The blessings on Mount Gerizzim, and the curses on Movnt Ebal. Or, The happie estate of Protestants compared with the miserable estate of papists vnder the Popes tyrannie. By M.S. Doctor of Diuinitie.

CHAP. IIII. Of diuers other blasphemous, ridiculous, and absurd points of popish Religion.

TRue Religion is most true, venerable, and respectiue of Gods true seruice. If then popish Religion containe any vntrue or ridiculous, vaine, and blasphemous doctrine, then is it not true, or Apostolicall, or Christian: nor can it stand with Christian Religion, séeing no man can serue God and Baal, nor Dagon could stand before the arke of God. But notorious it is, that popish Religion centaineth many blasphemous, ridiculous, and absurd points.

First, concerning the flesh of our Lord and Sauior Christ Iesus they teach falsly and blasphemously, and say, that a mouse or dog, or hog may eate the body of Christ. Nay they are not ashamed to affirme, that his most holy body may be cast out vpon a dunghill, or into any vncleane place. Prima opinio (saith Alexander Hales part. 4. sum. q. 53. m. 2.) quae dicit quod corpus Christi defertur, quocunque species deferunt, vt in ven∣trem canis, vel suis, vel in alia lo ca immunda, videtur vera. And a∣gain, p. 4. sum. q. 45. m. 1. si canis aut porcus deglutiat hostiam con∣secratam, non video quare corpus Christi non simul traijceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. Is a dog or hog should swallow a con∣secrate hoft (saith he) I see no reason why the body of Christ should not withall passe into the belly of a dog or hog. Tho∣mas Aquinas likewise, although made a saint by the Pope, yet shameth not to hold this prophane and vnholy opinion, part. 3. q. 80. art. 3. And in his comment. in 4. sent. dist. 9. q. 2. The same is also stiffely maintained by Brulifer in 4. sent. dist. 13. quest. 5. And this is the common opinion of schoole∣men.

That the priest is able to make his Creator, they make no question. Bonner counted this among the prerogatiues of priesthood, in his absurd spéech which he made in the Con- 〈4 pages missing〉〈4 pages missing〉

stian faith by the very confession of the aduersaries. The same also may otherwise be proued, if they should not con∣fesse so much. For how is Christ ascended, if his body be hanging ouer euery altar? How is it credible that he shall come from heauen to iudge quicke and dead, if he be lur∣king in euery consecrate hoast? How was he conceiued, and borne of the virgine, and suffered death on the crosse, if he had a body of such a simple nature, that it was like light in glasse, and might be in many places at once without filling any?

Finally it implyeth a notorious contradictiō for Chrifts body to be in heauen visible, and here inuisible; to be there palpable, and here impalpable; to be continued, and not continued; eaten here, and not eaten in heauen; here with∣out filling of a place, there filling a place; here in the priests hands, and there not.

Absurdly also do the Papists talke of Christ his most ho∣ly sacrifice. Christ (sayth the Apostle Heb. c. 9.) was once of∣fered, that he might take away the sinnes of many. And Hebr. 10. Christ hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes, doth perpetually sit at the right hand of God. And againe: With one oblation he hath for euer sanctified those that are sanctified. But the Papists say, that our Sauior offered him selfe twise, once at his last supper, and the second time vpō the crosse. They teach also, that the priest in euery Masse * 1.1 doth offer vp the body and blood of Chrift really for a sacri∣fice for quicke and dead. The which is not only contrary to Scriptures, but derogateth much from the perfection and vnitie of Christs sacrifice. For how is Christs sacrifice per∣fect, if the same be so often reiterated? How is Christ his sa∣crifice one and the same, if euery pelting priest do offer vp this sacrifice? The same is contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers, which teach that the sacrifices of Christians are spiritual, and no where say, that they offer vp Christs body and bloud really. Iustin in dial. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. saith, that prayers and praises of God are the onely acceptable sacrifices of Chri∣stians. With him concurreth Tertullian lib. 3. contra Marcionē.

