a small neither shalt thou haue in thy house diuers measures a great and a small but thou shalt haue a right and a iust weight a perfect and a iust measure Let no man oppresse or defraude his brother in any matter How contradictory these plaine precepts and enunciatiue propositions of Gods word are vnto the positions of the Cardinall no man can but discerne that is not bewitched with the soâ—cerie of Iezabel either therefore let him shew out of holy writ some exception from these generall rules or let him acknowledge his Doctrine and Religion to be the vpholder of most grosse and palpable theft 22. If any man say that these be the opinions of priuate men and not the doctrine of the Church I answere that this is a most friuolous conceit for none of their bookes are admitted to the presse before they be examined by certaine Censurers deputed to that purpose by the Church and if any thing dislike them or seeme to sauour of heresie as they call the trueth presently it is either gelded out or corrected at their pleasures And that which goeth for currant hath his allowance subnexed That it containeth in it nothing contrary to the Catholike faith of the Church of Rome These positions then of these Iesuites standing thus approued by the common consent of their Censurers and priuiledged to be both printed and read of all men as containing nothing contrary to wholesome doctrine cannot be thought to be the vnaduised opinions of priuatemen but euen the doctrine and religion of their Church 23. Lastly that I may conclude this second argument they maintaine also the prophanation of the Sabboth which the Lord hath enioyned to be sanctified with so great and vrgent a precept Remember that thou keepe holy the Sabboth day Adding â— mâ—menâ—o before and fencing it with so many reasons after that it might not seeme a light matter but a coÌ„mandement of great consequence yet these impudent preuaricators make it a matter of no moment yea giue liberty to the open breach and transgression of it For thus writeth Cardinall Tollet Homo tenetur c. A man saith he is bound vpon paine of a mortall sinne to sanctifie the Sabboth but is not bound vnder the same paine to sanctifie it well As if forsooth it could be sanctified at all if it be not well sanctified or as if the prophanation of the Sabboth were the sanctifying of it for not to sanctifie it well is nothing else but to prophane it howbeit if this were all the iniurie hee doth to Gods Sabboth it might be borne withall but the bold Cardinall taketh vpon him to breake in pieces the barres thereof and to expose it being the Lords day and therefore fit to bee employed onely in the Lords worke to most vile and base offices for thus hee writeth in the same booke Licet iter facere c. It is lawfull to take a iourney on the feast day with this caueat that diuine seruice be first heard It is lawfull to hunt and doe such like things It is lawfull for Iudges especially rurall to giue iudgement on the feast day it is no sinne for a Barber to exercise his trade on the feast day for commodity if he had no leasure to doe it at another time they are excused also which sell flesh kill beasts and sell necessary victuals on holy dayes And if the occasion of a great gayne would otherwise bee lost as in fishing for Herring and Tunnes which come not but vpon certaine dayes it is lawfull to fish on the holy day In publique solemnities it is lawfull to prepare the wayes and to build for spectacles This is the doctrine of that renowned Cardinall whose writings are so approued of the Church of Rome that whatsoeuer hee speaketh is held for trueth But here it may be answered that he nameth not the Sabboth but the festiuall or holy day to which I answere First that the title of that Chapter is de Sabbathâ— and therefore if he meaneth not that hee swarueth from his purpose Secondly that the expresse words and drift of the whole Chapter demonstrates that vnder the name of the festiuall or holy day he includeth also the Sabboth And thirdly how could he giue instructions touching the cases of the Sabboth if he intended not the Sabboth seeing all his rules runne vnder this generall terme on the festiuall or holy day This therfore is but a mist to blinde mens eyes that they might not see their impietie 24. Can this Religion thinke you be of God which in thus many points crosseth and trampleth vnder foote the law of God Doth not the head of that congregation euidently shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that outlaw which S. Paul speaketh of 2. Thess 2. that is such an one as opposeth himselfe to the law of God Doe not the necke and shoulder which are supporters of that head I meane the Cardinals and Bishops shew themselues to be of the same nature and disposition with it and the whole body which is quickned by the life of his doctrine to be meerely Antichristian He that seeth not this is blinde and cannot discerne a farre off hee that seeth it and confesseth it not is carelesse of his owne saluation Let vs leaue them therefore either to bee conuerted which God graunt for