having confessed already that It is not possible by any divine power that a spirit should be divisible after the manner of a Body doth hereby as fully confute himselfe as if hee had said there is no comparison to be made betweene Body and Spirit in respect of Locall being how much lesse betweene it and God the Father of all Spirits who cannot be so in many places at once that he is not likewise both in every intermediate space betweene place and place and also in all places without them this being the propertie of his infinitenes to containe all places and not to be contained of any And therefore cannot this manner of presence without irreligious impietie be applyed to any creature which notwithstanding your Cardinall blusheth not to do in that manner as was hitherto we thinke never imagined by any Divine before him namely a manner of being of a Body in a place which is neither Circumscriptively as naturall Bodies are nor Definitively that is so that being in one place it is not at the same time in another as Angels and Spirits are but a third how By only presence after the manner as God is in place So hee O golden Divine for who knoweth not that Existence in place onely by presence is a propertie of Divine Infinitenes which being attributed to any thing that is not God doth equall the creature with the Creator A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Man's Soule and God himselfe by Ancient Fathers in their Doctrine concerning Angels and Men's Spirits SECT III. ANcient Fathers we trow were profoundly learned both in Philosophicall and in Theologicall Mysteries who notwithstanding as your Iesuite witnesseth held it as a Doctrine of Faith that Angels which are Spirits have every one their owne definite places and space and that they cannot be in divers places but by moving from one place to another which cannot be said of any Body that as you say is without motion in divers places at once Surely if ever such strange and paraphysicall nay more then Hyperphysicall Crocheâ—s had entred into the minds of ancient Fathers we should have heard you alleage at least some one of them if not for proofe yet in pretext and colour of patronizing these your repugnant Paradoxes concerning a Bodie taking the right hand or left of it selfe and the like Velut aegri somnia vanae finguntur Species For your better satisfaction we shall alleage some Testimonies which may sufficiently declare their Iudgement of an Impossibilitie of a Spirit 's being in divers places at one time whether we consider the Spirits of Angels or of men yea or the humane Spirit or soule of Christ Of Angels Damascen They are so circumscribed in the place where they worke that they cannot possibly be in moe places at once Athanasius As the Holy Ghost filleth all places so Angels are contained in a certaine place Accordingly Ambrose Herein doe Angels differ from the holy Ghost which filleth all things that the Sâ—raphims doe move from place to place Pope Gregory would be heard speake Angels are câ—rcumscribed being in respect of our Bodies Spirits but in comparison of the uncircumscribed God they are to be esteemed as Bodies So they Our next speculation must be touching the soules of Saints departed The Author set out by your selves in the name of Athanasius unto this Obiection How doe the soules of Saints so often appeare at one moment of time in the Sepulchres as they seeme to have done Answereth that They are not the same Saints but rather visions and adumbrations of them by transfigurations of Angels He giueth his Reason why he thinketh the other impossible Because it is proper saith hee to God alone to be at one moment of time in two places at once So hee And if the Fathers shall say in effect as much of the humane soule of Christ you wee should thinke would require no more Tertullâ—an among his many divine Answers to prove Christ to be God hee urgeth the Arian Heretiques with this one as not the least Because Christ is present in all places where he is invocated upon which is a power not incident unto man but proper to the nature of God So hee How like you this And Augustine may not be thought to dissent when in arguing hee tooke as granted that the Soule of Christ when it departed this life could not be in Heaven and in hell at once As for the Beeing of God in divers places at once which was your Cardinal's instance for proof of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places without Contradiction of making One not One by dividing it from it selfe wee know not whether rather to censure it â—gregiously absurd or extreamly impious seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of God's Infinitenes of Being in whatsoever place which is as your owne Schoole might have taught him so as Containing all places and not contained in any which the Fathers have as fully declared in making Being in all places as filling them with his presence to bee the property of his Deity Such then is the impietie of your arguing by labouring to defend the manner of the Being of a Bodie by the manner of Being of a Soule or Spirit denyed by Nazianzene and manner of the Being of a Creature by the manner of the Being of God the Creator excedeth all Absurdities that can be named The holy Fathers have something more to say to you but first we are willing to heare what you can say for your selves A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence why they need not yeild to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossely Vnreasonable SECT IV. MYsteries of Faith saith your Cardinall which excede man's understanding are only to be apprehended by Faith Such as are the Articles of the Trinity of Christ his Incarnation of the Resurrection of the Creation and of Eternity it selfe and so ought this concerning the Presence of Christ his Body notwithstanding any Obiection from Reason So you Wee answere Some of these former Mysteries we confesse to be such as excede man's understanding yet such againe they are as are not contrary to understanding though above it that is to say such and this you will confesse with us as admit not Contradiction in themselves for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinitie there is One God and Three Persons because the Essence of the Godhead is common to each person or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person and two natures no more than to say that in one man there is one person and two essentiall parts one his Body the other his Spirit or in the Resurrection to beleeve the same that was created might be restored to life more than to beleeve that one graine of Corne dying might revive againe or in
