Deacon should haue beene sanctified being an hypocrite Who seeth no◠then now weakely hee hath prooued this to bee a Sacrament out of holy Scriptures and this may seeme for a taste of the rest of his proofes which are most of them of the like nature 70. Againe the doctrine of Indulgences to wit that the Pope hath power out of the Churches treasury to grant relaxation from temporall punishment either heere or in Purgatory is so new an article that diuers of their own Doctors doe confesse that there is not any one testimony for proofe thereof either in Scriptures or in the writings of ancient Fathers but that the first that put them in practice in that manner as they are now vsed was Pope Boniface the eight anno 1300. neither could they bee any older then Purgatory being extracted from the flames thereof which hath beene already prooued to bee a meere nouell inuention so that the child cannot be old when as the Father is not gray-headed and that the matter may bee without contradiction reade Burchardus who liued about the yeare of our Lord 1020. And Gratian and Peter Lumbard that came after who all speake of satisfaction and penance and commutation and relaxation of penance but yet haue not a word of these Romish Indulgences whereas if they had beene then extant they would neuer haue passed them ouer in silence especially in the discoursing vpon these points whereupon they haue their necessary dependance 71. Last of all their doctrine touching merite of workes may bee branded with the same marke For first though the word merite bee often vsed by the Fathers yet ordinarily it is not taken in that sense which the Romanists vse it in as witnesse both Bellarmine and Viega and Stapleton and if they did not yet manifold examples out of their owne writings would prooue to be true Secondly the full streame of their doctrine doth make against the proud conceit of merite for they ascribe all to Gods mercy and Christs merits esteeming their owne best workings and sufferings vnworthy of the euerlasting and celestiall reward they neuer dreamt of that ambitious doctrine taught in the Church of Rome that our good workes are absolutely good and truely and properly meritorious and fully worthy of eternall life Let their books be viewed and nothing can bee more apparantly cleare then this is Thirdly the termes of congruity and condignity were deuised but of late dayes by the subtill Schoolemen who notwithstanding could not agree among themselues touching the true definition distinctiō of their own books by which it appeareth that it was not then any Catholike or vniuersall truth Lastly their owne Doctours terme the merite of congruity a new inuention and that other of condignity no Catholike nor ancient doctrine and the whole doctrine of meriting to haue beene first made an article of faith by the Councill of Trent all which laide together prooue it most clearely to bee of no great standing nor they of any vnderstanding that were the first forgers and deuisers thereof 72. Thus wee haue sixteene points wherein the new Romish Religion hath degenerated from all pure antiquity to which many more might bee added but these are sufficient to euince our conclusion which is this that seeing the Romish Church hath neither in matter nor forme substance nor accidents any sure ground either from Scripture or the doctrine of the Primitiue Church but is vtterly vnlike to it in many substantiall respects therefore it cannot bee the true Church of God but an harlot in her stead and their Religion not of God but of men and consequently that wee in declining from them and conforming our selues both in doctrine and manners to the Primitiue patterne are not fallen from the Church but to the Church and that theirs is the new Religion and not ours And thus wee see what all their bragges and clamours touching the antiquity of their Religion and the nouelty of ours come vnto seeing there is no one thing more pregnant to prooue the falshood of their Religion and the Apostacy and Antichristianity of their Church then this is And to conclude as wee would thinke him not well in his wits that hauing beene long sicke and after regained health should say that sicknes was more ancient then health whereas he should rather say that hee had recouered his old health that his new Inmate sicknesse was dispossessed of his lodging though it had kept it long so in all reason it is madnesse to thinke the reformation of the Church and reducing of Christian Religion to the ancient health to bee more nouell and new then the horrible sicknesse and apostacy wherewith it was long not onely infected but almost ouer-whelmed And this is iust our case with the Church of Rome but I leaue them to bee healed by the heauenly Phisitian himselfe Iesus Christ our Sauiour whose wholesome Physicke must cure them or nothing will MOTIVE XII ¶ That Church which maintaineth it selfe and the Religion professed by it and seeketh to disaduantage the aduersaries by vnlawfull vniust and vngodly meanes cannot bee the true Church of God nor that Religion the truth of God by the grounds whereof they are warranted to act such deuilish practices but such is the practice of the Romist Church and therfore neither their Church nor their Religion can be of God IT is a wonder to see what deuises sleights impostures and deuilish practices the Romanists haue and now at this day doe more then euer vse to vphold their rotten Religion to ensnare mens minds with the forlorne superstitiō their kingdome being ready to fall they care not with what props they vnder-shore it and the truth preuailing against them they care not with what engines though fetched from hell it selfe they vndermine it so that they may any wayes batter the walles or shake the foundation thereof My purpose is in this Chapter to discouer some of the Sathanicall practices of these subtle Enginers I meane the Iesuites and Priests and other rabble of Romish proctors It is not possible to reckon them vp all being so many and various such therefore God willing shall be heere discouered as are for villany most notorious for impudency most shamelesse and for certainty most perspicuous and by them let the Christian Reader that loueth the truth iudge of their Religion and Church what it is 2. The first proposition of this argument is grounded vpon three principles one of nature another of reason the third of Scripture nature teacheth that contraries are cured that is expelled by contraries as hot diseases by cold
