IN times past (Chri­stiā Reader) the que­stion was whether Christ appointed the Pope to be heade of this church, but now (blessed be God) it is not without cause demanded, whether he be Antichrist or no. From which as the ti­tle of servus servorum, that is, the seruant of seruants, will not excuse him, beeing indeed the title of cursed Cham, and so fit in Gods iust prouidence for the man of sinne: so these circumstances following beeing laide toge­ther will firmely conclude the same.

IN handling this motion or reason it is not my purpose to define or to distinguish truth, but brie­flie to set downe some properties of the same which cannot possibly a­gree to Poperie, onely I desire thee (christian Reader) to pray to Christ who is truth that thou mayest conceaue and embrace it.

AS touching the definition of haeresie, I might spend many wordes and much time,Lib. de veili ta [...]e cred. but I referre thee to Augustine, & come to particular notes and markes of haeretickes, which I doubt not but most euidētly to prooue that they agree to papists after a kind of Excellencie,Aristo [...]. i [...] Metap. for so I haue learned to speake by metaphysicall phi­losophie.

IN the recitall of particular heresies, considering that I aime at no lōg discourse in this my treatise, I will beginne briefly with Pe­lagianisme making this sillogisme: they which hold the same opini­on with Pelagius and vse the same argumēts that Pelagius did, are Pelagians, but the Pa­pists hold with Pelagius and vse his argu­ments: Ergo, they are Pelagians. The assum­tion I prooue out of Hieroms workes a­gainst the Pelagians, who hold (as he testifi­eth ad Ctesiphontem,) that Mandata dei are possibilia, Hierom. lib. 2 Gods commandements are possi­ble to be kept: and prooue the same by our sauiour his saying: Iugum meum suaue est: my yoke is easie, & mandata eius non sunt grauia, and his commaundements are not grieuous: to which the learned father answe­reth, Levia sunt ad comparationem Iudaicae [Page 35] superstitionis, they are light in respest of the Iewes superstion. Secondly they thus dispute, Si in operibus meis deus mihi adiutor extite­rit, non mihi debetur merces sedei qui in me operatus est: if my good things come frō god, then there is no revvard for me &c. To which he answereth thus: Contra Deum ar­ma linguam tuam: arme thy tongue against God, and so forth: are not these the very ar­guments of Papists? Reade the Rhemistes vpon the places remembred, also vpon the second of the Corinth. 5. cap. 10. where thou shalt finde this blasphemy, that heauen is as vvell the reward of good workes, as hell is the stipend of evill workes: which is the drift of the argument of the Pelagians. I will adioyne some other sayings of the same Fa­ther, by which euery one may further see the truth of this my charge. Facilia dicis dei mandata & tamen nullum proferre potes qui vniuersa compleverit: thou affirmest the commandements are easie, and yet thou canst not bring forth any that hath kept them. A­gaine, Tunc iusti sumus quando nos peccato­res fatemur: & iustitia nostra a non ex proprie [Page 36] constat merito sed ex dei misericordia, di­cente scriptura Iustus est accusator sui, in principio sermonis. Then are we righteous when we confesse our selues sinners, and our righteousnesse consisteth not of our merits, but of gods mercie, seing the scripture saith: The righteous is the accuser of himselfe. To let passe the rest of his most excellent sayings I come to the heresie of Montanists.

IT is not vnknowne how the Papists without all shame ac­cuse our doctrine of loose­nes, wheras all our writings, sermons, and exercises tende to holines of life: for we preach mortificati­on of the flesh, continuance in prayer, and in a word all holy duties: we permit no filthie stewes, neither by rash vowes cause inconti­nencie and fornication, which are notori­ous and knowne things amongst the Pa­pists Vrbs est (saith Mantuan) iam tota lupa­nar, the whole citie is a stewes, speaking of Rome. And as the liues of the Papists haue beene odious to God, and to man, so I doubt not but in this motiue to prooue that their doctrine tendeth to horrible dissolutenes, and hellish horrour. In Aquinas his supple­ment art. 2. quaest. 2. it is taught that no man [Page 47] ought to be contrite in heart for originall sinne, which is a licentious and carnall do­ctrine: did not the prophet Dauid in the 51. psalme, confesse that in sinne his mother con­ceiued him: and S. Paul crieth out,Rom. 7. O misera­ble man that I am, who shall redeeme me frō this bodie of sinne? out of which places we may gather the griefe that those holy men of God conceiued for their naturall corrup­tion. The Papists reason why we must not be contrite for originall sinne, is worthie of consideration. Non est voluntarium: it is not voluntarie, say they. The syllogisme is thus to be made: We are not to be contrite but for voluntarie sinnes: but originall sinne is not voluntarie: ergo we are not to be con­trite for it. I answer to the proposition, they might as well conclude that it is no sinne: let Augustine dissolue this knotte, who in his 1. booke of Retract. and 13. chap. writeth thus: Nullo modo peccatum est nisi sit volun­tarium, peccatum quippe illudintelligendum est quod tantummodo peccatum est, non poena peccati, quamvis & illa, quae immeritò non voluntaria peccata dicuntur, quia vel à nes­cientibus [Page 48] vel à coactis perpetrantur non om­ninò possunt sine voluntate committi, quoni­am & ille qui peccat ignorans, voluntarie quoque peccat, &c. It is no sinne except it be voluntarie, this speach is to be vnderstood of sinne which is simply sinne, and not a punish­ment of sinne, although those sinnes which are vnfitly called sinnes against our wills (because they are ether committed by constraint, or by ignorance) cannot be altogether without the consent of will, for he which sinneth of igno­rance, sinneth willingly. Thus hath Augu­stine answeared the popish reason to the full.

Secondly the Papists teach, that some sinnes are veniall of their owne nature, that is deserue not eternall death, which must needes cause men to cast off the bridle and reynes of holy life: why doeth Basil in his shorter Definitions and 10. rule, prooue that euery sinne is deadly by this place, The vva­ges of sinne is death. But to withdraw men from the opinion of the lightnes of sinne, well saith Hierome ad Caelantiam: Tanto facilius abstinemus à quocun (que) delicto, quan­tò [Page 49] illud magis metuimus, nec etiam titò ad maior a progreditur, qui etiam parva formi­dat. We abstaine so much the more easily frō sinne, by how much we feare the same: nei­ther doth he make hast to greater sinnes which feareth the lesser.

Thirdly the Papists teach, that the sacra­ment giues grace ex opere operato, of worke wrought without faith: for howsoeuer Bel­larmine requireth it as a disposi [...]ion, yet the Censure of Colō, which knew the Romish doctrine as well as Bellarmine reasoneth thus: pueris extra omnem dubitationis ale­am sacramenta prodesse nemo sanae mentis dubitare potest, in quibus tamen nulla est fi­des, nulla cordis motio, nullus peccatorum do­lor, aut gemitus, & sanè si in pueris easit Sa­cramentorum natura, cur non erit similis omnino in alijs maximè? eùm neque Chri­stus, nec Ecclesia vnquam vel vllam diversi­tatis fecit mentionem. Without all contro­versie children receiue benefit by the Sacra­ments, in whome there is no faith, no motion of the heart, no sorrow for sinne, and why doe not others likewise so? seeing neither Christ [Page 50] nor the Church mentioneth any reason to the contrarie. What is this, but to cause men to come without repentance to the sa­craments? for if thou be not a murderer, a theefe, or an adulterer, &c. the sacraments will replenish thee with grace: but (Christi­an Reader) take heede of this dissolute and loose doctrine, for he destroieth himselfe, and damneth his soule, that commeth to the Sacraments without faith and repentance, and he is so farre from receiuing grace, that he purchaseth Gods eternall wrath and ire­full displeasure to himselfe.

Fourthly the Papists bind their votaries, prelats and priests to keepe their vowes, which yet burne in filthie lusts, yea are not those vowes vngodly which cānot be kept without incōtinency?1. Tim. 5.11. If widows (as S. Paule saith) waxe wanton against Christ beeing warme, idle, and well fedde, and so lust after husbands, what doe many papists more warme, more idle, and better fed then those poore widows were, that S. Paule speaketh of? What doe they I say lust after? but with them this diuinitie is currant, si non castè, [Page 51] cautè tamen: if not chastly, yet warily.

Fiftly the papists teach that the pope may giue pardon de paenitentijs iniungendis, Fulk aganst Allen. that is, of penance to be performed, Ergo a man may haue a pardon before he sinne, which is to open a gappe to all sinne, yea the rich man may boldly transgresse, because he is able to giue largely for pardons.

Sixtly,Ferus vpon Matth. con­futeth it. Aquin. 22.25. q. 9. ar. they teach that the loue of a mans e­nemie is counselled by our sauiour Christ, not commaunded, so that a man is not boūd to loue his enemie by Gods commandemēt, O carnal & licētious libertines, what is more easie for man then to loue his friende? what is more against the proud spirit of a man thē to loue his enemie? And so from dissolute­nesse of doctrine I come to the discomfort of the same.

No man ought to be assured of his saluati­on by faith,Cens. col [...]. but by hope (saith the papist) resting vpon his owne merits, which is to racke and torment a christian soule, for eue­ry on must say with Hierom in his dialogue against the Luciferans, Credo Domine & ta­men secundum fidem meā fieri nolo, sic enim [Page 52] peribo: I beleeue Lord, yet let it not be accor­ding to my beleeue, for then I perish: and with Augustine,10. lib. con. & 29. tota spes mea non nisi in valde magna misericordia tua: my whole hope is only in thy great mercy: but more of this in another motiue, and therefore I oppose their own Catechisme against them which excellently confuteth this desperate doctrine:Cat. col. profecto nequè in aignitatem fidei, ne que operum meorum, vt me certum faciā rectè respexero. Verely for certainty that god is mercifull to me I must neither looke to the dignitie of my faith or of my works, sed in passionem tuam ô Christe oculos men­tis defigam, but O Christ I will fasten the eyes of my minde vpon thy passion, cum de­fecerit virtus mea non diffidam, quia si san­guis tuus interpellet pro me salvus ero, when my goodnes is eclipsed I will not distrust, for if thy bloode entreat for me I shall be sa­ued.