This visible sacrifice (saith Augustine lib. 10. de ciuit. Dei ca. 5. speaking of the Eucharist) is a sacrament of the inuisible sa∣crifice, that is, the same is a holy signe of it. Likewise Chry∣sostome hom. 17. in epist. ad Heb. saith, that our oblation is but a commemoration of Christ his death, and a figure of that ob∣lation which Christ made. Finally, it is most blasphemous. For in the Masse the priest taketh on him to be a mediator for Chrift, and prayeth that God would looke on Christ with a propitious and serene countenance, & accept the sacrifice of his body as he vouchsafed to accept the offerings of Abel, A∣braham and Melchisedech. The scriptures teach vs, that Christ onely is a priest after the order of Melchisedech, as we may reade in the 110. psalme, in the fift and seuenth chapter to the Hebrewes. The Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him, saith God by his Prophet, thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. The same also is proued, for that he onely continueth for euer. He was with∣out father concerning his humane nature, without mother concerning his diuine nature, and hath neither beginning nor ending. But the Masse-priests continue not for euer, nor are they without father or mother, nor are they with∣out beginning or ending. Are they not then presumptuous fellowes to enter vpon Christs office, and to arrogate to themselues priesthood after the order of Melchisedech?

But were they priests after the order of Melchisedech, yet did Melchisedech neuer offer the body and blood of any man, nor do we reade that either he or Christ did offer for the quicke and dead at his last supper. Are they not then fla∣gitious fellowes, that imagine themselues able to offer the son of God? Are they not presumptuous priests, that with∣out warrant haue deuised such a sacrifice? Our Sauiour Christ sayth, that such do worship God in vaine, which teach doctrines, which are the commaundements of men. But these fellowes deuise a worship of God contrary to his word crucifying Christ againe, and laying violent hands vpon him according to their owne imaginations.

Christ hath taught vs to pray vnto the Father in his

name, saying, Our father which art in heauen. He hath also promised we shall obtaine our prayers which we shall so make. If you shall aske my father any thing in my name (sayth he) he will giue it vnto you. The Apostle doth also teach vs, that as there is but one God, so there is but one Mediator betwixt God & man, the man Christ Iesus. In the Epistle to the Hebrewes we reade, that it behoued vs to haue an high Priest, holy, innocenr, vndefiled, separated from sinners, and * 1.2 higher then the heauens. For such a one onely was able to reconcile vs, and to make intercession for vs. As for Angels, Saints, or saints relikes, the auncient fathers did neuer vse as mediators, or intercessors, or spokesmen to God. Am∣brose in his treatise of Isac saith, that Christ is our mouth, by which we speake to the Father; and our eye, by which we see the Father; and our right hand, by which we offer to our Father. S. Augustine writing vpon the 108. Psalme, affirmeth, that the prayer which is not offered by Christ, is not onely not able to put away sinne, but also is sinne it selfe.

But the blind Papists teach vs a farre different forme of prayer, and flie to the mediation of our Ladie, of Saints, of Angels, of the crosse; as if these were our intercessors and mediators, and as if the priesthood of Christ had bene tran∣slated to saints. They say, Maria mater gratiae, mater miseri∣cordiae: Mary mother of grace, mother of mercie: turning our father which art in heauē, into our mother which art in hea∣uen. They say, Haile Mary full of grace, our Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruite of thy wōb Iesus: holy Mary mother of God, pray for vs sinners now & in the houre of death: taking vpon them presumptuously to speake those words, which the Angell spoke by Gods di∣rection to the holy virgine, and corrupting the words of scripture by their additions, and by iumbling the words of the Angell and of Elizabeth together. In their Mattins in honor of our Ladie betwéene euery verse of the Psalme Ve∣nite exultemus, they put either Aue Maria or Dominus tecum, corrupting and falsifying the words of scripture. Bonauenture also most blasphemously hath corrupted and

