vncertaintie of vnwritten traditions for the Scripture was euer the same since it was Scripture and so shall continue to the end of the World no man daring to alter or change it to adde thereto or detract ought therfrom for feare of the curse denounced against such presumption But Traditions are and haue beene euer most variable and vnconstant some that haue beene held for Apostolical traditions being vtterly abrogated and abolished as threefold immersion or thrice dipping in baptisme for signification of the Trinitie giuing the Eucharist to infants which was vsed 600. yeeres in the Church standing in publike Prayers at Easter and Pentecost and such like and some altered and changed as deferring Baptisme vntill the feasts of Easter and Pentecost into baptizing vpon any occasion fasting vpon Wednesdayes and Saturdayes into Wednesdayes and Fridayes and so many ancient constitutions dispensed withall by the pretended Apostolicall authoritie of the Church of Rome as is confessed by them And that this is an vncontroulable truth that one famous example of the contention betwixt the East and West Churches touching the obseruation of Easter doth euince for the one side pretended a tradition from Saint Iohn and Saint Philip the other from Saint Peter and Saint Paul Now if some traditions bee thus vncertaine subiect to change abrogating dispensing and abolishing all must needs bee of the same nature and if all bee of that nature then there can be no securitie in conscience to suspend our faith vpon them the safest way therefore is to relye vpon Scripture alone the fulnesse whereof Tertullian adored and of the authoritie whereof whatsoeuer was destitute Ierome iudged to bee nothing but vaine babbling and besides the which whosoeuer teacheth any doctrine of faith Saint Augustine pronounceth anathema against him 27. Thirdly and lastly by the infallible truth which shineth in the Scriptures as the Sunne in the firmament wherein no errour euer was found no spots or blemishes as in the Moone of traditions no deceit nor misleading vnlesse in sence peruerted as by Heretikes to their owne destruction but many traditions haue beene as erronious and deceitfull in themselues so the causes of much errour in the Church witnesse Papius who as Eusebius testifieth broched many exorbitant doctrines vnder pretence of tradition from the Apostles and drew manie Ecclesiasticall Doctours moued by his antiquitie for he was Disciple to Iohn into the errour of the Chiliasts and all the ancient Heretikes almost who flying from the Scriptures did shelter themselues vnder the pretext eyther of philosophicall principles fained gospels or forged traditions and hereof many ancient traditions themselues giue pregnant euidence as those alleadged by Clemens Alexandrinus to wit Iustification by philosophie Repentance after death Preaching the Gospell to the wicked in hell which the Romanists themselues condemne or that of Cyprian touching anointing to bee vsed in Baptisme and mixing wine with water which Saint Augustine relected as erronious or that of Iraeneus who saith that it was a tradition that Christ suffered at fiftie yeeres of age which is disallowed by all sound authoritie and conuinced of errour by the Scripture it selfe Of this kind a number more might bee produced if need required but these are enough to inferre the conclusion that traditions are not of that infallible truth as the holy Scripture is but rather subiect to errour and falshood and therefore it can bee no part of Christian wisedome to repose our faith vpon them for it is to build vpon a sandie foundation which will deceiue the building in time of need 28. Auricular confession hath as little securitie in the practice of it as any of the former doctrines for first it implieth inpossibilitie of performance by requiring a perfect enumeration of all particular sinnes both secret and open and that vpon danger of damnation the absolution being frustrate if this condition bee not obserued Now because no man is able to performe this therefore no mans conscience can be assured of the remission of his sinnes by that sacramentall medicine whereas on the contrarie hee that confesseth his knowne sinnes to God and forsaketh them with a generall detestation of all other vnknowne though many escape his remembrance yet by Gods promise is sure to find mercie which is the doctrine of the Protestants This is possible and easie to be done The other impossible and improbable and that many learned of their side haue ingeniously confessed as Cassander Rhenanus with diuers others And albeit the Fathers of the Trent Councell in shew seemed to qualifie the matter with this limitation that other sinnes which do not come into the mind of the partie confessing diligently thinking vpon them are vnderstood as generally included in his confession yet the Iesuite Suarez confesseth that the Priest cannot remit any one sinne except the penitent confesse all that hee ought to confesse and Maldonate another Iesuite that because the Priest can remit no sinnes but such as he heareth confessed therefore hee that must remit all must heare all And it is plaine that whatsoeuer the Councell spake yet it meant no otherwise by the reason which they giue for necessitie of confession which is that the penitent may bee iudged whether he hath sinned or no and if hee haue in what kind and degree to the end that proportionable penance may be ioyned to his