Secondly they teach that by contrition & sorrow for sinne,Stapl. A. quae. 7. ar. 2. the guilt of sinne is whol­ly taken away, but because a man can not be assured of the sufficiencie of his sorow, ther­efore [Page 53] he must both confesse and satisfie Gods iustice for his sinnes: O hellish deuice of man! If no man can be assured of the suf­ficiencie of his contrition and sorrow, how can he certifie his soule that his Confession and Satisfaction are sufficient? if he can not be assured of one, he cannot likewise be assu­red of the other, and so must needes be swal­lowed vp in the gulfe of despaire. Hold this therefore (Christian soule) that thy reconci­liation dependeth not vpon sufficient con­fession, contrition, and satisfaction, but vpon the merit of Christ; and say as the glosse doth vpon Gratian, pag. 376. that these doe not cause and deserue forgiuenes of sinnes, but onely Gods mercie is the cause thereof; and that true sorrow is a signe to thee of the forgiuenes of thy sinnes. And as the doctrine of Satisfa­ction is desperate, so it is a most loose and dissolute doctrine: for, ‘Si dederis marcas, & eis impleveris areas,’

Culpâ solvêris quacun (que) ligatus eris: that is, If thou fillest the Popes coffers with mony, thou shalt be loosed from all thy faults. Alas, alas, what will not a man giue for the re­demption [Page 54] of his soule?Iob 2. Mich. 6. thousands of riuers oyle; yea he had rather cause his sonnes to passe through fire then to performe true re­pentance.

IN Philosophie there was al­most no opinion so voide of reason, but it found some pa­tron, and as it was in philoso­phie, so now it is in Diuinity; for else how could the Papists defende the worship of images? Of these popish idola­ters I say with Lactantius,Lib. de orig. erroris. cap. 3. Venia concedi po­test imperitis & ijs qui se sapientes non fa­tentur, his vero non potest qui sapientiam professi stultitiam potius exhibent. The ig­norant may be pardoned, but to those that professing wisdome manifest their follie, pardon cannot be granted. But let vs see how they excuse their idolatrie.

First Bellarmine maketh a difference be­tweene an idol and an image:Lib. 2. cap. 5 de Imag. an idol is an i­mage of that which is not, but an image is a figure of that which is: to take his graunt I will first conclude out of his owne wordes that the Papists are idolaters, and then by in­uincible arguments disprooue this distincti­on. They which worship images of those things that are not extant, are idolaters: but the Papists worshippe the images of those things that are not extant:Heerbrant [...]. com. ergo they are ido­laters. The assumption I thus prooue: Chri­stopher, George, and Katherine were neuer extant, but they worship their images: ergo they worship images of thinges that neuer were. For the disproofe of his distinction I will vse his owne arguments, and confession against himselfe. First (saith he) the Scrip­ture neuer calleth any true image an idoll, this I disprooue out of his 13. chap. where he confesseth that the Iewes worshipped God in an image or idol. That in which the Iewes worshipped God, is an idol: but the Iewes worshipped God in an image: ergo an idol is an image. Secondly (saith he) [Page 56] the scripture calleth Idolls elilim, that is No­thing, and vseth other names to the same purpose. If this reason be good, then because the scripture calleth Idols pesilim, & by other like names, it must of necessitie follow that they represent something: if any demaund, why the scripture calleth Idols nothing, and vanitie, and lies, I answere because of their effects, so saith Kimhi: dabar she eno mo­gnil that which profiteth not, is called elil, for in truth they neither helpe the worship­pers of them, nor can they helpe them, and so are meere vanity: and by this reason is an­swered his argument taken out of the Co­rinthians 8 chap. where an Idol is called no­thing, nothing it is in regard of profitte and commodity, yet may it represent somthing: His fourth reason is, because the Fathers cal­led Heresies Idols: as an haeresie is a false im­magination, so [saith he] is an Idoll a false Image: thus indeede the fathers speake, out of which I thus dispute.Hierom. Hosea 4. An heresie is an false opinion, and imagination of some thing whereof there is a trueth,Epiph. Haer. 50. as for example, the Anthropo morphits that thought god was in [Page 37] shape & proportion like a man, did they not conceaue a false imagination of a reall thing whereof there is a trueth, Ergo, by the Iesu­ites owne argument an Idol may represent a thing, that hath a beeing and subsistance: but there is a plaine and euident demonstra­tion why the Fathers call haeresies Idols, be­cause to serue God as we list, and not as he will is Idolatrie: he neither taketh nor requi­reth any thing at our hands, besides his wor­ship and that according to his will, who re­quireth this at your handes, (saith the Pro­phet Esay:) vnlesse therfore they can prooue that God will be serued with materiall and artificiall Images, and is content to accept that honour as done to himselfe, that is yeel­ded vnto them, their adoring them maketh them idols, and themselues Idolaters. His last reason taken out of Tertullian cleane ouer­throweth his cause, [...] (saith Tertullian) graecè formam sonat, ab eo per diminutionem [...] aequè apud nos formulam fecit, igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici ex­poscit. This word [...] in greeke signifieth a shape, whence [...] is deriued as a dimi­nutiue, [Page 56] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page 58] and with vs signifieth any shape, & therefore euery shape or likenesse may be called an idol. If euery shape may be called an idol, then a shape of a thing that is extāt may be so called: but by Tertullians opinion eue­ry shape may be so called, Ergo a shape of a thing that is extant and hath a subsistance: now whereas the Iesuite in fine and in con­clusion out of Eustathius saith that an Idol is inane spectrum, & phantasma, a vaine fā ­cie such as we frame in our imaginations, & as the shaddowes & ghostes of the dead are, doth it not as well prooue that for the mat­ter it is nothing, as it doth that it represen­teth nothin? yes verely, for in trueth those things are as he speaketh vmbrae, shadows, & cavae imagines, images without any soli­dity, so that he might by this argue an Idol to haue no matter, & no bodily subsistāce, as he doth that it is nothing formally, that is representeth nothing. Hauing retorted his ar­guments against himselfe, I wil now briefly shew that an Idol representeth something. The 2. Commandement shall helpe vs with the first argument, in which, as the Papists [Page 59] confesse an Idol is forbidden, but that which is there forbidden, is a similitude of some­thing, as of things in heauen and in earth,Deut. 4.15.16. or vnder the earth, so saith Moses, thou shalt not make the forme of a man, or of a woman, or of any creature in the earth.

Secondly I disprooue their distinctiō out of the 14. of wisdome, verse, 1. where [...], the beginning of whordome is [...], the inventiō of Idols, what doth he call an Idol? read the 15 verse and thou shalt find that the father sorrowing for his sonne, [...], worketh his Image, and so worshippeth the dead as God: by which euery man may see that an Idol & an Image are there put to signifie both one thing, ex­cept he will hold that the Image which the father maketh of his sonne representeth no­thing: which no Papist though exceeding bolde and blinde dare affirme.

Thirdly I demaund whether the Images which Carpocrats worshipped were not I­dols? if only idols be forbidden in the 2.Jraen. lib. 1 cap. 23. com. thē the Images there forbiddē must be idols, yet were they Images of Iesus. I let passe the images of Paule,Epiph. 24. Pythagoras and others [Page 60] which euery one know to represent some­thing. The Melchizedechians also wor­shipped the Image of Moses,Epiph. 55. yet can no man deny that to be an Idoll, out of all which it is easie to conclude, that an Idoll is not alwaies an image of that which is not.

Fourthly, Baal himselfe, which the Scrip­ture detesteth as a most infamous Idoll was nothing else but a corporall Image erected vnto God, by which the people dreamed they serued and pleased God, as may be ga­thered by Hosea in his 2. chapter: At that day saith the Lord, thou shalt call me no more Ba­al: And in Elias time, 1. King. 18, the Israelites haulted betweene two opinions, partly ser­uing God, partly their Idolls; likewise the Gentiles which the king of Assyria placed in Samaria (2. King. 17.33) feared God & wor­shipped their Idolls. Lastly the Iewes sware by God & their King,Sophon. 1. that is, by their Idolls, for they called their Idolls Kings, some ex­pound it as if it were a proper name, they sware by God and by Malchon, but that can not be, because of the affixe and pronoune that is ioyned with it, for proper names are [Page 61] not compoūded with affixes & pronounes, as Elias proueth; by all which testimonies it is euident and plaine, that all the Iewes were not so seduced as to thinke their Idolls to be God, for then they would not haue bin like a cake halfe baked,Cap 7.4. ver. (as the Prophet Hosea speaketh) now seruing God and then their I­dolls.

