glory of God and the merits of Christ And therefore the conclusion must needs follow being built vpon an vnmooueable foundation that that Religion which maintaineth such doctrines is not the truth of Christ but the seduction of Antichrist MOTIVE V. That Religion deserueth to be suspected which refuseth to be tryed by the Scriptures as the perfect and alone rule of faith and will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe But such is the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo. THe first proposition in this Argument though it be most true and cannot without any shew of reason be contradicted yet that it may be without all doubt and exception it shall not be amisse to strengthen the same by sound and euident proofes deriued both out of Gods word and consent of ancient Fathers The Proposition consists of two parts first that it cannot be the true Religion which will not abide the alone tryall of the Scriptures Secondly that it will bee iudged and tryed by none but it selfe let vs consider of both these seuerally 2. And concerning the first if the Scripture be the fountaine of all true religion the foundation and basis of our faith the Canon and rule of all the doctrines of faith and the touch-stone to trye truth from falshood then to refuse to be iudged and tryed by the Scriptures alone is plainely to discouer that there is something in it which issued not from that fountain which is not built vpon that foundation which is so oblique and crooked that it dares not to be applyed to that rule and which is counterfeit and dares not abide the touchstone Now that the Scripture is such as I haue said let the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture beare witnesse Search the Scripture saith our Sauiour for in them you thinke to haue eternall life and they be they which testifie of me therefore the Scripture is the fountaine of all true religion for what is the Religion of Christians but the right knowledge of Christ Iesus This caused Saint Paul to say I desire to know nothing but Christ Iesus and him crucified Againe the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation through faith in Christ Iesus and are profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnesse that the man of God may be absolute and perfect to euery good worke Therefore the Scripture is the onely fountaine of true Religion for what is true Religion but spirituall wisedome and holy perfection the one in contemplation the other in action the one in knowledge the other in practice for these two ioyned together do make a man truly religious but the Scriptures afford both as it is cleare in that saying of S. Paul and may be confirmed by another like speech of Salomon who affirmeth that the commandements of God will make a man to vnderstand righteousnesse and iudgement and equity and euery good path Righteousnesse and iudgement pertaine to knowledge equity and euery good path belong to practice And for this cause Origen compareth the Scriptures to Iacobs Well from whence not onely Iacob and his sonnes that is the learned and the skilfull but his sheepe and cattell that is the simple and ignorant doe drinke that is deriue vnto themselues the waters of life and saluation and therefore where the knowledge of the Scriptures flourished not as among all the Heathen both Romanes Grecians and Barbarians before their conuersion there no true Religion shewed it selfe but their Religion was all false and deuillish for in stead of the true God they worshipped dumb creatures and mortall men yea deuils themselues as Lactantius sheweth All which proceeded from hence that they had not the word of God for their guide which is the onely fountaine and well-spring of true Religion 3. Againe as it is the fountaine from whence so it is the foundation vpon which our faith relieth whether wee take faith for the act of beleeuing or for the matter and obiect of our beliefe Ye are built saith S. Paul vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Christ Iesus himselfe being the chiefe corner stone By the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles is meant the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine as all Expositours that I haue read yea their owne Aquinas and Caietane with one consent auouch and to bee built vpon this foundation is to haue our faith to relye and depend vpon it onely as a house relyeth onely vpon the foundation and without a foundation cannot stand that therefore is no doctrine of faith that is vpholden by any other foundation neither hath that any good foundation which is not built vpon the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine they build vpon sand that build vpon humane traditions euery stormy puffe of winde will shake the house of that faith but they which heare the word of Christ and keepe it build vpon a rocke against which neither the raine flouds nor windes no not the gates of hell are able to preuaile because they are grounded vpon the rocke which rocke indeede is Christ to speake properly as not onely S. Peter confesseth 1. Pet. 2. 7. but euen Christ himselfe that is this rocke Math. 16. 18. when hee saith Vpon this rocke will I build my Church that is vpon this truth that Christ is the Sonne of God yet the word of Christ may also be called the rocke because it is as firme and durable as Christ himselfe And that wee may know that Gods word onely is the foundation of faith S. Paul telleth vs plainely that faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God If any of them say as they doe that the word of God is not onely that which is written in Scripture but that which is vnwritten deliuered by tradition let them shew as good reasons to proue their traditions to be the word of God as we doe to proue the Scripture and we will beleeue them but since they cannot let them beare with vs if we vnderstand the Apostles words as spoken onely touching the written word and the rather because we haue for the warrantize of our interpretation both S. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter verse 8. when he saith This is the word offaith which we preach Where hee sheweth what is that word which is the ground of our faith namely the word preached And S. Peter who hauing magnified the word of God with this commendation that it endureth for euer presently expoundeth himselfe of what word hee spake saying And this is that word which is preached amongst you That is the word of the Gospell which was not in part but wholy and fully as preached by mouth so committed to writing And thus S. Basil also interprets it for he saith Quicquid est vltra scripturas Whatsoeuer is out of the Scriptures diuinely inspired because it is not of faith is sinne for faith is by hearing and hearing by
the word of God Now from hence thus I reason If the word of God written be the onely ground of faith then that Religion which will not acknowledge it dependance onely vpon the word written is not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious but the word written is the onely ground of faith as hath beene proued therefore that Religion which disclaymeth it dependance only vpon the word deserues iustly not to be beleeued but to be suspected as erronious And in this regard the Romish Religion though it be in our Pater noster to wit vnder the last petition Deliuer vs from euill yet it should neuer come into our Creed to repose our faith and our saluation vpon it 4. Thirdly the Scripture as it is the fountaine and foundation of true Religion So it is the rule of faith and the touchstone of doctrines and the ballance of the Sanctuarie to weigh truth and falshood in that the one may be discerned from the other This the Prophet Esay teacheth when hee calleth vs to the Law and to the Testimonie saying that if any speake not according to that word there is no light in them From which place thus I reason that whereunto we must resort in all controuersies and doubts for resolution that is the rule of faith but such is the Scripture by the testimonie of the Prophet therefore the Scripture is the rule of faith In like manner we may conclude out of S. Peter who saith that We haue a more sure word of the Prophets whereunto wee must take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place till the Day-starre arise in our hearts If the word of the Prophets was a sure direction to the Church of God before the Gospell was written then much more is the whole Scripture contayning the word of the Prophets and of the Apostles together but S. Peter affirmeth the first therefore the second must needs follow For this cause when one asked our Sauiour what hee might doe to bee saued hee referred him to the Scripture for his direction What is written how readest thou And so Abraham referreth the rich gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets and Christ telleth the Saduces that this was the cause of their errour because they knew not the Scriptures Out of all which Texts thus I argue If there were any other rule of faith besides the sacred Scripture our Sauiour and Saint Peter would neuer haue sent vs ouer to the Scripture alone but would haue poynted out vnto vs some other meanes but they send vs to the Scripture alone and therefore that alone is the rule and ballance of our faith 5. And this the very title and inscription of the Scripture doth intimate for why is it called Canonicall but because it containes the Canon that is the rule of faith and life The Fathers with one consent agree in this truth Saint Basil calls the Scripture Canonem recti normam veritatis The Canon of right and the rule of truth Chrysostome sayth that Assertio diuinarum legum c. The assertion of the law of God is a most exact Ballance Squire and Rule Saint Augustine calleth it Statera diuina Gods ballance or a diuine ballance these bee his words Non afferamus stateras dolosas Let vs not bring deceitfull ballances to weigh what we will and how we will saying This is heauie that is light but let vs bring that diuine ballance out of the holy Scriptures as it were out of the Lords treasurie and by it weigh all things or rather acknowledge them being weighed by the Lord. Tertullian giueth to the Scripture the same name so doth Gregory Nyssen and our Countriman venerable Bede to passe ouer all the rest as he is reported by Gratian in his decrees telleth vs in most plaine termes that In sacris literis vnica est credendi pariter viuendi regula praescripta The onely rule both of Faith and Life is prescribed vnto vs in the holy Scriptures Now if this be so as it is meere madnesse to affirme the contrary then that religion which doth refuse to be tryed by this rule and to be weighed in this ballance doth giue iust cause of suspition that it is but light stuffe and crooked ware 6. If a man should offer to his creditor a piece of gold for payment and should refuse to haue it either tryed by the touch-stone or weighed in the ballance he might iustly suspect that it was but either light or counterfeit so may any of good sense rightly suspect that religion to bee both light and counterfet which refuseth to be examined by the rule of Gods word especially which is the second branch of the first proposition if it not onely refuse to be tryed by the Scripture but also will admit no tryall nor Iudge but it selfe for as by reason wee conclude that such a man hath an euill cause in hand who in Westminster Hall refuseth to haue his matter tryed by the law and will admit no Iudge but his own opinion that man to be guilty which standing at the bar of iustice accused of some great crime denyeth to be tryed by the verdict of his Country according to the law so likewise the cause of Religion being called in question that must needs in any equall iudgement bee deemed vnsound and guilty which will not stand to the verdict and sentence of the Prophets and Apostles who are the Iury to trye all cases of conscience and of the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture who is the onely Iudge to heare and determine all questions of doubt which may arise in matters of faith and will be censured and iudged by none but it selfe 7. Against this truth all the Romanists and especially the Iesuites and of the Iesuites chiefly Bellarmine conflict and fight with foote and horse sailes and oares tooth and naile and all they can doe for herein lyeth the very bloud and life of their Religion And if this bee wrung from them that the Scripture is the onely iudge and rule of faith Actum est de regno Pontificio The Romish kingdome goeth to wracke vtterly and therefore they mainely contend to proue first that the Scripture is not the Iudge of controuersies secondly that it is not properly the rule of faith and if it bee a Iudge it is a dumbe one that cannot speake and if it be a Rule it is a partiall and imperfect one not totall and absolute 8. These two positions Bellarmine laboureth to prooue by many sorts of Arguments first from testimonies of the Olde Testament secondly from testimonies of the New thirdly by the authority of Bishops and Emperours fourthly by the witnesse of the Fathers lastly by reason I passe ouer the foure first sorts of Arguments as being sufficiently answered by others and come to the last which are deriued from reason the slightnesse whereof doth plainely discouer the vanity of this their opinion
Now to proue that the Scripture cannot be the iudge of Controuersies nor the Interpreter of it selfe they vse three chiefe reasons first because it hath diuers senses secondly because it is not able to speake but is mute and dumbe and thirdly because in euery well ordered Common-wealth the Law and the Iudge are distinguished and therefore seeing the Scripture is the law therefore it cannot be the Iudge 9. I answere to the first that it is not onely false but impious to affirme that the Scripture is as it were A nose of wax flexible into many senses as Melchior Canus affirmeth or that it may be dinersly expounded according to the occasion of the time as Cardinall Cusanus auerreth or that it is like a Delphian Sword to be conuerted into many senses as Turrian the Iesuite maketh it for as of one body there is but one soule so of one place of Scripture there is but one true sound sense which is the soule and life of it the words being but the flesh and the skinne that couereth the same and that true sense is that which the Spirit of God intendeth and not that which euery priuate spirit collecteth and deduceth out of the same as for the Tropologicall Anagogicall and Allegoricall senses they are not distinct senses of the Scripture but diuers collections and applications issuing out of one and the same sense all which may bee intended by the Holy Ghost vnder that one literall sense For example when an Allegory is deduced out of a place of Scripture as Saint Paul Gal. 4. 24. doth allegorize that History of Abrahams two Wiues it is not a double interpretation of that History but it is onely an Allegoricall application of it to the illustrating of the matter which he had in hand and so when by a tropologie a morall doctrine is deriued out of a text of Scripture as our Sauiour doth Math. 12. 41. 42. applying to the Iewes the repentance of the Niniuites and the long iourney of the Queene of Saba to see and heare Salomon or when as by a type any thing in Scripture is mystically expounded otherwise then the literall sense doth beare this is not a new sense but an accommodation of the right sense to another purpose which notwithstanding is intended by the spirit of God and this is confessed by diuers of their owne side Cornelius Agrippa thus writeth The Scripture hath but one simple and constant sense in which alone the truth is found And Aquinas thus It is the literall sense which the author of the Scripture intendeth which is God yet it is not inconuenient if in one letter of the Scripture according to the literall sense there bee many senses 10. But grant that there are diuers distinct senses of some few places of Scripture to wit one literall and another spirituall for in the most there is not yet there can be but one literall sense as many of the Iesuites themselues confesse and from that onely a forcible argument may be drawne as Bellarmine acknowledgeth and Vega another Iesuite except the mysticall sense be explaned and authorized by some other expresse place of Scripture as Salmeron Azorius Sixtus Senensis and Polidore Virgil auouch and proue the same by the testimonie of Augustine and Ierome Now then why should the multiplicity of senses barre the Scripture from being the Iudge of controuersies seeing no controuersie can effectually be decided by any other sense but by the literall which is euer one and the same or by the mysticall so farre forth as it is approued and declared by another Scripture which then becomes the literall sense of that place wherein it is expounded though it was spiritually included in the barke of the former from whence it was deriued This therefore is a most vaine and friuolous obiection 11. To the second that the Scripture is dumb and therefore cannot bee the Iudge because the Iudge of controuersies must haue a deciding and determining voyce I answere that this is blasphemy against the sacred word of God for if the Scripture bee an Epistle of the omnipotent God to his creature as Gregory calleth it what doth it but speake to them to whom it is sent He that writes a letter to his friend doth hee not speake vnto him and hee that reades his friends letter doth hee not vnderstand his meaning and intendment because the letter doth not vtter a voyce and he heareth not his friend himselfe Doth not euery man know that there is a double word verbum dictum a word spoken and verbum scriptum a word written the one being Imago cordis the Image of the minde the other Imago oris the Image of the speech True it is the Scripture doth not speake as man speaketh but yet it speaketh as the Law vseth to speake and God himselfe speaketh in the Scripture to them that haue eares to heare him and therefore in the Epistles to the Churches which were all written not spoken it is said Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirit saith vnto the Churches and is there any thing more common then these phrases what saith the Scripture doth not the Scripture say Yea and is not the Scripture called viâ—us Dei sermo the liuely word of God Heb. 4. 12. how can it speake if it bee dumbe how can it giue life if it be dead 12. This manifest truth Stapleton striueth to elude by a witty as he thinkes but indeed a witlesse distinction God saith he speaketh indeed by the Scripture but hee speaketh not vnto vs by them the Scripture is indeed the word of God but the Church is the voyce of God Which fond obiection our famous Country-man the scourge of Poperie Doctor Whitaker thus wipeth away If God speake in the Scripture then hee doth it either with himselfe or vnto some other but not with himselfe therefore to some other and if to some other to whom but vnto man for hee neither speaketh to Angels nor Deuils nor dumb creatures therefore onely to man as when he saith Thou shalt not kill or Loue your enemies there is no man so simple but hee perceiueth that God speaketh vnto man And therefore the Apostle saith that whatsoeuer things are written aforetime are written for our learning that wee through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might haue hope And so it is cleare that God by the Scripture not onely speaketh but speaketh vnto vs and so the Scripture is not onely the word of God but the voyce of God in it selfe as it proceeded from God the voyce of God to vs as we haue it by writing the word of God and the Epistle of the great King to his poore subiects whereby they are enformed of his will and pleasure and directed in the wayes of saluation 13. I but when the question is about the sense of a Text as of that Math. 16. 19. To thee will I giue the keyes