Christ his sake or to bee confounded if they continue in their errours MOTIVE III. That Religion which imitateth the Iewes in those things wherin they are enemies to Christ cannot bee the truth but such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe malice of the Iewes towards Christ our Sauiour and his Church from the beginning vnto this day is so notorious that the whole world is witnesse thereof Saint Paul witnesseth of them that they killed the Lord Iesus and their owne Prophets and persecuted the Apostles and were contrary to all men and forbad them to preach vnto the Gentiles that they might be saued to fulfill their sinnes alwaies and that the wrath of God was come vpon them to the vttermost And as it was at that time so euer since they haue not any whit remitted but increased in their rancour for still they crucifie vnto themselues the Lord of Life though not in his person which is at the right hand of God yet in his meÌ„bers whoÌ„ they persecute vnto death asmuch as in them lyeth and in his Gospel which they still pursue with a deadly hatred Yea so great is their malice that many times they haue taken Christian children vpon their preparation day to the Passouer and nailed them vpon the Crosse loaded them with reproaches and scornes in disgrace of Christ and miserably tormented them to death as was done by the Iewes of Inmester a Towne scituate betwixt Chalchis and Antiochia as witnesseth Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall History and in Germany at Fretulium as also in England at Lincolne and Norwich as our Chronicles testifie Yea it
when at any time they are conferred withall about their Religion presently not being able to answer their refuge is to referre vs ouer to their Priests of whose learning and iudgement they haue such a perswasion that though Scripture and reason be against them yet their opinions preuaile more with them then either of these So that hence it is most euident that as the Iewes are bound to beleeue all that their Cachamim teach and not to stand to examine what it is that they teach so the Romanists are bound by their Religion to entertaine into their Creed whatsoeuer is taught them by their ordinary Pastours without all enquirie and search into their doctrines whether they bee true or false And as this is one chiese cause of the Iewes obstinacie against Christian Religion so is it also of that miserable superstition which raigneth in the Church of Rome for if the people were but perswaded that their learned Doctours might erre and deceiue they would certainely suspect their doctrines and try them by the touchstone of the holy Scriptures and so at length might be reclaimed from their errours thus they march together in this point also 20. Againe the Romanists are like vnto the Iewes in their doctrine and practice of praying for the dead for they hold and teach that prayer sacrifice is to be offered for the dead grounding their opinion partly vpon the example of Iudas Maccabeus who as they affirme procured sacrifice to bee offered by the Priests for the dead that had trespassed by taking to themselues the idolatrous iewels of the Iamnites and partly vpon the Thalmudical traditions of diuers of their ancient Rabbines but they haue no ground nor warrant for the same in the word of God for as concerning the bookes of the Maccabees they themselues acknowledge that they are not Canonicall Scripture and for the Scripture we finde no such precept or example in the whole volume of the olde and new Testament neither is it likely that God would haue omitted in the law that kinde of sacrifice for the soules of men where he prescribeth sinne-offerings for bodily pollutions and euery light trespasse if he had thought it necessarie That this is the opinion and practice of the Iewes their practice at this day beareth witnesse for they vse to say ouer the dead bodies a certaine prayer called Kaddish by the vertue whereof as they thinke they are deliuered out of Purgatory especially if it bee said by the sonne for his father and if hee haue no sonne by the whole Congregation on their Sabboth dayes And that this also is the doctrine and vsage of the Church of Rome besides their Bookes their Masses for the quicke and the dead their Diriges and Trentals doe sufficiently testifie And that they fetch this custome from the Iewes may appeare by two reasons first because one mayne argument of theirs which they call a demonstration to proue the lawfulnesse hereof is deriued from the example of the Iewes as we may see both in Galatinus Coccius and our late English Apologists And secondly because as it is confessed by their owne Bredenbachius it is not found in all the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists in the new Testament and we may adde hereunto neither in the olde vnlesse by distorted and misalledged texts which are not worth the answering except onely that fore-named passage of the Maccabees which notwithstanding is corrupted both by the Translatour and also the Relatour Iason Cyreneus as is vnanswerably proued by our