Fiftly, the Heathen did not thinke their I­dolls to be God, which I prooue out of La­ctantius:Lib. 2. de ve­ro dei sim. Non ipsa inquiunt timemus sedeos adquorum imaginem ficta, & quorum nomi­nibus consecrata sunt: Wee doe not reuerence and vvorship the Idolls themselues, but those which are represented by them, and those to vvhome they are consecrated: what is more direct then this against Bellarmine, who would haue men beleeue that the Heathen did account their Idolls to be God, and ther­fore reuileth M. Caluin a man of famous memorie not being able with any probabi­litie to take away his arguments. And if that opinion of Macrobius be true, that all the heathē Gods are to be referred to the sunne,1. Satur. ca 7. as Apollo, Capis, Serapis and others, how cā [Page 62] it enter into the heart of any learned man to imagine, that the Gentiles were so ignorant as to think their idols to be God, except they could not distinguish betweene them and the Sunne: their idols then representing the Sunne, of necessitie it followeth, that they represented something; except the Sunne be nothing. Thus the Papists defending Idola­trie, goe about to take the Sunne out of the world, making it nothing, and so prooue themselues vnworthie the light therof. And so hauing disprooued his distinction, I will proceede to other of his assertions, and then set downe Lactantius his reasons against I­mages, which are as directly opposite to the Papists, as if he had of purpose written a­gainst them. Bellarmine confesseth that in his 8. chap. that Idiotae qui vident picturas, & non possunt legere scripturas, possunt ac de­bent à praelatis & Concionatoribus institui, alioquin fateor non sine periculo exhiberi imperitis eiusmodi picturas. The lay people vvhich see and beholde Images and can not reade Scriptures, ought to be instructed of their prelates and preachers, else I confesse [Page 63] that Images to the ignorant are not vvith­out daunger deliuered. This is as much as to giue a madde man a sworde, and then to watch ouer him least he hurt himselfe: but haue the Papists preachers to teach the peo­ple? yea, their priests for ignorance are very Idols, many yeares agoe was this complaint vttered that in times past there were golden priestes and treene cuppes,B [...]. but now golden cuppes and treene priests, but of this see more in a former motiue: and whereas he saith that lay people may reade the Scrip­tures, doth he not bidde defiance to other Papists,Cens. Col. who by might and maine maine­taine that the Scriptures are not to be reade of the ignorant. But nowe let vs see what the people are to be taught,Bellar. 20. they are to be taught, that Images are to be worshipped by themselues not accidentally or impro­perly, so that worshippe is due to images themselues, and not onely as they represent some other thing: are the people able to reach this diuinitie? nay the very Papists themselues cannot possibly conceiue these [Page 64] distinctions, yea they are flatly opposite to o­ther learned papists: and lastly the Heathen neuer taught so grossly of the worshipping of their Images. To goe a little further, the people must not be taught that Images are to be worshipped with the highest kind of worshippe which is due to god,cap. 22. & 23 as touching their manner of speech and wordes, but, si de re ipsa agatur imagines impropriè coluntur eo genere cultus quo examplar ipsum, if it be concerning the matter and thing it selfe an Image accidentally must be honoured with the same honour wherewith the thing re­presented is worshipped and honoured. Is not this to speake mysteries to the people,Bell. cap. 6. yea to speake lies in hypocrisie? Alphonsus de Ca­stro a learned Papist accounteth Serenus Bishop of Massilia, and Epiphanius enemies to Images, because they brake them in pee­ces, and yet wee may not doe so without haeresie (for saith Bellarmine) when Serenus brake them, the people: beeing neere con­uerted to the faith worshipped thē for gods: it were hard for Bellarmine to prooue the trueth of this sentence, namely a true Chri­stian [Page 65] to worship an image for God, but if Serenus did well for breaking them, because the people worshipped them as Gods, why may not we break them without any hurt, for it is well knowne that the ignorant pa­pists amongst vs haue taken them for gods? Thus hauing gathered out of Bellarmine his garden some sweete flowers and nosegaies, nay rather poysonful hearbs, I come now to Lactātius his reasons against images, which whether they conclude not against the Pa­pists as well as against the Heathen, let any indifferent man iudge. Postquam Deus prae­sto esse caepit (saith Lactantius) iam simula­chr [...] eius non est opus, Lib. 2. cap. supervacua enim est hominis imago, cùm homo praesto est. When God is present there is no neede of his image, for the image of man is superfluous vvhen man himselfe is present. cap. 8. Yet Bellarmine will needes defende the image of God, al­though he be present euery where, because he is not seene, and so cutteth the sinewes of Lactantius his reason: and here I would haue the Reader to note that Bellarmine prooueth that images of God may be made, [Page 66] and as he prooueth the same, so it is their practise to paint the Father like an old man, because he so appeared to Daniel, yet it is not certen (saith he) in the church whether ima­ges are to be made or no, out of which con­fession I conclude, that he teacheth vncer­taine doctrine, yea that their Church pra­ctiseth those things which they are not sure of, and therefore dealeth Antichristianly with the people. But I would know of Bel­larmine, why the Father may be painted like an old man, and the holy ghost like a Doue, seeing he cōdemneth the image of the Tri­nitie painted in forme of a mā, hauing three faces, these images (saith he) are monsters, and are not the other so? if you disprooue this, then yee likewise disprooue the other: for the painters may as well defende the one as the other. To returne to Lactantius in the same chap. and booke, he thus writeth, Dei in aeternum viventis vivum & sensibile debet esse simulachrum, it aque simulachrum Dei non est quod digitis hominum fabrica­tur. God which liueth for euer ought to haue a liuing and sensible Image, therefore it is [Page 67] not Gods image vvhich is made with mens hāds. Again, it images are to be worshipped, then the makers of them are much more to be worshipped.Lib. 2. cap. 2. Nam non potest esse quicquā artifice matus. For ther can be nothing grea­ter then the workman, who is alwaies better then his worke: to which Bellarmine answe­reth, that images are to bee worshipped not for themselues, but for the things which they represent, as if the heathen might not haue said as much and shaped the same aunswer: yea he is not ashamed to confesse and graunt that man may bee worshipped, if he ment of ciuill worship wee would not contend, but seing he meaneth religious worship, we de­test his doctrine; for the reason being strong against the heathen, it is as strong against the papists: and therefore I thus conclude it, if i­mages may bee worshipped with religious worship: then may man who is a true image of God be so worshipped; but man ought not so to be worshipped: Ergo, neither ima­ges. I will adioyne moe sayings of Lactan­tius,Lib. 1. cap. [...] Religio & veneratio nulla alia tenenda est, nisi vnius Dei, no religion & worship is to [Page 68] be embraced but of god only: Quidigitur opus est tantos sumptus, vel fingēdis, vel colēdis i­maginibus impēdere? What need thē is there to bestow so much cost in making of Images, and worshipping them? For, Nihil colendum est quod mortalibus oculis cernitur: Lib. 2. cap. 3. Nothing that is seene vvith the eyes of man is to bee worshipped; and that the Papists may see how well the Gentiles and they agree, heare the Gentiles defence:Lib. 2. cap. 2. Non ipsatimemus sedeos ad quorum imaginem ficta, & quorum nomi­nibus consecrata sunt, cur igitur oculos ad coelum non tollitis? cur ad parietes spectatis? We do not adore the Images, but those, whome they represent, and to whome they are dedica­ted and consecrated, why then doe you not lift vp your eyes to heauen? and why doe you gaze vpon the walles: Out of this defence of the heathen (as I said before) euery one may ga­ther, that they did not defend their Idolls to be Gods, as Bellarmine would make them; yea we may learne that the Papists goe fur­ther, then they did, for Bellarmine holdeth that the Images themselues are to bee wor­shipped, and that they doe terminare vene­rationem, [Page 69] worship goeth no further then the image not to the thing which is repre­sented by the image: Thus I haue set downe Lactantius his arguments, which I desire all Papistes to consider without a preiudicate opinion for fauour of them: before I finish this reason I will set downe a syllogisme or two, which I would haue them likewise to think vpon: Bellarmine confesseth that ima­ges may accidentally bee worshipped with the same kinde of worship, that the things represented by them are to be worshipped with: out of which I conclude that acciden­tally there may bee many Gods; that which accidentally hath diuine worship, is acciden­tally God, but images of God accidentally haue the same worship that God himselfe hath: ergo they are accidentally Gods: and if this argument cannot moue them, yet let thē consider that the man cannot bee excused from treason that giueth the proper titles of the kingdome to any vnder this pretence, that he doth it for honour of the King. The Lord (saieth Esay) will not giue his glorie to another, and yet the papists say,Cap. 42. he is content [Page 70] that images by accident haue the same glo­ry, yea why might not the Collyridian here­ticks by the same shift excuse their idolatrie, and by as good reason offer cakes to the vir­gine Marie as the papists doe candels to her: and howsoeuer Bellarmine minceth this point by this sophisticall distinction of acci­dentall worship, yet doth their church wor­ship the image of Christ and his crosse with the same worship wherewith Christ him­selfe is worshipped, so saith the fortresse of their faith, Crux Christi & eius imago ve­nerari debet veneratione latriae, & haec est opinio Thomae, Lib. 3. cons. 4. art. 24. The crosse & image of Christ ought to be worshipped with such honour as is due to God, & of this opinion is Thomas. Hol­coth indeed contradicted this opinion, but the church tooke part with Thomas against him, Communis opinio tenet oppositum, The common opinion holdeth the contrarie: And why doth their church sing on this manner to the crosse, O Crux ave spes vnita, auge piis iustitiam reisque dona veniam: Haile crosse our only hope, increase in the godly iu­stice, and giue thee guilty pardon: But to giue [Page 71] that honour which is due to Christ to the crosse: For who is so simple as to rest in Bel­larmines answere that by Crosse is vnder­stood Christ himselfe, or els there is a rheto­ricall figure, called a faining of a person, this is but to faine an vntrueth: if their church were asked, especially the vulgar people,Vide Aqui. 3. par. quae. 25. art. 4. they know no such meaning. The second syllo­gisme shalbe this, they which goe on pilgri­mage to images, worship images thēselues: but the papists go on pilgrimage to images: Ergo they worship the images themselues: to this Bellarmine answereth, Peregrinatio­nes ad imagines rariores sunt in Ecclesia, Pilgrimages to images are not often now v­sed in the church, what they are now I will not dispute, the litle frequēting of pilgrimage cannot dissolue the argument seing the thing is graunted. I leaue the practise of the Iewes who knew the meaning of Gods comman­dements, and yet [as Cornelius Tacitus wit­nesseth in his 5. booke of histories.] Nulla si­mulachra in templis sunt: they haue no ima­ges in their temples: Onely I wish the rea­der to consider that Epiphanius is reiected [Page 72] of Bellarmine, Augustine is aunswered that he wrote against images when he was first conuerted, and yet he neuer retracted his o­pinion: Two Councells of Constantinople, one of Franckfurte, and the fourth Councell of Eliberis must all giue place to the idola­trous Councell of Neece: well may Bellar­mine by these aunswers perswade his besot­ted disciples to bee idolaters, but except hee hath better arguments and aunswers euerie learned man will easilie espie his weake de­fence, and in my iudgement it had bin better both for his credite & conscience that he had neuer defended the worshipping of images, for I doubt not but by reading of him euery one not forestalled may be mooued to the truth.