a partiall rule and that the word of God written and not written by this last meaning traditions is the totall and perfect rule To this I answere in a word that by this distinction he plainely ouerturneth that which before hee had confessed for if it bee the rule of faith then it must needes be totall and perfect if it be not totall and perfect then is it not the rule for a rule must be proportioned to the thing whereunto it is applied If then our faith be either longer and larger then the Scripture then cannot the Scripture bee any wayes called the rule thereof Besides as Theophilact saith Regula et amussis neque appositionem habet neque ablationem A rule doth neither admit addition nor diminution and that is the definition of a rule according to Varinus Regula est mensura quae non fallit quaeque nullam vel additionem vel detractionem admittit A rule is saith hee a measure which deceiueth not and which admitteth no addition nor detraction Therefore if it be the rule of faith either it is perfect and absolute or none at all if it standeth in neede of traditions to supply it want then why doth hee call it the rule and why doe all the Fathers giue it the same name and why hath it that inscription in the forehead the Canonicall Scripture Lastly if God would giue vs a rule for our faith and life in the Scripture then by the same reason hee would make that a perfect rule for shall any imperfect thing proceede from the authour of all perfection When an imperfect creature is borne wanting either limmes or forme we ascribe it to a defect and errour in the particular nature from whence the creature is deriued or to the indisposition of the instrumentall causes not to the generall nature which tendeth alwaies vnto perfection How much more then ought this Iesuite be afraid to ascribe an imperfect creature to the all-perfect Creatour especially seeing it is the worke of his owne hands without the intermingling of all second causes and proceedeth immediately from his owne spirit the Prophets and Apostles being but as Baruch to Ieremie writers and engrossers of that which the spirit did dictate vnto them And therefore I may boldly and firmely conclude that as the vncreated word of God begotten of the Father before all time is perfect God and can neither receiue augmentation nor diminution so the word of God pronounced first by the mouth of the Prophets and Apostles and after by them committed to writing which is called the Scripture is absolute and perfect and can neither be encreased nor diminished to make it more or lesse perfect and so is the onely true sound and sacred Rule whereby both our Faith and life is to be directed towards the Kingdome of Heauen 23. And thus I hope the first proposition remaineth sound and firme notwithstanding all that can be sayd to the contrary Now I come to the confirmation of the assumption or second proposition which is that the Religion of the Church of Rome refuseth to be tryed and iudged by the Scriptures alone and will be tried and iudged by none but it selfe which if it be euicted then the conclusion must necessarily follow that therefore it is not onely to be suspected but vtterly reiected and abhorred 24. That this is so though it hath already in the precedent discourse beene sufficiently demonstrated yet that the matter may appeare more plaine and their impudency may be more notorious let vs search deeper into this wound and discouer the filthinesse thereof from the very bottome and first that they renounce the Scripture from being their Iudge and then in the second place that they admit of no other Iudge but themselues 25. Concerning the first let vs heare Bellarmine the Achilles of Rome speake foremost hee affirmeth in expresse words that the Scripture is not the rule of faith or if it be that it is a partiall and imperfect rule and vtterly insufficient of it selfe without the helpe of Ecclesiasticall traditions This assertion is well-neere the whole matter subiect of his third and fourth Bookes De verbo Dei which he laboureth to strengthen by all meanes possible Yea in the third Chapter of his third Booke he saith peremptorily that the Pope with a Councill is the Iudge of the true sense of the Scripture all controuersies Now in setting vp the Pope or a Councill into the supreme throne of Iudgement he must needes pull downe the Scripture the Spirit of God speaking therein from that throne and despoyle it of that authority But what need I draw this consequence from his words seeing throughout that whole Chapter he doth almost nothing else but striue to proue that the Scripture is not the Iudge doth reproue the Protestāts for saying that all the iudgements of the Fathers and all the decrees of Councils ought to be examined ad amussim Scripturarum according to the rule of the Scriptures Next vnto Bellarmine commeth in Gregory de Valentia and hee most boldly auoucheth that the Scripture is not a sufficient Iudge or rule of all controuersies of faith and that the Scripture alone defineth nothing at all no not obscurely of the chiefe questions of faith and where it doth speake it speaketh so obscurely that it doth not resolue but rather increase the doubt Cardinall Hosius is no whit lesse audacious when he affirmeth that the Scripture in it selfe is not the true and expresse word of God which we ought to obey vnlesse it bee expounded according to the sense and consent of the Catholike that is in his opinion the Romane Church The Iesuites Salmeron Turrian and Coster doe not onely barely affirme as much but also confirme it by reason The Scripture is dumbe saith Salmeron but the deciding voyce of a Iudge must be quicke The Scripture is a dead letter saith Turrian and a thing without life saith Coster but a Iudge must be liuing who may correct such as erre therfore that Scripture cannot be the Iudge It is as it were a Nose of wax saith Melchior Canus flexible into euery sense and as it were a Delphian Sword fit for all purposes saith Turrian therefore cannot be the Iudge And therefore two other Iesuites to wit Tanner and Gretzer impudently conclude that no heresie can be sufficiently refuted by Scripture alone and that by no meanes it may be graunted that either the holy Scripture or the Holy Ghost speaking by the Scripture should be the supreme and generall Iudge of Controuersies and hee addes his reason because the Scripture cannot dicere sententiam giue sentence on one side as a Iudge should doe Nay one Vitus Miletus as Pelargus reporteth is not ashamed to say that wee read that an Asse spoke in the Scripture but that the Scripture it selfe euer spoke we neuer read And thus this fellow makes the Scripture it selfe to be more mute then Balaams
sacrifice for him by saying Masse Who can doubt of Purgatory that is thus authentically proued The second place is in the 8. Psalme 7. Thou hast put all things vnder his feete fowles of the ayre that is say they the Angels in heauen beasts of the field that is the godly in this life and fish of the Sea that is the soules in Purgatory Here is a proofe of Purgatory worthy the noting 28. And thus much for a taste of their false and foolish expositions these being not the hundreth part of them which are found in their writings Let all men iudge now whether these men deale well with the Scriptures or no and whether they be friends or enemies to the sacred word of God the Spirit of God that animateth it that dare thus wretchedly abuse it at their pleasures and wring it like a nose of waxe into any shape to make it serue their purpose Erasmus placeth that Frier in the Ship of fooles that being asked what Text he had in the Scripture for the putting of Heretikes to death produced that of S. Paul Tit. 3. 10. Haereticum hominem post vnam aut alteram admonitionem deuita that is in true construing Shunne an Heretike after the first or second admonition but he construed it thus De vita supple tolle that is Kill an Heretike after c. This fellow by Erasmus opinion was worthy of a Garland or rather of a Cockscomb for his witty exposition and so was he also that being asked where hee found the Virgin Mary in the olde Testament answered In the first of Genesis in this Text Deus vocauit congregationem aquarum Maria. But I must not be so sawcy with Popes and Cardinalls I iudge them not therefore but leaue them to the iudgement of God 29. Their last practice against the Scriptures is their adding to and detracting from it at their pleasure whatsoeuer either distasteth their Pallate or may seeme to make for their profit which notwithstanding hath a wo denounced against it And this practice is grounded vpon a rule Papa potest tollere ius diuinum ex parte non in totum The Pope may take away say they the lawe of God in part but not in whole and if hee may take away then may he adde also for the same reason is of both and one is as lawfull as the other for adding marke their practice the Councill of Trent together with most of the Popish Doctours adde vnto the Canon of the Scripture the Apocrypha Bookes of Iudith Wisedome Tobias Ecclesiasticus Machabees remainders of Ester and Daniel and curse all them that are not of the same minde and yet the Iewes before Christ who were the onely Church of God at that time and Scriniarij Christianorum as Tertullian calls them or depositarij custodes eloquiorum Dei as Tollet the Iesuite names them that is The keepers and treasurers of the holy Scriptures and to whome were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. These Iewes I say neuer admitted of these Books as Canonical and the Fathers for the most part though they held them Bookes profitable for instruction of manners yet dispunged them out of the Canon as not of sufficient authority to proue any poynts of faith as is confessed by Bellarmine himselfe in some sort naming Epiphanius Hilarius Ruffinus and Hierom and by Melchior Canus nominating besides the former Melito Origen Damascene Athanasius accompanied with many other Diuines as he saith and besides the Bookes themselues by many pregnant proofes deriued out of their owne sides doe be wray that they are not of the same spirit the Canonicall Scripture is of 30. Againe they adde to the Scriptures theiâ— Decretals and Traditions Innocentius the third commanded the Canon of the Masse to be held equall to the words of the Gospell and it is in one of their Bookes Inter Canonicas Scripturas decretales Epistolae connumerantur that is The Decretall Epistles are numbred among these Canonicall Scriptures As for Traditions I haue shewed before that it is a decree of the Councill of Trent that they are to be receiued with as great affection of piety and reuerence as the written Word of God Againe they adde vnto the Scripture when they take vpon them to make new articles of faith which haue no ground nor footing in the Scriptures for vnto the twelue articles of the Apostles Creed the Councill of Trent addeth twelue more as may appeare in the Bull of Pius the fourth in that publike profession of the Orthodoxall faith vniformely to be obserued and professed of all And when they adde vnto the two Sacraments ordained by Christ fiue other deuised in the forge of their owne braines and those two also they so sophisticate with their idle and braine-sicke Ceremonies as the Eucharist with eleuation adoration circumgostation and such like trumperie and Baptisme with oyle and spittle and salt and coniuring and crossing c. that they make them rather Pageants to mooue gazing then Sacraments for edifying and thus most wrongfully they adde vnto the Scripture euen what they themselues list 31. As for their detracting and taking away they shew themselues no lesse impudent for they haue taken away the second Commandement as appeareth in diuers of their Catechismes and Masse-bookes because it cutteth the throat of their Idolatry wholly out of the Decalogue and to make vp the number of tenne they diuide the last Commandement into two contrary to all reason and authority Yea so impudent are they that two famous Iesuites Vasques and Azorius doe boldy affirme that this second precept which forbiddeth worshipping of Images was not of the law of nature but onely a positiue Ceremoniall and Temporall Iniunction which was to cease in the time of the Gospell and in the Eucharist whereas Christ ordained the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud in two kindes they notwithstanding depriue the people of the cup and will haue it administred to them but in one kind Yea Cardinall Caietane as Catharinus testifieth of him cut off from the Scripture the last Chapter of S. Marks Gospell some parcels of Saint Luke the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Iames the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Iohn and the Epistle of Iude and yet this mans writings were not disallowed in the church as containing any thing contrary to wholesome doctrine and hee himselfe acknowledged to bee an incomparable Diuine and the learnedst of all his age and thus wee see both the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome against the Scripture 32. To the which if we adde their open blasphemies and horrible reproches wherewith in plaine downe-right blowes they rent and teare in pieces or at least-wise besmeare and defile these holy writings then their malice against them will bee knowne to all men and there will bee no vizard left to maske it withall To conclude therefore some of them
shew also how good workes to wit almse-deedes pilgrimages workes of supererogation vowed chastity voluntary pouerty Monkish obedience which they esteeme the chiefest good workes are made Idols in that they repose the confidence of their heart and the hope of saluation in them through the power of meriting which they ascribe vnto them as also how they turne their Sacraments into Idols by teaching that they conferre grace Ex opere operato by the very worke done and that effectiuely actiuely and immediatly they produce in the heart the grace of regeneration and iustification which is the proper and immediate worke of the Godhead but I passe ouer these many other things because they admit in shew some probable exception though no sound confutation and I insist in those things onely in which euery Ideot and almost Infant may discerne most grosse and palpable Idolatry And those are these fiue in number the bread in the Sacrament Images Reliques Angels and Saints departed And lastly the Crosse and Crucifix of which in order 14. The blessed Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned for a perpetuall remembrance of his death and passion and for the strengthning and nourishing of the soules of the faithfull to eternall life is transhaped by them into a most horrible Idoll For this they teach and practise that that very thing which to all the senses is but bread being but lately moulded and knead by the Baker is to be worshipped and adored with diuine worship because forsooth after consecration it is the true and naturall body of Christ And therefore at the Priests eleuation of the hoast they all fall downe vpon their knees and worship it with great deuotion and expect from it forgiuenesse of their sinnes and all manner of earthly and temporall blessings and whosoeuer refuseth to doe this is an Heretike 15. Their Apologie is that there is a reall and naturall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament and therefore not the bread but the body of Christ into which the bread is transubstantiate is worshipped of them and so they thinke to free themselues To which I answere that if that were certaine then their defence was iust and their practice godly and we in calling them Idolaters for this cause should bee slanderers of the truth but seeing the contrary is rather certaine to wit that Christ is not corporally in the Sacrament but in heauen and that the bread remayneth still true bread both for matter and forme after consecration they cannot be excused from notorious Idolatry in worshipping a piece of Bakers bread in stead of Christ the eternall Sonne of God for to the outward senses it beareth the shape taste figure and colour of bread This is certaine and to the vnderstanding in reason it is bread because accidents cannot be without a substance this is as certaine and to faith it is bread because the Word which is the foundation of saith so calleth it after the words of consecration neither is there any Scripture to auouch the contrary saue that which may well receiue our interpretation as well yea better then theirs as the best learned amongst them confesse for Bellarmine confesseth that it may iustly bee doubted whether the Text this is my body be cleare inough to enforce transubstantiation And Scotus and Cameracensis thinke our opinion more agreeable to the words of institution and thus they haue against them sense and reason and faith and for them onely a doubtfull Exposition of two or three places of Scripture and therefore three to one but they are guilty of Idolatry 16. Besides graunt that there is a