offence and therefore it is required that not onely the act of sinne but all the circumstances bee discouered Who what to what end how by what helpes where when which are the seuen circūstances attending vpon euery actiō Now how can the Priest iudge of the nature qualitie quantitie of the sin except he know it with all the circumstances if he know it not how can he enioyne a competent satisfaction And if no satisfaction be enioyned then no remission eyther of the sinne or at least releasement from the temporall punishment thereof can bee obtained What a snare are mens consciences brought into by this intricate doctrine How much freer and securer a course is it to confesse necessarily to God alone voluntarily to the Pastor in cases of distresse of conscience and want of instruction and penally to the Church in publike for satisfaction not of God but of men for some publike offence committed This is the doctrine of Protestants which as it is free from impossibilitie so it is full of safetie 29. Secondly their doctrine leaueth the conscience in doubt whether the sinne bee truly pardoned or no by the absolution of the Priest for the Priest being a man is vnable to search into the heart of a sinner and so consequently may erre in the vse of the key for if the Confessor bee an Hypocrite though he make a true relation of all his sinnes with all their circumstances and be therefore absolued by the Priest yet it is certaine that such an one is not absolued in Heauen but stands lyable to Gods
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
owne accord forsooke the kingdome not being inforced by any superiour command and two to wit Watson of Lincolne and Boner of London were committed to prison but so that in their prisons they wanted nothing that either might serue for necessity or pleasure liberty onely excepted then after about the middle of her raigne Hart and Bosgraue and Rishton and Norton foure Iesuites being in the hands of the State and deseruing by the lawes to be punished yet by denying that one vnconcluded article of the Popes omnipotent Supremacy in temporall matters obtained of her Maiesty not onely life and freedome from punishment but liberty and free power to dispose of themselues in any forreine countrey at their pleasures and at the latter end of her mercifull reigne the Castles of Wishbish and Fremingham wherein diuers of their chiefest ring-leaders were in custody do beare witnesse how mildely they were dealt withall their life hauing been there more easie and pleasant and their maintenance more plentifull then most of the Students and Ministers among vs in their best prosperity 55. Neither hath our vertuous King since his rightfull possessing of the imperiall crowne of these vnited kingdomes been any whit more sharp and seuere but rather more gentle and remisse vntil their hellish Powder-plot wrung from him and the State some small addition to these former lawes yet farre remote from all bloudy or cruell purpose against them For to omit his Maiesties exceeding clemency extended to them all in the beginning of his raigne pardoning some aduancing others to dignities offices in the common-wealth releasing the fines and mulcts to all and giuing by his Proclamation free liberty to all Iesuites and Seminary Priests to be free from the penalty of the Lawes so that they departed the kingdome within a certaine prescribed time euen at this day and euer since his Maiesties royall regiment those Priests that haue been apprehended and might iustly be put to death by tenour of the lawes yet haue and might be pardoned if they would but renounce the Popes temporall soueraignetie and receiue the oath of alleageance as the example of Blackwell their Arch-priest and of diuers besides doth testifie 56. Thus gently are they handled with vs and yet they complaine whereas when they were armed with authority all the Bishops and Ministers that refused to conforme themselues to their religion presently either were apprehended imprisoned burned and most cruelly and tyrannically vsed or constrained to forsake the kingdome and seeke reliefe and succour in forreine countries there was no remedy nor releasement but either deny their faith or dye choose they which 57. And for their dealing at this day where the Inquisition preuaileth is any one suffred to liue among them that is but once suspected to be of our religion is not euery such a one either murdered in secret or brought to the stake in publick the miserable butchery that is made of poore Protestants by these tigres is lamentable to speake and almost incredible to be beleeued and were it death onely it might be accounted a fauour but to be stripped not onely of all a mans goods but also of his apparell and a poore Beadles threed-bare gowne to be put on his back and to be releeued by almes as famous Cranmer the Archbishop of Canterbury was to be almost starued with cold and eaten with lice as deuout Latimer was to be kept in a close stinking filthy prison hauing for his bed a little pad of straw with a rotten couering as worthie Hooper was to be whipt and scourged and stockt and pend vp in Little ease as diuers were by bloudy Bonner these cruelties were more cruell then death and yet these were the mercies of those mercilesse tyrants yea they not onely raged against the liuing but the dead also for they caused the bones of Bucer and Fagius to be raked out of their graues and to be burned for Heretikes