famous Country-man Doctour Reynolds the word Dead being cogged into the Text by some cunning Iuggler which is not in the Originall wherein lyeth the pith of the argument And therefore it must needes follow that the Romanists doe merely Iudaize herein And for the Fathers which they alledge for the proofe of this article let their owne Cassander giue satisfaction who affirmeth that the ancient Church vsed prayers for the dead either as thankfull congratulations for their present ioyes or esse as restimonies of their hope and desire of their future resurrection and consummate blessednes both in their bodies and soules and this hee proueth out of Cyprian Augustine Epiphanius Chrysostome and ancient Leiturgies 21. Againe they Iudaize in their doctrines of Limbus Patrum and Purgatorie for Purgatorie it hath beene alreadie touched in the former section and for Limbus Patrum it is coâ—sessed by our aduersaries themselues that it is the tenent of the Iewish Rabbines warranted as they say onely by a Text in Ecclefiasticus which being both corrupted in the translation as our worthy Champion Doctour Whitaker hath proued and being also no part of Canonicall Scripture doth plainely shew that it is a mere Rabbinish conceit hatched in their brainsick Thalmud and not bred in holy writ Yet our Romanists lay fast hold on the same opinion without any other certaine ground to build it vpon For as touching the places of Scripture collected by them to proue this assertion they are either so impertinent or distorted that the meanest iudgement may easily discry their weaknesse for either they are deriued from a word of an ambiguous signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the speach of Iacob Gen. 37. 35. which signifieth sometimes the graue and sometimes hell by the confession of their great Bellarmine or from a Parable as that place in Luke 16. concerning Abrahams bosome confessed by Maldonate to be parabolicall because bodies are not yet tormented in hell but here is mention of a finger and a tongue or from an allegorie as is that place of Zacharie 9. 11. where is mention made of loosing Prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water which both Salmeron and Bellarmine acknowledge to make more for Purgatory then for Limbus but in truth for neither it signifying literally nothing else but the deliuerance of the Israelites out of the Babylonish captiuity and tipically the redemption of the Elect from the bondage of Sathan and hell which they are liable vnto or lastly are merely impertinent as those places Heb. 11. 39. 4. 1. Reg. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 19 the first whereof intendeth the consummate and perfect blessednesse of body and soule which the Fathers had not attayned vnto The second meaneth not the true Samuel but the deuill in his shape and likenesse and the third is to bee referred not to Christs dâ—scension into hell but to the operation of his Diuinitie which he exercised from the beginning of the world preaching by the mouthes of iust men as both S. Augustine and Aquinas expound the place How can any sound conclusion now be drawne from Texts that are either equiuocall or allegoricall or parabolicall or impertinent and all by their owne confessions Therefore it must needes follow that seeing this doctrine hath no sure foundation in Gods word but is founded vpon the Iewes prophane Thalmud that it is no better then a mere Rabbinish
c. Which words they interpret as spoken to Peter onely and consequently to the Pope his successour we to the rest of the Apostles as well as to him Where now doth the Scripture decide this doubt and speake plainely which is the truest sense Mary first in the very place it selfe by the due examination of the circumstances thereof they euidently shew that our sense is the truest for whereas the question is propounded to all the Apostles verse 15. and all the Apostles held the same faith that Iesus is the Sonne of God verse 20. it must needes be that Peter was but as the fore-man of the Quest and answered not for himselfe only but for them all thereby shewing forth not any preeminence of authority aboue the rest but a greater zeale and forwardnesse then the rest And herevpon it followeth that seeing this promise of the keyes is made because of that faith and confession therefore they all beleeuing and confessing the same haue an interest to the promise as well as Peter And this Anselmus in plaine tearmes affirmeth It is to be noted saith he that this power was not giuen alone to Peter but as Peter answered one for all so in Peter hee gaue this power to all 14. Secondly by the conference of another place which is more plaine to wit Ioh. 20. 