reall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ yet the accidents of bread and wine remaine vnchanged and the forme and shape Now howsoeuer the learned may here distinguish their worship from the outward accidents to the inward substance yet the common people are not able so to doe but worship confusedly the outward accidents together with Christ contayned vnder them and so in that respect are Idolaters also for accidents be creatures as well as substances Yea and Bellarmine also doth allow them so to dâ—e for thus he writeth Diuine worship doth appertaine to the Symboles and signes of bread and wine so farre forth as they are apprehended as being vnited to Christ whom they containe Euen as they that worshipped Christ vpon earth being clothed did not worship him alone but after a sort his garments also Here is a braue straine of Diuinity they worshipped Christ in his clothes therfore they worshipped Christs clothes So Christ is worshipped vnder the formes of bread and wine therefore the formes of bread and wine must be worshipped This is like the Asse which bore vpon his backe the Image of Isis and when men fell downe before the Image he thought they worshipped him but hee was corrected with a cudgell for his sawcinesse and so are they worthy for their folly that cannot distinguish betwixt a man and his garments Christ and the signes of Christ but promiscuously confound the worship of the one with the other Rather therefore may we thus conclude they which worshipped Christ on earth did not worship his garments that he wore therefore they which will worship Christ in the Sacrament must not worship the outward Elements and so it will follow that as it had beene Idolatry in any to worship the garments of Christ so it is in the Romanists to worship the accidents of bread and wine 17. Lastly let it be supposed that there is such a reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament yet according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome no man can be certaine when it is because it depends vpon the intention of the Priest for thus they teach if the Priest should say the words of consecration without intention to consecrate the bread and wine he should effect nothing or if hee intend to consecrate but one hoast and there chance to be two or more then nothing is consecrated at all and so the intention of the Priest being vncertaine to the people there must needes be an vncertaine adoration and the Priest oftentimes intending nothing lesse then the matter it selfe which hee hath in hand there must needes be certaine and vndoubted Idolatry for if the bread and wine be not effectually consecrated as they are not without the Priests intention then Christ is not really present and so nothing is worshipped but the bare bread for remedy hereof they haue deuised two poore shifts one that the people must adore vpon a condition to wit if the due forme in consecrating bee obserued the other that an actuall intention is not necessarily required but onely a vertuall that is when an actuall intention to consecrate is not present at the very time of consecration by reason of some vagation of the minde yet it was present a little before the operation is in vertue
enforcement to take vengeance on those parts which had done her the mischiefe and to eate them also with many other filthy circumstances which I shame to speake of but in conclusion to make vp the matter with a miracle two midwiues were brought from heauen to Mistresse Nunne by the ghost of Henry Murdach the Archbishop of Yorke which discharged her of her childe without paine and carryed it forth with them to heauen with lie and all so that it was neuer after seene Is not this penance thinke you able to terrifie any one from committing the like sinne or rather might not this Nunne say as another of her sexe and profession said after she had had three Bastards which proued great Clarkes and learned men in the Church that it was a happy scape which brought forth three such worthy bastards so this might call her Sonne an happy Sonne which was honoured with so great a miracle But let the Popes lawes bee broken or his triple Crowne touched and he shall smoake for it that dares do this 25. Their fourth doctrine tending apparently and by necessary consequence to loosnesse is their doctrine of vowed chastity whereby they enioyne single life and prohibite matrimony to certaine kinds of men and women to wit such as enter into holy orders teaching and maintaining that for such it is better to go to harlots then to marry and that to go to a harlot now and then is but a sinne of infirmitie as Pighius calleth it but to marry is no better then a resolued deliberate or continuall incest vtterly without all shame What an occasion or rather a cause this point of Romish doctrine hath beene of horrible silthinesse and wickednesse of life wofull experience in all places where the Romish Religion beareth sway manifestly declareth For to omit that this doctrine is but an vpstart doctrine in respect of true antiquity brought in first by Pope Seritius three hundred and eighty yeares after Christ who was the first that made any restraint of Priests marriages as it is confessed by Polidore Virgill the decree on the Canon law and Clictoueus and yet tooke not effect vntill the time of Gregory the seuenth called Hidlebrand in the yeare one thousand seuentie and foure as also to omit that this doctrine is both contrary to the precepts of holy Scripture and practice of holy men both vnder the law and vnder the Gospell for vnder the lawe both Priests and Prophets were married and vnder the Gospell both Apostles and Disciples had their wiues and after them Bishops and Prestbyters and the doctrine of the Scripture is Marriage is honourable among all men and again If they cannot abstaine let them marrie for it is better to marrie then to burne Yea and Saint Paul giueth order concerning the wiues and children of Bishops which had beene needlesse if they might haue none And lastly to omit that this prohibiting of marriage is called by Saint Paul one of the doctrines of deuils euery one of which might be a sufficiēt argument not only to euince the vnsoundnesse of this doctrine but also to demonstrate how likely itmust needs be to occasionate sinne comming not from God and therfore not likely to haue his blessing to follow it but from the deuill and therfore most likely to serue for the aduancement of his kingdome Notwithstanding to omit all these and to refer them to a fitter place let vs weigh this matter in the ballance of reason and wee shall easily find that a great breach is hereby made for mens vnruely and vntoward affections to burst forth into horrible and damnable sinnes 26. For first the gift of Continency is no common but a rare and singular gift which God bestoweth not vpon all but vpon some few this proposition is prooued by that aphorisme of our Sauiour All men cannot receaue this thing saue they to whom it is giuen and in the next verse He that is able to receaue it let him receaue it Whereby he insinuateth that who so euer taketh vpon him the vowe of chastity not being able to performe the same sinneth in so doing It is proued also by Saint Paul in this conclusion Euery man hath his proper gift of God one this way another that way for speaking of the gift of continencie he wisheth that all men were as he himselfe but seeing they are not so therefore he leaueth it free to marrie for such as haue not that gift But the Romish Clergy together with the infinite orders of religious Votaries are not few but many and those chosen promiscuously without any respect had whether they be endowed with that gift or no therefore being vnable to containe and forbidden to vse the lawfull remedy ordained by God they must of necessity fall into lawlesse and vnordinate lusts besides seeing that euery man that will be hee neuer so defamed for incontinency and so by experience knowne to be voyde of that same excellent gift may become a Votary and on the contrary our Sauiour saith euery man cannot receaue this what hope can there be of chastity among these men Is the gift of chastitie indeed so common that euery man may haue it that will Is it so ordinary that it is communicated to thousands of Priests Monkes Friars and Nunnes yea to innumerable of that order in all places why then what meant Cassander a learned diuine of their owne to say that the world was come to that passe that a man could scarce find one of an hundred that kept himselfe free from incontinency And Erasmus that the number of Monkes and Priests that liued in whoredome and incest was innumerable weigh the reason now in his iust termes they that cannot containe must needs burst forth either into secret or open vncleannesse But of infinite Romish votaries few or none haue that gift to containe therefore the rest must necessarily fall into either secret or open vncleannesse let any man iudge now whether this doctrine doth not directly tend vnto loosenesse 27. If any alleadge that this gift of continency may bee obtained by fasting and prayer I answere two things First If it may be thus obtained it is a signe that they vse but little the same holy exercises seeing fewe among them doe attaine vnto it Secondly I answere that continency is in the number of those gifts which may be denyed to a man salua salute without danger of his saluation because it is not necessarie to saluation nor common to all Gods children but peculiar to some Now the promise of our Sauiour aske and yee shall haue is meant of things necessary to saluation and not of particular and speciall gifts Thus Paul prayed thrice that the pricke in the flesh the messenger of Sathan might be remoued from him and some say this was concupiscence yet he was not heard in that which he prayed for because hee might be saued without it as it appeared in the answer giuen vnto
their Fryers and Anchorites how like are they to the Nazarites of the Law the Nazarites might not drinke wine nor strong drinke no more may diuers of the religious shauelings by the rules of their order They were tyed by a vowe which they might not breake without sinne so are these at their first entrance into their Cloysters and Cels and that so strictly that they account it a greater sinne to violate that vow of voluntary Religion then the vowe that they haue made to God in their baptisme and therefore they hold it a lesse sinne to commit fornication which they haue vowed against in baptisme then to marrie which they made vowe against when they tooke vpon them the religious order as hath beene prooued in the former reason They might not meddle with worldly affaires during the time of their separation no more may some of these Romish votaries they may not so much as handle money forsooth with their bare hands but with Gloues on they will receiue as much as they can lay their clouches on and euen whilst they thus seeme to contemne riches they spread their nets to draw whole Townes and Countries into their possessions Onely in this the Nazarites and they differ they were true worshippers of God and their order was Gods ordinance these are monstrous hypocrites hidden vnder the cloke of Religion neither are their orders of God but as Chaucer long agoe sung The deuils excrements 13. Lastly for their Iubile ordained first by Boniface the eight to bee euery hundreth yeere after brought downe by Clement the sixt to euery fifty yeere and after that by to euery three and thirtith yeere and lastly by to euery fiue twentith yeere where it resteth What is it but a renouation of that Iewish ceremonie which was instituted by God to signifie that euerlasting happinesse and ioy which was brought into the world by Christ our Sauiour The Trumpetters whereof were first the Prophets as Esay for example who in the person of Christ proclaimed good tidings to the poore healing to the broken hearted liberty to the Captiues and redemption to the Prisoners the acceptable yeere of the Lord c. Secondly the Angels who professed that they brought glad tidings of great ioy that should bee to all people at the birth of our Sauiour Iesus Christ And lastly the Apostles who when they began to preach the Gospell proclaimed this great Iubile to all the world that should beleeue in Christ â—o continue not a yeere but for euer and euer To imitate this ceremony then what is it but with the Iewes to expect the Messias to come in the flesh and to disclaime the glad tydings of the Gospell as a false message deceiuing the world This is so Iewish a superstition as the very name time and vse declare that nothing can be more 14. Thus wee see how in the imitation of the Leuiticall ceremonies the Church of Rome goeth in equipage with the Synagogue of the Iewes from whence may be deduced these two conclusions First that the light of the Gospell is either vtterly extinguished or at least very dimly shining amongst them for it is a true rule the more shadow the lesse light and the more light the lesse shadow and therefore those Northerne people called by the Philosophers Amphiseiâ— because their shadow goeth round about them in a circle haue the Sunne so farre remote from them that they are scarce refreshed with the beames thereof but they which haue the Sunne perpendicularly ouer them are Ascij without shadow And what is the night but the darke shadow of the earth and the day but the remouing of that shadow by the comming of the Sunne The Church of Rome then being thus enwrapped and compassed about with the superstitious shadowes of Iewish ceremonies plainly declareth that either the Sunne is not risen amongst them or that it is very farre off euen in the skirts of their Horizon Secondly that their Church is not as they bragge of it the onely Catholick Church but rather the whore of Babilon for her attire bewrayeth her condition a chast Matrone is attired decently but not garishly but a strumpet like Iezabel sets forth her selfe with garish deckings and a painted face to allure louers vnto her the Romish congregation then being thus adorned not like a chast Matrone but like a light Harlot with the garish attire of Iewish ceremonies all in pompe and ostentation discouereth her selfe not to be the Spouse of Christ but the strumpet of Antichrist And so I conclude the first part of this argument that seeing one piece of the Iewes enmitie to Christ consisteth in retayning the Leuiticall ceremonies which had their accomplishment in Christ therefore to imitate them in this respect is a plaine demonstration that their Religion is not from Christ but from Antichrist his profest enemie 15. The second point wherein they imitate the Iewes is farre worse then the former for it is in their Rabbinish and Cabalisticall traditions which as they are most grosse corruptions of the law so are they the foulest enemies to the Gospell of Iesus Christ that the world hath I will not stand to reckon vp the foolish ridiculous niceties of the brainsick Rabbines wherewith the ignorant Iewes are at this day besotted and which are as a veyle ouer their eyes to hinder them from seeing the truth I remit the Reader for these things to Buxdorfius Paulus Fagius Sixtus Senensis and Galatinus my taske is to shew how the Church of Rome imitateth them in many of these their absurd fancies which will proue their Religion to be little better then theirs 16 First the Iewes hold that Moses receiued two lawes of God in mount Sinai the one written and the other vnwritten this latter they call their Cabala and they say that Moses by word of mouth commended it to Ioshua and Ioshua to the Elders of Israel and they to the Prophets and they againe vnto the Masters of the great Synagogue vnder Esdras from whom their wisemen called Cachamim successiuely receiued it and in this they glory calling it the ioy of their hearts and the refreshing of their bones This vnwritten Cabala was at the first preserued onely in the hearts of their great Cachamim or learned Masters and deliuered by them to the people by mouth onely afterward it began by little and little to be commended to writing and was at the first called Mischua that is the law repeated after the Thalmud of Ierusalem and lastly the Thalmud of Babylon which is the most sacred Scripture by which the Iewes are gouerned and directed at this day and which they preferre before the law written for the law written say they can neither be vnderstood nor expounded without the helpe of this neither is perfect vnlesse this bee added to it Thus dote the Iewes vpon their Thalmud and Cabala 17. And doe not the Romanists dote as much about their vnwritten traditions heare and iudge first with them
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