Goodman yea and Munster also with his Anabaptists all which let vs briefly examine and begin with the last and so goe backward 83. Munster with his Anabaptists maintained indeed such rebellious doctrines but were they Protestants or did euer any Protestant giue credit coūtenance or allowāce vnto thē No Bellarmine himselfe confesseth the contrary when hee sayth that the opinion of the hereticall Anabaptists was abhorred not onely of Catholikes but also of Caluine Yea Caluine and Luther wrote each of them a booke against their impieties It is impious wickednesse then for any to obiect to Protestants the opinion of those rebellious and giddy Anabaptists 84. Touchng Goodman Knox and Buchanan we ingeniously confesse that the two last went too farre in diminishing the authority of Princes and that the first was impious in animating subiects against their Soueraignes but withall wee giue them to know this that they are condemned of all good men in this their rebellious assertion and that by a publike Act of Parliament in Scotland Buchanans books was called in and censured as contrary to sound doctrine and the like censure is giuen by all godly Protestants against Knox or any other that maintaine the like 85. And now I would faine vnderstand of these fellowes what are these three in comparison of the whole Church of Protestants that they should blemish our Religion by their exorbitant opinions and to the many hundred of Protestant writers that abhorre all such doctrine and clearely auouch the contrary If it be a good plea in them to say that the opinion of some priuate men ought not to preiudice the Religion of the whole Church then it may also by good right serue our turnes in the case of these three seeing the rule of equity requireth vt feras legem quam fers that euery one should bee subiect to that Law which hee himselfe maketh In sum here are with vs but three that can be touched but with them are multitudes not onely of inferiour Priests and Iesuites but of Cardinals and Popes that are guilty of this crime ours are priuate men condemned by all others with them publike persons authorized by their places and chayres and priuiledged from errour with vs writings of no authoritie with them Bulles decrees and bookes with priuiledge and publike allowance Lastly with vs the whole streame of our Religion tendeth to the maintenance of obedience and condemning of all treason and rebellion but with them the very grounds of their Religion doe warrant and vphold the contrary as is manifestly prooued heretofore 86. Concerning Luther Caluine and Beza how farre they were from this pernicious doctrine let their owne words and writings testify Luther first Gouernment sayth he is a certaine diuine vertue and therefore God calleth all Magistrates gods not for creation but for administration and gouernment which belongeth onely to God therefore he that is a ruler is as it were a god incarnate Againe in another place We doe not flatter the Magistrates when we stile them most gracious and most mighty but from the heart we reuerence their order and their persons ordained to this office And in another place Though some thinke sayth he the gouernment of man ouer man to bee a tyrannous vsurpation because all men are naturally of like condition yet we that haue the word of God must oppose the commandement and ordinance of God who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate whom therefore the Apostle calleth Gods Ministers 87. Caluine in diuers places deliuereth this doctrine that not onely good and godly Kings are to be obeyed but also wicked ones because in them is stamped and ingrauen the image of diuine Maiestie neyther can any one sentence be picked and culled out of all his bookes yea though it be strayned to the vttermost and wrung till it bleed that but sauoureth of rebellion except that may perhaps which hee speaketh concerning an impious King that riseth vp against God and seeketh to rob him of his right how such a one doth bereaue himselfe of his authoritie and is rather to be spit at then obeyed But this also being rightly vnderstood maketh nothing to that purpose for first he doth not say that such an one is to be bereaued of his authoritie but that he bereaueth himselfe and secondly he meaneth that hee is rather to bee spit at and defiled then to be obeyed in that particular wherein he commandeth any thing contrary to the dignitie and maiestie of God What hurt now I pray you is in this doctrine Or rather what sound truth is not in it saue that there is a little harshnesse of phrase which might haue beene well omitted and yet this is all that the Romish aduersaries can charge Caluine withall 88. Lastly for Beza if I should produce all his excellent sayings whereby he doth maintaine the authority of Princes and obedience of subiects I should trouble the Reader too long let this suffice that his greatest enemies cannot obiect against him any one thing tending to the impeachment of Royall authoritie except they grossely bely him which is no new thing with them lyes and slanders being one of the chiefe props of their Kingdome Thus our doctrine affordeth them no hold for this accusation 89. Againe they challenge Caluine for imputing vnto our Lord and Sauiour some staine of sinne not by expresse words but by consequence because he said that when in the garden he prayed Father if it be possible let this cuppe passe from me neuerthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt hee corrected and revoked his prayer suddenly vttered therefore say they he must be tainted with sinne seeing he did something that might be corrected the like crime they lay to the charge of Luther and all other learned Protestants for saying that in Christs humane nature there was some ignorance residing and that he grew vp and increased in knowledge and had not the full measure of knowledge at his birth as they would haue it We grant the premises to be true to wit that this is the doctrine of Caluine Luther and other learned Protestants but neuerthelesse we say that the conclusion is a malicious slander for first many of the fathers yea most were of the same opinion with vs as also some of the popish Doctors themselues that there was ignorance in Christ and that his knowledge grew and increased together with his age according to that of Saint Luke Hee increased in wisedome and stature and in fauour with God and men And yet none of them did once imagine that this was in him either a sinne or a fruit of sinne grounding vpon that text of Scripture Heb. 4. 15. that Christ was like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted nor euer was that errour imputed vnto them for that cause Heare some of them speake in their owne words Ambrose sayth thus How Christ increased in wisdome the order of the words doth