HAving evicted the Papists to be guiltie of many grieuous crimes; as Haeresies, Idolatrie &c I come now to Blasphe­mies which are vttered by men of no small account amongst them: these blasphemies without the rest of the ar­guments here propounded, I doubt not but beeing throughly weighed by the reader, will leaue such an impression in him, that he shall haue iust cause to take part with God and Christ against the Pope who arroga­teth to himselfe a certaine Godhead. I begin first with Bellarmines blasphemous argu­ment: si nullo modo legem possemus seruare, Lib. 2 de Mona cap. 13. Deus esset omni tyranno iniquior & crudeli­or: if we cannot possibly keepe the lawe of god, then God is more cruell, and vnrighteous thē any tyrant. What dogge would thus barke against god? for that no man can perfectly fulfill Gods commandements I shall prooue [Page 74] by such arguments and testimonies as he cā ­not accept against. To loue God with al our heart, with all our minde, soule, & strength, is angelica perfectio, an angelicall state of life: but no man can come to angelicall perfe­ction: Ergo, no man can fullfill Gods com­mandements. Secondly we are but viatores in this life, 1. trauellors, so that if we can per­fectly fulfill all Gods commandements, there is no difference betwixt the life that we shall lead in our countrey, which is heauen, and this pilgrimage in which we nowe are, for beeing in heaven we can but loue God in that manner and measure which he requi­reth. Well saith Nazianzen, [...], not to sinne is aboue the reach of man, and Bernard is directly appo­site to Bellarmine,In his 50 sermon in can­ti. saying, Ergo mandando impossibilia, non praevaricatores homines fecit, sed humiles, vt omne os obstruatur & accipientes quippe mandatum & sentientes aefectum clamabimus in caelum & misere­bitur nostri deus: God by commanding impos­sible things made not men transgressoures of his lawe, but humbleth them that euery [Page 75] mouth may be stopped, for receiuing a com­mandement, & feeling our inability to keep it, we cry vnto God and he will haue mercie on vs. What is more plaine then this that god requireth impossible things at our hāds? To Bernard agreeth Augustine. In manda­tis est etiam quod iubemur or are remitte no­bis debita nostra, Lib. 1 Retr. cap. 19. omnia ergo mandata sacta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignosci­tur. In Gods commandements we are bid­den to pray, forgiue vs our sinnes, therefore all Gods cōmandements are accepted as done, when that which is not done is pardoned. But why doe I heape vp testimonies of the Fa­thers? Let their master of Sentences him­selfe speake,Lib. 3. &. dist. 27. cur praecipitur hominibus ista perfectio? Why are mē commanded this per­festiō? he answereth out of Augustine, quia non rectè curritur, siquo currendum est, ne­sciatur: because we cannot runne well except we knowe whether we must runne. 2. 2 q. 44. art 8. So doth Aquinas vse the very same answer by which it is apparent to all mē that God commaun­deth impossible things, and therefore by this blasphemy must be more cruell then any ty­rant, [Page 76] but this might haue beene better borne withall, if they had vttered no moe blasphe­mous arguments. The Rhemists vpon the first of Timoth. chap. 4. wanting reasons for their prohibition of meates and marriages, know not how to defend their practise but by an argument à pari, taken from equalitie: God in paradise did commaund abstinence from one certaine tree, and also did forbidde in the time of the Law certaine degrees of marriage: ergo so may the Pope doe: O vn­answerable, nay rather blasphemous conse­quents! if ye thus dispute without all perad­uenture in the ende ye shall haue the victo­rie. From Bellarmine and the Rhemists I come to their angelical Doctour, who in his supple. 25. quae. art. 1. concludeth thus: Chri­stus potest, Ergo Paulus potest, Ergo papa po­test: Christ can doe it, therefore Paul can doe it, therefore the Pope can doe it. Make the syllogisme and then the argument will be of greater force: whatsoeuer Christ can doe, that can Paul doe, and whatsoeuer Paul can doe, that can the Pope doe: but Christ can doe this: therefore Paul, and the Pope can [Page 77] doe it. But why are Paul and the pope ioy­ned together, seeing his authoritie is deri­ued from Peter? when Peters keies will not serue, then Pauls sword must saue. To let passe these sensles disputers, heare what is written in the first part of the 6. booke of Decretalls, and 6. title de electione, fol. 44. Papa non est homo, sed vicarius Dei, expres­sius acus, The pope is not a man, but Gods vi­car, more expressely God. In the proheme of the Clementines and 3. folio, I finde the no­tation of the pope to be this: Papa, id est, ad­mirabilis, nec deus es, nec homo, quasineuter es inter vtrunque. The pope is called so be­cause he is wonderfull, thou art neither god nor man, but as it were a neuter betvvixt both. Againe in the Extravagants fol. 16. tit. 3. Supposit a plenitudine potestatis iuxta quam papae dici non potest, Domine, cur ita facis. Presupposing the plenarie power by which no man may say to the pope, Master, why doest thou so, no not though (as it is in an other place) he leade innumerable soules with him by heapes to the deuill of hell. Nowe let Pa­normitan play his part, Papa & Christus fa­ciunt [Page 78] vnum consistorium. The pope and Christ make one consistorie, excepto peccato omnia potest quae deus, excepting sinne he can do al that God can doe. Also, papa potest quic­quid vult, the Pope can do what he wil, and therfore cōtra novū testamētū potest dispen­sare, he may dispense against the new testa­ment. From the Canonists I come to the Alcorā of the Franciscans taken out of their booke of Conformities, nihil fecit Christus, quod Franciscus non fecit, imo plura fecit quàm Christus, vngues Francisci tentatio­nem propellunt, Christ did not any thing but Frances did the same, yea more then Christ, the nailes of frier Frances driue away temp­tations. Sicut Ade Deo non parenti omnis creatura libellis extitit. Sic Frācisco omnia praecepta diuina implenti creatura omnis fa­mulata est, omnia Deus subiecit sub pedibus eius, &c. As euerie creature rebelled against Adam disobeying God, so all of them serued Frances who fulfilled gods commandemēt: God hath put all things vnder his feete, he hath made him ruler ouer all the workes of his handes, and he may most worthily say [Page 79] that which is written in the Gospell, All things are giuen mee of my father: Can the diuel himselfe speake more spitefully against the God of heauen and earth? I wonder howe the Pope can suffer those things, seing he applyeth the same scriptures to his autho­rity, and therefore sayeth, Omnis potestas mihi data est in terra, all power is giuen me on earth: To proceede in the same booke thus they speake of the masse, Celebratio v­nius missae tantum valet, quantum Christi passio, The saying of one masse is as profita­ble as Christs passion. And againe, si quis de­votè audierit missam non incidit in pecca­tum mortale, if any here masse with deuoti­on he cannot fall into mortall sinne, if this be true why haue the priests so many harlots? nay why are Popish geldings become stone horses? These (Christian reader) are not the tenth of their blasphemies which they haue vomited, but I dare not load thee with any more, least I should he offensiue: I will ende this reason in a word: that religion is a blas­phemous religion which maketh not God mercifull, and iust in the highest degree, but [Page 80] the Popish religion maketh not God merci­full and iust in the highest degree: Ergo it is a blasphemous religion: the assumption is thus prooued, if the onely mercie of God be not the onely cause of the pardoning of our sinnes, and the alone satisfaction of Christ aunswereth not to Gods iustice then may a finite thing, as mans satisfactions answer the same, & so he shal neither be summè miseri­cors, nor summè iustus, neither haue perfect mercy, nor perfect iustice: but the only mer­cy of God is not the onely cause of the for­giuenesse of our sinnes, neither is his iustice fully satisfied by Christ, but by our owne sa­tisfaction? and therefore he is neither perfe­ctly mercifull, not perfectly iust. Let god be then as he is is most rich in mercy and abso­lute in iustice, and the Romish religion can­not stand, for it detracteth from his infinit mercy and iustice, therfore without all con­trouersie is a blasphemous religion.