also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers in obiecting the Fathers speeches ofâ—an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT II. A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change which is made in this Sacrament which wee likewise confesse Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous workes of God yea even to the worke of Creation Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by divine Omnipotencie Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power He that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleaged by your Disputers as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregnable but why Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant Se he We answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselues There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be not onely a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God but also both a Seale and Pledge thereof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed Calvin teacheth an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a Divine work without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament either to signifie or yet to seale much lesse to convey any Grace of God unto man And that wee may take you along with vs It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane Cardinall that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because he onely can give them power of conferring grace and of infallible signification thereof So hee Well then as well infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipotencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as he saith from the iudgement of Divines telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to beare a signification of some spiritall effect yet cannot the aptnes be determinately applyed vnto any peculiar effect nâ— not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannes of man's Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent man's sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not onely in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee And that as well as we could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Instrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall wee thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body as you teach No but as before Isidore said The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christ's Body Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or els efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common vnto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinals hath said What an unconscionablenes is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessary in all Sacraments to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread by Transubstantiation as you have heard But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse be if we consult with the Obiected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy he meant viz. such that The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their naturall property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Obiectors of wilfull Falshood telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as euery Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall And the same Father who said of a man that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature saith also of this Sacrament that By Benediction Bread is made another nature namely of an Elementall become Sacramentall as you have heard and as his owne words import After Consecration the Body of Christ is signified and that which was Wine Is called Blood In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaude your selves for to your Lindan The wordes of Cyprian appeare Golden and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answere first unto the Authour is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian may we not This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he meant by Vs you may be pleased to aske him sure we are your Cardinall doth tell us that The Authour of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other after him But not to disclaime your Authour all that he saith is that Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is all And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owne Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subiects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that By nature we are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becommeth necessary so that the
Sepulchre in satisfying your owne sight Therefore was it demonstrative And againe the Angell putting them to make use both of his â—aying and their owne seeing Goe yee saith hee and tell his Disciples And they went saith the Text to bring his Disciples word Therefore was his Argument Doctrinall such whereby he thought so fully to perswade them that they might informe others in an Infallible Truth It were iniury unto you to deprive you of that light which Augustine offereth unto you in commenting upon these words of Christ The Poore you shall have alwayes with you but me you shall not alwayes have The light which wil expel all Romish darknesse out of every corner of exception to the contrary is first if you shall say that Christ did not speake of his bodily Presence He spake saith Augustine of his bodily presence in saying you shall not have me alwayes with you Secondly if you answer that Christ denyed not absolutely his Corporall presence but onely the manner of his presence on earth in his visible shape Augustine will reforme you shewing that Christ in saying You shall not have me by Me meant absolutely his Body as it is distinguished from his God-head namely You shall have mee according to my Maiesty and my providence and invisible grace all spirituall but according to my flesh even that flesh which was borne of the Virgin Mary you shall not