Asse and the holy Spirit lesse able to make that speake then an Angell was to make an Asse to speake Then which what could be brayed out more like the beast he speaketh of 26. But some may say All these are but priuate mens opinions we heare not all this while the determination of the Church Let vs harken therefore to the voyce of the Church touching this poynt that is as they hold of the Councill or rather Conuenticle of Romish Bishops assembled together at Trent which they call the Church representatiue The second Canon of the second decree in thy fourth Session of that Councill doth thus determine Let no man trusting to his owne wisedome dare to interpret the Scripture after his owne priuate sense or contrary to that sense which our holy Mother the Church holdeth or contrary to the vnanimous consent of the Fathers The former part of this Canon is good and sound for Saint Peter saith that no Scripture is of priuate interpretation and therefore they which wrest the Scriptures to their owne senses contrary to the intent and scope of them are guilty of a grieuous sinne before God and doe it to their owne destruction for Optimus scripturae lector est qui dictorum intellectum non attulerit sed retulerit exscriptura saith Hil. that is He is the best reader of the Scripture which doth not bring a sense to the Scripture but draweth it out of the Scripture Besides the middle and end of the Canon is not to bee misliked if they haue a fauourable interpretation for the iudgement of the Fathers is greatly to be regarded and the authority of the Church is to be held in especiall reuerence but for all this latet anguis in herba vnder these faire pretences of words is couched a snake of foule errour for first they tye the gift of interpretation of Scripture and of decision of controuersies to the Chaire of Peter seated at Rome and possessed by the Pope Peters successour as they call him or to the Chaire of Bishops assembled together in a Councill as in Noahs Arke whereas Saint Paul saith plainely speaking of the gift of interpretation These things workethone and the same Spirit distributing to euery man seuerally as he will And in another place that the spirituall man discerneth all things and therefore the Scriptures Now by the spirituall man the Apostle meaneth the man regenerate and sanctified by the Spirit as it appeareth by that he opposeth him to the naturall man in the verse going before and so the gift of discerning and interpreting is not proper to the Chaire of Bishops 27. Secondly this Canon doth not onely giue vnto the Church thus conceiued of them the onely gift of interpretation but also a Praetorian and vnexaminable authority in interpreting so that all which they deliuer out of their Chaires must bee receiued peremptorily without examining the grounds and reasons for which they are mooued to be of that iudgement which Tyrannicall vsurpation is both contrary to the expresse precepts and principles of holy Scripture and also to the doctrine and practice of all the ancient Fathers for the scripture bids to try all things to hold that which is good And Paul refused not to haue his doctrine examined of the men of Berâ—a by the Scripture the same Apost directeth vs how to behaue our selues at the time of prophecying namely that two or three Prophets speake the other iudge All which places are flatopposite to that peremptory obtruding of interpretations vpon the Church which the Canon speaketh of so are all the Fathers in generall for in prescribing certaine rules to all men both of vnderstanding and interpreting the Scriptures they plainely shew that there is not this absolute authority nor infallibility in any to obtrude what interpretation soeuer without contradiction or examination 28. Lastly the Canon in giuing this indefinite power of interpretation and determination of doubts to the Church without any relation had to the Scripture doth vtterly iustle out the Scripture from being the Iudge And so Andradius the interpretour of this Councill doth expound the intendment thereof when he saith that the iudgement of the Church is Principium vltra quod non sit fas in inquisitione progredi Aprinciple beyond the which it is not lawfull to proceede in inquisition By which he giueth to vnderstand that our faith must relye wholly and solely vpon the iudgement of the Church that is the Pope and his Prelates without enquirie at all into the word of God whether that which they propound be consonant to the truth or no. As Erasmus in a certaine disputation against the Papists confesseth that their opinion hath not sure certain testimonies of Scripture but that the contrary opinion may be better more clerely strongly proued out of Gods word notwithstanding saith he if the Church bid I will beleeue it for I will captiuate my vnderstanding to the obedience of the Church And this indeed is the Babylonian seruitude of the church of Rome wherby they fetter the souls of their followers to perpetual slauery and lead theÌ„ blindfold vnder the veile of an implicite faith vnto perdition for this is the first ground they lay in the hearts of all their generation that they must not examine the doctrine of the Church but take it at their hands as good coyne though it be neuer so counterfeit doctrina in Concilijs definit a custodieÌ„da est non examinanda saith Bellarmine that doctrine which is defined in a Council is to be kept not examined and ordinarius pastor Ecclesiae audiendus est non iudicandus saith Stapleton an ordinary Pastor of the Church is to be heard not iudged thus we see that the Scripture is thrust cleane out of dores from hauing any right or title in the decision of questions of faith not onely by priuate men but euen by their Church it selfe 29. Now here two things are to be obserued of vs for the plainer enucleation and clearing of this poynt first that in making the Scripture Iudge we doe not exclude the Church nor any member of the Church from the office of iudging and discerning onely we place them in their due order and ranke for this is it we intend that the Scripture is the highest and most absolute Iudge from the sentence whereof there is no appeale to be made to any higher Court and that the iudgement determination of the Church or of any member therof is subordinate vnto that and to be ruled and guided by that and where it is agreeable vnto that there to be receiued where it swarueth from that to be reiected For as in the ciuill estate the Iudges deputed to that office haue no absolute authority in themselues but are subiect vnto the lawe and the Ministers thereof and therefore must not speake what they list but what the law directeth so in the state Ecclesiasticall they
New Testament many things are wanting What can be more plaine Yet Lindanus is more plaine for he calleth Traditionem non scriptam c. The vnwritten tradition that Homericall moly which preserueth the Christian faith against the inchantments of Heretikes and the true touch-stone of true false doctrine and the Aâ—acian buckler to be opposed to all Heretikes and in conclusion the very foundation of faith To this fellow adioyne Melchior Canus as a coÌ„panion in blasphemy who saith That many things belong to Christian faith which are contained in the Scripture neither openly nor obscurely To conclude all in one summe without any further repetition of priuate mens opinions wherein much time might be spent the voyce of their whole Church represented in the Councill of Trent is this That traditions are to bee receaued pari pietate with the same reuerence and affection wherwith wee receiue the Scripture it selfe Thus wee haue a view of the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the insufficiency of the holy Scripture both in part and whole Out of all which these two impious conclusions doe necessarily arise First that traditions vnwritten are equall if not superiour in dignity and authority to the written word of God and secondly that without the helpe of them it is not able to bring vs either to a sauing faith in this life or to the end of our faith in the life to come then both which what could be spoken more iniurious either to the Word it self or to the Maiestie of that Spirit from whom it proceeded And that their blasphemy might be known â—o all men Bellarmine more like a Iulian then a Christian doth not onely affirme the Scripture to be vnsufficient and imperfect but also not simply necessary and to that end he maketh a good round discourse and bringeth in long Leaden arguments which indeed are not worth the answering for they are meere sophisticall collusions as any one of meane iudgement may easily discerne Neuerthelesse by this we may see what an honourable opinion and affection these fellowes beare towards the Scripture when as they dare to affirme that they are not simply necessary but may bee wanting and remoued without any great hurt to the Church of God 12. The third iniurious doctrine whereby open disgrace is offered to the holy Scripture is concerning the authority thereof compared with the Church for this they teach and hold That the authority of the Scripture doth depend vpon the Church and not the Church vpon the Scripture And so by consequent that the Scripture is inferiour to the Church and not the Church to the Scripture whereas we on the contrary affirme and defend that the Church wholly dependeth both for authoritie and existency vpon the Scripture and so is euery way inferiour to the Scripture and not the Scripture vpon the Church 13. This blasphemie of theirs may more euidently be discerned if we obserue what they vnderstand by the Church to wit not the Primitiue Church which was in the time and immediately after the Apostles but the succeeding and present Church and that not the whole Catholicke Church which is dispersed ouer the world but the Church of Rome which holdeth vpon the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and in this Church not the whole body but the Pastours and Prelates assembled in a Councill yea and lastly not the Councill neither but the Pope who is totus in toto all in all and in whome all the members meete and resolue themselues as lines in the center as is before declared This is their Church and to this Church of theirs they subiect the Scriptures euen the word of God to the Pope of Rome that is God himselfe to a mortall sinnefull man For as Nilâ—â— the Archbishop of Thessalonica saith To accuse the Scripture is to accuse God so to debase the Scripture is to debase God 14. That wee may see this to be true and that wee lay no false imputation to their charge heare them speake in their owne words and let Bellarmine leade the Ring If we take away saith he the authoritie of the present Church and of the Councill of Trent then the whole Christian faith may bee called in question for the truth of all ancient Councils and of all poynts of faith depend vpon the authority of the present Church of Rome Marke he saith not vpon the authority of the Scripture but of the present church of Rome where he doth manifestly preferre the authority of the Church before the Scripture not onely of the Church but of the Church of Rome as if there were no Church but that and not the Church of Rome as it was in the purer and primer times but the present Church corrupted and depraued with infinite errours Againe in another place he concludeth That the Scriptures doe depend vpon the Church and not the Church on the Scriptures which position he confesseth in the same place to haue beene in other places maintained by him And yet elsewhere he disclaimeth this opinion as none of theirs and calleth it a blasphemy that it is his I haue shewed already though he be ashamed of it as he may well be and therefore exore suo by his owne iudgement he and all the rest are guilty of most grosse and intolerable blasphemie But that you may see that it is the generall receiued doctrine of them all for the most part heare others as well as him vttering their spleene against the Scriptures Siluester Prierias saith that Indulgences are warranted vnto vs not by the authority of the Scripture but by the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome which is greater And againe That the Scripture draweth it strength and authority from the Church and Bishop of Rome Eckius saith that the Scripture was not authentical but by the authority of the Church and putteth this proposition among hereticall assertions The authority of the Scripture is greater then the Church Pighius also affirmeth the same that all the authoritie of Scriptures doth necessarily depend vpon the authority of the Church and calleth all that hold the contrary in scorne Scriptuarij that is Scripture-men or such as maintaine the Scripture Cardinall Hosius goeth further and commendeth a blasphemous speech of one Hermannus as a godly saying That the Scriptures are of no more force then Aesops Fables without the testimonie of the Church and addeth presently of his owne that vnlesse the Churches authority did commend vnto vs the Canonicall Scripture it should bee of little account with vs. The like is deliuered by Coclaeus by Canus Stapleton Andradius Canisius and generally all other of that side that handle that question 15. Onely to palliate the matter they bring in a distinction to wit that this dependance of the Scriptures authority vpon the Church is quoad nos in respect of vs not quâ—adse in respect of it selfe and declaratiuè for declaration sake
for to restraine a common good to a particular vse is an open wrong to the good it selfe which the more common it is the better it is and the lesse common the lesse good for bonum est sui diffusiuum good inclineth naturally to spreade it selfe and therfore the restriction thereof is violence and force offered to the nature of it and truth cannot abide to bee imprisoned but loueth liberty This is true in all naturall good and true things but much more in this supernaturall good and truth which as Origenâ— well noteth was not written for a few as Platoes Bookes were but for the people and multitude yea for the veriest Ideots and women and children as the Fathers affirme 20. And yet these presumptuous Romanists forbid the reading of the Scripture among the people one of them affirming That it was the deuils inuention to permit the people to reade the Bible Another That he knew certaine men to be possessed of the deuill because being but Husband-men they were able to discourse of the Scriptures All teaching that it is the ground of Heresie and that Lay men are no better then Hogs and Dogs and therefore these precious pearles not to be committed vnto them and that the Scripture to a Lay man is as a sword in a mad mans or a knife in a Childes hand Thus they practise to imprison the Scriptures within the Priests cells or Monkes cloysters which were giuen by God to be the light of the world and yet which is to be noted in Queene Maries bloudy and blinde daies such as could dispend a certaine summe of mony by the yeare might reade the Bible without any speciall dispensation as if heresie builded her nest rather in the brest of the poore man then of the rich or as if the rich were lesse carnall then the poore and thus these saucy fellowes handle the sacred Scripture at their pleasure being rightly to be branded with the name of Heretikes whom Epiphanius generally calleth Lucifugae because they cannot abide the light of the Scriptures but fly from them as Owles and Bats from the light 21. Another practice of theirs is against the sense of the Scripture as the two former were against the letter that neither the body nor the soule thereof might be left vnuiolated and this is in respect of the learned to bar them vp from controuling their errours as the other were in respect of the simple to keepe them from once looking into them Their policy in this is to interdict all senses and expositions of the Scripture saue such as agree with the Church of Rome and are allowed by the Pope of Rome this is the interdiction of the Councill of â—rent and is grounded vpon a false interpretation of that article of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church for as Stapleton saith The literall sense of that article is that thou beleeuest whatsoeuer the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth And Cardinall Hosius If any man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome though he know not whether and how it agreeth with the words of the scripture notwithstanding he hath Ipsissimum verbum Dei Now by the Catholike Church they meane the Romane Church or rather the Romane Bishop as I haue shewed for as Siluester sayth The power of the Catholike Church remaineth onely in him And as Stapleton The foundation of our Religion is of necessity placed vpon the authority of this mans teaching and therfore one â—aith that the Pope may change â—he Gospell and giue to it according to place and time another sense Yea a blasphemous Cardiâ—all is bâ—ld to say That if a man did not beleeue that Christ is very God and Man and the Pâ—pe thought the same he should not be condemned This is a tricke pâ—ssing all other whereby they not onely make sure worke with the Scripture that it neuer doe them hurt but also fashion the sacred and diuine sense thereof vnto their fond and foolish fancies and make it speake not what the Holy Ghost intendeth but what they imagine Nay they are so impudent as to say That the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood the sense thereof being one while this and another while that according as it pleaseth the Church to change her iudgement Can there be a greater disgrace to the Scripture then this is 22. Adde to these yet another deuice which is far worse then all the rest that is a grosse and palpable wringing and wresting out of the holy Scripture a sense contrary to the true intendment of the place fitting it strangely to their own purpose This is a practice of theirs so coÌ„mon as that their Books swarme with nothing so much as such fond and foolish interpretations and so ridiculous withall that it would make euen Heraclitus himselfe to laugh if he were aliue I wil here report some few of these strange wrested Expositions that the Reader may haue a taste of them and so iudge of the whole caske 23. And to beginne at the beginning of the Bible Genes 1. 16. It is written God created two great Lights the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night that is saith Innocentius the third one of their owne Popes And also Molina the Iesuite God ordained in the Firmament of the Catholike Church two dignities to wit the Pontificiall dignitie and the Regall But that to gouerne the day that is the Spiritualty and is the greater and this to rule the night that is the Carnalty and is the lesser so that how great difference is betwixt the Sunne and the Moone so great is there betwixt the Bishop of Rome and a King that is according to the Glosse vpon the same place seuen and fiftie times So in the 3. of Genesis whereas the words of the Text are plaine Hee shall breake thy head or tread vpon thy head which is the first and principall promise of the Messiah they contrary both to the Hebrew and Septuagint translate and expound it Ipsa She shall applying vnto the Virgin Mary that which properly belongeth vnto Christ euen the worke of our Redemption And this interpretation and translation of that place is approued by the Councill of Trent in approuing the vulgar Latine Bible for authenticall and by Bellarmine also who calleth it a great mysterie that in the Hebrew a verbe of the Masculine gender is ioyned with a Nowne of the foeminine to signifie that a woman should breake the serpents head but not by her selfe but by her sonne and is also so translated by our Doway Translatours in English 24. So againe that place in the Psalme Psal 91. 13. Thou shalt walke vpon the Aspe and the Cockatrice and shalt tread vpon the Lion and the Dragon Pope Alexander the third interpreted it of himselfe and the Emperour applying the promise made to Christ principally and in him to all the Elect vnto himselfe as Pope and