transformed the Psalmes into the praises of our Ladie, be∣ginning thus: Beat us vir qui diligit nomen tuum virgo Maria, gratia tua animam illius confortabit. That is, Blessed is the man that loueth thy name holy virgine Marie, thy grace shall com∣fort his soule. And Psal. 7. O Lady in thee haue I put my trust. And Psal. 11. Saue me O mother of faire loue. Wherein plainly he giueth the honor of God to the virgine Mary, which I thinke no man can deny to be idolatrous. In a booke called Hortulus animae, printed at Paris anno 1565. by William Merlin, in the 107. leafe, she is called, Laus sancta∣rum animarum, & vera saluatrix carum, & mediatrix Dei & hominum: The praise of holy soules, and true sauiour of them, and the mediatrix betwixt God and man. And fol. 224. we reade, O vener anda trinitas, Iesus, Ioseph & Maria: O holy tri∣nitie, Iesus, Ioseph and Marie. Now what is blasphemie if this be not? In the Rosary she is called, the repairer and sal∣uior of a desperate soule, the distiller and giuer of spirituall grace. Goodric a certaine holy hermit, that liued in Henrie the second king of England his dayes, prayed thus: O holy Mary, Christs mariage chamber, virginall puritie, flower of thy mother, put away my sinnes, raigne in me, leade me vnto hap∣pinesse with God. In the feast of S. Catherin they pray thus: Deus qui dedisti legem Moysi in summitate montis Sinai, &c. O God which hast giuen thy law vnto Moyses on the top of the mountain Sinai, and in the same place hast by thy holy Angels placed the body of blessed Catherine a virgine and martyr, grant we beseech thee, that by her merites and intercession we may come to the mountaine that is Christ. And on S. Nicholas day they pray thus: O God which hast adorned Nicholas thy Bishop with innumerable miracles, grant we beseech thee that through his merits and prayers we may be deliuered from the flames of hell. But if prayers be fruitlesse, if not sinfull, if they procéed not from true faith, and if faith be grounded vpon vndoubted and prime truth, how can these prayers auaile vs, that are grounded vpon S. Catherines and S. Ni∣cholas his legends? Againe, if Christ be the mediator of sal∣uation onely, as the Papists hold, how can they hope to be

saued by the merites of S. Catherine and S. Nicholas? And how can they deny them to be mediators of saluation, by whose merits they suppose to be saued? I will not ask them what Catherine and Nicholas haue to do with them, but yet they may do wel to proue that there was euer any such vir∣gin in the world, being the daughter of king Costus, as they giue out.

Upon S. Francis his day they vse this prayer: O God which by the merites of blessed S. Francis doest amplifie thy Church with the birth of new children, graunt that by his imi∣tation we may despise earthly things, and alwayes reioyce be∣ing made partakers of heauenly gifts through Christ our Lord. But the Apostle exhorteth vs to be followers of Christ Ie∣sus, and of others so far as they be followers of Christ: and iustly we may doubt, whether Francis followed Christ or no, being the author of a rule diuers from that of Christ, and of diuers strange fancies. We may also well make a question, whether his disciples be Christs true disciples, sée∣ing the doctors of Paris affirmed, they were in the state of damnation. Sure we are, that by Christs merits, and not by his merits or imitation, we are made partakers of heauen∣ly gifts.

Upon S. Bathildis day, according to the order of Sarum Missal they prayed, that her merites might obtaine, that their sacrifices & oblations might be accepted, seeing she offered vp her self a liuing, holy, and welpleasing sacrifice vnto God: as if Christs body and bloud were not to be accepted, but by the merits of S. Bathildis, or as if by her sacrifice, our sins were done away.

Upon Thomas of Canterbury his day they prayed, that by the blood of Thomas they might ascend to heauen. And on S. Lucies day they pray, O Lucie, spouse of Christ, thou didst hate the things of the world, and shinest with Angels, by thine owne blood thou hast ouercome thine enemie. As if men were saued by the blood of Thomas, as wel as Christs blood: and as if Saints by their owne blood, without Christ, could ouercome their enemies.