AMongst the properties of truth, this as I proued was one, that it was great and preuaileth, and indeed tho­rough Gods omnipotent power it is so great that the Aduersaries against themselues confesse the same: so that I may say with the Orator in his oration pro Quinctio: quis nostrae cau­sae testis idem qui accerrimus aduersarius in hac re inquam adversarium citabo testem: Who beareth witnes to our defence, euen he that is the fiercest aduersary in this defence: I say I will vse our aduersarie for a witnes, for although I may say to him as the same o­rator doth in an other oration pro Fonteio: Tuum testimonium quod in aliena re leve est, in tua quoniam contrate est gravissi­mum esse debet: Thy ovvne testimonie which is of small credit in another matter, [Page 82] in thine owne because it is against thy selfe ought to be of exceeding great waight: vpon these triumphs as it were the Christian Rea­der will be desirous to heare the Papists te­stimonie, not to hold him therfore any lon­ger in suspence, this is Bellarmines confessi­on in his 7. chap. & 5. book of Iustification. Propter periculum maius gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benignitate reponere: by reason of the danger of pride and vaine glorie, it is safest to put our whole confidence onely in the mercy of God, not in our merites or good workes. And this he prooueth out of the 9. chap. of Daniel, we pray not in our righteous­nes, but in thy manifold mercies: and out of the 17. of Luke, when you haue done all that you can, you are vnprofitable seruants: nay out of their owne praiers, Deus qui conspicis quia ex nulla actione nostra confidimus: O God thou seest that vve trust not in any of our actions or vvorkes: and least these his proofes should not be waightie enough, he quoteth Chrysostome in diuers places, as namely in his 3. homily vpon Matthew wri­ting [Page 83] thus: Noli mercedem poscere vt accipi­as mercedem, require no reward that thou maiest receiue a rewarde. Next followeth Ambrose, Non sic vixi, vt me pudeat vive­re, nec mori timeo quia bonum Dominum habemus; I haue so liued that I am not asha­med to liue, neither am I afraide to die, be­cause I haue a mercifull Lord. After Am­brose followes Augustine, Gregorie, and Bernard: and lastly he vseth this reason: vel homo habet vera merita vel non habet, man hath good works in truth, or els he hath thē not in truth but in appearance onely, if onely in appearance then is he dangerously decei­ued, if in truth then he looseth nothing, for his trust is onely in God. This is to disanull all his former doctrine, for before he proo­ued that a man might put his confidence in good workes, because they deserue eternall life; but now he confesseth that it is best to put no cōfidence in works, but only in Gods mercie: out of which I conclude, that it is sa­fest to disclaime our owne merits in the at­taining to saluation, and by consequent to be a Protestant. The syllogisme shall be thus [Page 84] framed. It is safest to put no confidence in workes: but this is the Protestants constant doctrine: ergo it is safest to be a Protestant: and indeede it hath beene alwaies iudged the part of a wise man to encline in eam partem quae cautior est, into that defence which is best, but our defence is best by the aduersaries own confession: ergo it is the wi­sest part to holde with the Protestants. So now I may iustly vse the Orators exclama­tiō in his oration pro Coelio: ô magna vis ve­ritatis quae contra hominū ingenia, colliditatē, solertiā, &c ô mighty power of truth, who doth defend it selfe against the wit, craft, & subtiltie of men. I will end this reason with some sayings of Hieron, because his autho­ritie hath not bin yet vsed in this matter: in his 3. book against the Pelagians he writeth thus, Nec in sapientia nostra, nec in vllis virtutibus confidendum, sed in solo domino: We trust neither in our wisdome, nor in any vertues, but onely in the Lord: and in his dia­logue against the Luciferians, Credo & ta­men secundum fidem meam fieri nolo, si ete­nim sit peribo: I beleeue, yet I vvould not [Page 85] haue it be according to my beleefe, for then I perish: So must euery Christian say if it be according to our workes wee perish, but we trust onely to the mercie of God: there­fore looke and waite for saluation. To this confession of Bellarmine I might likewise haue adioyned Steuen Gardiners, but Bellar­mine being the papists Pythagoras shal serue in stead of all. And now for a conclusion of this point and reason, let any papist answer me what harme can come of the Protestāts doctrine? if they say good works are come to a downefall by it, I would haue yeelded but that S. Paul in the 2. of the Galat. ver. 17. many hundered yeares agoe hath answered this rotten and stale obiection, If vve that seeke for iustification by Christ, be found sin­ners in Christ, is Christ the minister of sinn? God forbid, &c. by which place of holy Scri­pture this friuolous cauill is so plainely con­futed, that the Papists (except they cannot resolue the Apostles argument) might as well haue charged Pauls doctrine with dis­solutenes as they do ours, therfore I desire all men to holde that which is safest, which is [Page 86] the part of a wise man to doe. But it is safest to hold as we hold, and it is the part of wise men to defende the best part, which is ours: Ergo, it is safest to hold with: and why was the Pharise cōdemned vs but for putting his confidence in workes? he acknowledged them to come from God,Luk. 18. v. 11 saying, I thanke thee that I am not as other men are, I fast twise in a weeke, I giue tith of all that I haue. If we giue thanks to god for those his good actions and workes, then by necessarie con­sequent it may be concluded that he ascribed thē not to himselfe, but to the giuer & foun­taine of all good things, yet hath he Christs owne testimony against him for what thē but for his affiance in his workes. Thus the Papists by their owne doctrine of confidēce in workes become Pharisees: also I see not why they may not say to god as the Iewes did, why do we fast, & thou doest not regard vs? why doe we afflict out soules and thou doest not acknowledge vs? Better it is to pray with the Prophet Dauid, Enter not in­to iudgement O Lord with thy seruants, Psal. 143. v. 3 for no flesh is righteous in thy sight. To which [Page 87] place of Scripture Bellarmine answereth that it is to be vnderstood,Tom. 1. lib de Mona. cap. 13 ad comparationē Dei, in comparison of God, and so conten­teth himselfe with the answer of Pelagius as I prooue out of Hierom in his booke ad Ctesip. Non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens quod testimonium sub nomi­ne pietatis eludunt, aiunt enim ad compara­tionem dei nullum esse perfectum, quasi hoc dicat scriptura, quando enim dicit in con­spectu tuo hoc intelligi vult quod etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur, dei scientiae at­que notitiae nequaquam sunt sancti. No mā liuing shall be iustified in thy sight, which te­stimony vnder the pretēce of piety they de­lude, for they say that no man is perfect in respect of God, as if this were the meaning of the scripture, for whē it saith (in thy sight) it giueth vs to vnderstand, that those which seeme holy to men, in gods sight and know­ledge are not holy. Out of this testimony it appeareth that the papists accepting of Pe­lagius his answer, ioyne not onely with the Pharises in this point, but also with the Pe­lagiās of whose heresie I haue spoke before, [Page 88] I dare not stay any longer in this reason, lest I forget my selfe promising to haue ended it before, but the laying open of the Papists Phariseisme and Pelagianisme I hope will ad some weight to it, and therefore I haue dwelt a little the longer in it.