call the Scripture a dumbe Iudge some a dead Letter and without a Soule others dead Inke others a Nose of Waxe to be wreathed this way or that way others say that it is no better then Aesops Fables without the authority of the Church all of them ioyne in this that it is not simply necessary that it was written not to rule our faith but to be ruled by it and that Christ neuer commanded his Apostles to write any Scripture and that it is subiect and inferiour to the Church all these and many other bitter and blasphemous speeches they belch out against the Scripture whereby they plainely bewray their cankred hatred against the Scripture and all because they finde it contrary to their humour and an enemie to their Religion 33. Thus the Minor proposition in this demonstration is I hope sufficiently prooued to wit that the Religion of the Church of Rome doth professedly disgrace the holy Scripture as both by their doctrine their practice and their blasphemous speeches against it doth manifestly appeare and so the conclusion is of necessary and vndeniable consequence that therefore it deserueth to be suspected and reiected of all those that professe themselues to be friends to the Scripture and hope from it either consolation in this life or saluation in the life to come MOTIVE VII That Religion is to be abhorred which maintaineth commandeth and practiseth grosse and palpable Idolatry but so doth the Religion of the Church of Rome Ergo c. WHen I consider the fearefull Idolatry of the Church of Rome which for that cause is called The Whore of Babylon and The Mother of fornications Reuel 17. 1. 2. I cannot choose but wonder that any should be so bewitched with the sorceries of this Iezabel or made drunke with the wine of her fornication that they should take her marke vpon their forheads and right hands and ioyne with her in her abominations and not rather come out of her with all speed as they are admonished by the Angell lest they bee partakers in her sinnes and haue a share also with her in her plagues but then againe remembring that which S. Paul faith that the comming of Antichrist should be in all deceiueablenesse of vnrighteousnesse and that God should send vpon them strong delusion to beleeue lies I turne my wondering at their sottishnesse into the admiration at Gods Iustice and Truth the one in punishing their contempt of his Gospell with such a giddinesse of spirit and the other in making good his owne word after such an euident and manifest manner that there by it most clearely appeareth that the Pope of Rome is that Man of sinne and Sonne of perdition there spoken of euen that Antichrist which exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God and sitteth in the Temple of God as if he were God As this appeareth in many grosse errors which they hold so in none more then in the horrible idolatry practised and preached defended in this Antichristian Church of which I may truely say as Plutarch said of the heathen that they mingle heauen with earth because they made Gods of men men of Gods So these whilst they giue diuine worship to earthly creatures as the crosse pictures of Christ and to the Saints in heauen or attribute earthly affections to heauenly creatures make a plaine mixture of heauen and earth spoyling the Creatour of his honour due vnto his Dietie and adorning the creature therewith and ascribing that vnto men which is onely proper vnto God That the Church of Rome is guilty of this impiety I hope by Gods grace so to proue in this Motiue that no Iesuite though neuer so subtill shall bee able with any shew of sound reason to hisse against 2. The first proposition in this Argument though it be of so euident a truth that it needeth no further demonstration yet because S. Paul saith that an Idoll is nothing in the world and thereupon some may peraduenture conclude that Idolatrie is a matter of nothing and a small and triuiall sinne I will therefore very briefly shew the greatnesse and haynousnesse of this sinne and how odious and abominable it is in the sight of God As touching therefore that phrase of Saint Paul An Idoll is nothing it is not to bee vnderstood either in respect of matter for euery Idoll hath a materiall being and subsisting as the matter of the Calfe which the Israelites made in the Wildernesse was gold and of the brazen serpent which was abused also as an Idoll was brasse and of those Idols which the Prophet Esay declameth so against were wood nor yet in respect of forme as Bellarmine and Caietane would haue it As though the Apostle should meane thus that an Idoll though it hath matter yet it hath no forme that is to say is the representation of such a thing as hath no being in nature for many of the Idols of the Gentiles were of such things as truly were but the Apostles meaning is as Tertullian obserues and many other both of ancient and late Writers that an Idoll is nothing in respect of that which it is intended to bee that is that it is no God nor hath any part of the Diuinitie in it which deserueth to bee worshipped or that it is nothing in regard of efficacie and power that is as the Psalmist speaketh is not able to doe either good or bad to hurt or to helpe to saue or to kill and this interpretation is authorized by S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome the one saying thus There are Idols indeede but they can doe nothing neither are they Gods the other thus Sunt Idola sed ad salutem nihil sunt There are Idols but they auaile nothing to the attaynement of saluation and it is also approued by many other Expositors both ancient and moderne Protestants and Papists and is most agreeable to the whole current of the Text. This then that S. Paul saith That an Idoll is nothing is both so farre from extenuating the sinne of Idolatrie that it aggrauateth the same and also so farre from clearing the Church of Rome from the guilt of that crime that it rather layeth a greater stayne thereof vpon it 3. As for the greatnesse of the sinne it may appeare by three considerations first of the precept for there is no one commandement of the Law so frequent in the whole Scripture and so strictly vrged and mounded and fenced about with so many reasons as that is against Idolatrie as we may see in the Decalogue Secondly in respect of the punishment denounced against and inflicted vpon the committers thereof to wit not onely eternall death from the iustice of God which is the wages of all sinne vnrepented of but also temporall death from the iustice of man as being vnworthy to breathe this common ayre or to tread vpon the earth that thus sinne against the Maiestie of God and that
not onely the worshippers of Idols themselues but they that should entice or perswade any to Idolatry The execution of which Lawes wee see put in practice vpon the Israelites Gods owne people in the 32. of Exod. and 23. of Numbers Thirdly and lastly in respect of the nature of the sinne which is first a senslesse sinne full of folly contrary to the very light of reason and nature as both the Prophet Dauid and Esay at large proue And secondly a sinne full of impiety because they that worship an Idoll worship the Deuill as S. Paul affirmeth 1. Cor. 10. 20. And lastly a sinne most opposite to the glory of God and consequently sooner procuring the vengeance of God then any other for it is called in the Scripture spirituall fornâ—cation and adulterie because the Idolater forsaketh God and prostituteth himselfe to an Idoll and that in Gods presence And therefore as corporall fornication is the onely cause of diuorce betwixt man and wife so this sinne onely causeth God to diuorce himselfe from his Church and to take from her all her ornaments and Iewels that is his Word and Sacraments and to giue her ouer into the hands of her enemies Thus the greatnesse of this sinne of Idolatry is manifest and from thence I may conclude my first proposition that that Religion which maintayneth and commandeth this sinne so full of folly impiety and contrariety to God is worthy not onely to be suspected but euen abhorred and detested of all men 4. But let vs come to the examination of the second proposition to wit whether the Church of Rome bee guilty of this great sinne or no. The Romanists mainly denie it as they haue great reason for if their Religion bee proued to maintaine Idolatrie they know that it must needes fall to the ground and therefore they deuise all manner of shifts to deliuer themselues from this imputation But we on the other side confidently affirme it and that the world may see wee doe it not without great reason wee confirme our affirmation with this strong argument Whosoeuer ascribeth diuine honour to any creature is an Idolater but the Romanists ascribe diuine honour to many creatures therefore they are Idolaters and lest any should thinke this to bee the errour of priuate persons and not the heresie of their Religion I adde vnto the Minor that all the Romanists doe this from the very grounds of their faith and that in so doing they are warranted from their Religion it selfe 5. They deny both the Maior and Minor proposition in this argument and in denying them especially the Maior they giue iust cause of vehement suspition if not of plaine demonstration that they are guilty of the crime whereof wee accuse them for if a thiefe standing at the barre being accused of a robbery by the high way side should answere that to take money from a man by the high way side at Noone-day was not theft all men would thinke that hee was guilty of the robbery and so the Iurie would finde him then certainely the Romanists by denying this to be the true definition of Idolatry which is propounded in the first proposition bewray their owne guiltinesse and giue vs more cause to suspect them then we had before 6. But let vs heare their shifts they principally are two one of Bellarmine the other of Valentia two maine posts in the house of Popery Bellarmine would faine vndermine this proposition to giue to creatures diuine honour is Idolatry by a distinction betwixt an Idol and an Image affirming that an Image is the similitude of a thing that hath a true being but an Idol of a sained thing that indeed is not and therevpon he seemes to conclude that to ascribe diuine honour to some Images is not Idolatry because euery Image is not an Idoll In the proofe of this distinction he labours much and profits little for like the heedlesse fish hee leapes out of the Frying-pan into the fire and tyes the knot faster which he would seeme to vntie for first all the Idolatry of the Church of Rome consisteth not in worshipping of Images but in many other things as shall appeare in the Discourse following Secondly if to worship the Image of a true thing be not Idolatry then the Gentiles were not Idolaters in worshipping the Image of Iupiter and Mars and Diana and Romulus and Aesculapius and the Sunne because as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth all the Idols of the Gentiles were the statues of men And Saint Augustine also affirmeth That the Gentiles did worship those things which were in being but were not to bee worshipped and then the Israelites did not commit Idolatry in the Wildernesse when they adored the golden Calfe nor was that Calfe an Idoll contrary to the expresse Text of Scripture Acts 7. 41. because it was a representation of a true thing namely of the true Iehouah as it is euident Exodus 32. 5. Thirdly let it be graunted that an Idoll is onely the similitude of an imaginary and fained thing yet will not this acquite them of Idolatry seeing they worship in the Romish Church the Images of things which either neuer were or were not such as they are taken to bee as the Image of S. Katharine and Saint Christopher and Saint George and such others the truth whereof they are not able to proue by any approoued Historie Nay it is confessed that many are worshipped in the Church as Saints which are tormented in hell fire for their sinnes This shift therefore of Bellarmine to wipe off the blot of Idolatry is but a silly one and blurres them more then they were before 7. Gregory de Valentia labours to creepe out at another hole to wit not by a distinction but by addition for hee would adde vnto the definition of Idolatry these words sicut Deo as to God and so Idolatry should bee not a giuing of diuine honour to a creature but when it is so giuen to the creature as vnto God Wherein as he vnmannerly crosseth his fellow Iesuite in calling the Images of Christ Idols and saying that they are to bee worshipped latria with diuine honour the one whereof Bellarmine simply and absolutely denyeth and the other he alloweth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respectiuely so likewise â—e crosseth reason Scripture Fathers and consequently all sound diuinity 8. For Reason If an adulteresse woman being taken in bâ—d with another man should excuse her selfe thus I am not guilty of adultery because though I lent the vse of my body to a stranger yet I did it not to him as vnto my husband would this excuse her no it would rather adde vnto her crime So the Romish harlot committing spirituall fornication with her Idols when shee goeth about to colour her crime with tâ—is vermillion I giue diuine honour indeed to Images but yet not as vnto God What doth shee else but adde carâ—all impudency vnto spirituall vnchastitie A filthy stopple
bare assertion without Scripture 29. As touching their crossing of it wee need fetch no other proofe then from the Councill of Trent which in expresse words denounceth Anathema to those that make this faith whereby wee beleeue the remission of our sinnes a necessary ingredient into true repentance and yet it propoundeth reconciliation and remission of sinnes to such as doe repent let all the world therefore know to the eternall shame of the Romish Religion that remission of sinnes and reconciliation by their doctrine may bee obtained by repentance without faith then which what can bee more opposite to the Gospell of Iesus Christ 30. If they reply that they make faith the foundation of repentance I answere why doe they then exclude it out of repentance is the foundation no part of the house yes it is the chiefest part either therefore it is not the foundation of repentance or els it is necessarily required to the essence of it one or the other must needs bee false but heere is the mystery of this iniquity by faith they meane nor a beliefe of the remission of our sinnes by the bloud of Christ which is the true Euangelicall faith but a generall perswasion of the truth of their Religion and a particular conceit that he which performeth the worke of penance in the three parts thereof shall thereby obtaine pardon of his sinnes and reconciliation with God 31. Secondly whereas hee sayth that wee doe not satisfie for the eternall but for the temporall punishments of our sinnes either heere in this life or in Purgatory hee speaketh nothing for the clearing of their doctrine from opposition to the Gospell for the Gospell teacheth that Christ our Redeemer hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for the sinnes of all the world yeelding a sufficient and worthy recompence and contentment to God for them and therefore they which say that wee must giue any manner of satisfaction our selues whether for the temporall or eternall punishment due vnto them doe euidently crosse the doctrine of the Gospell And this Aquinas one of their owne illumined Doctors doth in effect confesse when hee sayth that the passion of Christ was a sufficient and super abundant satisfaction for the sinne and guilt of punishment of mankind his passion was as it were a price or paiment by which we are freed from both these obligations to bring in then the foggy mist of humane satisfactions is to eclipse and darken the glory of Christs all-sufficient redemption 32. Thirdly whereas hee findeth fault with Chytraus for saying without proofe that auricular confession is not commanded of God and yet hee himselfe doth not proue it is we might driue out one naile with another and returne vpon him his owne answere but I reply further that diuers of his owne fellow Doctors haue auouched asmuch for Maldonate Erasmus the glosse in Gratian and Gratian himselfe and Rhenanus with diuers others are of the same minde as may appeare in the texts quoted in the margent whose wordes I forbeare to set downe because I shall haue occasion to handle the same in a more proper place one thing I cannot omit that the testimony of Rhenanus is so plaine that our aduersaries not able to giue answere sufficient vnto it haue by their peremptory authority said Deleatur let it bee blotted out as they deale also with Polidore Virgill in the like point and with all other that stand in their way 33. Lastly the redeeming of penance by the purse though Bellarmine shuffle it ouer neuer so cunningly yet is so palpable an abuse and so contrary to the doctrine of the Gospell that the very naming of it is a sufficient declaration of the foulnesse of that Religion which maketh a mart of sinne and setteth repentance which is the gift of God to sale for a little earthly drosse and exchangeth punishment due to the body and soule for a little pinching of the purse 34. The Gospell teacheth that marriage is permitted and set free for all men both Priests and people and that the prohibition of marriage and meats is a doctrine of Deuils But the Romish Religion forbids marriage to a great part of men to wit Priests and Monkes and commands to abstaine from certaine meates vpon certaine dayes 35. Bellarmine excepteth and saith by a distinction that when the Apostle sayth Marriage is honourable amongst all men hee meaneth not all in generall for then it should bee honorable betwixt the father and the daughter the brother and the sister but onely those that are lawfully ioyned together which they that are bound with a vow cannot bee 36. It is a strange fore-head but no maruaile seeing it is the fore-head of the whore of Babylon when the Scripture sayth Marriage is honorable amongst al men to exempt their Votaries from this honour as if they were not in the number of men but beasts and as the assertion is strange in impudency so the reason is more strange in folly for though the father may not marry the daughter nor the brother the sister without incest yet the father may marry and the daughter may marry and the brother and the sister also so that they take those that are not prohibited by the Law of God and nature Now let him shew that Gods Law forbiddeth Votaries to marry and then hee sayth something to the purpose but by his owne confession together with many of his pew-fellowes the prohibition of marriage is no diuine but humane ordinance and institution yea the Councill of Trent it selfe calleth it but an Ecclesiasticall Law and therefore not a Law of God but a decree of the Church 37. Adde to this impudency and folly his crossing of all antiquity for in the Councill of Nice Paphnutius alleadgeth this place of Scripture against those that went about to take away the vse of marriage from the Clergie and in the sixt generall Synode it is expressely applied to the same purpose And Ierome in defence of Charterius a married Bishop produceth the same text 38. As touching Chrysostomes speech to Theodorus the Monke alledged by Bellarmine though it seemeth a little to fauour them at the first view yet in another place he cleereth himselfe from that suspition for he saith plainely that Marriage is so honourable and precious that a man with it may ascend into the sacred Chaire of a Bishop What hath Bellarmine got now by Chrysostomes testimony Surely this If all that Chrysostome saith bee sound doctrine then it is an error in the Church of Rome to inhibite all that are consecrated by holy Orders from the vse of the marriage bed For by Chrysostome Bishops may marry Saint Augustines testimonies alledged by him in the one and twentieth Chapter are little to the purpose for in the first he saith plainely that the Church of God doth not forbid marriage but onely preferre virginitie before it as a greater good and in the second hee approoueth onely abstinence from