So wicked and blasphenious these prayers are, that the most ingenious Doctors of the popish schoole haue much a do to excuse them, and do very badly agrée either one with another, or with the truth. Hosius in confess. petrik. ca. 58. hath these words: When a man commeth to saints, he doth not desire mercie of them, but onely their intercession. And again: We giue no more vnto them (saith he) when we call vpon them, triumphing with Christ in heauen, then to any one of our brethren militant on earth. But therein he lyeth notori∣ously. For commonly they call the virgine Mary mother of mercy, and desire her to protect them, and to do away their sinnes. Likewise they pray to be saued by the blood of Tho∣mas, & by the merites of other saints; which I trow is more then they will giue to euery one of their brethren in earth.

Bellarmine saith, that it is not lawful to ask glorie or grace, or other meanes tending to blessednesse, of saints, as authors of * 1.3 Gods benefites. But this is contradicted as well by the do∣ctrine, as by the practise of the Romish church. Sotus in con∣fess. cath. saith, that saints in heauen are our coadiutors, and fellow-workers in the worke of our saluation. Saltzger wri∣ting vpon this argument, affirmeth that we pray to saints for two benefites, the first is to the end they may pray for vs, the second is, that either visibly or inuisibly they may bestow their helpe vpon vs. Clichtouey teacheth, that saints haue se∣uerall graces to bestow on them that call vpon them. Alexan∣der Hales sayth, Sanctos oramus vt mediatores, per quos impetra∣mus. We call vpon saints as mediators, by whom we obtaine. Thomas sayth, we receiue benefites from God by the meanes of saints: Beneficia Dei sumimus mediantibus sanctis. Antoninus part. 3. sum. Tit. 3. sayth, that Gods benefites descend downe to vs by the mediation of Angels and holy soules. And againe p. 4. Tit. 15. Maria ita aduocat & interpellat, vt Deum patrem placet, & conuersos in gloriam inducat. Mary is so our aduocate and intercessor, that she doth pacifie the Father, and bring re∣pentant sinners into glory. Bernardine in his booke of Mary, sayth, that no grace commeth from heauen vnto the earth but by Mary, and vnlesse the same passe by the hands of Mary: for

that all graces do enter into Mary, and from her are cōmunica∣ted to vs: and for that she is the mediatrix of saluation, of con∣iunction, of intercession, of communication. Commonly they pray to the virgin Mary in this forme: Giue vs peace, protect me. To S. George they addresse themselues saying, this saint let him saue vs from our sinnes, that we may rest in heauen with blessed soules: Hic nos saluet (say they) à peccatis, vt in coelo cum beatis possimus quiescere. And if they did only intercede for vs, & not bestow vpon vs the things we pray for; why do some beg of S. Anthony the health of their swine, and of S. Winnoc the good standing of their sheepe? Why do they pray to S. Luis for their horses, and to S. Nicolas for good passage at the sea? Why do Painters call on S. Luke, and Phisitions on Cosmas and Damianus, and Shoo makers on S. Crespin? Finally, why do they tell vs in their legends of the appari∣tions of diuers saints in time of warre, pestilence, and other sicknesses, and working diuers feates? For if they did onely intercede for vs, then one saint might serue for al purposes, and then should they onely appeare as suppliants to God, and not as bestowers of graces and workers of wonders. Finally, then should we not say, helpe me, heale me, defend me, but pray to God that I may be holpen, healed, and de∣fended.

Are not the Papists thē in miserable state, that forgetting for the most part their onely Mediator and Redéemer, run to saints and Angels? nay, runne to such as are no saints, nor euer were in the world, as George that killed the Dra∣gon, Catherin the daughter of Costus, Christopher that bore Christ, and such like?