23. where is a gift and an endowment of that power of the keyes which before was promised for to binde and to loose and to remit and retayne sinnes is all one in effect as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth and containâ— the whole vertue of the keyes now here they are all inuested with equall iurisdiction the Holy Ghost is equally breathed vpon them all and equall authority be queathed vnto them all by these words of the Commission As my Father sent me so I send you which exposition is confirmed by the authority of most of the Fathers as Augustine Cyprian Hierome Theophilact Anselme c. and thus the Scripture by a most liuely voyce determineth this doubt and as of this so of all other questions and interpretations the Scripture onely must bee the Iudge which by searching the originals examination of circumstances conference of other places and consulting with the learned Fathers and Expoâ—itors together with feruent prayer to God for inward illumination will giue a most exact and precise satisfaction to all controuersies touching matters of â—aith necessarie to bee beleeued 15. To the third reason that the Scripture is the law and therefore cannot be the Iudge I answere that though the Law and the Iudge be diuers distinct things yet they are subordinate one vnto the other and so may both ioyne in the concurrence of one cause as when our Sauiour saith Call no man Father vpon earth for there is but one your Father which is in heauen his meaning is not to exclude earthly Fathers from their title but to shew that God is the primer and principall Father both in respect of time order and cause and that the other are but subordinate vnto him so in a Common-wealth the Iudge is subordinate vnto the law and the law is the Iudges Iudge and for that cause as the Law is said to be a dumbe Magistrate so the Magistrate is said to be a speaking Law and so in truth the Law is the Iudge primarily and principally and the Magistrate is but the Minister of the law and the Iudge subordinate Now if this be so in a Common-wealth gouerned by humane Lawes which are failing and imperfect in many things being the ordinances of erring men how much more may we deeme it to be so in the Church of God whose Law-giuer is God himselfe and the law the word of God and therefore though the Pastors and Ministers of the Church may interpret the Scriptures yet they must be tyed to this rule to doe it by the Scriptures and to expound the law by the law for shall not a temporall Iudge giue sentence out of his owne braine but secundum leges statuta according to the lawes and statutes of the Realme And shall any Pastour of the Church be it the Pope himselfe giue iudgement in any question out of his owne brest without the direction of Gods word This is to preferre humane lawes before Gods law and to make the state of the Church farre inferiour to the state politike and to haue a more certaine rule for the deciding of ciuill controuersies then for the determining of questions of â—aith so that in a word the Scripture is both the law and the interpreter of the Law the Iudge and the Iudgement 16. Secondly Bellarmine affirmeth and laboureth to proue that the proper and chiefe end of the Scripture was not to be the rule of faith but that it might be commonitorium quoddam vtile A certaine profitable commonitory whereby the doctrine deliuered by word of mouth might be conserued and nourished And to this end and purpose he vseth diuers reasons as first because it containes in it many things which are not necessary to faith as all the Histories of the Olde Testament and many of the New and the salutations in the Epistles of the Apostles all which were not therefore committed to writing because they were necessary to be beleeued but are therefore necessarily beleeued because they are written Secondly because all things necessary to be beleeued are not contained in the Scripture as by what meanes women vnder the law were clensed from originall sinne wanting circumcision and children that dyed before the eight day and many Gentiles that were saued againe which are the books of Canonicall Scripture and that these are Canonicall and those are not that the Virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin that the Passeouer is to be kept vpon the Sunday being the Lords day and that children of beleeuing Parents are to bee baptized and such like Thirdly because the Scripture is not one continued body as a rule should bee but containeth diuers workes Histories Sermons Prophecies Verses and Epistles These be his three reasons by which the Iesuite would euince that the Scripture is not giuen to this end to be the rule of faith 17. To all which I will answere briefly and distinctly and first in generall secondly in particular In generall if the Scripture be not giuen to be the rule of faith why is it called Canonicall It is therefore called Canonicall because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life this very inscription approued by all doth refute Bellarmines fond cauillation Againe if the Scripture was not giuen to bee the rule but onely a monitorie why were there so many Bookes written seeing fewer would haue serued for monition The multiplicity of Bookes proueth that they serue not onely to put vs in mind of our duty but also as an exact rule to square our faith and frame our life by And lastly if the Scripture was not giuen to be a rule why doth he himselfe