of God A dead man cannot moue the members of the body nor vse the naturall saculties of the soule no more can the vnregenerate mooue one haire bredth to Heauen-ward nor vse any graces of the Spirit A dead man hath no sense nor feeling though hee bee neuer so sharply handled seeth not though the Sunne shineth neuer so bright heareth not though a trumpet be sounded in his eare no more can the vnregenerat feele the wounds of Gods Lawes heare the sound of the Gospell nor see the cleare light of truth that shinethround about him Lastly in a dead man there is a separation of the soule froÌ„ the body so in the vnregenerate there is a separation of Gods Spirit from the soule which is the soule of the soule For this cause S. Aug. likened the vnregenerate man to the Shunamites sonne beeing dead whom the Prophet Elizeus raised from death to life and others to Lazarus stinking in the graue or to the widowes sonne of Naiâ—â— lying dead vpon the beare or to Iairus daughter that was dead in the house noting three degrees of sinnes one more notorious then the other yet all in the state of death vntill Christ by his Spirit shall inspire life into them and this is the perfect analogy and proportion betwixt a dead man and a sinner and therefore Bellarmines exception is false that they doe not agree in all things for there is nothing wherein they doe agree not if the comparison bee rightly proportioned 82. Secondly if they did disagree in other things yet in this wherein lyeth the life of the similitude they must needs agree that as a dead man hath nothing whereby he can helpe himselfe for the recouery of his life so man spiritually dead hath nothing in him no faculty or power of the soule whereby he can any way further the obtaining of his coÌ„uersioÌ„ And this was Saint Augustines opinion agreeable to the Gospell for his words are plaine concerning Pauls conuersion that he was called from Heauen and by that mighty and effectuall calling conuerted Gratia Deisolaerat It was onely the grace of God And no otherwise did Iustine Martyr conceiue thereof when hee sayth That as to haue beeing at the first when wee are created was not of our selues so to choose and follow that which is pleasing to God is not by vs but by his perswading and mouing vs to the faith In this therefore which is the point of the question the similitude holds most strongly and so Bellarmines exception is nothing to the purpose 83. Thirdly and lastly it is most absurd of all which hee sayth that because a sinner liueth naturally therefore he moueth towards grace more then a dead carkas to nature which hath no life at all for in respect of grace it is all one to haue no life at all and to haue no life of the Spirit For nothing can worke aboue the compasse of it owne beeing Naturall life cannot tranicend the Spheare of nature nor any way moue to the Spheare of grace For as Plants that liue the vegetatiue life cannot arise to the sensitiue life which is in beasts nor they to the rationall which is in men So neither can these arise vp any whit to the life of the Spirit which is in Gods Saints till a new life bee inspired into them which new life as it is the conuersion of the soule to God so it is the foundation of all spirituall actions seeing life in euery kinde is the foundation of all the actions in that kind For vntill there bee life in a plant it doth not grow vntill it bee in a beast it doth not moue nor feele vntill in a man hee doth not thinke speake or remember and so vntill this life of the Spirit bee in the soule it cannot will nor worke any thing that is good Therefore I conclude that though a sinner liue naturally yet beeing dead to grace that that life doth no more helpe to his conuersion then the sensitiue life of a beast doth to the obtaining of reason or the vegetatiue life of a Plant to the obtaining of sense 84. The Gospell teacheth that all should read the Scriptures for so our Sauiour chargeth and his Apostles Paul and Peter and Iohn charge not Priests onely but all others And Abraham sendeth the rich Gluttons brethren to Moses and the Prophets And the Eunuch is not rebuked but approued by Philip for reading the Prophesie of Esay And the Bereans are commended for examining Pauls doctrine by the Scripture which should neuer haue beene if it had not beene lawfull for them to doe it This is the doctrine of the Gospell most plaine and euident But the Church of Rome teacheth that all men must not read the Scripture to wit Laymen except they bee permitted by their Ordinary because pearles are not to bee cast amongst swine nor a sword or a knife put into a childes hand nor occasion of errour offered to the ignorant nor matter of offence to the weake as also because they are more obscure then can bee vnderstood of the Laicks and common sort of people Thus they paint ouer the foule wrinkled face of Iezabel with false colours but yet the contrariety is plaine All ought to read the Scriptures and some ought not to read the Scriptures The one is the doctrine of Iesus Christ The other of the Pope and his Church 85. But Bellarmine distinguisheth two wayes First that there is a double way of knowing the Scriptures one by hearing and another by reading The first is commanded to all and therefore necessary to be vsed of all But this last is not commanded to any but to the Clergie and those whom they shall thinke fit to read them with profit and without danger But who seeth not that when our Sauiour willeth to search the Scriptures hee speaketh of reading And when the Bereans examined Pauls sermon by the Scriptures they did it by reading And when Abraham remitteth Diues brethren to Moses and the Prophets hee sendeth them to reading For Moses and the Prophets were dead in their persons and liued onely in their writings And lastly when the Apostles wrote their Epistles to the seuerall Churches they wrote them to this end that they might bee read of all For so Saint Paul chargeth the Colossians after they had read the Epistle that they themselues would cause it also to bee read in the Church of the Laodiceans Besides if it bee a dangerous thing for the ignorant to read the Scriptures for feare they should peruert the sense so fal into heresie or impiety then much more dangerous is the hearing of it seeing there is no preaching so pure as the word it selfe man euer mixing some dregs of his own corruption with the pure wine of the word nor any preacher so sincere but he doth often erre and so the hearer being debarred from trying his doctrine by the touchstone of the Scripture must needs irrecouerably fall into
within holy Orders were accused of any crime hee must bee iudged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges and if he were conuict he should lose his Orders and so being excluded from Ecclesiasticall office and benefice if after this he incurred the like fault then might he be iudged at the pleasure of the King and his Officers This was that proud Archbishops challenge against his Soueraigne Henry the Second for defence whereof as also for other trayterous demeanors being tumultuously killed hee was canonized a Saint at Rome 20. And that you may see that this practice of theirs is agreeable to their Doctrine Bellarmine himselfe concludeth That Kings are not Superiours vnto Clarkes and therefore that they are not bound either by Gods or mans Law to obey them saue onely in respect of Lawes directiue and that the Imperiall Law ought in matters criminall to giue place to the Canon Law which is as much as to say that not the King but the Pope is the Lord of the Clergie Did Peter euer doe the like No he both in his owne person submitted himselfe to the temporall power when he paid Tribute at his Masters Commandement and when he vnder-went stripes and imprisonment for the Gospels sâ—ke without making any such challenge of exemption and also when he gaue in charge to all others euen his fellow Elders to submit themselues to Kings and Superiours for the Lords sâ—ke Sure it is that hee which payd a Tribute of monie much more ought to pay a Tribute of obedience and he which commanded others to obey would not in any wise bee refractorie himselfe lest that olde Prouerbe should be returned vpon him Phisician heale thy selfe and lest his practice should looke one way and his doctrine another which was vnfit for any much more for an Apostle 21. Lastly did euer Peter challenge to himselfe any such power and preeminence aboue the Scriptures as to dispense with the Law of GOD at his pleasure and to take away and abrogate what hee list in the same But the Pope taketh vpon him this also for these be their owne positions That the Pope may dispense with the Law of God and against the Apostle and against the new Testament vpon a great causâ— and that he may take away the Law of God in part but not in whole Yea that hee can ex iniustitia facere iustitiam turne sinne into righteousnesse and de facto Some of them haue dispenst with diuers Commandements of the Law with Incest with Murther with Theft with Treason Adulterie and such like as hath beene before sufficiently declared and may further be prooued if it were not a thing both knowne and confessed To shut vp the poynt certaine it is that Peter neuer exercised any such Iurisdiction eyther in part or whole as here is claimed by the Popes and if hee had it and did not shew it eyther by doctrine or practice he was not so carefull of the Church of God as hee should bee to hide from them so necessarie a truth but if he had it not then doe the Popes both vniustly deriue it from his chaire and wrongfully vsurpe that which by no right belongeth vnto them Now in that which I say Peter neuer did the like let Paul and Iames and Iohn and all the rest of the Apostles yea the whole Primitiue Church be included within the same proposition and it is as fully true as in that one particular and therefore it must necessarily follow that the Romish Iurisdiction hath no footing nor founding in the whole Primitiue Church but is like a Monster borne out of time deformed and mis-shapen in euery part thereof 22. In the third place if we coÌ„sider the outward ceremonies now vsed in the Church of Rome we shall yet more cleerely foe their declining from the Primitiue antiquitie for a taste whereof I instance first in their Latine Seruice which Bellarmine himselfe confesseth was not in vse in the Apostles times and Lyranus goeth a step further and sayth that in the Primitiue Church and long after all things in the Church were performed in the vulgar tongue the same is acknowledged by Aquinas and Caietan writing vpon the same place and Cassander as learned and iudicious a Papist as their side affordeth yea Platina himselfe pointeth out the very time when and person by whom this was first commanded to wit by Vittalianus the first about the yeere sixe hundred threescore ten What need we more to euince the noueltie of this Ceremonie seeing wee haue so many of their owne confessions and no maruell if they confesse it seeing else they should haue contradicted most of the ancient Fathers whose testimonies are so cleere in this point that they admit no exception as the places quoted doe manifestly declare 23. Secondly I instance in their praying vpon beades which came in as Polidore Virgil affirmeth in the yeere of our Lord 1040. being the deuice of one Petrus a French Eremite but the Rosarie was deuised by Fryer Dominick long after that is fiftie Aue Maries fiue Pater nosters for which purpose he framed fiue fiftie stones which were so hanged together on a string that betwixt euery tenne small stones one big one was interposed this he called a Patriloquie Out of which as yet a later inuention sprung the Marie Psalter for three Rosaries that is an hundred and fiftie Aue Maries and 15. Pater nosters make a Psalter because forsooth Dauids Psalmes were so many in number these are confessed nouelties and therefore I neede not to insist any longer in them 24. Thirdly I vrge their festiuall dayes which as they are full of superstition so are they of nouell and late institution as for example the feast of the conception of the Virgin Marie not that whereby shee conceiued Christ but whereby she was conceiued by her Mother and also the feast of her assumption and of her visitation and of her presentation the first whereof their Iesuite Suarez confesseth not to haue beene clearely knowne in the world fiue hundreth yeeres since nor receiued by generall consent till almost three hundreth yeeres after so that by his confession it is not much aboue two hundreth yeeres old and indeed it was publikely inioyned by Sistus quartus Anno 1480. The second their Sixtus Senensis confesseth that it was not found among the Latine Fathers and Baronius that it is not confirmed either by Canonicall Scriptures or by the writings of ancient Fathers and in a constitution of the Council of Mentz where it is named this addition is with all sound in the bookes of Charolus Magnus Touching the assumption of Mary wee leaue it to bee questioned Now this Councill was in the yeere 800. whereby it is euident that all that time it was no publike ordination of the Church The third was instituted by Vrbanus Sextus which though Antoninus affirmeth was neuer receiued nor kept yet it was the inuention of a Pope and that of no
great antiquity And indeed why should it not bee obserued if the Pope cannot erre or if it be not fit to bee obserued how is it true that the Pope erreth not in defining matters of Religion The fourth was ordained by Paulus the second anno 1466. as they themselues will not deny 25. Besides these of the Virgin Mary they haue many other festiuall dayes of the same nature and stampe as the feast of Corpus Christi of the inuention of the Crosse of the dedication of Churches of All soules and a number such like all which are confessed nouelties for in the Apostles times and Primitiue Church during the space of foure hundred yeeres none of these were once heard of The feast of the Crosse was Gregory the fourths inuention anno 828. and Corpus Christi day was first ordained by Pope Vrbane the fourth about the yeere 1264. as confesseth Bellarmine himselfe who of his Apostolicall power gaue spirituall wages and special pardon to all that should personally obserue the houres of this holy solâ—mnity as at Mattens an hundred dayes pardon at Masse asmuch and so at first and second Euen-song at the houres of prime of tierce of sixth of noone of complete fourty dayes apiece and thus in like manner for the whole weeke following 26. The annuall seaâ—ts of dedication of Churches grew from a sinister imitation of Constantine the great who because hee kept a solemne day at the dedication of a certain Church which hee had built therefore it was receiued as a Law for Princes actions are the peoples directions to solemnize euery yeere a holy day vpon the day of the dedication of their Church And all Soules was the deuice of one Saint Odyll who as they write in Cicilia in the I le of Vulcane heard the voyces howlings of Deuils which complained with great griefe that the soules of them that were dead were taken away out of their hands by almes and prayers whereupon this feast was ordained wherein prayer should be made for al Soules And as for this so for the other they deuised strange miracles to win credit vnto them which plainely argueth their nouelty in that they stood in need of miracles to confirme them as for example touching the inuention of the holy Crosse they fable that it was first found in Paradise by Seth the son of Adam to whom Michael the Angell gaue a branch of the forbidden tree which hee planted vpon the graue of his Father Adam which tree beeing after found by Salomon in mount Libanus was translated vnto his house and there beeing worshipped by the Queene of Saba and foretold to bee the tree whereon the Sauiour of the world should bee hanged and by which Ierusalem should bee destroyed was therefore taken downe and buried deepe in the ground by Salomon in which place afterward the Iewes diging a pit for a poole to water their cattell found this tree from which such vertue arose to that poole that the Angels descended to mooue the water so that the first that bathed himselfe therein after the motion was healed of his disease whatsoeuer it was as wee read Iohn 5. Now vpon this tree was Christ crucified which being afterward buried againe in the earth was found out by Queene Helene the mother of Constantine through the discouery of one Iudas a Iew who was conuerted to the Christian faith by the sweet sauour that arose from the Crosse and the quaking of the earth and then that Crosse was discerned from the two other Crosses of the theeues by restoring life to a dead corps whereupon it was laide and the Deuill cryed in the aire that this Iudas had betrayed him as the other had done his Master Christ By these strange miracles they dignisy that holy feast and indeed shew it to bee nothing els but a meere