a practise many times vsed by Popes and Romish Prelates which notwithstanding the very Heathen abhorred nay that which is both strange and ridiculous one Iames Treuisam a Protestant dying in the Parish of Saint Margaret in Lothbery and being buried in Moore-field the same night his body was taken out of the graue and his sheet taken from him and left naked and beeing againe buried a fortnight after the Summoner came to his graue summoned him to appeare at Paules before his ordinary to answere such things as should bee laide to his charge heere is malice mixed with folly and cruelty in the highest straine 58. Now if it be a kinde of mercy to dispatch one quickly that must dye what mercy is this in these men that inflict so many deaths vpon poore Protestants euen whilst they liue and if as Plutarch sayth Nemo nisi malus loculos mortuorum violabit none but hee that is wicked will wrong the sepulchres of the dead what wicked wretches are these and cruell beasts that spare not the dead bones not feare to offer violence to our graues and yet for all this they are not ashamed to accuse vs of persecuting them and to call our handling of them by the name of a most cruell and terrible persecution as Paulus Quintus doth in his first briefe to his false-named Catholikes in the yeere 1606. yea they haue not blushed to write and to publish in print and so set foorth in Pictures that many of them haue beene here in England wrapped in Beares skinnes and baited with dogges some tyed to horse maungers and fed with hay others to haue their bowels gnawed out with dormice included in bosons with a number of such like horrible and fearfull kinds of torments which the Sunne neuer yet beheld in this kingdome nor euer shall behold I trust 59. Now then out of all these obseruations drawen from the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme and from the comparing of their dealing towards vs with ours towards them this conclusion doth necessarily arise that theirs is the bloudy and persecuting malignant Church and not ours and that by their malicious imputing to vs that great crime they prooue themselues to bee open and notorious slanderers and so to persecute vs not onely with the sword but also with their vemous tongues which according to the Prophet Dauids speech are sharper then razours and more virulent then the the sting of the Aspe or poyson of the Cocatrice I pray God amend them and lay not this sinne to their charge 60. The third obiect of their slauudering tongues is our Religion it selfe with the doctrines therein contained where their practice is either to deriue sophisticall conclusions from such points of doctrine which we indeed held or to say to our charges such doctrines as we neuer intended and these false forged conclusions they make show to extract out of our owne bookes but it is either by mistaking the meaning of the Author or by wilfull peruerting his wordes and sense or at least by culling some incoherent
a sinner in the acting of his sin by his powerfull prouidence and not onely foreseeth but decreeth disposeth and determineth in his wisedome all the sinnes of men according to his will and by his secret working blindeth their minds and hardneth their hearts that they cannot repent This we confesse is our doctrine if it be rightly vnderstood for we teach that God doth not barely permit sinne to be done but decreeth before to permit it and in the act worketh by it and ordereth and disposeth it to his owne ends yet so that he neither approueth of it nor is in any respect the cause of the malignity thereof and herein we consent both with the ancient Fathers and with most of their owne Doctors 69. Touching the Fathers Saint Augustine shall be the mouâ—h of all the rest thus writeth he Sinne could not be done if God doth not suffer it and he doth not suffer it against but with his will and being good as he is he would neuer suffer any thing to be ill done but that being also Almightie he can do well of that which is euill And in the next Chapter God doth fulfill the good purposes of his owne by the euill purposes of euill men And in another place God doth worke in the hardening of the wicked not onely by his permission and patience but also by his power and action through his mightie prouidence but yet most wise and iust And in another place Who may not tremble at these iudgements where God doth worke in the hearts of wicked men whatsoeuer he will rendring to them notwithstanding according to their deserts And againe in another place As God is a most holy Creator of good natures so hee is a most righteous disposer of euill wills that whereas those euill wills doe ill vse good natures he on the other side may well vse the euill wills themselues Thus Augustine is our Patrone in this Doctrine and if we be Heretikes he is one too 70. But let vs heare their owne Doctours speake When God doth good and permitteth euill sayth Hugo his will appeareth seeing he willeth that which should be both which he doth and which he permitteth both his operation and his permission are his will God worketh many things sayth Pererius within him that is hardened by which he is made worse through his owne fault he stirreth vp diuers motions either of hope or feare lust or anger and sendeth in diuers doubtfull and perplexed imaginations by which he is pusht forth vnto euill A sinner saith Medina when he sinneth doth against the will and law of God in one