doctrine and practice that the Church of Rome by worshipping of Images is guilty of heathenish and abominable Idolatry 27. Concerning the Reliques of our Sauiour Christ and the Saints whereof their Church hath infinite numbers there is no lesse Idolatry committed to them then was before vnto Images For first some of them confesse that Reliquiae eodem modo atque imagines sunt adorandae Reliques are to bee worshipped after the same manner as Images And therefore if there be Idolatrie in the one it must also be needs in the other for whether the worship be not to be restrained to the Image and Relique but to be referred to the things whereof they are representations and parts as the forenamed Iesuite thinkes with some other or whether it is to be confined to the matter of the Relique and forme of the Image without further relation as Bonauenture Aquinas yea and Bellarmine himselfe with many other seeme to auerre yet it is Idolatry both waies because in both religious worship is giuen to the Creatures in the one simply in the other respectiuely which indeed some what qualifieth the heate of the disease but doth not at all cure the roote of it 28. Secondly others are of opinion that there is greater cause of worshipping Reliques then Images for say they a man cannot worship an Image but his thoughts must needs be caried vp to the contemplation of him whose Image it is but reliquia solùm adorantur ratione contactus quo sunt quodammodo sanctificatae consecratae Reliques are to be worshipped onely in respect of their touching of Christ or the Saints by which they are after a sort sanctified and consecrated and therefore they may be worshipped simply by themselues by reason of that sanctification without Christ or the Saint of whom they are said to be sanctified Here the former qualification for Images is taken away from Reliques and therefore the Idolatry is more grosse yea in regard of this contaction some of them are not ashamed to say that the very wormes of the bodies of the dead are to be worshipped with a right intention and with a sincere faith Thirdly not to stand vpon priuate opinions the determination of their representatiue Church the Councill of Trent doth proue the worshipping of Reliques to be Idolatry for it doth not onely condemne those which refuse to giue worship and honour to them in any respect but euen those also which opis impetrandae causa To obtaine helpe by them doenot honour them Now hence thus I reason to put our trust and confidence in any creature is Idolatry but to seeke for helpe at the Reliques of Saints is to repose trust and confidence in creatures therefore by necessary consequence the worship of Reliques is Idolatry because thereby they seeke for helpe and so the Church of Rome is by the sentence of their owne Councill guilty of this foule sinne and this Councill of theirs is guilty before God and man of protecting maintaining and authorizing the same a farre greater guilt then the former by how much according to the rules of Law the Author of a sinne is euer more guilty then the Actor 21. Fourthly their practice doth make this more euident for as Cassander ingeniously confesseth In these last times too much is attributed to the Reliques and memories of Saints in so much as the better sort of men and those that were most zealous haue placed the summe and substance as it were of Religion in searching out such Reliques adorning them with gold and Iewels and building temples and memorials for them and the worser and wickeder sort haue reposed false confidence in the foolish and superfluous worshipping of them Here we sâ—e the practice both of the better and the worser sort of people that is indeed of all for the most part in the worship of Reliques the one esteeming it the chiefest part of Religion and piety and the other relying wholly vpon it as the onely meanes for the purging away their sinnes and so an occasion to harten them in the same because they thinke as long as they performe this dutie they may sinne freely If any man say that the ignorance and misdoings of some is not to bee imputed as an errour to the Church I answer that it is not some but all generally for the most part that are thus affected and therefore Cassander condemnes both good and bad as guilty of this crime But graunt that many are otherwise minded yet for all that it cannot be denied but the greater part are in this ranke and that is inough to proue their Church Idolatrous because according to the Logicall axiome euery denomination is to be taken from the greater part neither is it a personall errour but a dogmaticall position deriued from the grounds of their Religion as from the Councill of Trent which alloweth to worship them Opis impetrandae causa for to obta ne helpe of them and from the rest of their great Diuines Some of whom would haue them to bee worshipped with the same worship with Images some with a greater reuerence then Images ob contactum and they that mince it finest with a religious reuerence which they call adoration and veneration in all which is that in a sort either openly