Are they not mad to pray vnto such as they know not, whether they heare them or not? And do not some say, that they are euery where present to heare our praiers? Others, that they heare such prayers as God reuealeth vnto them? Others, that they sée all things in Gods face? Others that they vnderstand by relation of Angels? It cannot be denied. For Bellarmine confesseth it, lib. 1. de Beatitudine sanct. ca. 20. and that which he affirmeth, that saints do sée all in God

from the first beginning of their blessed estate, is most ab∣surd. For what is seeing to hearing? Againe, how can things temporarie be imprinted in the essence of God? or can Saints sée some things, and not all, if they comprehend that, which is in the incomprehensible essence of the Deity?

Most wretchedly also they do worship dumbe images knéeling vnto them, kissing them, and burning incense vn∣to them, saying to the crosse: O crux aue spes vnica: auge pijs iustitiam, rets{que} dona veniam. All haile, ô Crosse, my only hope, increase iustice in the godly, and grant pardon to sinners. And crying to the Crucifixe, Thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast re∣conciled * 1.4 vs to thy Father: and calling a blocke mother of mercie, and saying before stockes and stones: Our Father, and Aue Maria, and knocking their breasts, and whipping themselues before Images, as the idolatrous Priests did before their idols. The Apostle when he laid before the Co∣rinthians the miserable state they stood in, while they were yet Gentils, he vseth no other tearmes then these: Ye know that ye were Gentiles, and were caried away vnto dumbe I∣dols, as ye were led. Which is as much, as if he should say: You were miserable and blind, when ye were caried away vnto dumbe Idols. Why then may we not say the same to Papists? They may percase deny the case to be like. But in my challenge I haue by many arguments proued them to be grosse. Idolaters, & haue clearely shewed, that they haue no better excuse for their worship of Images, then the ido∣latrous Gentiles had for their worship of idoles. Are they not then likewise blind and miserable? Thinking to thrust others out of their societie, which they call the Church, they haue flatly excluded themselues from the societie and communion of the Catholike Church. For if their Church be a companie of men professing the same faith, and partici∣pating the same Sacraments, vnder the rule of lawfull pastors, and especially of the Pope: as Bellarmine saith, lib. 2. de Eccl. milit. cap. 2. then are they not the catholike Church. For that Church was long before either Pope or Bishop of Rome. Beside that, false it is, that either the Apostles, or

whole Apostolike Church was subiect to the Bishop of Rome, or that Iohn the Euangelist, that liued long after Pe∣ter, was subiect to Linus, Cletus, or Clement, in whose time he liued. Finally, false it is, that God appointed the church to be gouerned by the Bishops of Rome: there is nothing thereof in Scriptures. The Fathers shew, that the chiefe authoritie in externall matters was in generall Councels and Emperors. And Bellarmines idle disputes concerning his Pope are long since ouerthrowne.

That they are not the true Church, it appeareth also, for that they heare not the voice of Christ, but sollow a stran∣ger: for that they haue receiued diuers heresies, and deuised new Sacraments, relinquishing Christ his institution in the celebration of the Lords supper: for that they haue other foundations of their religion, then were laid by Christ, or his Apostles: for that they persecute true Christians, mur∣ther them, and massacre them, and by all meanes persecute them: and for diuers other reasons laid downe in mine an∣swer to Bellarmines booke De Eccles. militante. If then it be not possible to be saued without the Church, in what case are they, that running after the Pope, which is that Anti∣christ, of which the Apostle speaketh 2. Thess. 2. are run out of the Church? And whither are they runne? forsooth into the confusion of Babylon: where the Pope, Cardinals, Masse priests, & Friars make merchandize of mens soules. Bellarmine saith, that neither faith, hope, nor charitie, nor o∣ther * 1.5 internall vertue is required, that a man absolutely may be said to be a part of the Church, but onely an externall profes∣sion of the faith and communion of the Sacraments. Who then will not leaue that societie, which, for ought that we know, may be a packe of Turkes and infidels, without all vertue, religion, and honestie, especially if they professe the Romish faith externally?