have me Thirdly If you reason saying But yet is it possible for Christ to be here on Earth and there in Heaven at one instant Augustine will confute you who asking why Christ may not be said to be here in Bodily presence giveth onely this reason because he ascended into Heaven and as alluding to the former words of the Angell addeth And he is not here So raw therefore so vaine and perverse is that Answere of Morall and Civill reasoning which your Cardinall obtruded upon his Readers against an Argument both so Angelicall and Evangelicall That the Romish Obiection out of that Scripture Act. 9. is frivolous SECT V. CHrist Acts 9. appeared to Saint Paul then Saul when he was in his way to Damascus c. whence your Cardinall laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ at one instant to wit in Heaven with the Saints and in the Ayre unto Saul First because the light in the Ayre Strucke Saul blinde Secondly because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ which he heard Thirdly because Saul asked saying Lord who arâ— thou and heard and understood the voice Fourthly Because Saul was thereby made a witnesse of seeing Christ risen from the dead And therefore saith hee was this Apparition in the Ayre Every obiection may receive it's opposition To the first thus Did none of you ever know a mans eyes so dazled with the brightnesse of the Sun-beames on earth that hee could not see for awhile and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven worke upon Saul on earth To the second thus Have you not read of a voice from Heaven Iohn 12. 29. which some heard articulately and said An Angell speaketh and the common people said It thundreth because as your Iesuite confesseth they heard it but confusedly To the third thus Men heare and heare not so farre as God is pleased to reveale or not to reveale himselfe or his word and voice yea or any sight unto them for Saint Stephen saw the Heavens opened and Maiestie of Christ when others wanted that sight To the fourth thus The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection as were the eyes of Saint Stephen Acts 7. who saw him and so much more because he was both made blinde by the brightnesse of that sight of Christ and after healed in the Name of Christ If any desire to know the iudgement of ancient Fathers in this Case your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where hee shall please Sure we are that Augustine Ambrose Pope Gregory the first and Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was de Coelo from Heaven And if all this were true that hath beene obiected that Christ appeared in the Ayre yet is your Consequence but lame that therefore hee was bodily also in Heaven if we may beleeve your Iesuite Lorinus Because Christ saith he might for so short a time have descended from Heaven By all which you may perceive that your Cardinall for all his arguing about the Ayre hath beene as the Proverbe is but Beating the Ayre And as lancke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by as hee saith Apparitions of Christ unto divers here on earth when as yet hee was certainly in Heaven for it is not certaine that he appeared personally to any here on earth if the position of your Evangelicall Doctor Aquinas may stand for good who held it Impossible for Christ to appeare here on earth in his proper shape in two places at once which sheweth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather only Visions without any personall appearing We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinall Bellarmine whom you have heard contending so urgently for proofe of the visible Presence of Christ in divers places at once and what like Esteeme you have of your great Professor Suarez who now commeth concluding as followeth The Body of Christ except it 's being in the mysterie of the Eucharist is no where but only in Heaven and to affirme the contrarie were a great rashnesse without ground and contrary to all Divines So hee We leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire and both of the same Societie of the Iesuites the one for Rome the other for Spaine in this their Contradiction that wee may consult with Antiquity it selfe That the Opinion of the Being of a Body in many places at once implyeth a Contradiction is secondly proved by the iudgement of Ancient Fathers thereby distinguishing Christ his two natures Godhead and Manhood one from another by Circumscription and Incircumscription SECT VI. ANcient Fathers iudged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time yea say you they did so but meaning Impossible according to the course of nature but not absolutely Impossible as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once This is your only Answere and the Answere of every one of your Answerers whereat wee should wonder but that they have given us so often experience what little conscience they make how true their Answeres be so that they may be knowne to have answered otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibilitie and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne and also by their manner of confuting the same
possibility of the other Six Defects neither man nor woman can deny every one concluding a Materiall Idolatry That there are manifold confessed possible Defects disabling the person of the Priest to consecrate in respect of his no-due Ordination whereby is occasioned a Materiall Idolatry SECT V. YOV have furthermore confessed that for want of due Ordination of the Priest the Sacrament remaineth in his former nature only of Bread and Wine as if he be an Incruder and not ordained at all or else of the forme of Ordination viz. Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium Et Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum peccata remiseris remissa c. As if it hath beene corrupted by missing so much as one Syllable or letter by Addition Detraction or any of the six Errors before rehearsed as Accipe Spiritu Sancto for Spiritum Sanctum or Accipe potestatem ferendi Sacrificium for Offerendi or the like That there are many hundred confessed Defects which may nullisic the Consecration to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous in respect of Insufficiencies which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest whosoever he be that now consecrateth for causing a Materiall Idolatry SECT VI. IF the Bishop that ordained this Priest which now consecrateth were not a true Priest himselfe truly ordained or duly baptized or else the next Bishop before him or yet any one in the same line of Ordainers untill you come to Saint Peter for the space now of a thousand six hundred yeares whereof your Iesuit saith The Defect of Ordination is seene in many Cases wherein Progredi possumus fere in Infinition that is we may proceed almost infinitely So he Thinking belike that if we should in this number of yeares allow unto every Bishop ordaining the continuance of twenty yeares Bishop upward to Saint Peter the number of them all would amount to fourescore Bishops among whom if any one were an Intruder or Vnordained then this Priest faileth in his Priest-hood Now of these kinds your Historians afford us Examples of your Popes some dissolving the Ordinations of their Predecessors even to the cutting off of one Popes fingers wherewith he had used to consecrate Yet is not this all for unto these are to be added the other Defects to wit want of Baptisme whether for want of due Intention being three or undue Pronunciation being six or the Errors either of Intention or Pronunciation in Ordination all which make eighteene and these being multiplied by fourescore which is the number of Bishop-ordainers from this Bishop to Saint Peter the totall we suppose will amount unto a Thousand possible Defects each one whereof if it happen doth quite frustrate and annull the Consecration of this Priest whosoever he be that now saith Masse and leaveth to the people nothing but the substance of the Creatures of Bread and Wine to be Adored in stead of Christ Iesus the Sonne of God And yet in this Summe are not reckoned the foresaid Defects concerning the Matter or Forme of Consecration or of the Priests Intention therein or else of his possible Intrusion into this Function of Consecrating of this one Priest now supposed to be ordained every Defect being of force in it selfe to infer necessarily a Materiall Idolatry in your Romish Masse Now rather than you shall call these our Instances odious or malicious you must accuse your owne Romish Church because we have alleaged no Testimony but out of your owne publike Romish Missall Cardinal's Iesuites and other Authors privileged in your Church We are now in the high point of Christian Religion even the principall part of God's Royalty Divine Adoration not to be trifled withall Therefore now if ever shew your selves conscionable Divines by freeing your Romish Masse from a Formall Idolatry in these forenam'd Respects concerning your confessed Materiall Idolatry and doe it by some grounds of Truth or else abandon your Profession as most damnably Idolatrous CHAP. VI. That the Romish Masse-worship is a Formall Idolatry notwithstanding any Pretence that by your Romish Doctors hath beene made to the Contrary The State of the Question SECT I. VPon this occasion ôh how your Summists Theologues and Casuists doe bestirre themselves for the vindicating of your Church from the guilt of formall Idolatry The Briefe of your Defence is this Although say they in the Margent there be no true Consecration by reason of divers Defects yet in him who upon a Morall certainty with a sincere minde and good intention doth adore Bread it is but Materiall and no Formall Idolatry so that he have an habituall condition as being so disposed in his minde not to give a divine honour unto it if he knew it to be but Bread As for Example He that giveth an Almes to a Rich man being probably perswaded that he is not rich the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention And As it was no sinne in Iacob to lie with Leah because he thought her to be his wife so in this case it is no formall Idolatry to worship Bread being morally perswaded that it is Christ Thus they Your Pretences then are three Morall Certainty Good Intent and at least Habituall Condition But alas all this is but sowing Fig-leaves together which will never be able to cover your foule shame of grosse Idolatry To begin first with that which you call Morall Certainty That the Pretence of Morall Certainty of worshipping of Bread instead of Christ cannot free the Romish Church from Formall Idolatry SECT II. OVR Confutation is grounded upon divers impregnable Reasons one whereof is taken from the Iealouzie of God in his worship the second from the Faith required in a true worshipper the third from the nature of an Oath and the last from the Vncertainty of that which you call Morall Certainty First then although Morall and Conjecturall perswasions might excuse men's Actions in divers Cases yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable even because of the Iealousie of the Almighty who expresseth himselfe to be a Iealous God Exod. 20. signifying as you know that He will not indure any confort in his worship his Motto being this I am and there is no Other even as in the Case of mortall Majesty when as a subject building upon a morall Certainty onely shall question the Title and Right of his Soveraigne established in his Throne he becommeth guilty of High Treason Secondly all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith which is an Infallible perswasion of the God-head of that which we honour as God as it is written He that commeth to God must beleeve that God is Heb. 11. 6. and againe You must aske in faith nothing doubting Iac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith as the Apostle describeth it Faith is the Hypostaâ—is of things not seene Heb. 11. That is to take your owne Comment Faith maketh those things which are beleeved no lesse certaine than if they did subsist whereby we are