or couertly allowed by their doctrine which is practised by their people 30. But let vs search a little further into their practice The custome of the Church of Rome is to take the bodies ashes or bones of Saints out of their graues and to adorne them with gold and siluer silke veluet and such like and to carry them about in publike processions and supplications and to shew them to the people to be touched kissed gazed vpon and adored as a singular and meritorious seruice to God is not this Idolatry They teach that God doth tye his grace and vertue to those Reliques whereof they are partakers that adore them with due reuerence and offer precious gifts vnto them yea they promise vnto such many indulgences and Pardons for sinnes Is not this Idolatry Againe they teach that their prayers are better and more effectuall and acceptable vnto God if they bee made before the Reliques of Saints and therefore their practice is in times of necessity to goe a pilgrimage to such places where the most famous Reliques are because they are perswaded that their prayers shall bee there soonest heard of God yea they make men beleeue that the Eucharist hath a great deale of holinesse added vnto it if Reliques of Saints bee included within the Altar Is not this Idolatry They light vp candles and set vp before them Tapers which S. Ierome calleth Idolatriae insignia the Ensignes of Idolatry and cause them to burne euen at noone day and that as they say in resemblance of the golden candlesticke which alwayes burnt before the Arke Exod. 2. 5. but indeede rather in imitation of the heathen who vsed to burne Tapers
touch of diuine worship and religion therfore it was reiected the one saying Stand vp for I my selfe am a man insinuating that a man must not bee religiously adored and the other See thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant implying thereby that Angels and if Angels then Saints are but our fellow-seruants and therefore not to bee worshipped with any part of diuine and religious worship 49. To the example of Peter Bellarmine and Vasques giue two answers the one out of Hierom in his Booke against Vigilantius that Cornelius was worthily corrected by Peter because he thought some diuine thing to be in him aboue othermen the other out of Chrysostome vpon this place that it was no fault in Cornelius to exhibite but modesty in Peter to refuse that honour which was due vnto him Bellarmine is in different which of these two answers we take and therefore without propounding his owne iudgement leaues theÌ„ to our choyce and yet the one of them ouer-turneth the other for Hierom saith it was a fault in Cornelius Chrysostome that it was no fault Hierom that Peter did well in reprouing Cornelius Chrysostome that he did not reprooue him at all but of modesty refused the honour giuen to him What reason had he to leaue these to our choyce being thus contrary It plainely sheweth that he knew not what to answere Therefore Vasques the Iesuite renounceth Hieroms answere vpon this ground that Cornelius knew the true God before Peter came vnto him and therefore could not erre so grossely as to ascribe any diuinity to a mortall man and insists vpon Chrysostomes that hee did it for modesty sake but by as good warrant we may reiect Chrysostome as he doth Hierom especially seeing our reason is as effectuall for Peter giues this reason of his denyall for I my selfe am a man which must needs be the medium of a sillogisme thus to be concluded No religious worship is to be giuen to man but I my selfe am a man therefore thou doest euill to worship me Here is not a strayning at courtesie for modesty sake but a plaine renunciation of Cornelius his sact as vnlawfull if it had been a tricke of modesty onely he should rather haue said thus comparatiuely I am not worthy of this honour from such a man as thou art or such like but in saying I my selfe am but a man he insinuateth that Cornelius did more then he ought to do 50. If they say I but though you thus escape from Chrysostome yet Hieroms interpretation will hold you fast I answere Besides Vasques reason whereby he reiecteth Hierom that it maketh nothing against vs but for vs rather against them because Hierom seemeth to condemne as idolatrous all such adoration of Saints wherein any part or propertie of the diuine nature is attributed vnto them but the Romanists in kneeling and prostrating their bodies to the Saints ascribe the properties of God vnto them to wit either to be present in many places at once oâ— to heare being as farre remote from them as â—eaâ—en is from earth and to know the heart and to haue power to helpe c. all which properly are proper vnto God 51. To the example of Iohn and the Angell the former two Iesuites oppose also a double answere first that the Angell did appeare vnto Iohn in that maiesty that he might bee thought to be Christ himselfe And therefore that Iohn was rebuked not for the errour in his adoration but for his errour in the person adored This answere Vasques names onely and then reiects as friuolous But Bellarmine propounds it