Further, as they haue excluded themselues from the Church, so they haue put themselues vnder the subiection of Antichrist, that is the head of the malignant Church, and to his Cardinals, Masse-priests, and Friars, which

rabblement are fitly resembled to the maister Cooke of hell, his scalders, the blacke-guard, and all the scullerie of Sa∣tan. Whatsoeuer the Pope decreeth, that they receiue. A∣gatho the Pope hath told them in good earnest, that all san∣ctions * 1.6 of the Apostolike see are to be receiued, as if they were confirmed by the diuine voice of Peter. Be the Pope neuer so vnlearned, or foolish, or peruerse; yet if he say the word sitting on his close chaire, it must stand. His voice they take to be infallible: his sentence is honoured like a diuine Ora∣cle. Likewise his Cardinals, Masse priests, and Friars, al∣beit they be the false Prophets, spoken of by S. Peter, 2. Pet. 2. and diuersly detected by S. Iohn in his Reuelation to be limbs of Antichrist, yet are they followed. These leade, and their simple hearers follow them the way, that leadeth to destruction. Their teachers bring to themselues swift dam∣nation, as the Apostle S. Peter saith, and they cannot escape beléeuing their damnable heresies, and running after them in their wicked wayes. Pius Quintus that helhound, that first barked against Queene Elizabeth our late Soueraign, * 1.7 saith, that Christ committed his Church to Peter alone: vni soli. But that is most false. The Apostle (Ephes. 4.) saith: He gaue some Apostles, some Prophets, some Euangelists, some Pastors and teachers. Likewise Mat. 28. he said to all the Apostles, Go and teach. Beside that, what doth the au∣thoritie of Peter belong to the Pope? S. Peter had neither such rubie Cardinals, nor such a parti-coloured guard of Switzers, nor such a hellish rabble of Masse-priests and Fri∣ars, as the Pope hath. Contrariwise, he preached and suf∣fered as the Pope doth not. Others say, that Masse-priests and Friars are the Apostles successors. But we find them to be the locustes, that (as S. Iohn foretold) came out of the bottomelesse pit, mentioned Apocalyps. 9. If they were the Apostles successors, then would they teach the Apostles doctrine, and not the Popes decretals, scholasticall inuen∣tions, philosophicall subtilties, and such fooleries. Againe, they would not lead their miserable disciples from Christ to Antichrist.

They haue also declined from the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles concerning the Sacraments. Our Sauiour onely instituted two, that properly deserue the name of Sacraments, to wit, Baptisme and the Eucharist, as the writings of the Apostles beare witnesse. The Fathers also confirme vnto vs two onely Sacraments of the new Te∣stament. Cyprian, lib. 2. Epist. 1. Tunc demum planè sanctifi∣cari, & esse filij Dei possunt, si vtroque Sacramento nascantur. Then may they be sanctified and made the sonnes of God, (saith he) if they be regenerate by both the Sacraments. Au∣gustine de symb. ad Catechum. saith, Haecsunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta: these are the two Sacraments of the Church. Neither doth any Father name more Sacraments then two, where he speaketh properly, as may be proued by the testimonie of Iustines second Apologie, of Tertullian, lib. 1. & 4. contr. Marcion. Of Clement recognit. lib. 1. Of Ambrose lib. de Sacrament. Of Cyril of Ierusalem, in his catechisticall Sermons, of Augustine lib. 3. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9 of Grego∣rie cap. multi secularium 1. q. 1. (who although he name Bap∣tisme, Chrisme, and the bodie and bloud of our Lord; yet Chrisme was nothing but an addition to Baptisme:) Of Paschasius and others. Sunt Sacramenta Christi (saith Pas∣chasius) * 1.8 in Ecclesia catholica, Baptismus, corpus quoque Domini & sanguis. The Sacraments of Christ in the catholike Church are Baptisme, and the bodie and bloud of our Lord. And so manifest a matter it is, that Bessarion writing vpon the Sacrament, confesseth, that there are two Sacraments onely deliuered in the Gospell. But the Papists haue added other fiue Sacraments vnto these two, giuing like vertue vnto confirmation, mariage, order, penance, and extreame vn∣ction, as vnto Baptisme and the Lords Supper: and tea∣ching that Sacraments containe grace, and iustifie the re∣ceiuer. So that if we will beleeue them, as well he is iu∣stified, that is confirmed, maried, ordered or annoynted, as he that is baptised, or made partaker of the Lords body and bloud. Where Christ distributed the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud, and gaue both the kinds to all communi∣cants,