fable and forsooth all this they fetch out of the Gospell of Nichodemus 27. So for the dedication of Churches they tell vs this miracle that when a Church of the Arrians was hal owed by Christian men and the reliks of Saint Fabian Saint Sebastian Saint Agathe brought into it the people being assembled heard suddenly the fearefull gronings gruntings of an hog running vp and downe inuisibly and seeking a passage out of the Church and for three nights together â—umbluâ—g in the roofe with an hideous noise which say they was nothing but the banishing of the Deuill out of that Church by the hallowing and dedicating of it Who would not then obserue deuoutly this feast seeing the benefit is so great that commeth by the thing it selfe whereof it is a memoriall But let vs leaue these tables to their golden or rather leaden Legend of lyes as their owne Canus termeth it and shut vp the point that both these heere named and a number such like festiuall dayes more precisely honoured and obserued in the Romish Church and with greater deuotion t 〈…〉 n Gods holy Sabbath it selfe are new inuentions as sprung vp from superstition so ordained to maintain the same and haue no ground either of true antiquity to countenance them or holy Scripture to vphold them but Iewish fables Apocrypha writings old wiues tales and forged miracles 28. Fourthly I requiâ—e satisfaction for their ceremonies vsed in both the Sacraments as first in the Eucharist their pompous circumgestation of it to bee seene viewed and adored which Cassander acknowledgeth to haue beene Praeter veterem morem mâ—ntem haud longo tempore inductaâ—â— Beside the custome and meaning of antiquity and brought in of late time And Bellarmine also to haue beene first ordained by Vrbanus the fourth their mixture of water with the wine and separation of leauen from the bread came both in from Pope Alexander the seuenth as witnesse both Polidore Virgill and Durantius Yea and Bonauenture doth confesse that this practice of mixing of water cannot bee read of in all the Scriptures nor found in the first institution of the Sacrament Their not breaking the bread out of a loafe but giuing it in small cakes Salmeron the Iesuite acknowledgeth to be contrary to the ancient practice of the Church Their dipping the consecrated hoste in the cup Suarez another Iesuite yeeldeth not to haue beene vsed by our Sauiour Christ and therefore must needs bee an Innouation Their putting the Sacrament not into the hands but into the mouths of the communicants the former Salmeron doth freely confesse to bee an action contrary to the first institution Lastly their various and ridiculous gestures murmuring dopping staring crossing c. with the strange garments vsed by the Priests in the time of their administration Six of Priests in signe of perfection because in sixe dayes God created Heauen and earth nine for Bishops in token that they are spirituall like the nine orders of Angels and fifteene for both in token of the fifteene degrees of Vertues No man can bee so simple but must needs see that they were neuer
vpon the same though they bee now both made dumbe by their expurging Index speake asmuch for in them we fiude this proposition Anciently Priests were permitted to marry 41. For history to omit the Priests and Prophets of the old Testament Peter whose successours they claime to bee carryed a wife about with him in his preaching which was put to death at Antioch for consessing lesus Christ as witnes both Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius which writers do also affirme that Paul had a wise also and left her at Philippos a City of Macedonia that hee might with lesse cumbrance preach the Gospell abroad That Philip the Euange list was marryed Saint Luke testifyeth in the Acts of the Apostles for it is said there that he had foure daughters which were Prophetisses thus was it in the first age of the Church then afterward we read that Hilary a French Bishop was marryed and of Saint Basils Father that hee was a Bishop and in the state of marriage held that function and the like of Synesius the Bishop of Pâ—olomais and Athanasius reports that Bishops and Monks liued marryed and had children and Eusebius that in the Easterne Churches it was counted a yoke too heauy to bee borne to binde Church-men from marriage yea Gratian boldly affirmeth that except they will brand some of the Popes with bastardy and adultery they must confesse that Bishops were and might then bee marryed for Gregory the first was grand-child to Pope Felix the third and Alexander the sixt had two sonnes begotten of his owne body and Boniface Felix Gelasius and Agapetus were all sonnes of Bishops yea their owne Vicelius reckoneth vp a number both of Bishops and Priests that in the Primitiue Church were marryed In briefe though in all ages the Deuill by his instruments laboured to bring disgrace vpon Gods holy ordinance of marriage and by that meanes to make way to adulteries fornications and vnlawfull lusts and some learned and godly fathers were too lauish in commending virginity before marriage yet they were alwayes gainsaide by other some as learned godly as themselues whoÌ„ God stirred vp for the desence of his own ordinance neither was it euer propounded as a Law vntill Pope Siricius time who was the first that forbad and interdicted Priests to marry and afterwards Pope Nicholas the first or as some thinke the second about the yeere 867 did the like against whose proceedings Haldericus the Bishop of Ausbrough wrote that learned and pithy Epistle where of mention is made before and yet it was not vniuersally receiued vntill the time of Pope Calixtus about the yeere 1108. History is so cleare for this matter that it admitteth no iust exception and thus both by their owne confessions and by the light of history this doctrine is conuinced of nouelty 42. Another article of the Popes Creede is concerning Images to wit that God himselfe may bee represented by and worshipped before an Image and that the Images of Christ and the Saints are to be adored with the same worship which is due vnto their pâ—tternes or at least wise that they are to be worshipped in or at the Image This is the generall doctrine of that Idolatrous Church which that it hath no true warrant from antiquity is so cleare that none that is but meanely seene in ancient writers can doubt thereof For first in the Church of the Iewes it was vnlawfull either to make any Image of God beeing an inuisible and incomprehensible essence or to worship the Image of any other thing whatsoeuer this was the prescript of the second Commandement which was no ceremoniall Law As Azorius and Vasques two Iesuites haue not ashamed to auerre but morall and naturall as the grand Iesuite Bellarmine confesseth and may be further confirmed by the sentence of Varro alledged by Saint Augustine in his fourth book de Ciuitate who sayth that the Iewish nation worshipped God without any Image that they had no Image in the Temple ordained for worship Also Iosephus doth write that when Caius the Emperour would haue caused his statue to haue been set vp by Petroniâ—s to be worshipped in the Temple of Ierusalem the Iewes had rather expose themselues to present death then to admit that which was forbidden by the Law 43 Secondly in the age of Iesus Christ and the Apostles there was no precept nor example for the worshipping of Images nei her did they commend vnto the Lay people Images and Pictures as fittest bookes for their capacities but the word preached and committed to writing by which they should bee brought to saluation And when as they abolished the worship of Idols and brought in the worship of the true God wee doe not read that either they translated those Idolatrous statues to the worship of the true God or substituted other Images of God himselfe for of holy men to succeed in their roome but taught that God who is a Spirit ought to bee worshipped in Spirit and truth Now surely if it had beene so necessary as the Church of Rome maketh it our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles would neuer haue concealed it from them 44. Thirdly the age also after the Apostles was free from Images for amongst those Ecclesiasticall rites which are recorded to haue been vsed in the first 300. yeeres after Christ there is not so much as any mention made of Image-worship except it bee amongst those that were condemned for Heretikes as the followers of Simon Magus who worshipped his Image and of his harlot Selene and the Disciples of Basilides whom Irenaeus affirmeth to haue vsed Images and Inuocations and the Carpocratians and Gnosticks who burned incense to the Images of Christ and Paul Homer and Pithagoras c. as testifyeth Saint Augustine but the true Church of God condemned these and abhorred all such kind of worship and therefore amongst the accusations which the Heathen obiected to Christians in that age this was one that they professed a Religion without Images as witnesse both Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen the one whereof liued 200. yeeres after Christ and the other 240. which trueth their Cassander confesseth in direct words that at the first preaching of the Gospell there was no publike vse of Images in the Church 45. Fourthly in the next age of the Church after the three hundreth yeere that Images were not approued wee haue the witnesse of the Councill of Eliberis which decreed that no Image should bee made in the Church lest that should be adored which is painted on walles and of Ierome who affirmed that it was condemned of all ancient Fathers and of Origen who called that worship a foolish and adulterous profanation and of Epiphanius who finding a painted Image in a Church rent it downe and said that it was against the authority of the Scripture that any Image should bee in the Church and of Augustine who condemned the vse of them in Churches as vnlawfull and lastly
some one place he leaueth it in suspense in others and vtterly denyeth it in a third as for example in his Enchiriden he speaketh thus waueringly Such a thing is not incredible to bee after this life but whether it be or no it may be doubted and in a sermon hee seemeth vtterly to deny it when hee sayth There are two places and there is not a third we are ignorant of a third yea we finde in the Scripture that there is none such Againe it is to bee obserued that those Fathers which doe patronize this Purgatory yet propound it not as an article of faith but as a free opinion to bee receiued or contradicted as men thought good or saw reason and these also were none of the most ancient For Bellarmine climmeth no higher for it then to Athanasius Basill and Gregory Nazianzene for as for Dyonisius all knew him to bee a counterfeit but those liued after the age of the Primitiue Church as for those Fathers which liued in those purer times there is not a sillable found in them for the defence thereof Lastly it is not to bee forgotten that their owne Roffensis doth auerre that whoseeuer shall read the Greeke Fathers shall finde none or very rare mention of Purgatory and that all the Latine Fathers did not at the first apprehend it and that it was not a long time vniuersally beleeued in the Church but came in by little and little These things laide together doe demonstratiuely shew that Romish Purgatory was not an article of faith in the Primitiue Church but a late deuice brought in by a vaine feare and false and lying apparitions and maintained euer after by the smell of gaine and profit which â—accreweth thereby to the Popes purse and for the maintenance of his pompe and pride which otherwise would soone fall to the ground 67. Lastly to tye vp for breuities sake many points in one bundle prayer for the dead as it is vsed in the Church of Rome hath no ground of antiquity For though it cannot be denyed but that it hath beene an ancient custome in the Church and frequently vsed by the ancient Farthers yet their manner of praying was not of that nature as it is now in the Romish Synagogue For first the Ancients prayed for those whom they were perswaded to bee already in blisse as hath beene formerly declared but the Romanists say that such prayers are auaileable onely for soules tormented in the fire of Purgatory and that wee may not pray either for the blessed or the damned Secondly many of the Ancients suppose that all soules were reserued in a certaine secret place from the presence of God which they called Abrahams bosome Paradise the port of security the outward court of Heauen c. And therefore could not pray for their deliuerance from Purgatory as the Romanists doe Thirdly when the Ancients did pray for the Saints departed they did it as Bellarmine confesseth not in regard of any misery wherein their soules were but for the glorifying of their bodies in the day of the generall resurrection but the Romish prayers are onely for those that are in paines that they might bee deliuered Lastly the Ancients speake of the matter doubtfully as Saint Augustine with a peraduenture and as of a laudable custome receiued in the Church but not as a doctrine of absolute necessity but the Romanists obtrude it as an article of faith and call them Heretikes that deny the same and therefore though in generall prayer for the dead bee ancient yet Romish prayer is an Innouation declining from antiquity both in the obiect and subiect manner and end 68. So auricular confession is of like nature with the former For we confesse that confession was ancient but Auricular Romish confession is but a late vpstart both in respect of the absolute necessity of it which was brought in by Pope Innocent the third beeing before accounted but onely profitable and not necessary as in the Councill of Cabilon secondly in respect of the priuatenesse for Maldonate a Iesuite confesseth that for a long time in the Primitine Church there was none but publike confession thirdly in respect of the exact enumeration of all finnes with the circumstances which implyeth an impossibility for their owne Rhenanus confesseth that this is a deuterosis or late inuention of the Schoolemen neither indeed can a patterne bee giuen of it in all antiquity And lastly in respect of the merite which by the Church of Rome iâ— ascribed to the very act done thereof of which there is not the least mention in any of the Ancients In a word what need wee seeke further seeing wee haue the free confession of their Glosse vpon Gratian who affirmeth that this auriculaer confession is more truely saide to haue beene ordained by a tradition of the Church then by any authority either of the old or new Testament 69. So the exact number of seuen Sacraments which is an article of the Trentish Creede fortifyed with the greatest curse against all that shall say that there are either more or fewer is indirectly confessed to bee a nouelty by the Iesuite Suarez for hee sayth that the Council of Florence did but insinuate this truth and the Councill of Trent did expressely define it by which it is euident that it was but an insinuation in the Councill of Florence and no article of faith till the Councill of Trent and therefore an Innouation And directly by Cassander who sayth that vntill the dayes of Peter Lumbard wee shall scarce finde any author who set downe a certaine and definite number of Sacraments and to put the matter out of doubt it is confessed that this truth as they call it is not found in the Scripture but founded vpon Ecclesiasticall tradition And although Bellarmine laboureth to prooue out of Scripture them seuen none els to be properly Sacraments yet it is with as euill successe as Tyrabosco the Patriarke of Venice did extract the iust number of seuen from the miracle of fiue loaues and two fishes For first his owne Pew-fellowes disclaime some one some another of them as Durand doth Matrimony to bee properly a Sacrament because it hath not the vertue of conferring grace and Bonauenture extreame vnction to bee instituted by Christ and Aleusis and Holâ—ot did the like touching confirmation and also because his proofes are so friuolous oftentimes that a recitation of them is a sufficient refutation as for example to prooue that there is a promise of sauing grace in the conferring of orders he alledgeth 1. Tim. 4. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. 6. where Timothy is charged and admonished not to neglect but to stir vp the grace that was in him which was giuen to him by prophecy with the imposition of hands of the Eldership Here indeed is grace giuen to Timothy at his ordination but first it could not bee sauing grace because hee was before that conuerted and beleeued
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