ALthough I might be very long in shewing the practise of the primitiue Church to be repugnant to popery, yet I will eude this reason with all possible brevity. Eusebius in his 4. booke of his Ecclesiasticall history, and 14. chapter, writeth thus of the people of Smyrna, who by the malitious Iewes were esteemed as worshippers of Policarpus: Iudaei nostros in­tentis oculis observarunt, ne eum àflammis [Page 89] adhuc ardentibus raperent ignorantes, quia neque Christum aliquando possemus dere­linquere, qui mortem pro totius mundi salu­te sustinuit, neque alium quenquā colere quo­niam eum verum deum, & qui solus colen­dus sit noverimus, martyres vero tanquam descipulos diligimus quasi integrè fidem ma­gistro seruantes & domino, quorum nos quo­que in fidei perseverantia & charitatis op­tamus esse participes. The Iewes watched vs diligently least we should haue taken him out of the fire being ignorant, that nei­ther we can leaue Christ which hath suffe­red for all that are saued in the world, nei­worshippe any other, for him we adore as beeing God, but the Martyrs as disciples and fellowes of our Lord, we loue worthily for their exceeding good will vnto their king and master, of whose charitie in faith and perseuerance God graunt we may be parta­kers. This testimony sheweth howe the Pa­pists are departed from this practise, who do not only loue, but most superstitiously a­dore the reliques of Saints: the christiās were charged as you may see in Iustins 2. apo. to [Page 90] be [...], that is, Atheists, not to worship God, to whom he answereth, Profitemur nos qui­dem talium qui habentur deorum esse exper­tes & atheos, sed non verissimi illius dei pa­tris videlicet virtutum expertes, verum hūc ipsum & qui ab illo venit filium, & spiritum propheticum colimus & adoramus cum rati­one & veritate venerantes. We professe our selues to be vvithout such as are accounted Gods, and indeed to be Atheists, but not with­out the most true God the father of vertues, for we worship and adore him and his sonne, and the holy ghost in truth and as reason re­quireth. Out of which answer I gather that the Christians did not worship Saints, An­gels, or other things, for then Iustine might haue answered that the Christians worship­ped many Gods, as the heathen did, especial­ly if they worshipped as many as the Papists who exceed the Gentiles, or at leastwise are nothing behinde them in their idolatrie: and if these two will not content the Papists in this point.8. Booke con­tra Celsum p. 937. let Origen speak: Solus Deus ado­randus est, preces offerendae soli vnigenito Dei verbo, qui vt pontifex eas ad Deum su­um [Page 91] & Deum nostrum perferat. God alone is to be adored, to the onely begotten sonne of God our praiers are onely to be offered, vvho as high priest offereth them to his and our God. And againe, Oblitus cum Christianis se agere soli Deo per Iesum preces offerentibus: Hee forgetteth himselfe that he hath to doe with Christians who offer their praiers only to God by Christ Iesus. These testimonies of Origen do euidently manifest vnto vs, what was the approoued vse of the church in his time, viz. that their praiers were not made vnto Angels nor Saints, but onely to God in the name of Iesus Christ, neither haue we the practise of the primitiue Church onely in this point but in many moe, which I will in a worde declare. The Christians were charged by the Pagans for hauing no ima­ges, and they not onely confessed so much, but also defended it as most agreeable to the law of God. Origen, Contra Celsum lib. 8.Pag. 934. posthaec Celsus ait nos ararum, statuarum, templorum (que) dedicationes fugere, non videns pro aris suam esse mentem cuique ex qua sur­sum feruntur verè & intelligibiliter suaue­olentes [Page 92] suffitus, simulachra autem Deo dican­da sunt non fabrorum opera, sed à verbo Dei dedolata & formata in nobis, viz. virtu­tes ad imitationem primogeniti totius ei na­turae, hae sunt statuae Deo dicatae. Further­more Celsus affirmeth that vvee haue no de­dication of Altars, standing Images and Temples, not knovving that euerie man in steede of an Altar hath a minde, out of vvhich are sent spirituall svvet-smelling perfumes, and as touching Images such are dedicated to god as are not the vvorkes of ar­tificers, but are framed of the word of god in vs, namely vertues to the imitation of the first begotten of euery creature, those are the images that are dedicated to god. Againe in his 7. booke pag. 928. Multa adeò nos prohi­bent ab aris & simulachris, vt emori citius iubeant, quàm contaminemus nostram de Deo fidē talibus impietatibus. There are so many prohibitions against Altars & Images, that men are commaunded rather to die, then to defile their faith which they haue of god with such impiety. Out of which two testi­monies as I conclude against images, so may [Page 93] I likewise against Altars, and then what will become of the popish sacrifice of the masse? Not to rest onely in the authoritie of Ori­gen, heare what Clemens Alexandrinus saith in his exhortation to the Gentiles, [...], &c. Nobis non est imago sensilis de materia sensili, sedquae percipitur intelligentia: Wee haue no image that is ma­teriall and seene vvith eyes, but onely such as is conceaued with vnderstanding: I let passe Lactantius his testimony because I haue bin long in it before, and vse Arnobius authority in whose 8. booke, the heathen do moue this question, Cur nullas ar as habent nulla tēpla, nulla not a simulachra, why haue they no Al­tars, no Temples, no knowen Images? of these testimonies I may say with the Orator, Aut hoc testium satis est aut nescio quid satis est, Either these are sufficient witnesses, or els I know not what is sufficient. But I come now to a third practise of the church repugnant and opposite to poperie, which was to haue publike praiers in a knowen tongue: Iustine in his second apologie [...], & in solis qui dicitur die omnium qui vel in oppi­dis, [Page 94] vel ruri degunt in eundem locum conuen­tus fit, & commentaria Apostolorum, aut scripta Prophetarum leguntur, quo ad tempus patitur: On the day which is called Sunday all that are in townes or villages meet together in one place vvhere the writings of the Apo­stles or Prophets are read as the houre per­mitteth vs. When the reader ceaseth, the parson warneth and exhorteth vs to imitate the good things that haue bin read vnto vs, then arise we all & ioyntly make our praiers after which ended, bread and wine with wa­ter are brought to the place, and he that is chiefe amongst vs giueth thanks in the best manner he can: and a litle before, Perfectis precibes & gratiarum actione, populus omnis qui adest bene dicit dicens Amen: at the ende of his praiers and thanks, all the people that are present do blesse and say Amen. Amen in hebrew signifieth as much as God graunt it may bee so. If they desire plainer words let them heare Origen lib. 8. cont. Celsum pag. 941. Sciant quod germanè Christiani, ne vsi­tatis quidem Dei nominibus in sacra scrip­tura vtuntur inter precandum, sed Graeci [Page 95] Graecis, Romani Romanis, singulique precan­tur in propria lingua, deum (que) celebrant pro viribus, & omnium linguarum Dominus, omni bus linguis precantes exaudit tàm va­riè loquētes haud secus ac cōsonos &c. Let mē knowe that true Christians doe not vse in their praiers the names of god which are v­sed in holy scripture, but greeks do vse greek names, Romanes vse Latine names, and men of euery nation pray and praise god with all their might in theit owne mother tongue, and the Lord of al tongues doth heare them praying in all tongues vnderstanding them that speake diuersly no otherwise then if they were men of one speech and language. I might here alleadge the 15. Canon of the Councell of Laodicia which ordained that none should sing but those that were Cano­nically elected, & qui de Codice legunt, and those that read out of their books, by which it appeareth that some of the people could reade the Psalmes and by consequent had them in their owne tongue. But let Basill ende the third difference, who writeth,Epist. 80. ad Caterineo. that in the church the people did [...] [Page 96] that is, answer one another in singing: and this was the māner and custome of all chur­ches, [...]: mos qui nunc obtinet omnibus Dei Ecclesiis consonus est & consentaneus: the custome which novve preuaileth is agreeable to all churches: and after this he rehearseth the Aegyptians, The­bans, Arabians, Syrians, and Chaldaeans. So then now I hold it needeles in so cleare and manifest a matter, to quote mo testimonies, for I might haue vsed Augustines, Chryso­stomes, Hieromes, and Ambroses authority for the proofe of this practise, but eschuing tediousnes I will now propound the fourth Difference. The people in the primitiue Church were not depriued of the cuppe in the Communion, so testifieth Clemens A­lexandrinus,Lib. 1. [...]. [...]. Some distributing the Eucharist doe suffer the people as the custome is to take part. This testimonie also ouerthroweth the priests priuate Communion, which I might haue made an other difference, but that for breuitie sake I spare to speake of it. To Cle­mens [Page 97] I adioyne Iustine in his 2. Apol. qui a­pud nos diaconi vocantur dant vnicuique eo­rum qui adsunt partem panis pro quo gratia actae sunt & vini & aquae participandam: they which we call deacons giue to all that are present a part of consecrated bread and wine mingled with water to be receiued. Here I might abound with testimonies, and time would sooner faile me then proofes, and therefore I take and accept the confession of Duraeus, who beeing pressed with the au­thority of Gelasius, who commanded that sacraments should be either wholly recei­ued or wholly omitted, confesseth that for foure hundred yeeres it was so vsed in the Church, I will not stand to shew that it was longer continued, but I demand why that which was so long practised in the Church, should be disanulled by the Counsell of Constance, were the Fathers in that counsel wiser then all the Christians in so many a­ges, yea then the Apostles and Christ him­selfe? The fift difference is that the Christi­ans were hot burdened with many festiuall daies:936. p. Celsus obiecting to the Church the [Page 98] want of feasts is answered by Origen, Fe­stum is facere officium id est, a feast is to doe a duty, & proueth it out of the fourth of the Galat: that daies are not to be kept excepting the Lordes day, Easter and Pentecost, what then is become of the multitude of the Po­pish festiuall daies wherewith the Church is grieuously burdened, concerning this point Erasmus writeth thus vpon Matthew 11. cap. Aetas Hieronimi praeter diem do­minicum p [...] ifsima noverat festa. In Hierom his time there vvas very fevve fe­stiuall daies besides the Lords day. And in the tripartite history in the ninth booke, & the thirtie eight chapter I finde these wordes, Mens fuit Apostolorum non de diebus sanci­re festivitatem, sed conversationē rectam & Dei praedicare culturam: It vvas not the Apostles meaning to giue lavves concer­ning festiuall daies, but to preach a holy con­versation and the worship of God. To leaue this practise and come to the sixt difference namely of fasting. I finde likewise that the Church left it free, and imposed no necessity vpon men to obserue the Lent fast, Quidam [Page 99] saith Eusebius) putant vno tantum die obser­vari debere ieiunium, alii duobus, Lib. 5. cap. 24 alij vero pluribus, nonnulli etiam quadraginta, ita vt horas diurnas nocturnasque computantes diem statuant; some thought they ought to fast one day, some two daies, some more, some fourtie daies, and counting the houres of the day and night, make vp the daye. Also, Ieiu­nii dissolentia fidei vnitatem commendat. The diuersitie of fasting commendeth the v­nitie of faith. To Eusebius agreeth Socrates saying, in ipsis ieiunijs aliter apud alios ob­seruari inuenimus, Romani enim tres an­te Pascha septimanas ieiunant, tota Hellas, Alexandria quoque sex septimanas antè ie­iunant. We finde difference in the obseruati­on of fasts themselues, the Romās fast three weekes before Easter, all Greece and Alexan­dria 6. weekes. Memorable is the practise of Spirid. in the same hist. 1. lib. 12. cap. who said that omnia munda mūdis, al things are clean to the cleane: & therefore in quadragessima edebat carnes porcinas, In lent he fed vpō ba­con. Lastly good is the aduise of Nazi. in his oration of Baptisme: Christus quadraginta [Page 100] dies ieiunavit, nos nostris viribus men sure­mus [...]. Christ fasted forty daies, let vs measure it accor­ding to our ability. Out of all these testimo­nies it is apparent to all men that there was no vniformity in fasting, and therefore the Papists are degenerate in this point also frō the primitiue Church, because they impose a necessity of abstinence from flesh permit­ting fish, for (as we may reade in the places before cited) some vsed to feed on flesh in the time of lent. Many moe differences, as namely the libertie of ministers in marriage, the reading of the scriptures &c. might I haue stood vpō, but for breuity sake hoping that these differences here recited will satisfy a Christian, I leaue them, and say with our Sauiour Christ, It was not so from the begin­ning, Mtah. 19. v. 8 as the Papists would beare mē in hāde, and therefore they are to reforme their reli­gion, for as Cyprian saith ad Pomp. con sue­tudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est: cu­stome without trueth is but an auncient er­ror.