they seldome distribute the sacrament, and take the cup from all but the priest. In confirmation and extreame vnction they vse other signes and formes then euer Christ ordained. They teach that Christians are able to satisfie for their sinnes, and that the Pepe by indulgences hath power to remit satisfaction, and to do away the temporall punish∣ment of sinne. Are they not then most miserable, that haue corrupted the sacraments and seales of Gods eternall te∣stament, and as it were broken the couenants betwixt God and vs, and despised the pledges of his loue?

Of Christian faith they thinke so basely, that they make it nothing but a bare assent to Gods word, as well in fea∣ring the threatnings of the law, as beléeuing the promises of the Gospell; & teach that not only reprobate men, but also the diuels also may haue true faith. Bellarmine lib. de iustif. 1. c. 15. speaking of the saith of wicked men and diuels, sayth, that both is true and right, and catholike faith, and compara∣ble to S. Peters faith concerning the obiect.

Grace that maketh vs acceptable to God (saith Bellarmine) cannot really be distinguished from the habite of charitie. But * 1.9 if this be true, then may Christians be saued by their workes without the help of Gods grace working with thē, which is méere Pelagianisme. For if charitie, as it is in vs habitually, make vs beloued; then it is our loue towards God, and not Gods grace or loue towards vs, or his grace helping vs, and remitting our sins through Christ that sa∣ueth vs properly.

They denie that a man is certainly to perswade himself of his owne saluation, or to beléeue the same, and all their confidence they put in their owne workes and merites, ho∣ping to be saued by pilgrimages, indulgences, eating of fu∣madaes, créeping to the crosse, kissing of the Popes toe, praying to saints, to stockes, to stones, giuing of money to lazie Monkes and Friers, and such like humane de∣uises.

Are they not then most wretched, that neither vnderstand what is grace, nor what is faith, nor what is charitie, nor

what belongeth to good works? He that beleeueth not (saith our Sauior, Marke 16) shall be damned. The Apostle also sheweth, that none is iustified, but by the grace of Christ. Nay he sayth, that Christ saued vs, not by the workes of righ∣teousnesse, * 1.10 which we had done, but according to his mercie, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy Ghost. By eating holy bread, they hope to attaine health of body and soule, as it is in the Ronish Missall: they doubt not also, but that their eating of their paschall lambe, ten∣deth to the praise of God. By holy water they teach, that not onely diuels are driuen away, but also veniall sinnes remitted. Finally, there remaine but few points of religion which the Papists with their leuen, partly of Iudaical and heathenish superstition, and partly of hereticall doctrine haue not corrupted. What then resteth, but that we deplore their blindnesse which admit such erronious, absurd, and blasphemous points of doctrine, and wilfully resist those that offer vnto them the truth out of Gods word?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Synod. Trid. sess. 22. c. 1.
• * 1.2

  Heb. 7.
• * 1.3

  Lib. 1. de san. beatit. 6. 17.
• * 1.4

  Bellar. dei∣magin. c. 23.
• * 1.5

  De Eceles. milit. cap. 2.
• * 1.6

  C. slc omnes. dist. 19.
• * 1.7

  In Bulla con∣tra Eliz.
• * 1.8

  De corp. & sang. Christi.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 1. de gra∣tia cap. 6.
• * 1.10

  Tit. 3. Ibidem.