to will without our selues but when we are willing then he worketh together with vs. 10. But yet this is not all the danger which ariseth from this doctrine though euen this is of sufficient feare to terrisie any godly man from imbracing it but there is more perill in it then so the maine danger of it is this if it bee not pure Pelagianisme as it may well bee thought yet it marcheth on the verie edge of the banke so that if the foot doe but slip it is presently in the gulfe of that heresie for what did Pelagius hold which the Church of Rome in this doctrine of freewill doth not eyther directly maintaine or approch nere vnto he extolled mans nature as that a man without the name of Christ might bee saued by freewill so doe they for Andradius telleth vs from the Councel of Trent that Heathen Philosophers hauing no knowledge of Christ were iustified onely by the law of nature Hee taught that it was in mans free-will to giue entertainment or repulse to Gods grace so doe they Hee affirmed that a man might prepare himselfe to grace by his owne naturals without any speciall worke of the spirit so do they Hee to cloake all with some colourable pretence confessed that notwithstanding all this there was a necessitie of grace required to all good actions For thus he sayd as witnesseth Saint Augustine We so prayse nature that we alwayes adde the helpe of the grace of God so doe they albeit they striue for the freedome of mans will yet they dare not but speake of grace and grant vnto it some office in a mans conuersion and therefore labour to reconcile natures will and Gods grace together Which neuerthelesse in fine they are neuer able to do but are driuen to confesse that it passeth the capacitie and apprehension of mans wit and vnderstanding Howbeit both Pelagius and they vnderstand by this grace nothing but a thing that is common both to the wicked and the godly This to bee the grace which Pelagius required Saint Augustine testifieth and no other to be that which our Romanists speake of witnesse Bellarmine who affirmeth that the first grace of a sinners conuersion is but onely a perswading which doth not determine the will but inclineth it in manner of a propounding obiect And Coster that calleth it not grace dwelling in the soule but only an outward impulsion or motion knocking at the doore of the soule and not opening the dore it selfe as the Scripture sayth that God opened the heart of Lydia but perswading freewill to open and so standing at the Porters reuersion and like a poore man wayting his leasure much like vnto the attending of Henrie the Emperour at the citie gate three colde winters dayes barefoote and barelegged till it pleased the Pope to let him in Thus humble grace must attend till pride will be pleased to open the dore vnto it I will not say that in all this Papisme and Polagianisme are all one but that they may see how loth we are to wrong them in the least circumstāce this is too too apparent that they incline by this doctrine verie nigh to the borders of it and almost touch the skirts Who then will not thinke it a dangerous doctrine And what madde man will voluntarily come to a person infected with the pestilence when hee may well passe by him in further distance or walke in the verie brinke of a sleepe banke where if hee doe but tread awry he falleth into the Sea whereas hee may walke safely further off without any feare or danger our doctrine therefore touching freewill ascribing all vnto God and nothing vnto man and submitting the will of man to the grace of God hath no affinitie but opposition and contrarietie to Pelagius heresie is therefore the safer and of euerie wiseman to be imbraced rather then theirs which leadeth vs apparently into all these dangers 11. Their doctrine of satisfactions is also a most perplexed and dangerous doctrine and giueth no securitie to the conscience of a penitent sinner For first what safetie is there in a mans owne satisfactorie workes when as all the actions and passions of a Christian bee hee as absolute and perfect a man as possibly may be by reason of the manifold defects and imperfections which cleaue vnto his best workes are far short of that which they should be and vtterly vnproportionably to Gods iustice and this they themselues denie not for the Rhemists grant that euery man bee hee neuer so iust yet because he liueth not without veniall sinnes may truly and ought to say this Prayer Forgiue vs our trespasses But veniall sinnes are sinnes and stand in need of pardon and Gods iustice requireth such a satisfaction as is in euerie respect perfect therefore our owne workes being tainted and stained with such sinnes cannot stand in proportion with it Is it not a dangerous thing then to trust to our owne satisfactions which by their owne confession are subiect to veniall sinnes and is it not more safe to rely vpon his satisfactiō only which is free from all staine of the least sinne and able to answere the strist iustice of God in euery respect 12. Secondly the satisfaction which Christ hath made not onely admitteth no exception but is of infinite merit and valew to answere the infinite iustice of God but the satisfactions of a mortall man admit many exceptions and are if they were perfect of a finite and limitable nature and therefore cannot bee proportioned to the infinite iustice of God whether is it more safe then to trust to an infinite satisfaction that is without all exception or to a finite which may many wayes be iustly excepted against I know their cuasion is that indeed it doth require an infinite vertue to satisfie for the euerlasting punishment of sinne but the temporall punishment being limited may bee satisfied for by a temporall satisfaction a mere collusion for first if a temporall paine or finite action can merit and purchase an euerlasting reward as they teach why should not the same redeeme from an euerlasting punishment their confession in the one condemneth their assertion in the other and because they deny that our merits of satisfaction can rel ease from hell they must also of necessitie deny or at least blush to auouch that our merits of purchase are of sufficient valew to deserue heauen hell and heauen being as of equall distance from man so of equal merit or demerit to man Secondly satisfaction is not to be respected to the quantitie of the temporall punishment inflicted but to the iustice of him that inflicteth it and so though the temporal punishment be equalled by the penance of a sinner yet the iustice of God which is infinite is not satisfied nor equalled and therefore the greatest penance cannot be termed a satisfaction to God but Christs satisfaction being infinite equalleth the iustice of God Who would not then rather choose
Popish superstition doe say that it is an ordinarie matter A wonderful superstitiō that is nourished by Images so apparent that it cannot be denied Now if this were a scandall taken and not giuen they might in some sort bee excused but it is eūidently not onely occasioned but caused by reason that both the doctrine is inuolued with so many intricate questions and distinctions that it is impossible for an ignorant person to discerne thereof and also because the Image it selfe as the Prophet Habacuck telleth vs is a teacher of lyes For which cause as Polidore Virgil reporteth the Fathers of all vices condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatrie the most execrable vice of all The second offence is to the vnconuerted Iewes who are most zealous in this point of the Law against Images insomuch as Iosephus reports of them they did hate the verie Images of men in their Heathenish Trophees as being forbidden them by God Now it is well concluded by a iudicious obseruer of the Westerne Religions and without doubt is a most true obseruation that there is no one thing in outward respects that doth ingender in the Iewes such a detestation of Christian Religion and keepe them from being conuerted as the worship of Images in the Church of Rome for they and that by good reason may thus dispute If this Religion of Christians were of God then they would not oppose themselues to the expresse Commaundement of God in worshipping Images which he hath so plainly forbidden but they oppose themselues to Gods Commandement and worship Images therefore their Religion cannot bee of God Hence it is as the former learned Relator doth report that at Rome though all the Iewes in the Citie are constrained once a yeere to come to a Christian Church and there heare a Sermon for their pretended conuersion yet when as a Fryer before the beginning of his Sermon holdeth vp a Crucifix and prayeth vnto it in their open sight they are more alienated from the Christian faith by this odious spectacle then all the reasons and arguments that he can vse are able to perswade them to the same Behold two dangerous and fearefull scandals which arise from this doctrine one to their owne weake ones of which our Sauiour saith that it were better for a man that a milstone were hanged about his necke and that hee were throwne into the Sea then that hee should offend one of them the other to the obstinate Iewes whose conuersion shall be so beneficiall to the whole world as that Saint Paul calleth it life from the dead Now our Religion is farre from giuing any such offence to one or other either in this or any other point thereof if it bee not vtterly misconstrued and misconceiued 24. Againe in their worship of Relickes there is no securitie at all both in feare of Idolatrie which may bee well committed to them if they bee true in giuing them a higher measure of adoration then they themselues allow of which is easio to bee done by the ignorant multitude and also in feare of worshipping false relickes in stead of true whereof there is no small number in the Church of Rome as hath bin alreadie declared and lasty in feare of neglecting the true members of Christ by a too sumptuous prodigalitie towards the bones of I cannot tel what dead men or other creatures as is most vsuall in their Church and that in great excesse in which respects it is without question a more safe course that all such Relickes were buried vnder the earth with due honour of Christian sepulture then that they should thus indanger both godly pietie Christian charitie And this is the conclusion of their Cassander who sayth that it is more safe rather honourably to burie those corruptible relickes and to draw the World to the worship of their spirituall relickes which neither time can corrupt nor fraud counterfeit 25. Againe they hold and teach that traditions are to bee honoured with equall affection and deuotion as is due vnto the olde and new Testament and that there are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christianitie which are neyther expressely nor obscurely contained in the Scriptures And therefore by their owne confession they build many doctrines of their Religion vpon tradition onely without Scripture and acknowledge that without tradition many of them would reele and totter The Protestants hold the contrarie and constantly affirme that the Scripture is an all-sufficient directorie and a most absolute and perfect rule for faith and manners and therefore that wee ought not to relye our faith vpon any thing but Scripture alone Now let vs consider and examine whether of these two doctrines are more safe for a man to repose his soule vpon And that our doctrine is so may appeare first by the nature of the question it selfe which is controuerted betwixt them and vs for the question is not whether the Scripture bee the Word of God or no therein wee shake hands as an vndoubted truth but whether traditions bee the Word of God or no the affirmatiue they hold wee the negatiue and that by great and strong grounds which our aduersaries themselues cannot deny but that they carrie great shew of reason and probabilitie Now whether is the safer course to relye our faith vpon those principles that are vnquestionably Gods Word or vpon those that are controuerted disputed and called in question Any man that goeth about to buy a purchase will sooner venture vpon such a title which was neuer called in question nor can indeed bee doubted of then vpon a broken disputable and vndecided title he will looke twice vpon his pennie before he part with it in such a case lest caueat emptor proue him to bee of little discretion and teach him to repent when it is too late This is the case of euerie Christian wee are to buy the truth and not to sell it as Salomon counselleth Now who will not that hath any graine of wisedome in his heart rather lay out his monie that is his soule and conscience which as Augustine calleth it is numisma Dei Godscoyne because his Image is imprinted therein for the purchase of that truth which is without all exception in the holy Scriptures then for that which is said to be in traditions but mixed with many doubts and ambiguities It is a rule in Law that abundans cautela non nocet a man cannot be too warie in making sure his title to any thing whatsoeuer How much more then should it preuaile in cases of conscience where the damage is not of house and land but of our soules which to euery man ought to be more precious then the whole world Here is an euident direction for our choice if we eyther loue the truth or our own soules which must liue by it 26. Secondly it may appeare by the perpetuall certaintie of the holy Scripture and variable
Protestants condemne the worship of Images taught and practised in the Church of Rome but they are not alone therein but haue many Romanists for their abetters and companions Cassander concludeth out of Saint Augustine that there were no Images in all the Churches of his Diocesse And Polydore Virgil writeth that by the testimonie of Ierome it appeareth how in a manner all the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatrie thus speaketh he in his vncorrupted editions but in his later editions his tongue is tyed by the Belgicke Index others as Holcot Durand Alphonsus flatly affirme that no worship at all is due to an Image neither is it lawfull to worship it diuers Councels also decreed the same as the ancient Councell of Eliberis propounded this onely remedie against Idolatrie that no Images should bee painted in Churches but this Councell was not Romish for Poperie was then scarce in the Embrio therefore of later time a mere Romish Councell to wit that of Franckford consisting of many Romish Bishops and the Popes owne Legates condemned all worship of Images and a later yet to wit the Councell of Mentz held in the yeere 1549. decreed that the Image it selfe was not to bee worshipped but that by the Image of Christ men should bee stirred vp to adore Christ which is contrarie to the new professed doctrine of the Church of Rome 54. Many Romanists as well as Protestants reiect the intercession and inuocation of Saints as an Article not found eyther in the olde or new Testament In the olde Testament sayth Salmeron The Patriarchs vsed not to be inuocated both because they were not in perfect estate of blessednesse and also because there had beene then a danger of Idolatrie to offer that honour vnto them And for the new Testament the same Iesuite confesseth that this article is not expressed because the Iewes would haue thought it an hard matter to inuocate Saints departed and the Gentiles would haue taken occasion to haue thought that the worship of new Gods had beene prescribed vnto them Of the same opinion was Ecchius who peremptorily affirmeth that the inuocation of Saints departed is not commanded in the holy Scripture And Faber Stapulensis thus writeth I would to God that the forme of beleeuing might bee fetcht from the Primitiue Church which consecrated so many Martyrs to Christ and had no scope but Christ nor imployed any worship to any saue to the one Trinity alone 55. That a Christian may bee certaine of his owne standing in present grace and of his future saluation is the doctrine of Protestants denyed by the Church of Rome and yet approued by many of her deare children as for example Euery one that beleeueth seeth that he doth beleeue sayth Dominicus Bannes A Christian man by the infallible certaintie of faith which cannot bee deceiued certainly knoweth himselfe to haue a supernaturall faith sayth Medina Some spirituall men may be so certaine that they are in grace that this their assurance shall be free from all feare and staggering sayth Vega reported by Gregory de Valentia And touching assurance of eternall life the same Medina sayth that hee would haue euery beleeuer certainly to hope that he shall obtaine eternall life And of the same opinion are al the rest of them saue that they will haue this certainty to be of hope and not of faith and so the difference is in words and not in the thing for they make it to be without doubting or wauering firme and assured aswell as we 56. That concupiscence is a finne in the regenerate is affirmed by Protestants contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Church of Rome yet many Romanists themselues shake hands with the Protestants in this point as Ribera a Iesuite who writing vpon the twelfth of the Hebrewes sayth that by sinne hanging fast vpon is meant the concupiscence of the flesh against the holy Spirit which the Apostle vseth often to call by the name of sinne and Tanner another Iesuite acknowledgeing that concupiscence in the regenerate is called sinne by the Scripture sayth that it is a great wickednesse to traduce as blasphemous the manner of speech true in it selfe and imitating the Scriptures yea and Stapleton calleth it a certaine iniquitie and obliquity not onely against the dominion of the mind but also against the Law of God Now Bellarmine telleth vs that whatsoeuer is contrarie to the Law of God is mortall sinne Cassander playeth the Protestant in direct termes in this point for he sayth that if we respect sinne as an iniquitie or disease which must be resisted by the spirit lest it burst forth into vnlawfull acts concupiscence is not vnfitly called sinne but if we respect it as an offence to God and guiltinesse to which punishment and damnation is answering it is not thus sinne in the regenerate 57. Touching marriage of Priests which the Church of Rome condemneth as execrable filthie and abominable we allow as holy and lawfull we haue their owne Doctours on our side and against their owne mother Gratian sayth that marriage of Priests is not prohibited eyther by legall or Euangelicall or yet Apostolicall authoritie but by Ecclesiasticall onely Espenseus sayth that for many hundred yeeres after the Apostles time by reason of the want of others Priests were married Caietane affirmeth that if wee stand onely to the tradition of Christ and his Apostles it cannot appeare by any authoritie or reason that holy order can be any hinderance to marriage eyther as it is an order or as it is holy Pius the second one of their owne Popes affirmeth that it is better for a Priest to marry then to burne though hee haue vowed the contrary and that there be many reasons to forbid Priests marriage but more to allow it Panormitane Cassander Erasmus doe all agree that in regard of the monstrous and filthy effects that follow a vowed single life it were better both for Gods glory and the auoyding of scandall in the Church that libertie of marrying were granted to all men And Espenseus and Agrippa doe grieue and blush to behold rather Concubines and Stewes to bee permitted to their Clergy then lawfull wiues 58. The Popes Primacie or rather Supremacie in all affaires and ouer all persons challenging the iurisdiction of both swords and authoritie of supreme Iudicatures in cases of controuersie and interpretation of Scripture with an infallibilitie of Iudgement is the verie foundation of Poperie yet the same is razed not onely by Protestants but by many of their owne ranke that are both by name and profession Papists Concerning his temporall Iurisdiction so stiffely maintained by Bellarmine and the Iesuits our Wisbich Priests affirme that this power was neuer giuen vnto Peter Espensâ—us condemneth it in direct tearmes Tolosanus confesseth that for two hundred yeeres after Christ it was neuer read that Christians attempted any thing