IF I should in this reason prosecute all thinges that argue the desperate case of popish religion, my treatise would exceede the measure of the vo­lume which I propoun­ded to my selfe: therefore in a word I come first to the abusing of Scripture by vngodly translations. In the 1. chapter of the epistle to the Hebrewes, & 3. verse, it is said, that Christ purged our sinnes by himselfe, which words (by himselfe) are cleane stricken out, as ouer­throwing their blasphemous doctrine of sa­tisfactions: for they teach, that Christ satisfi­eth by the repentant, whereas the Scripture saieth, that hee satisfieth by himselfe. In the same Epistle, the 7. chapter, and 28. verse, it is written, that the law appointeth priests men that haue infirmity, but the word of the oth which is after the lawe, the sonne for euer [Page 102] perfected: where by the opposition it is most cleare, that Iesus Christ is a Priest as hee is God. Yet they contrarie to their latine tran­slation haue left out the word [men] that the opposition might not appeare. Againe, in the thirteene chapter and 16. verse: their translation is thus, vvith such hostes God is promerited: doth not this make for their do­ctrine of deseruing at Gods hands? where as it is in the greeke fountaine, [...]: that is, vvith such sacrifi­ces god is delighted, or vvell pleased. To what a desperate estate are these mē grown, which so wilfully against their owne con­sciences, in fauour of their heresies, tran­slate the Scripture. Is there no difference betwixt pleasing of God, and meriting? All the substances and qualities of things natu­rall, please God because they are good, yet doe they not deserue at God his hands. A­gaine in the fourteene chapter of Saint Iohn and the twentie sixe verse their translation hath it thus, Suggeret vobis omnia quaecun (que) dixero vobis, which they finely english thus, Shall suggest vnto you whatsoeuer I shall say [Page 103] vnto you, when they knowe the greek hath [...], all things vvhich I haue spoken vnto you. Is not this translated to maintaine the traditions of their Church, and decrees of Popes, and counsailes? That it is so, it appeareth by their note, referring the reader to the 16. chapter, and 12. verse. Vpon which they haue gathered their tra­ditions: but Saint Augustine vpon that verse answereth them, Cum ipse tacuerit, vvhen he himselfe hath not vttered these things, vvhich of vs can say, these, and these they are? or if he dare be so bold to say, hovv doth he prooue it? In the tenth chapter of Luke & the thirtie fiue verse, the vulgar latine hath it thus, Quodcunque superogaueris, ego cum re­diero, reddam tibi, which they haue transla­ted thus, whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate &c. Hence are gathered works of superero­gation, it is in the greeke: whatsoeuer thou spendest more. These (to speake the least of them) are both supererogant collections, and superarogant works. To proceed in the 11. of the Rom. and 6. verse, these words are o­mitted, but if it bee of vvorks, it is no more [Page 104] of grace, or els were worke no vvorke, the da­shing out of this sentence, helpeth their do­ctrine of merits, let it alone in the scripture, and grace and merits cannot stand together: for here we may gather, that gratia non est vllo modo gratia, nisisit omni modo gratuita, grace is not grace except it be euery way free. In the 5. to the Ephes. they translate Sacra­mentum hoc magnum est, this is a great Sa­crament: Out of which the maister of the Sentences lib. 4. distinct. 26. prooueth mari­age to be a Sacrament: the greeke is, This is a great misterie, or secret, which Saint Paul speaketh, and meaneth of Christ, and his Church. (Not to quote many testimonies) let Cyprian that famous Martyr speak in his 2. booke of Epist. the 8. epist. Cum Apostolus dicit Sacramentum, hoc magnum est Christi, pariter & Ecclesiae vnitatem indiuiduis nex­ibus cohaerentem, sancta sua voce testatur, When the Apostle saieth this is a great Sa­crament he testifieth the vnitie of Christ & his holy Church knitt together, with vndiui­sible bondes. I cannot let passe that intollera­ble translation, Romanes the seuenth and the [Page 105] 25. verse. Where S. Paule crying out, O mi­serable man that I am, who shall deliuer me from this body of sinne? in the next verse they translate, the grace of Christ, conclud­ing out of it, that grace is sufficient to resist temptations and to vanquish sinne, where the Apostle saith no more, but I thanke god, yet they make the meaning to be this, who shall deliuer me from this body of death? the the grace of God by Iesus Christ; whereas there is no such meaning: for Paul hauing sorrowed for his sinne, rested in the hope which he had placed in Christ. Further­more in the 1. to the Corinth. the ninth cap. and 5. verse, they haue peruerted S. Pauls wordes, whereas he sayeth, a sister, a wife, or (as they would haue it) a sister, a womā, they make it to be a woman, a sister, expounding it against the Apostles wiues, whereas no man would say a sister, a woman, because the word sister implieth a woman. We read indeede that certaine women did fol­low Christ, we read not that he led them a­bout.vide Euseb [...] ­um lib. 3. ca. 30. Concerning this matter Clemens A­lexandrinus writeth thus. An & Apostolos [Page 106] improbant? Petrus enim ac Philippus vxo­res habuerunt. Doe they disalovv the Apo­stles? for Peter and Philip had wiues. And it grieueth not Paul in a certaine epistle to speake of his yoake-fellow, which he did not lead about with him, that he might be more readie to preach the gospel. But to come to a waightie matter indeede, they translate the 2. verse of the 3. chap. of Matth. Doe penance, which cannot be so turned, and that I prooue by these reasons: First pe­nance 1 includeth in it confession of sinnes, and satisfaction for sinnes: but the baptized are not bounde to confesse and satisfie for their sinnes,Aquin. 3. p. q. 68. ar. 5, 6. yet they must repent: therefore to confesse and satisfie, is not to repent. The 2 second reason is this: that the Rhemists wri­ting vpon the first of Mark and 12. v. faith, that Christ did penance, therefore a man may doe penance without sorow for sinnes, or else Christ repented of his sinnes which 3 is most horrible blasphemie. Thirdly let Lactantius speake [...] resipi scentia di­citur, L. 6. cap. 24. nam mentem quasi ab insania reci­pit. The Greeke word is called Repentance, [Page 107] for it recouereth the minde (as it were) from follie. Fourthly, Act. the 5. chap. and 31. vers. they translate it themselues, Repentance, and againe Marke the 1. chap. and 15. verse, be penitent. I will not stand vpon any moe places in the newe Testament, but come to a fewe of the olde. In the ninth of the Prea­cher and second verse they haue these wordes, Omnia in futurum servantur in­certa, All things are reserued as vncertain for the future time: there is no such thing in the Hebrew, yet out of this place is proo­ued the vncertentie of saluation and finall perseuerance. O most wretched and vile doctrine that must coyne scripture to de­fende it selfe! In the 98. psalme and 5. verse they translate, vvorshippe his footestoole, for it is holy, and from hence conclude the ado­ration and worshipping of creatures, wher­as it should haue beene turned, at his foote­stoole he is holy, lahadom the same thing be­ing repeated in the last verse. In the 8. of Genesis toward the ende of the chap. where it should be, the thoughts of mans heart [Page 108] are euill, in their translation it is prone to e­uill, as if there were no difference betwixt prone to euill, and euill, If I should affirme a papist to be prone to euill, and treason, doe I say that he is euill, and treason it selfe? no­thing lesse: euen so there is a difference be­twixt pronesse to vice, and vice it selfe. In the 14. of Genesis, and 18. verse, they haue it thus erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi, for he was a priest of the most high God, in fauour of their sacrifice: where it is, and he vvas a priest of the high God, neither let them aun­swere me that the coniunction (vau) doeth sometimes signifie (for) that is not the que­stion, but whether it so signifieth in this place. And because they vaunte of antiqui­tie, in this point, Freculph. in the first booke of his historie, and 42 chap. saith, that Mel­chizedech, in refectionem ipsius Abrahae, pa­nem, vinumque protulit. Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine for the refre­shing of Abraham. I will follow this matter of translations no further at this time. By this euery one may gather why they for­sake the pure Hebrewe, and Greeke foun­taines, [Page 109] and drinke of the corrupt Latin streames.

I come in the second place to the denial of plaine Scriptures. In the 3. of the Galat. and 10. ver. it is thus written, for as many as are of the deedes of the law, are vnder the curse: for it is written, cursed is euery one that con­tinueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law, to doe them: in which words the Apostle doth thus reason,

If this be not the Apostles assumption, the Galatians might haue answered Paul, that they could fulfil the law, and therefore were not vnder the curse. Yet the Papists teach, that man may fulfil Gods law, and so cut the sinewes of S. Pauls reason. Secondly in the 4. to the Rom. and 11. verse, circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith: out of which place we gather, that we are not iustified by the sacraments. The Papists to elude the place, answer it followeth not that it is so in all, because it was so in the pa­triarchs; [Page 110] this answer disioynteth the Apo­stles argument, which is this:

In the 6. of the Rom. and 27. ver. it is saide that the gift of God is eternall life, through Iesus Christ our Lord. S. Pauls speach is cor­rected by the Rhemists, saying, the sequele of the speach required, that as he saide, death or damnation is the stipend of sinne, so life e­uerlasting is the stipende of iustice. To see papists sit as it were in iudgement of the Scriptures, to alow, or disalow sentences at their pleasure, is the most notorious exam­ple of Hereticall pride and miserie that can be. Againe, in the 6. to the Rom. and 12. v. concupiscence is called sinne, yet denied by them to be sinne. If the scripture had so said, they might well haue expounded it as they doe, namely the occasions and matter of sinne. But cānot one thing be properly sinne, and the occasion of sinne? let Augustine then [Page 111] be controlled, who in his 5. book contra Iul. Pelag. and 3. chap. writeth thus, Sicut caecitas cordis, & peccatum est, & poena peccati, & causa peccati: it a concupiscentia, carnis & peccatum est, quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis, & poena peccati, & causa peccati. As blindnes of heart is sinn, and a punishment of sinne, and a cause of sinn: so likewise is concupiscence sinne, because it disobeieth the rule of the minde, and a puni­shment of sinne, and a cause of sinne. Augu­stines syllogisme is this: That which is diso­bedience to the gouernment of the minde is sinne: But concupiscence is disobedience to the gouernement of the minde: Therefore concupiscence is sinne.

Also in the 5. of the Roman. and 14. vers. Paul prooueth all men to be sinners, because of death; yet is the virgin Marie exempted from sinne, which strengtheneth Pelagius his opinion. For he might denie the argu­ment; Infants die, therefore they are no sin­ners, because Marie died, and yet was no sinner. In the 1. to the Corinthians and 10. chap. S. Paul beateth downe the conceit of [Page 112] the Corinthians cōcerning the sacraments. For the Iewes did eate Christ in their sacra­ments. Yet the Papists will haue our sacra­ments to giue grace ex opere operato, of the worke wrought, and so make the Apostles argument to be of no force. For the Corin­thians might haue replied, our sacraments giue grace to them that receiue them, ther­fore we cannot be dismaied, with the ex­amples of the Israelites. Furthermore in the 9. of the Hebrewes the 25. vers. Christ is said to haue offered himselfe but once, because he suffered but once. The Apostles reason is this: Christ died but once: Therefore he suffered but once.

Lastly, Hebr. 10. and 8. ver. the Apostles conclusion is, seeing there is remission of sinnes, there is no more offering for sinne. Therefore it followeth inuincibly, that the masse is not a sacrifice for sinne. Yet the pa­pists assertion must needes frustrate both these arguments of the Apostle. From the deniall of scripture I come to the addition of the same, which argueth extreame despe­ [...]atenes. The Councell of Laodicea 59. ca­non [Page 113] reiecteth the books which we doe and commandeth ne aliqui praeterea legantur, & in authoritatem recipiantur, that non be­sides be read, and receiued into authority. Ruffinus likewise in his exposition vpon the Creede, reiecteth the same, and will not haue them alleadged, ad authoritatem fidei confirmandam, for the confirmation of faith. Cirill of Hierusalem in the 4. booke of his Catech. writeteth thus. Lege scripturas sa­cras nempè viginti duos veteris testamenti libros, read the holy scriptures, namely the two and twentie bookes of the old testament. I passe ouer Hieroms authority, and Nazi­anzens, with Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Ly­raes: If al these will not mooue them, yet let their Angelicall doctor Thomas Aquinas be of some force with them, who in his first part. 89. quaest. 8. artic. resp. ad secund. regar­deth not the authoritie of Ecclesiasticus. Fourthly and lastly the concealing of the scriptures from the people, what end hath it, but maintenance of the Idolatrie, pompe, pride and couetousnes of the popish priests [Page 114] and prelats, (as Erasmus saith) Quis non in­telligat istos, sacras literas ideo velle paucis esse notas ne quid decedat ipsorum authorita­ti questuique? who knoweth not that these men would haue the scriptures knowne but to few, least their authority and gaine should decay? How could men be deceiued with I­mages, and robbed with Purgatory, if they were conuersant in the scriptures. Thus Christian reader I haue giuen thee a tast of foure-notorious-crimes, namely corrupt translations, deniall of plaine scriptures, addi­tion to them, and lastly concealing them frō the people: a tast I say I haue giuen thee, for I could not prosecute them as the things re­quire. If any Papist could shewe the like in the Calvinists, what exclamations should we haue? Master Martins discouery of our translations argueth either blinde ignorance or extreame malice, as I offer to prooue to any Papist. Campian in his first reason obiecteth diffidence, and distrust, because we denie scriptures, therefore it is a sure conclusion against them, they adde to the [Page 115] Scripture and so distrust their cause: other­wise they could not adde any Apocripha books, as they doe: but inough of this.