owne Confessions and for feare of this kinde of Idolatry your Claudius Sainctes taught that The signes in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is And that therefore Bread is not to be adored in the Sacrament with Christ's Body least that the People being not able to distinguish the Body of Christ from Bread should fall into Idolatry And the person communicating orally as you say the Body of Christ now in his mouth is not to be adored Regularly but why Because say you man being capable of honour it might fall out by little and little that he should be honoured as God So your owne Iesuits and Others Yet not to doe you wrong in this Contemplation Christ by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion of his God-head being no meere Creature is wholly excepted whom we are taught by the Fathers of a Generall Councell to adore not in both his distinct natures but whole Christ CHALLENGE WEE suppose that there is not any of your owne Romish Sect albeit most superstitious who would worship with Divine Worship either the Signes or the Appearance of flesh or the Priest whiles the Sacrament is in his mouth without at least a Morall Perswasion viz. that he may so doe nor without a Good intent viz. that it is well done nor without habituall Condition viz. not to doe so if he knew they were but Signes Apparance of flesh or hee meerely a Priest If therefore there be any Idolatry in adoring any of these things with Christ then certainly much rather which is your Case is it Idolatry to worship with Divine Honour Bread it being without Christ III. That the Romish Worship is proved to be formally Idolatrous in your Masse by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine touching Canonization of Saints SECT III. COncerning your Popes Canonizing of Saints see the Marginals you shall finde that the Common opinion of your Church directeth you to thinke that your Church cannot erre in this function and that all Christians are bound to beleeve the same but how upon a Morall and Conjecturall perswasion onely No upon a Divine and infallible Certitude and why Because say they if one Saint may be doubted of then might also the Canonization of others be called into Question so that it would be dangerous to worship any Saint lest that we should worship a dead and a rotten instead of a lively member of Christ which were an Error pernicious seeing that every lye figment and falshood in religious worship must needs be abominable unto God So your Arch-bishop with others You will aske what maketh all this to the Question in hand give us leave to tell you CHALLENGE THE same Arch-Bishop Catharinus deduceth a necessity of an infallible assurance of the Canonization of every Saint from the Infallibility which ought to be had concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist Thus If the Worshipper may be deceived in adoring the Host by mistaking Bread for the Body of Christ then should it be I dolatry saith he as well in the Heathen who adored Heaven in stead of God So he Doe you marke as well Idolatry as that of the Heathen whom neither Morall Certainty nor Good Intent or habituall Condition could ever free from a formall Idolatry Our Argument from your owne Confessions will be this Whosoever may be mistaken in adoring Bread in stead of Christ's Body may therein be held as Formall an Idolater as any Heathen This is your Bishops Proposition The Assumption But any man may manifoldly be deceived in taking Bread for Christ's Body Which hath beene your generall Confession Our Conclusion must be Therefore any of you may be a Formall Idolater IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formall Idolatry by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes SECT IV. SAlmeron a Iesuite of prime note in your Church endevoureth to prove that all men are bound to beleeve the new Pope whensoever he is consecrated to be the true Pope not only with a Morall or Humane Assurance but with a Divine and infallible faith as were the Iewes bound to beleeve Christ Iesus at his comming to be the true Messias that is saith he with a faith that cannot possibly be deceived We have nothing to doe with your Iesuits Position in this place concerning the Infallibity of Beleefe of the Consecration and Election of your Popes which we have else where proved to be a Grosse Imposture But we are to argue from his Supposition as for Example CHALLENGE YOur Iesuite grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had touching the Consecration of your Popes upon a Supposition and his Conclusion upon the like infallible Beliefe which men ought to have concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist wherein saith he if there should be any Vncertainty so that our faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest in like manner might every one doubt whether he may adore the Sacrament as being not truly consecrated as also make doubt of the Priest himselfe as being not rightly ordained So he who therefore in all these requireth a faith infallible All these forecited Confessions of your owne Divines as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry next in the point of Coadoration of the Creature together with the Creator Thirdly in your Beleefe of the â—anonization of Saints and lastly in the Consecration of the Pope which are but humane Institutions doe enforce much more a necessity of Infallibility in every Adoration instituted by God Now among all the Schismes of Anti-Popes sometimes of two sometimes of three at once and that for forty or fifty yeares space together if any one of those Popes in his time had heard any Papist saying to him you may not be offended although I hold your Adversary as for example Vrbane to be the true Pope and yeeld to him all Fealtie and Obedience for I doe this to a Good Intent in a Morall Certainty that he is truly elected Pope and in an habituall Condition not to acknowledge him if I knew him not to be Pope wherein if I erre it is but a Materiall Disloyalty would not the Pope notwithstanding all these Pretenses judge this man to be formally an Anti-Papist and pierce him with his Thunder-bolt of Anathema as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals Princes and Emperours in like Case yet what is this Glo-wormes slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty CHAP. VIII Of the Romish manner of Adoration in Comparison with the Heathen That the Romish Adoration by your former Pretences justifieth the vilest kinde of Idolatry among the Heathen SECT I. THere is a double kinde of Worship the one is Direct and terminate which pitcheth immediatly upon the Creature without Relation to the Creator whereof your Cardinall Alan hath resolved saying The terminating and fixing of Divine Honour upon any Creature is a notorious Idolatry The second kinde is Relative Honour having