as good and authenticall Which shall we beleeue in this case Maâ—y sauing his reuerence though hee be now a Cardinall the plaine Iesuite is to be preferred before him both because this answere is crossed and contradicted by the second and also because the Iesuite giues a reason of his reiection And the Cardinall goeth to it by downe-right authority as if because he is their chiefe Rabbi hee may say what hee list his reason is because Iohn did truely know him to be an Angell and not God and therefore that there was no errour in the person Secondly they answere that the Angell would not now as in time before be worshipped of men because now God was become man and by his incarnation brought such dignity to the nature of man that the very Angels should doe reuerence vnto it not be adored and reuerenced by it especially of Christs Apostles and Princes of the Church To which I answere first that by this allegation it must needes follow that Angels are not now to bee adored in the Church of Christ howsoeuer they were before which is contrarie to their owne doctrine and generall tenent of their religion And secondly if not Angels then much lesse the Saints who at their highest though they be made like yet are farre inferiour to the Angels in excellency of graces and gifts And thâ—â—â—ly the reason where with the Angell after he had reproued Iohn directeth him to the right obiect of religious worship doth ouerthrow this exposition for he saith Worship God he doth not say Forbeare to worship me because your nature is dignified by the incarnation of the Sonne of God but forbeare because I am not God and all diuine and religious worship belongeth vnto him And thus notwithstanding all that is yet said all religious kneeling and prostrating the body to the Saints is Idolatrous 52. As for the dedicating Temples consecrating Festiuall daies making vowes to them they are all within the same compasse and that partly for the reasons before specified being acts of a religious worship but especially because the doctrine of their Church is that these things are so properly directed vnto the Saints that the end of their consecration is determined in them And therefore Bellarmine reprooues their opinion which say that Temples cannot properly bee erected to any but to God and affirmeth that they may be dedicated directly vnto Saints and that vowes may bee made to them determinately and so also Holy daies consecrated which cannot be any lesse then plaine Idolatrie seeing as Saint Augustine saith Cuiconuenit Templum ei conuenit sacrificium to whom a Temple to him a Sacrifice belongeth And seeing the Scripture in many places testifieth that vows must onely be made to God I am not ignorant of their cuasion that they doe not dedicate Churches to Saints as they are Temples but as they are Basilicae that is stately buildings for memorials of the Saints and that a Vow is made to God in signum gratitudinis â—rga authorem primum principium omnium bâ—nâ—rum as a signe of our thankfulnes to God the authour and first cause of all good things but to the Saints as a signe of gratefulnesse towards our mediatours and Intercessours by whose meanes wee receaue benefits from God And that the honour of the holy day though it immediately pertaineth to the Saints yet mediately
vsed by Christ himselfe or his Apostles and therefore must of necessity be grosse and palpable Innouations 29. From the Eucharist let vs looke backe to the ceremonies of Baptisme and first to their baptizing of Bels and of Gallies and Ships secondly exorcisme and exufflation thirdly anointing with oyle and crossing and fourthly salting and spittling lastly threefold Immersion or dipping the Infant all which are palpable nouelties so confessed by the Romanists themselues neither can they euer shew that these ceremonies were either commanded by Christ or practised by Iohn Baptist or the Apostles and though some of them as the crosse and anointing are of great antiquity and were then and may bee still lawfully vsed as things indifferent yet in their Church where such an opinion of necessity is laid vpon them that Baptisme is not effectuall without them they are meere Innouations no wayes warranted by any antiquity 30. Lastly I propound as their feasting so their fasting dayes together with the manner of fasting vsed amongst them as first the Lent fast of fourty dayes which their Iesuite Azorius confesseth not to bee of diuine ordinance and the variablenesse of the vse thereof doth prooue no lesse some Churches continuing the same full sixe weeks as the Illyrians Lybians Egypt and Palestina some seuen weekes as they of Constantinople with the nations adioyning some but three weekes and those dispersed within the six or seuen as occasion serued some againe three weekes immediatly going before Easter and lastly some two onely as the followers of Montanus all this is recorded by Sozomene in his History by which it is euidently euinced that this fast was no Apostolicall institution nor yet any childe of true antiquity for if it had there could not haue beene