case and in another not he doth indeed against his signified will but against the will of his good pleasure he doth not nor against his effectuall ordination No sinne falleth out besides the will and intention of God say Mayer Durand Aquinas and other God sayth Canus is the naturall cause of all motions yea euen in euill men but not the morall cause for he neither counselleth nor commandeth euill Lastly to conclude with two famous Iesuits Vega and Suarez the first sayth that though God doth not command counsell approue or reward sinne yet he doth will and worke it together with vs and the second that God worketh the act of sinne but not the malice thereof This is the very doctrine of Caluine and Martir and all Protestants so that if wee be guilty of this blasphemous consequence to make God the author of sinne they also must needs be in the same case but Saint Augustines distinction will cleere vs both When God deliuered his Sonne and Iudas his Master to be crucified why is God iust and man guilty sayth he but because though the thing was the same which they did yet the cause was not the same for which they did it or if this distinction will not suffice their owne Iesuites will helpe vs out In sinne there are two things to be considered sayth Vasques the act and defect the act is to be referred to God but not the defect in any case which ariseth from the corrupt will of man or the act and the malignity thereof as sayth another Iesuite or the materiall part of sinne which is called by the Schoolemen subiectum substratum the vnder-laide subiect and the formall which is the prauity and anomy of the action the one of these from God the other from man or lastly if none of these will serue the turne yet our owne distinction will acquire vs to wit that Almighty God doth so will decree mans sin not as it is sin but as it is his owne iust iudgement vpon sinners for their punishment and the demonstration of his iustice And thus our doctrine is free from the conception of this vile Monster their calumniation is as vnrighteous against vs as the dealing of God about the sins of men is most righteous and iust And thus those some what too harsh sayings I contesse of Luther Swinglius and Melancthon are to bee vnderstood and no otherwise that the treason of Iudas came from God aswell as the conuersion of Paul charity will construe the wordes according to the speakers intendement and not stretch their intendement to the strict tenter of euery word and syllable 71. Fourthly they accuse vs of blasphemy against the Sonne of God for denying as they say that hee is Deus ex Deo God of God against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed and this they call the Atheisme of Caluine and Beza a palpable slander for neither Caluine nor Beza did euer imagine much lesse vtter the same in that sense which they lay to their charges for let Bellarmine their sworne aduersarie speake for them Caluine and Beza teach sayth he that the Sonne is of himselfe in respect of his essence but not in respect of his person and they seeme to say that the essence of the Deity in Christ is not begotten but is of it selfe which opinion sayth he I see not why it may not be called Catholike Heere Bellarmine telleth vs truely what their opinion was and doth acknowledge it to be a true Catholike doctrine and yet in the same Chapter hee contemneth Caluine for his manner of speaking of it and of intolerable saucinesse for finding fault with the harshnes of the phrase vsed by the Nicene Councill God of God Light of light Marke I pray you his absurdity it is Catholike and yet it may not bee spoken it is true and yet it is to be blamed May not a Catholike doctrine bee spoken then or must the truth bee smothered This is such an inconsequence as neither reason nor Religion can any wayes beare withall and for his saucy dealing with the Nicene Councill all that euer he sayth is that it is durum dictum a hard phrase yet so that hee confesseth it may receiue a good and commodious interpretation if it be vnderstood in the concrete that Christ who is God is of the
foreheads 2. That the Religion of the Church of Rome is not so safe as ours may appeare by comparing our principall doctrines together and first to begin with the Sacrament That the bodie of Christ is truely really and effectually present in the Eucharist both they and we hold grounding vpon that text of Scripture this is my bodie but concerning the maner of this presence the Romanists hold that it is by transub stantiation we by a spirituall presence which notwithstanding is true and reall both in relation to the outward signes and to the faith of the Receiuer Now see the dangers that arise from their doctrine which are not incident to ours 2. First if there be not a corporall presence of Christ and a reall Transubstantiation as they suppose then this doctrine leadeth to horrible and grosse Idolatrie for they must needs worship a piece of bread in stead of Christ And this not onely if their doctrine bee false but being supposed to bee true in case hee that consecrateth be not truly a Priest or haue not an intention to consecrate as oftentimes it falleth out for in both these cases by the grounds of their owne Religion there is no change of substances and therefore as much danger of Idolatrie as eyther of a false Priest or of a true Priests false intention But in our doctrine there is no such danger and yet as true reall and powerfull