THe number of popish cō ­tradictions is so great (as by reading of Bellarmine himselfe euery man may gather) that I may saye with the Orator, In hac causa oratio nemini de es­se potest, In this matter no man can want words, & therefore, non tàm mihi copia, quàm modus in dicendo quaerendus est, In speaking of this thing I must seeke for a iust measure, not for plentie and varietie of matter. Chra­stouius in his book, called Bellum Iesuiticum, the Iesuites warre, besides contradictions concerning Antichrist hath gathered two hundred and fiftie about the Masse. Thus the Papists like the Madianites wound on ano­ther, [Page 116] and indeed, Non tanta nobiscum, quan­ta secum est contentio, The controuersie is not so great with vs as with themselues, and this agreeth to the wonted and accustomed dealing of the Lord: who did, Haereticos in­ter se committere, set hereticks togither by the eares: For (as Hierome saieth) Amos the 9. Nisi superbiam haereticorum suo dominus calcauerit pede, & peruersam sceleratamque doctrinam, spirituali mucrone percusserit, & magistros eorum qui in capitibus accipiun­tur, inter se diui serit, atque in bonam partem occiderit, non possunt discipuli viuificari, Ex­cept the Lord tyed dovvne the pride of here­ticks with his foote, and wound their peruerse and wicked doctrin with his spiritual sword, and set their masters which are counted the principallat dissention, and slay them for the most part, their schollers cannot bee restored to life.

FOr asmuch as in one of my former reasons I haue by sufficient testimonies proued the practise of the primitiue Church to bee repugnant to Poperie in many weightie matters, I shal not need to be long in the Original of the Romish religion; certaine it is that it was not all hatched at once,Te [...]. de p [...]e­sc [...]p. and that it it not a thing necessarie to shew the beginning of euerie point in pope­rie, seing that ipsa Papistarum doctrina cum Apostolis comparata ex diuersitate, & con­trarietate sua pronunciabit, neque Apostoli alicuius authoris esse, neque Apostolici. The Popish doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostles will by the varietie and contra­rietie that is in it, pronounce that neither [Page 145] Apostle, nor any Apostolicall man was the author of it. Notwithstanding both because it helpeth much for the satisfying of some, and also because diuerse abuses are noted by Pa­pists thēselues, I will set downe some things concerning the Originall of poperie: and first heare what Bucchingerus an arch Pa­pist in his Ecclesiastical history writeth, pag. 217. Res est plena horroris vel legere, vel me­minisse, tantam tyrannidem, inter se exer­cuisse mutuò Pontifices Romanos: ô quantum degenerarunt à maioribus suis! & fieri non potuit in tanta crudelitate, vt pietatis Chri­stianae ratio haberetur ne cui mirum sit inte­rim, siqui abusus & perversae opiniones in Ecclesiam irrepsêrunt. It is a thing full of horror either to reade or to remember the great tyranny the Bishops of Rome haue practised one toward another: ô howe are they degenerate from their auncestoures! and it cannot be that in such crueltie their should be had any regard of Christian piety: let no man then marueile if some abus [...]s, and badde opinions haue crept into the church. Loe here three things noted by a Papist him [Page 146] selfe. First the cruelty of the Romish Bishops, 2. their degeneratiō from their auncestours, and thirdly that certaine badde opinions by this meanes are crept into the Church. For proofe of this last point, I will beginne with purgatory, because that it hath warmed the popes kitchin. Concerning which let Rof­fensis a papist speake, artic. 18. contra assert. Lutheri, fer in ini [...]sed Graecis etiam adhunc vsque diem, non creditum est purgatorium esse: legat quicunque velit Graecorum veterū commentarios & nullum (quantum opinor) aut quàm rarissimum de purgatorio sermo­nem inveniet. Sed neque Latini simul om­nes huius rei veritatem concepêrunt, & rur­sus, non absque maxima spiritus sancti dis­pensatione factum est, quod post tot annorum curricula, purgatorii fides, & indulgentiarū vsus, ab orthodoxis generatim sit recep­tus, quandiu nulla fuit de purgatorio cura, nemo quaesivit indulgentias, nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum ex­istimatio. The Greeks to this daie doe not beleeue that there is purgatory, reade who list the Commentaries of the auncient Grae­cians, [Page 147] and he shall finde either very seldome mention of purgatory, or none at all. Nei­ther did the Latin Church conceiue the trueth of this thing at one time. And againe, neither was it done without the great dis­pensation of the holy ghost that after so ma­ny yeares, Catholikes both beleeued purga­tory, and receiued the vse of pardon gene­rally, so long as there was no care of purga­tory, no man sought for pardons, for of it dependeth all the aestimation that we haue of pardons. Out of this testimony I gather first that the Greeke Church acknowledg­eth no purgatory. Secondly that the aunciēt Latin Church did not beleeue it. Thirdly, that these opinions grewe by little and little in the Church. Fourthly and lastly that par­dons depende vpon purgatorie, and so are newe deuises of mans braine. Therefore let pardons & purgatory pickpurse goe. From purgatory I passe to the Popes primacy, which is an after invention (as I prooue out of Socrates in the 7. booke of his Ecclesia­sticall historie, and the 11. chap.) Episcopatus Romanus non aliter atque Alexandrinus, [Page 148] quasiextra sacerdotii fines egressus ad saecu­larem principatum iam erat ante delapsus. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria going beyond the limits of priesthood, vvent into a secular & worldly dominiō. For proofe of this, when Victor [as Eusebius writeth lib. 5. cap. 23. Ecclesiastic. histor.] would haue ex­communicated the Churches of Asia, he was resisted by Iraeneus. To passe ouer that, Policarpus would not yeeld to Amcetus. We know that before Boniface the first no Bishop of Rome was called vniuersal bishop. Lastly as testifieth (Fasciculus temporum) anno 704, in Gregory the second his daies, Domini Papae plus solito erant in temporali­bus, The popes grewe more in temporall mat­ters then they vvere vvoont. Thirdly, con­cerning ministers marriage, Bucchingerus (before named) saith, pag. 104, that Calixtus nemini in sacris ordinib. constituto, licere superducere vxorem, conubialique vinculo se constringere statuit. decreed that no man being in holy orders, might marry a wife & bind himselfe with the marriage bōd. Iohā ­nes Maierius in his book, de differētiis schismatum, [Page 149] pag. 136. professeth his ignorance in this point, namely, who did first prohibite it, yet saith, that some referre it to Calixtus vp­on these ridiculous, and barbarous verses.

O Calixtus thou art hated of all the clear­gie, priests might marry in times past, which thou didst take away being Pope, therefore thy festiuall day is not honorably celebrated. O hers referre it to Syricius the Pope: cer­taine it is, that it was not from the Apostles, (as is proued out of Gratian: part. 1. distinct. 56. Cenomanensem.) Coniugia sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem vbique erant licita, & in Orientali Ecclesia vsque hodiè licere pro­batur, Mariage of ministers was lawfull be­fore the prohibition thereof, and in the East churches they are lawfull vnto this day. See Polydore Virgill in his fift booke de inuen­toribus rerum, when it was restrained in the West churches. Howsoeuer it is not certen [Page 150] who first restrained the marriage of mini­sters, yet it is certaine that, Calixtus instituit ieiunium quatuor temporum, appointed the fast of the foure times, namely in March, May, September, and December, Bucchinge­rus in the same place. Fiftly, Innocentius the first, anno 404. statuit, quòd non solum pres­byteri, sedomnes Christiani deberent vngi oleo infirmorum, decreed that not onely Pres­byters, but al Christians ought to be annoin­ted with the oyle of the sick. Fasciculus tem­porum, folio 50. Ergo, extreame vnction is no Sacrament, being inuented, and deuised by a Pope. Sixtly, anno 654. Festum purificationis institutum fuit, the feast of the purification of Marie was instituted. Fasciculus temporū, folio 55. Seuenthly, anno 654. Vitellianus cā ­tum organorum instituit, Pope Vitellian or­deined Organes in the church. Fasciculus temp. fol. 60. Eightly, anno 614. Bonifacius instituit festum omnium sanctorum, ordai­ned the feast of al Saints. Fasciculus temp. fol. 58. Ninthly, anno 484. Festum visitationis Mariae institutum fuit ab Vrbano, The feast of the visitation of Marie was ordained by [Page 151] Vrbanus. Fasciculus temp fol. 86. Tenthly, Festi dies instituti sunt à Foelice primo, festi­uall daies were instituted of Faelix the first. Bucchingerus 130. pag. Eleuenthly, Pelagius horas canonicas instituit, Pelagius appoin­ted canonicall howers. Idē pag. 167. Twelfly, Gregorius primus Letaniam auxit, Gregory the first increased the Letanie. Idem pag 173. And because I might abound in these parti­culars, read this author, and thou shalt finde the Originall, of euery thing almost in their Masse: the worshipping of Images was not concluded (as Alfonsus witnesseth) before the Councell of Nice. Transubstantion in the Laterane Councell was determined vn­der Pope Iulius. Iuell in the defence of the A­pologie pag. 35. the cupp was taken from the people by the Councell of Constance. But these shall suffice to shew the Originall of poperie: by them euery man may iudge of the rest, neither let any man say these are tri­fles. For the Popes primacie, purhatorie, ma­riage of ministers, extreame vnction, images, transubstantiation, and the cuppe are matters of exceeding great moment. And for a con­clusion [Page 152] (christian Reader) I saye with the O­rator, in his 2. booke de natura Deorum, si sin­gula haec te non mouent, vniuersa tamen in­ter se connexa, & coniuncta mouere debent. If euery one of these seuerally can not moue and perswade thee to relinquish poperie, yet all of them ioyned and coupled together ought to perswade thee.