any such variety in the obseruation thereof 31. Secondly their fast of 4. times coÌ„monly called Ember weekes was first deuised by Pope Calixtus as would witnes Polidore Virgill if he were not gelded by these strange bookpurgers but though he be silent yet their own Platina telleth asmuch Thirdly their tying of fasts to certaine set dayes as the fourth and sixt day of the weeke was not allowed in Saint Augustines time for hee thus writeth against Vrbicus that stroue for the Saturdayes fast I read in deed that wee are commanded to fast but which ought to bee the dayes of our fasting I finde not prescribed in the Euangelicall or Apostolicall writings nor in his scholler Primasius his age for thus sayth he There is no Law set down concerning fasting but as euery man can or will nor in Socrates time who liued about the yeere 440. for hee plainly testifieth that the rites and obseruations of fasting were by the Apostles left to euery mans free liberty and choyce 32. Lastly their manner of fasting which is twice to refresh their bodies on the fasting day at noone by a small dinner and at night by a short supper Bellarmine himselfe confesseth to bee contrary to the ancient custome which was to eate but one meale on the fast day and that a supper and doth also giue diuers reasoÌ„s of this mutatioÌ„ As first that thogh it bee tolerated in their Church yet it is not commanded Secondly that those customes which are not grounded vpon Gods word may by ecclesiasticall Lawes bee varyed according to the diuersity of time place thirdly that when the ancients broke off their fast at the ninth houre they vsed to dyne at the sixt that is noone and therefore when as many doe ordinarily dyne at the third houre they may by like proportion breake off their fast at the sixt these be Bellarmines reasons to maintaine this Innouation whereby we may both behold what silly props hee hath to vphold his rotten cause and also that by his owne confession this is a meere nouelty and therefore he concludes that notwithstanding these forenamed reasons yet they doe better who after the ancient custome eate nothing till the ninth houre and in Lent till the euening And thus wee see how in the principall ceremonies of their Church they haue degenerate from the vsage and custome of all pure antiquity 33. Thus much of the outward face of their Church Now let vs examine a little their doctrines wherein they differ from vs which are the sinewes and nerues thereof here I might referre the Reader ouer vnto our learned and godly Country-man Doctour White lately deceased who in his high-way to the true Church obiecteth eight points wherein the moderne Church of Rome hath varyed from that which formerly was maintained notwithstanding I will also a little touch vpon the same strings adding somewhat more both in points and proofes then is there deliuered that the Reader may haue also heere some satisfaction concerning these matters 34. First therefore it is an article of the Romish faith that the Virgin Mary whom wee honour as a blessed woman and the mother of our Lord was conceiued and borne without the staine of originall sinne This doctrine was decreed 〈◊〉 an article of faith in the Councill of Basill in the yeere 1431. and afterwards was approoued by the Councill of Trent and by Pope Sixtus the fourth yea and all that take any degree in the profession of diuinity in the vniuersity of Paris first sweare that they will defend this prerogatiue of the Virgin Mary Now that this is a nouelty appeareth first because it was not receiued as an article of faith before the Councill of Basill Secondly because the Fathers generally either vtterly denie it to bee a truth or at least doubt of it Saint Chrysostome sâ—â—tly denyeth it Saint Bernard calleth it in plaine termes a nouelty Caietane reckoneth fifteene fathers to haue beene of a contrary opinion others two hundreth others three hundreth as witnesseth Salmeron the Iesuite and lastly Canus peremptorily affirmeth that all the Fathers contradicted it And it is to be noted that whereas Bellarmine produceth twelue Fathers for the proofe thereof not one of them doe directly affirme it except one or two Thirdly because the Elder Schoolemen with one consent disapprooued it as Dominicus Bannes Turrecremata Thomas Aquinas Bonauenture and others in so much that in this point they are driuen to this grosse shift That yonger diuines are more apprehensiue of truths then were the more ancient Doctours Bellarmine I confesse in this point accuseth vs of slendering their doctrine because hee sayth it was neuer held in their Church as an article of saith as wee say it is but by his leaue if it was the decree of one Councill though not confirmed by the Pope as he saith the Councill of Basill was not and was allowed by another Councill confirmed by the Pope to wit the Councill of Trent as an holy opinion and agreeable to the Catholike faith and approued by diuers Popes as hee confesseth and defended generally in their Church not onely by doctrine but by a solemne obseruation of a festiuall day in memoriall