an existence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament as with them if not more seeing the more spirituall a thing is the more powerfull it is according to the rules of reason for wee are not in danger to worship a creature in stead of the Creatour but wee worship the Creatour himselfe euen Iesus Christ our Redeemer who is there present after a spirituall manner and that as reuerently deuoutly and sincerely as they doe a piece of bread 3. Secondly by this doctrine our aduersaries incline to fauour the Capernaites who had a conceit of a corporall and fleshly eating of Christs bodie and giue iust cause to the Pagans to slander Christian Religion to bee a bloudy and cruell Religion Whereupon the Fathers to crosse the one and stop the mouth of the other taught that Christs speech in the sixt of Iohn was to be vnderstood spiritually and not carnally and that it was a figure and not a proper speech But our doctrine doth giue no such occasion eyther to the Heretikes on the one side or to the Pagans on the other neyther hath it any consanguinitie with the Capernaites and yet wee retaine as certaine and powerfull a participation of our Sauiours bodie and bloud as they doe I know they thinke to escape from this rocke by a distinction of visible and inuisible eating as if the Capernaites dreamed that Christ would haue his bodie to bee eaten visibly but they inuisibly that is say they spiritually which indeed is no cuasion for an inuisible eating is a true eating As when a blind man eateth or a seeing man in the darke and cannot therefore be called a spirituall eating but a corporall neyther doth this free them from approching neere to the Capernaites though they somewhat differ from them nor from giuing iust cause of offence to the Heathen from both which our doctrine giueth full and perfect securitie 4. Thirdly and lastly their doctrine of transubstantiation doth not onely countenance but confirme the ancient heresies of the Marcionites Valentinians and Eutychians that impugned the truth of Christs humane nature for they taught that he had not a true but a phantasticall bodie and what do our aduersaries but approue the same indeede though they seeme to detest it in word when they teach that his bodie is present in the Sacrament not by circumscription nor determination but by a spirituall and diuine presence quomodo Deus est in loco as God is in a place which is asmuch as to say that his bodie is not a true bodie but a spirituall bodie that is indeed a phantasticall bodie Againe the bread which they say is the bodie is not bread in truth but in shew after it is consecrated for there is nothing of bread but the mere accidents without a substance according to their doctrine and so it is in all reasonable construction no better then a phantasticall thing seeming to the outward sense to bee that which in truth it is not Why may not those Heretikes then reason from these doctrines thus If Christs bodie be a spirituall bodie in the Eucharist and the bread be phantasticall bread then why might not his bodie be so also when he was on the earth But the former is true by your doctrine O ye Romanists therefore why may not the latter which is our doctrine be also true But none of these Heretikes can haue any such aduantage from our doctrine which teacheth that Christ in respect of his humane nature is resident in the heauens circumscribed by place and that hee is present in the Sacrament by the efficacie of his inuisible and powerful grace after a spirituall manner as Saint Augustine speaketh and that both the bread remaineth bread after consecration and the bodie of Christ remaineth still a naturall bodie after the resurrection retaining still the former circumscription as Theodoret auoucheth this taketh away all aduantage from Heretikes which their doctrine doth manifestly giue vnto them For these causes Petrus de Alliaco the Cardinall doth confesse that from our doctrine no inconuenience doth seeme to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches determination And Occham that it is subiect to lesse incommodities and lesse repugnant to holy Scripture Thus wee see that in this first doctrine touching the Eucharist there is more securitie and lesse danger in our doctrine and Religion then in theirs 5. I come to a second point which is touching the merits of works whereby the Romish Religion doth cast men into three eminent dangers which by our doctrine they are free from First of vaine glory for when a man is perswaded that there is a merit of condignitie in the worke which hee hath wrought how can he choose but reioyce therein and conceiue a vaine-glorious opinion of his owne worthinesse as the proud Pharise did when he bragged that he had fasted and prayed and payd his tithes seeing it is impossible but that the nature of man which is inclinable vnto vaine-glory and selfe-loue if it haue a conceit of any selfe-worthinesse should bee puffed vp with a certaine inward ioy and pride and therefore Chrysostome taketh it for wholesome counsel to say that wee bee vnprofitable seruants lest pride destroy our good workes 6. Secondly of obscuring and diminishing Gods glorie and Christs merits For where merit is there mercie is excluded and where something is ascribed to man for the obtaining of saluation there all is not ascribed vnto Christ and although they colour the blacke visage of this doctrine with a faire tincture to wit that all